So, you are saying that "learned" does not require some element of proof? Some evidence that the payment actually happened?
I'm not saying anything beyond what I wrote, but how does one "learn of" something except by evidence?
Let's go back to what you wrote that I commented on: "The creditor cannot go after your friend's financial info without hard evidence that you improperly transferred money to your friend. In other words, not just proof that you paid your friend's credit card bill, but ALSO proof that you did so as an improper transfer of money."
First, you said that the "creditor cannot go after your friend's financial info without" the things you mentioned. That's wrong. Anyone "can[] go after" anything, and "go[ing] after" is different from prevailing.
Second, you referred to "hard evidence." What does that mean? Are you attempting to apply the mohs scale? What determines the degree of hardness of evidence?
Third, "proof" is nothing more than a quantum of evidence that is sufficient to persuade someone that something is or isn't true.
Fourth, in most jurisdictions, the factual standard for non-frivolous legal action is the existence of evidentiary support or a reasonable believe that evidentiary support will exist after an reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
See, e.g.,
Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 11(b)(3).
That's why I wrote that, "If the creditor learned of what the OP has admitted in this thread, the creditor would need neither evidence nor 'proof' that it was 'an improper transfer of money' to pursue the matter further." Stated differently, if the creditor becomes aware of what the OP has admitted in this thread, the creditor could, consistent with the standard mentioned above, pursue the matter further and seek discovery as to the purpose for which it was done to determine if it was or wasn't proper.