Man accidentally transferred over 130,000 yuan to a debtor’s account; the bank automatically deducted 110,000 yuan for debt repayment. Who should return the funds? The court has made a ruling.

When making payments to others, Mr. Liu mistakenly transferred 136,000 yuan into Mr. Fu’s bank account. Due to Mr. Fu defaulting on a bank loan, the bank automatically deducted over 110,000 yuan from Mr. Fu’s account. As a result, Liu filed a lawsuit, requesting Mr. Fu to return the funds, and the bank to bear joint liability for the repayment.

On March 11, Hongxing News learned from the China Judgments Online that the first-instance court ordered Mr. Fu to return 136,000 yuan and dismissed Liu’s other claims. After Liu appealed, the Anhui Fuyang Intermediate People’s Court issued a second-instance ruling earlier this month, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

Reference image

The first-instance court found that Liu and Fu had previous financial dealings, and there were no other debts or claims beyond the case funds. On July 30 of last year, Liu intended to pay 136,000 yuan to an outsider, Mr. Yi, via mobile banking, but mistakenly transferred the amount into Fu’s bank account. Because Fu owed a loan to China Certain Co., Ltd., Taihe County Branch, the bank automatically deducted over 110,000 yuan from Fu’s account in accordance with the contract to settle the outstanding debt.

The court held that Liu, due to negligence, mistakenly transferred 136,000 yuan to Fu. After receiving the funds, the bank deducted the amount to repay Fu’s debt, benefiting Fu from the reduced debt, while Liu suffered a loss. Fu obtained the funds without legal basis, constituting unjust enrichment. China Certain Co., Ltd., Taihe County Branch, had a valid loan contract with Fu. When Fu failed to repay on time, the branch, as the creditor, deducted funds from Fu’s account based on the contract and legal documents, which was legally justified and did not constitute unjust enrichment.

Accordingly, the Taihe County People’s Court issued a first-instance judgment: Fu shall return 136,000 yuan to Liu, and Liu’s other claims were dismissed.

Dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment, Liu appealed, requesting the court to revoke the original ruling, order Fu to return 136,000 yuan of unjust enrichment, and hold the branch jointly liable for repayment. Liu stated that Fu was in debt and lacked the ability to repay; if the bank did not bear joint liability, his substantial loss could not be compensated, which clearly violates the principle of fairness.

The second-instance court held that the funds involved in the case, after entering Fu’s account, actually repaid the overdue debt Fu owed to China Certain Co., Ltd., Taihe County Branch. Fu benefited from Liu’s transfer, and this benefit lacked legal basis. Fu should bear the obligation to return unjust enrichment to Liu. The branch deducted the corresponding funds from Fu’s account to settle the overdue debt, in accordance with the contract. The deduction was legally justified, and the branch did not obtain unjust enrichment, so it should not be liable for repayment.

Accordingly, on March 3, the Fuyang Intermediate People’s Court issued a second-instance judgment: dismissing the appeal and upholding the original ruling.

Hongxing News Reporter: Yao Yongzhong

Editor: Zhang Xun

Review: Feng Lingling