Fujian court rejects wife’s hidden affair recordings
SingTao · 2 SOURCESabout 3 hours ago2 MIN
Summary
A first-instance court in Xiamen, Fujian, refused to admit covert home surveillance footage submitted by a woman surnamed Wu in her divorce case against her husband, surnamed He, after finding that the recordings were obtained through a serious invasion of privacy and in violation of public order and good morals. Wu said a hidden camera installed in the couple’s bedroom recorded different women visiting and engaging in intimate conduct with her husband more than 80 times over more than three months. The husband, identified by the pseudonym He Lei, said the women were massage providers and also challenged the authenticity of the footage, with one report saying he argued in court that the videos were generated by artificial intelligence. Wu has appealed, and the second-instance hearing is expected in late November, while police are separately investigating suspected prostitution-related elements seen in the footage.
Key Points
- Wu said the hidden camera captured different women coming to the home more than 80 times in just over three months, including hugging and kissing scenes
- She also compiled a paper chart detailing meetings over more than 60 days, including suspected sexual activity and possible money transactions
- The court said the camera was secretly installed in a bedroom television cable socket and recorded the husband’s daily life continuously and indiscriminately.
- The judgment cited the Civil Code privacy provisions and Article 106 of the Supreme People’s Court interpretation on civil procedure evidence rules
- A lawyer quoted in one report said household surveillance may be admissible only when installation purpose and method are reasonable, such as caring for elders or children
Why It Matters
For Hong Kong readers, the case underscores how evidence that appears highly probative in a family dispute can still be excluded if the method of collection is judged disproportionate or unlawfully intrusive. It also shows how courts may distinguish between ordinary home monitoring for caregiving and covert surveillance aimed at documenting a spouse’s private life, a line that can affect cross-border families handling divorce or misconduct disputes