## Facts

- Pengobo Fu (father) and Yongxiao Fu (adult son) were citizens of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
- In China, they signed a written gift agreement (in Chinese) providing that the father would give the son **$590,000** as a **“free and unconditional gift.”**
- The agreement contained a **choice-of-law clause selecting PRC law** and stated that the gift’s purpose was to help the son pursue a U.S. **EB-5 immigrant investor visa**, which required a qualifying investment (commonly $500,000 in a targeted employment area at the time).
- The son attempted twice to place $500,000 into EB-5 projects in the Chicago area.
- During the second attempt, the son transferred funds to the **Lake 1 LLC EB-5 Escrow Account** at the **International Bank of Chicago**.
- After U.S. authorities did not approve the second Chicago-area project, the son signed an agreement to invest in a different EB-5 project in **New York**.
- A few weeks later, the father’s attorneys notified the International Bank of Chicago that the escrowed funds were **in dispute**.
- The father filed an action in the PRC seeking to revoke the gift, and a PRC court entered an order **freezing the funds** in the Chicago escrow account.
- The father then sued in Illinois state court seeking return of the escrowed funds, alleging that under PRC law:
  - he had not relinquished control over the money;
  - the son failed to meet the gift agreement’s requirements because he had not obtained an EB-5 visa; and
  - the son failed to support his parents, refused to speak with them, and was inconsiderate, allegedly violating obligations under PRC law (including the PRC Marriage Law) that, in the father’s view, allowed revocation of a gift.
- To support his PRC-law theory, the father attached translations of **two PRC cases**, but did not explain how they established the rule he claimed or how they applied to the pleaded facts.
- The son moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint did not adequately establish PRC law, did not state a claim under Illinois law given the agreement’s “free and unconditional” language, and that he was acting consistently with the agreement.
- The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss, and the father appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff adequately pleaded and established the content of PRC law to support a claim to revoke or recover a transfer described in the parties’ agreement as a “free and unconditional gift.”
2. Whether, under Illinois law, a donor may revoke a completed, unconditional gift based on disappointment with the donee’s conduct or outcomes related to the donor’s motive for giving (including the son’s progress toward an EB-5 visa).
3. Whether an Illinois court may refuse to apply the plaintiff’s asserted version of PRC law, despite a PRC choice-of-law clause, when that asserted rule would permit revocation of an unconditional gift based on adult-child support or relationship complaints and conflicts with Illinois public policy.

## Decision

- The appellate court **affirmed** dismissal of the complaint.
- The court agreed the complaint failed to state a claim because Illinois law does not allow a donor to revoke a **completed, free, and unconditional** gift on the grounds alleged.
- The court also agreed the plaintiff did not sufficiently establish the foreign law he relied on; attaching translated PRC decisions without showing how they proved the asserted PRC rule did not cure the pleading defect.
- The court further concluded that the plaintiff’s stated reading of PRC law—allowing revocation of an unconditional gift due to the adult child’s alleged failure to support or maintain the relationship—was not enforceable in Illinois because it conflicted with Illinois public policy.

## Legal Principles

- A completed **inter vivos** gift that is expressly **free and unconditional** is ordinarily **irrevocable** under Illinois law absent recognized grounds such as fraud, duress, or lack of capacity.
- A contractual statement of purpose (here, helping pursue an EB-5 visa) does not, by itself, convert an unconditional gift into a conditional transfer without clear language making ownership depend on a stated condition.
- A party asking an Illinois court to apply **foreign law** bears the burden to present and explain the substance of that law; conclusory descriptions and unexplained translated materials are not enough.
- Illinois courts may decline to apply chosen foreign law where the requested application would violate **Illinois public policy**, including policies favoring stability of completed gifts and limiting attempts to unwind transfers based on broad family-obligation allegations.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed dismissal because the written agreement characterized the $590,000 transfer as a free and unconditional gift that could not be revoked under Illinois law on the father’s alleged grounds, the father did not adequately establish the PRC-law rule he invoked, and Illinois would not enforce the father’s proposed foreign-law revocation theory where it conflicted with Illinois public policy.


Pengobo Fu v. Yongxiao Fu, 2017 Ill. App 162958 (2017)