Abstract: The rule of false expression on intent is a civil rule in The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China. In order to fit in the penetrating financial regulation reform, in the trial of financial cases, courts are increasingly inclined to apply the rule of false expression on intent to break through the external legal design of financial products and determine their legal effects by the private lending legal relationship. Through the study of the Beijing High People’s Court Final Civil Judgment (2020) No.36, this paper argues that there is a distinction between commercial acts and civil acts. It is detrimental to commerce if the appearance of commercial acts and commercial benefits are ignored. As a system in civil code, the rule should be prudently applied to the financial field. In addition, this case reflects the signs of preference of purposive interpretation theory. Courts should not ignore the priority of contextual interpretation when it is not controversial. Finally, the judiciary should adhere to a prudent position, adhere to passivity and finality, and not arbitrarily invalidate the validity of the contract. The boundary between judiciary and administration cannot be confused, avoiding substituting “policy” for “law”.

Key words: rule of false expression on intent, penetrating trial, declaration of will, trust