Mistaken wire transfer/payment error

We can go in circles like this forever, really. My stance hasn't budged: there's simply no way that employee called her privately, and she absolutely had no authorization to be poking around in those files in the first place.

Zachary Sanders said:They can't lose the case.😁 Basically, if someone holds property that doesn't belong to them, they have to return it. It isn't about who messed up; it's about who has the funds. Legally, the money has to be returned. Of course, Chase has protected itself here, leaving the staff and the recovery team to sort out the mess.

In short, if they won't return the money voluntarily, they don't have to. A court will force them, but I think the damages would just outweigh the recovery.

On the flip side, the individual could actually sue the employee for things like emotional distress caused by her mistake and the resulting financial hardship. These are two separate issues. He would win in that scenario too. However, in both instances, the legal costs far exceed the $1000, making any gain negligible. It’s best to settle this quietly.

I don't really follow
because he isn't the one actually holding the cash
it's the person whose account the garnishment was actually applied to🤷

they would likely have to prove he's the one in actual possession of those funds
which, I guess, might be a bit harder to prove

Andrew Barrett4 said:I don't really follow
because he isn't the one actually holding the cash
it's the person whose account the garnishment was actually applied to🤷

they would likely have to prove he's the one in actual possession of those funds
which, I guess, might be a bit harder to prove

$500 He holds them right now because they’re sitting in his account. However, that $1,500 now belongs to the creditor, who acted in good faith believing the funds were his actual property. In reality, he was just holding them.
It’s actually quite simple to prove that he just holds the assets without owning them. A single bank statement from JPMorgan Chase settles it. 😁

I just finished reviewing my new account agreement from JPMorgan Chase. There’s a clause in there that gives the bank the right to correct entries. It was buried in the fine print, but it’s definitely there.😁

I get where this guy is coming from; I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. Generally speaking, bank contracts are written to favor the institution rather than the customer. Any legal battle he pursues would likely end up working against him. On the other hand, launching an action against both the bank and the employee could work in his favor, but that’s really just a question of how much time and money he wants to burn. Honestly, the easiest way out is to just sit down and reach a settlement with the bank and the representative.

If JPMorgan Chase tries to wash their hands of this while the teller keeps insisting on payment, I’m filing a lawsuit. A bank has every right to fix an entry if it doesn't hurt the client, but since this correction caused me actual problems, I believe it needs to be handled differently.

BringitbackI'm guessing you might be short on cash for a lawyer or legal counsel, so I’d suggest checking out this legal PDF or sticking to this forum. I can't access that specific link right now. If you have the text from the forum you want me to rewrite, just paste it here and I'll get to work on it. You'll definitely find the best answer right here.

Honestly, I think the smartest move would be to just split things down the middle—you give me half now, and then you can settle up the rest later $500, especially considering those $500 clerks 😁

Nicole Long28 said:Morning! When a client signs a contract at JP Morgan Chase, there's actually a specific clause in there: "By signing this ugovor, the Owner provides explicit consent to Bank of America to take any actions regarding the processing and exchange of their personal data listed in this ugovor, which includes the Bank's right to collect, store, record, organize, view, and transfer personal data for the purpose of conducting the Bank's routine business and the operations of JPMorgan Chase & Co. related to this contractual relationship, as well as forwarding it to legal entities under Section 181 of the Banking Act."
So, it isn't without reason, and there's no question about the exchange. But the most important part is that bolded section, where fixing a private mistake made by an official certainly doesn't count as routine business.

When you sign a contract, you are simultaneously signing off that you are aware of the general terms and certain decisions—depending on what the contract covers—which means they absolutely apply to the client and are available to them.

Obviously, decisions about vacations or salaries don't concern me because those aren't business-related decisions for a client, but things like decisions on how much interest can be offered on savings if I'm a depositor do concern me. A bank isn't the NKVD; everything shouldn't be a secret.

Unauthorized is unauthorized, regardless of whether or not you actually use that data.

Exactly. If they have the authority to browse through private data, then I guess they should also have the authority to draft a few lines on official Bank of America letterhead and slap an official seal at the bottom.

I guess it’s more about where she actually got that number rather than how she acted. That's really what I've been trying to say this whole time.

And you honestly think balancing a cash drawer isn't part of a teller's routine job duties? Seriously—I would love to see you report some banker who calls you to resolve a discrepancy in your account just to see how they respond. 😍 🤣 (And by "bank," I mean the institution 😉).
Furthermore, you didn't even answer Marlei regarding whether you’d be complaining if a teller accidentally deposited $300 instead of $1000 and then called you to fix their own mistake immediately:
Stop feeding him misinformation; he's already dealing with enough trouble regarding foreclosures and this erroneous deposit, yet you're lecturing about bank secrecy—which has absolutely nothing to do with this situation.
If a clerk were snooping through his accounts, checking balances and transaction histories just to gossip about them over coffee with friends, *that* would be a breach of bank secrecy, and you'd have every right to make her life miserable. But when a clerk identifies a surplus or deficit during a daily cash reconciliation and accesses those same accounts specifically to identify which client was affected by the error, that is simply conducting business. 😉
Don't believe me? Send an inquiry to JPMorgan Chase 😉

man, just head straight to the press, honestly, there isn't a better way to handle this 😉
trust me, once the story hits the news cycle, they’ll suddenly find a way to forgive those debts because the bank wants to maintain its "wholesome" image

just tell them everything exactly like you're doing here and see how quickly things start getting resolved
and make sure to mention, maybe even a few times, how much you actually want to settle up but simply can't... how they're basically forcing you to rack up extra travel expenses just because of their own screw-ups, and how incredibly rude they've been, all that stuff...

Sure, and he might as well claim his account still has $500 available to refund when it’s clearly not 🤣 🤣—he’ll certainly have a field day with that story, especially now that everyone is screaming bloody murder about thieves 😉

Richard Lewis16 said:Honestly, if I were you, I wouldn't give her a single cent back just yet...

I mean, why even stress about it? Just drag the whole legal thing out a bit longer. Tell them they were being aggressive, maybe even threatening, and that you tried to settle things reasonably but they wouldn't bud라—basically make sure they know this isn't on you at all...
Since you're short on cash right now
maybe wait until the third or fourth hearing before you even worry about the money...😉

Actually, your best bet is probably just to find a decent lawyer and let him handle everything...😉

Just feed him those little fairy tales about how everything was stolen or cursed, and trust me, it'll all come back to you eventually... you see it happen all over the world, how people who play dirty always end up paying the price...😉
It's just one of those stories those self-righteous moralists try to tell to keep you acting like a pushover.

Man, what an absolute drag... this is just dragging on forever.
Do you think the plaintiff can still manage things while the lawsuit is ongoing?
If he ends up being sued and decides to lay out the whole story to the judge in his response, the judge will probably schedule a hearing in no time at all and wrap the whole thing up. Once they hear the facts, everything will be crystal clear—it’s just a baseless lawsuit through and through. If you have a second, take a look back at a few pages of what I wrote about this earlier.

silverfox91 said:I’m completely lost here. I know where I live, but the idea that I’d have to pay someone back just because they handed me more than I asked for? That’s insane. Look at the milk example. Her issue is simply that she gave me more than I requested. She did it on her own. Nobody held a gun to her head.

Why does he even feel the need to justify himself to the bank? Honestly, who cares. Especially since he’s 12 miles from the bank and has to cover his own gas, bus, or train fare. Who’s going to reimburse him for all that time and money? Around here, nobody asks if you actually have the time or the cash to deal with their nonsense. If the situation were reversed, they’d just snatch the money right out of his account and he could fight all he wanted.

Oh, come on now, let's not be silly.
If you ever accidentally sent money to someone else's account, you’d definitely be singing a different tune. Listen to this guy—why on earth would I give back something that isn't mine? 👎Well, it’s really just because the law says you have to follow through; you can't exactly claim it was all an accident to get out of it.
Seriously, just stop with all the talk about milk...

Zachary Sanders said:$500 He holds them right now because they’re sitting in his account. However, that $1,500 now belongs to the creditor, who acted in good faith believing the funds were his actual property. In reality, he was just holding them.
It’s actually quite simple to prove that he just holds the assets without owning them. A single bank statement from JPMorgan Chase settles it. 😁

I just finished reviewing my new account agreement from JPMorgan Chase. There’s a clause in there that gives the bank the right to correct entries. It was buried in the fine print, but it’s definitely there.😁

I get where this guy is coming from; I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. Generally speaking, bank contracts are written to favor the institution rather than the customer. Any legal battle he pursues would likely end up working against him. On the other hand, launching an action against both the bank and the employee could work in his favor, but that’s really just a question of how much time and money he wants to burn. Honestly, the easiest way out is to just sit down and reach a settlement with the bank and the representative.

If JPMorgan Chase tries to wash their hands of this while the teller keeps insisting on payment, I’m filing a lawsuit. A bank has every right to fix an entry if it doesn't hurt the client, but since this correction caused me actual problems, I believe it needs to be handled differently.

BringitbackI'm guessing you might be short on cash for a lawyer or legal counsel, so I’d suggest checking out this legal PDF or sticking to this forum. I can't access that specific link right now. If you have the text from the forum you want me to rewrite, just paste it here and I'll get to work on it. You'll definitely find the best answer right here.

There's really no connection to be made between ownership and possession here.
The only thing that really matters here is that his net worth was inflated without any actual justification, especially since his debt has already been cleared.

I was just wondering why our country ended up in this mess thanks to 🤣
It’s enough to make me browse this thread just to see all the brilliant advice on how to hold onto things that don't belong to me—bravo, everyone 🙏 🙏
I am practically bowing down to you all!!! But the moment one of you gets robbed, there will be nothing but wailing and moaning about the lack of a rule of law 🤣

This isn't directed at the OP, but rather at this "expert" crew offering genius tips like: "who cares," "their mistake," "drag them through the courts," and so on. I truly hope the OP is sane enough to realize that if they follow this "wisdom" into a courtroom, their legal fees are going to skyrocket 😉

edit: I’m expecting the next "argument" from this group to be something like: "well, JPMorgan Chase screws us over, so we might as well screw them back" 🤣 🤣 or "everyone else is stealing, so why shouldn't I?" 😍 🙏

Honestly, if things actually worked the way people wish they did—where you didn't have to pay back what you took—everyone would just team up with some banker to wire, say, $1.5 million, and then that employee could just walk away from her job.
Then, those twenty people she sent the money to could all just chip in a little bit to her husband's account, and everyone lives happily ever after in luxury.

The teller wouldn't have any cash herself, nor would she ever need it since there's zero reason to work when your husband is sitting on millions. So, the bank might as well just kiss that money goodbye.

It sounds like a dream, but once you have about a hundred "geniuses" pulling stunts like that, we’d run into a massive issue whenever someone tried to withdraw their savings because the bank would be completely broke. And then we'd all be in a real mess, though honestly, it feels like we might already be there.

Besides, what’s really the difference between using someone else's money when you steal it on purpose versus when you knowingly use it even if you didn't mean to rob them?

EDIT
@Steven Reed congrats, you hit your 10,001st post!

Frank Walker7 said:Man, what an absolute drag... this is just dragging on forever.
Do you think the plaintiff can still manage things while the lawsuit is ongoing?
If he ends up being sued and decides to lay out the whole story to the judge in his response, the judge will probably schedule a hearing in no time at all and wrap the whole thing up. Once they hear the facts, everything will be crystal clear—it’s just a baseless lawsuit through and through. If you have a second, take a look back at a few pages of what I wrote about this earlier.

Oh, come on now, let's not be silly.
If you ever accidentally sent money to someone else's account, you’d definitely be singing a different tune. Listen to this guy—why on earth would I give back something that isn't mine? 👎Well, it’s really just because the law says you have to follow through; you can't exactly claim it was all an accident to get out of it.
Seriously, just stop with all the talk about milk...

There's really no connection to be made between ownership and possession here.
The only thing that really matters here is that his net worth was inflated without any actual justification, especially since his debt has already been cleared.

Drop the milk act? What am I supposed to do, start turning down gifts? To me, that's a gift. If she gives me $1000 instead of $100, then she (the teller) messed up and she’s the one who needs to fix it. If she gave me too much, that's her problem. It's the same as if she handed me ten cartons of milk when I only wanted one. She told me, "Take the milk," so I took it. Let the bank or the store deal with her. In almost every other industry, people who screw up have to own it. But in these sacred banks, nobody is responsible except always their customers. Nobody asks if the teller is doing okay; they just harass an innocent person.

If I had done this through online banking, I’d be singing a battle hymn because I’d be the one who screwed up. My problem. But if someone hands you a gift on the street, you take it. Doesn't matter if it's a candy bar or a car. Why should someone come sniffing around two days later asking for that candy back? They gave it to me.

You tell me to drop the milk thing, but you aren't even addressing the point. Ten cartons of milk is $17 and a significant amount of money to some. Why is that any different from these $1000 which don't mean much to me?

What about those groups that go out on the streets handing out Christmas money? Are they supposed to give it all back two days later once someone realizes they actually needed the cash?

I love how lawyers think they're the only holy, honest people left while everyone else is an idiot. We all know there aren't many people more dishonest or crooked than lawyers. Just turn on the TV at any hour.

Frank Walker7, remember that crew in Indianapolis with RBC? Remember how the teller and the outsiders did exactly that, and look what happened... the teller had to pay it all back along with those two outsiders. And she ended up in a jam because she wasn't just accidentally underpaying—she was stealing from people's accounts. She wasn't just transferring 10 million because someone told her to; she was looting accounts. It's just like that situation in Seattle or that guy... or that other guy...

🤦
First off—this isn't some sort of gift 😍
It’s not like she reached into her own wallet and said, "Here you go, buddy" 😉
We are talking about a misdirected payment—an error that resulted in a client receiving funds they have absolutely no right to—and they were notified accordingly. In other words, it isn't a case of them being unaware that the money doesn't belong to them 😉
Your analogy is a bit of a stretch 😉

silverfox91 said:Drop the milk act? What am I supposed to do, start turning down gifts? To me, that's a gift. If she gives me $1000 instead of $100, then she (the teller) messed up and she’s the one who needs to fix it. If she gave me too much, that's her problem. It's the same as if she handed me ten cartons of milk when I only wanted one. She told me, "Take the milk," so I took it. Let the bank or the store deal with her. In almost every other industry, people who screw up have to own it. But in these sacred banks, nobody is responsible except always their customers. Nobody asks if the teller is doing okay; they just harass an innocent person.

If I had done this through online banking, I’d be singing a battle hymn because I’d be the one who screwed up. My problem. But if someone hands you a gift on the street, you take it. Doesn't matter if it's a candy bar or a car. Why should someone come sniffing around two days later asking for that candy back? They gave it to me.

You tell me to drop the milk thing, but you aren't even addressing the point. Ten cartons of milk is $17 and a significant amount of money to some. Why is that any different from these $1000 which don't mean much to me?

What about those groups that go out on the streets handing out Christmas money? Are they supposed to give it all back two days later once someone realizes they actually needed the cash?

I love how lawyers think they're the only holy, honest people left while everyone else is an idiot. We all know there aren't many people more dishonest or crooked than lawyers. Just turn on the TV at any hour.

Frank Walker7, remember that crew in Indianapolis with RBC? Remember how the teller and the outsiders did exactly that, and look what happened... the teller had to pay it all back along with those two outsiders. And she ended up in a jam because she wasn't just accidentally underpaying—she was stealing from people's accounts. She wasn't just transferring 10 million because someone told her to; she was looting accounts. It's just like that situation in Seattle or that guy... or that other guy...

That isn't a gift; it's just a blunder, or as you put it in your next sentence, a mistake.
This is a unique situation because of that repossession, but it could have been handled with a simple agreement to keep things civil without escalating the tension.
I remember once I didn't receive my PIN (maybe the mailman missed it, or someone swiped it...🤷), and they tried to charge me for a replacement. I told them there was no way I was paying for a reissue when I never got the first one. Since I only needed the PIN for one specific card, and we both knew that, we reached a gentleman's agreement: they’d send the one I actually needed for free, and I wouldn't worry about the other one.
There's always a way to fix things, but being stubborn doesn't help anyone.

Zachary Sanders said:Yeah, that’s how things should be handled to get this sorted out. So, $500 Return the funds to the account immediately, then settle the remaining balance as agreed with the representative.

No, by law, that money has to be returned. The only way this ends well is if the clerk covers the mistake out of her own pocket to avoid suing our hero. 😁

Aha... I wonder if he’d be trying to "negotiate" like this if he’d accidentally sent the cash to some stranger who refused to give it back. 🙄

I've read some absolute gems of advice on this thread—unbelievable. 😲

I had a situation once where my former boss accidentally paid out my entire monthly salary for a month I wasn't even working there anymore. It hit my checking account the exact same day my mortgage payment cleared via autopay, which left me short on my loan installment. The bank called me that same day saying I had to come in and sign an authorization to return the funds to the employer because it was a clerical error. Of course, my first thought was—is this my fault? Screw them, they're the ones too incompetent that now I have to deal with the headache of going to the bank. 😕 But on the other hand, I knew legally that the money wasn't mine, so it didn't even cross my mind to refuse to sign. They ended up faxing it to me so I didn't have to show up.

Bottom line—you OWE the money back because legally, it isn't yours.

Steven Reed said:🤦
First off—this isn't some sort of gift 😍
It’s not like she reached into her own wallet and said, "Here you go, buddy" 😉
We are talking about a misdirected payment—an error that resulted in a client receiving funds they have absolutely no right to—and they were notified accordingly. In other words, it isn't a case of them being unaware that the money doesn't belong to them 😉
Your analogy is a bit of a stretch 😉

Who actually told him? Someone over the phone? How does he know it wasn't just a friend or a brother reaching out? How can he be sure it wasn't a gift? Who gave him that info and how?
Maybe she didn't pull the cash from her pocket, but let's face it, most people only have digital numbers in their bank accounts anyway. It's all just digits on a screen.
How can you be so sure she didn't tell him, "Here, take this"? Is there a recording of the conversation somewhere?

silverfox91 said:Who actually told him? Someone over the phone? How does he know it wasn't just a friend or a brother reaching out? How can he be sure it wasn't a gift? Who gave him that info and how?
Maybe she didn't pull the cash from her pocket, but let's face it, most people only have digital numbers in their bank accounts anyway. It's all just digits on a screen.
How can you be so sure she didn't tell him, "Here, take this"? Is there a recording of the conversation somewhere?

Come on, silverfox91, stop trolling.🙂
The guy clearly stated he was at the bank and they were demanding he return funds that weren't his—and then you show up with this 🙏 🙏
As I mentioned a few posts ago, my next expectation is a justification—I mean, the bank has plenty of cash regardless. 🤣 🤣

silverfox91 said:Who actually told him? Someone over the phone? How does he know it wasn't just a friend or a brother reaching out? How can he be sure it wasn't a gift? Who gave him that info and how?
Maybe she didn't pull the cash from her pocket, but let's face it, most people only have digital numbers in their bank accounts anyway. It's all just digits on a screen.
How can you be so sure she didn't tell him, "Here, take this"? Is there a recording of the conversation somewhere?

Right, because banks exist solely to distribute gifts, and it's just wild that this guy doesn't realize it was a present. What a joke. 🤦

So, someone please enlighten me. What am I actually supposed to do if a cashier at the store hands me ten cartons of milk instead of the one I actually asked for?? It’s not even her damn milk. Do I tell her no, or am I expected to just stand there contemplating the ethics of the situation? Honestly, I couldn't care less. Thanks for the milk, though.

I complained at Walmart because they charged me $0.67 more than what was on the price tag, and they fixed it immediately. Just a mistake by some lady at Walmart. It's not my fault she decided to "gift" me those two extra bucks. That little tip comes out of her paycheck or the store's bottom line. Either way, I don't care.

silverfox91 said:Drop the milk act? What am I supposed to do, start turning down gifts? To me, that's a gift. If she gives me $1000 instead of $100, then she (the teller) messed up and she’s the one who needs to fix it. If she gave me too much, that's her problem. It's the same as if she handed me ten cartons of milk when I only wanted one. She told me, "Take the milk," so I took it. Let the bank or the store deal with her. In almost every other industry, people who screw up have to own it. But in these sacred banks, nobody is responsible except always their customers. Nobody asks if the teller is doing okay; they just harass an innocent person.

If I had done this through online banking, I’d be singing a battle hymn because I’d be the one who screwed up. My problem. But if someone hands you a gift on the street, you take it. Doesn't matter if it's a candy bar or a car. Why should someone come sniffing around two days later asking for that candy back? They gave it to me.

You tell me to drop the milk thing, but you aren't even addressing the point. Ten cartons of milk is $17 and a significant amount of money to some. Why is that any different from these $1000 which don't mean much to me?

What about those groups that go out on the streets handing out Christmas money? Are they supposed to give it all back two days later once someone realizes they actually needed the cash?

I love how lawyers think they're the only holy, honest people left while everyone else is an idiot. We all know there aren't many people more dishonest or crooked than lawyers. Just turn on the TV at any hour.

Frank Walker7, remember that crew in Indianapolis with RBC? Remember how the teller and the outsiders did exactly that, and look what happened... the teller had to pay it all back along with those two outsiders. And she ended up in a jam because she wasn't just accidentally underpaying—she was stealing from people's accounts. She wasn't just transferring 10 million because someone told her to; she was looting accounts. It's just like that situation in Seattle or that guy... or that other guy...

This isn't about lawyers; it's about the law. If your stance is basically "screw the laws," okay, there's a remedy for that too.
People have already commented enough on the whole "gift" thing.

I don't know about the RBA situation, but I'm not going to comment until you show me something other than news articles, since those aren't really reliable sources for me.
But you're basically arguing with yourself here; she had to return the money to the clerk and the outside group. Get it?
And again, if a crime has been proven—and intentionally transferring money to someone else's account definitely is—then it's clear that all the benefits gained from that act must be returned.

Which guy in Seattle? Nodilo? That's a completely different story; he was using his authority to make investments. The money didn't just land in random accounts; he treated investments like gambling and couldn't stop once things started sliding downhill.

And yes, I will address your milk example.
If you pay for 10 liters of milk and they deliver 15, if the person delivering them were to sue, you wouldn't have to return the milk itself, but rather its monetary value.
Of course, that example is a bit of a caricature of the principle of unjust enrichment, but all the essential elements are there: the transfer of assets from one person to another without a legal basis

EDIT: The core of your logic is that it would be great if everyone made mistakes in your favor all the time so you could live off of it.
I just don't get the desire to hold onto something that isn't yours, unless it's just a craving for an easy life. There's nothing wrong with wanting a comfortable life, but it's worth working a little harder when you weren't born with millions.

Zachary Sanders said:$500 He holds them right now because they’re sitting in his account. However, that $1,500 now belongs to the creditor, who acted in good faith believing the funds were his actual property. In reality, he was just holding them.
It’s actually quite simple to prove that he just holds the assets without owning them. A single bank statement from JPMorgan Chase settles it. 😁

I just finished reviewing my new account agreement from JPMorgan Chase. There’s a clause in there that gives the bank the right to correct entries. It was buried in the fine print, but it’s definitely there.😁

I get where this guy is coming from; I wouldn't want to be in his shoes either. Generally speaking, bank contracts are written to favor the institution rather than the customer. Any legal battle he pursues would likely end up working against him. On the other hand, launching an action against both the bank and the employee could work in his favor, but that’s really just a question of how much time and money he wants to burn. Honestly, the easiest way out is to just sit down and reach a settlement with the bank and the representative.

If JPMorgan Chase tries to wash their hands of this while the teller keeps insisting on payment, I’m filing a lawsuit. A bank has every right to fix an entry if it doesn't hurt the client, but since this correction caused me actual problems, I believe it needs to be handled differently.

BringitbackI'm guessing you might be short on cash for a lawyer or legal counsel, so I’d suggest checking out this legal PDF or sticking to this forum. I can't access that specific link right now. If you have the text from the forum you want me to rewrite, just paste it here and I'll get to work on it. You'll definitely find the best answer right here.

Ownership, possession... honestly, people act like we're talking about a plot of land in rural Nebraska instead of digital currency. I mean, how is anyone supposed to navigate this mess? 😵
😁