Case of the Debt of Qian Shaoqing, a Commoner of Jiangdu County, Yangzhou, Submitted by the Department of State Affairs to the Court of Judicial Review for Detailed Adjudication in the 19th Year of Kaiyuan

In 731 CE, during the nineteenth year of the Kaiyuan reign of the Tang Dynasty, a commoner named Qian Shaoqing from Jiangdu County, Yangzhou, was sued by his creditor Cao Moming for failing to repay a debt of eight hundred strings of cash. Qian had already repaid five hundred strings, but the accumulated interest on the remaining three hundred strings had grown to exceed the original principal. The case was submitted by the Department of State Affairs to the Court of Judicial Review for detailed adjudication. The court examined the debt contract and applicable laws, focusing on the legitimacy of charging interest beyond the principal and the role of any guarantors. The decision established a binding interpretation of the Tang Code’s provisions on illegal interest and debt enforcement, serving as a leading precedent for usury and private lending cases.

The Court of Judicial Review ruled that the total interest paid and demanded must not exceed the original principal. Since Qian Shaoqing had already paid a substantial amount, all further interest claims were voided. He was ordered to repay only the outstanding principal of three hundred strings of cash. The guarantor was released from liability, as the debt remained enforceable primarily against the debtor and the excessive interest demand rendered the creditor’s claim invalid beyond the principal.

Whether the creditor could lawfully demand interest payments that, when combined with the already repaid portion, exceeded the original principal; and whether the surety who guaranteed the loan was obligated to cover the debtor’s remaining liability.

This landmark case reinforced the Tang legal principle “interest shall not exceed the principal,” curbing predatory lending practices. It provided a clear judicial interpretation that protected debtors from perpetual debt cycles and limited the liability of sureties. The ruling influenced subsequent dynasties’ civil and commercial laws, embedding this protection into imperial Chinese legal codes and shaping the evolution of private lending regulation.