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 paying others for goods, Mr. Liu mistakenly transferred 136,000 yuan into Mr. Fu’s bank account. Because Mr. Fu owed a bank loan, the bank automatically deducted over 110,000 yuan from his account. In response, Liu filed a lawsuit, requesting Mr. Fu to return the money, and the bank to bear joint repayment responsibility.

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

Reference photo

The first-instance court found that Liu and Fu had previous financial dealings, and there were no other debts or claims beyond the case-related funds. On July 30 of last year, Liu intended to pay 136,000 yuan to an outsider, Mr. Fu Yi, via mobile banking, but mistakenly transferred the money into Fu’s bank account. Because Fu owed a loan to China Co., Ltd., Taihe County Branch, the branch 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 the funds were received in Fu’s account, 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 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.

Therefore, the People’s Court of Taihe County ruled in the first instance: Fu shall return 136,000 yuan to Liu, dismissing Liu’s other claims.

Unsatisfied with the first 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 argued that Fu was in debt and lacked the ability to repay; if the bank did not bear joint liability, his significant loss could not be compensated, which clearly violated fairness principles.

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

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

Red Star News Reporter: Yao Yongzhong

Editor: Zhang Xun

Review: Feng Lingling