Mistaken wire transfer/payment error

Nicholas Turner said:Exactly—it comes down to pure negligence. If a payer is careless, then they deserve whatever "excitement" comes their way via a private lawsuit. They’ll be feeling less cautious and more paranoid the next time they try to move money around.

Look, I’m no lawyer, but I don't think the article you cited actually applies here. If it did, I could just start sending money to random people on purpose and then sue them for everything they're worth—and those people wouldn't have done anything wrong! In this specific case, nobody just "stumbled upon" someone else's cash; rather, someone’s total lack of foresight basically "tossed it into their yard."

To me, this falls into a massive gray area. If I accidentally wire funds to the wrong person, I can ask my bank to reverse it—but of course, they can't do that because they aren't allowed to touch anyone's account without explicit authorization from the owner. Plus, the bank can't give me the recipient's details due to privacy laws and banking regulations. The recipient could even sue the bank for leaking their private info! All of this chaos happens simply because someone was too incompetent to double-check a transaction. 😲

Just so we’re clear—I’m not defending the idea of spending someone else's money. Not at all. It’s just that you really have to watch your step when handling finances; one wrong move creates a massive headache for the banks and the "accidental" recipient alike.

Naturally, the greatest toll in time and sanity is taken by the one who was careless.

I am no legal expert, but I believe the article you cited doesn't apply here. If that were the case, one could simply send money to the wrong people with intent and then sue them, unfairly targeting innocent bystanders.

What would you even stand to gain from that? You’d be inviting endless legal battles and courtroom drama, all for a payout that might never materialize. If that individual spends the money before realizing it isn't theirs, you're left with nothing but an empty hand.
The article is perfectly clear and works flawlessly in Germany. I am unfamiliar with how such laws apply in America, so I cannot say exactly why this specific point in the piece is being contested. To summarize the text: "Whoever finds a movable object belonging to someone else..." Just how far did he go? Misappropriation requires intent. If someone comes into possession of an item without any proactive effort, it is purely accidental. In such cases, there was neither the knowledge nor the specific intent required to constitute a crime. Legally speaking, the title should be considered clear.

In this instance, nobody simply "stumbled upon" someone else's property. Rather, that property found them; someone effectively tossed it into their backyard through sheer carelessness.

What do you mean by "it wasn't an accident that he took someone else's property"? Are you suggesting his actions were premeditated?

I consider this a significant gray area. If I send funds to the wrong individual and request a reversal, the bank will refuse, as they cannot withdraw money from someone else's account without explicit authorization. Furthermore, due to privacy laws, the bank is prohibited from disclosing the recipient's identity. They would likely face a lawsuit for violating consumer privacy. It is frustrating that these complications arise simply because someone was careless with a transaction. 😲

There is no doubt that this involves dragging things through the courts, filing endless motions, and playing games with the banks. I haven't bothered getting involved in those tactics because we all know how that game is played. I am simply stating what the law dictates regarding this situation, based on my understanding of how these processes actually work in Germany.

Don't mistake my position for defending reckless spending; I am not. One simply must exercise caution when handling capital, as a single misstep can trigger unpleasant consequences for both the banks and the unintended recipient.

To is simply human error. We are looking at a case of mild negligence that happens to be shielded by legal technicalities. An extreme example would be someone throwing their entire life savings at a heart transplant hospital just to pay off a debtor who refuses to settle up. In America, the person at fault would likely pass away before they ever see a cent returned. 🙄

Thomas Fowler84 said:Naturally, the greatest toll in time and sanity is taken by the one who was careless.

I am no legal expert, but I believe the article you cited doesn't apply here. If that were the case, one could simply send money to the wrong people with intent and then sue them, unfairly targeting innocent bystanders.

What would you even stand to gain from that? You’d be inviting endless legal battles and courtroom drama, all for a payout that might never materialize. If that individual spends the money before realizing it isn't theirs, you're left with nothing but an empty hand.
The article is perfectly clear and works flawlessly in Germany. I am unfamiliar with how such laws apply in America, so I cannot say exactly why this specific point in the piece is being contested. To summarize the text: "Whoever finds a movable object belonging to someone else..." Just how far did he go? Misappropriation requires intent. If someone comes into possession of an item without any proactive effort, it is purely accidental. In such cases, there was neither the knowledge nor the specific intent required to constitute a crime. Legally speaking, the title should be considered clear.

In this instance, nobody simply "stumbled upon" someone else's property. Rather, that property found them; someone effectively tossed it into their backyard through sheer carelessness.

What do you mean by "it wasn't an accident that he took someone else's property"? Are you suggesting his actions were premeditated?

I consider this a significant gray area. If I send funds to the wrong individual and request a reversal, the bank will refuse, as they cannot withdraw money from someone else's account without explicit authorization. Furthermore, due to privacy laws, the bank is prohibited from disclosing the recipient's identity. They would likely face a lawsuit for violating consumer privacy. It is frustrating that these complications arise simply because someone was careless with a transaction. 😲

There is no doubt that this involves dragging things through the courts, filing endless motions, and playing games with the banks. I haven't bothered getting involved in those tactics because we all know how that game is played. I am simply stating what the law dictates regarding this situation, based on my understanding of how these processes actually work in Germany.

Don't mistake my position for defending reckless spending; I am not. One simply must exercise caution when handling capital, as a single misstep can trigger unpleasant consequences for both the banks and the unintended recipient.

To is simply human error. We are looking at a case of mild negligence that happens to be shielded by legal technicalities. An extreme example would be someone throwing their entire life savings at a heart transplant hospital just to pay off a debtor who refuses to settle up. In America, the person at fault would likely pass away before they ever see a cent returned. 🙄

For me, the sticking point is the distinction between an "active" versus a "passive" situation. It’s not the same thing to stumble upon a wallet on the sidewalk versus someone shoving it through your mail slot! It isn't the same to wire someone else's money into your own account versus someone accidentally wiring funds to you. Or even being cornered by a mugger versus someone lunging at you with a knife. In an active scenario, you're responsible for your own actions—but in a passive one, nobody is asking for your permission. To my mind, this law fails to define those passive moments caused purely by human stupidity, whereas the active stuff is clearly criminal.

I agree with everything else.

Nicholas Turner said:For me, the sticking point is the distinction between an "active" versus a "passive" situation. It’s not the same thing to stumble upon a wallet on the sidewalk versus someone shoving it through your mail slot! It isn't the same to wire someone else's money into your own account versus someone accidentally wiring funds to you. Or even being cornered by a mugger versus someone lunging at you with a knife. In an active scenario, you're responsible for your own actions—but in a passive one, nobody is asking for your permission. To my mind, this law fails to define those passive moments caused purely by human stupidity, whereas the active stuff is clearly criminal.

I agree with everything else.

Consider this analogy: I intended to put my wallet in my pocket, but I mistakenly used the right pocket which had a hole, rather than the left. Consequently, the wallet fell directly onto your foot, placing it in your possession. Just as such trivial negligence occurs, money can land in the wrong account. From the recipient's perspective, both scenarios are purely coincidental.
The law is quite explicit regarding unlawful appropriation.
The statute defines unlawful appropriation with precision. This banking situation falls squarely under that article. It is irrelevant whether the transfer was intentional or accidental; the funds do not belong to you. It is someone else's property. Whether the error originated with another customer or the bank itself is immaterial to the law. The core issue is possessing something that does not belong to you.
Naturally, a recipient cannot be charged with theft, because there was no intent to misappropriate. That is why the law specifies unintentional or accidental appropriation.
The law simply dictates that one cannot claim ownership of another's property through mere possession. To me, the legal text is crystal clear and follows strict logic. If you find something and KNOW it isn't yours, Section 220 indirectly mandates its return to the owner, provided they pursue a private civil suit.
An exception exists for finding items at sea, which may be kept, though that falls outside the scope of the penal code or maritime law 🙂.

Thomas Fowler84 said:Naturally, the greatest toll in time and sanity is taken by the one who was careless.

I am no legal expert, but I believe the article you cited doesn't apply here. If that were the case, one could simply send money to the wrong people with intent and then sue them, unfairly targeting innocent bystanders.

What would you even stand to gain from that? You’d be inviting endless legal battles and courtroom drama, all for a payout that might never materialize. If that individual spends the money before realizing it isn't theirs, you're left with nothing but an empty hand.
The article is perfectly clear and works flawlessly in Germany. I am unfamiliar with how such laws apply in America, so I cannot say exactly why this specific point in the piece is being contested. To summarize the text: "Whoever finds a movable object belonging to someone else..." Just how far did he go? Misappropriation requires intent. If someone comes into possession of an item without any proactive effort, it is purely accidental. In such cases, there was neither the knowledge nor the specific intent required to constitute a crime. Legally speaking, the title should be considered clear.

In this instance, nobody simply "stumbled upon" someone else's property. Rather, that property found them; someone effectively tossed it into their backyard through sheer carelessness.

What do you mean by "it wasn't an accident that he took someone else's property"? Are you suggesting his actions were premeditated?

I consider this a significant gray area. If I send funds to the wrong individual and request a reversal, the bank will refuse, as they cannot withdraw money from someone else's account without explicit authorization. Furthermore, due to privacy laws, the bank is prohibited from disclosing the recipient's identity. They would likely face a lawsuit for violating consumer privacy. It is frustrating that these complications arise simply because someone was careless with a transaction. 😲

There is no doubt that this involves dragging things through the courts, filing endless motions, and playing games with the banks. I haven't bothered getting involved in those tactics because we all know how that game is played. I am simply stating what the law dictates regarding this situation, based on my understanding of how these processes actually work in Germany.

Don't mistake my position for defending reckless spending; I am not. One simply must exercise caution when handling capital, as a single misstep can trigger unpleasant consequences for both the banks and the unintended recipient.

To is simply human error. We are looking at a case of mild negligence that happens to be shielded by legal technicalities. An extreme example would be someone throwing their entire life savings at a heart transplant hospital just to pay off a debtor who refuses to settle up. In America, the person at fault would likely pass away before they ever see a cent returned. 🙄

That argument falls apart on several fronts. First off, money doesn't just "accidentally" land in a specific account; it happens because of someone’s mistake or sheer negligence. Furthermore, if coming into possession without active effort counts as "accidental," then we could technically classify every single deposit as accidental. By that logic, a company could sue its employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue T-Mobile because I paid my monthly bill and they "accidentally" accepted the payment. Look, it’s certainly debatable and ambiguous, but the law is anything but clear on this matter. But the thing that immediately caught my eye is where this clause is most easily dismantled: "A movable object belonging to another..." Money isn't a movable object. Aside from maybe physical cash in some very specific context, digital wire transfers aren't tangible property. So, while such a law might apply to finding a wad of cash on the sidewalk, it certainly shouldn't apply to bank transfers.

Theoretically speaking, these types of issues would be handled through a private lawsuit here in the States. As for actual practice, I'm not entirely sure since I haven't heard of anyone actually initiating one like that.
Then there is the lingering issue of bank secrecy, where the bank is not only under no obligation but is actually prohibited from disclosing information about the account holder who received the transfer. There might be a way to file a suit against a "John Doe," and then potentially use a court order to uncover those details 🤷

Typically, banks handle these situations by contacting the recipient on behalf of the sender, but without the recipient's cooperation, they are essentially powerless.

George Barrett35 said:That argument falls apart on several fronts. First off, money doesn't just "accidentally" land in a specific account; it happens because of someone’s mistake or sheer negligence. Furthermore, if coming into possession without active effort counts as "accidental," then we could technically classify every single deposit as accidental. By that logic, a company could sue its employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue T-Mobile because I paid my monthly bill and they "accidentally" accepted the payment. Look, it’s certainly debatable and ambiguous, but the law is anything but clear on this matter. But the thing that immediately caught my eye is where this clause is most easily dismantled: "A movable object belonging to another..." Money isn't a movable object. Aside from maybe physical cash in some very specific context, digital wire transfers aren't tangible property. So, while such a law might apply to finding a wad of cash on the sidewalk, it certainly shouldn't apply to bank transfers.

Theoretically speaking, these types of issues would be handled through a private lawsuit here in the States. As for actual practice, I'm not entirely sure since I haven't heard of anyone actually initiating one like that.
Then there is the lingering issue of bank secrecy, where the bank is not only under no obligation but is actually prohibited from disclosing information about the account holder who received the transfer. There might be a way to file a suit against a "John Doe," and then potentially use a court order to uncover those details 🤷

Typically, banks handle these situations by contacting the recipient on behalf of the sender, but without the recipient's cooperation, they are essentially powerless.

Are you suggesting there was malicious intent, or was this simply an act of God?

Quincy:

Furthermore, if we assume that taking possession without any active effort constitutes an accidental occurrence, then any payment made to an account could be viewed as such. By that logic, a corporation could sue its own employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue AT&T simply because they accepted my monthly phone bill—essentially claiming they "accidentally" received the funds.

Intent is everything here—specifically, whether there was intention or a lack thereof. In your view, what kind of scenario would actually make that article applicable? Is it truly a coincidence if you get struck by lightning, or is a coincidence rather a web of circumstances that occurred without anyone’s intent or direct cause? I don't have Claic with me right now, but if you do, perhaps you could read his definition of "coincidence" for us. From a common-sense perspective, I see coincidence as a simple lack of intent.
If I drop a plate without intending to break it, I can truthfully say it was an accident. It seems you have certain reservations about that logic, am I correct?

Quincy:

This is quite debatable and ambiguous, but it certainly isn't "black and white." My first concern is where this clause falls apart most easily. It mentions "someone else's movable property," but money isn't a tangible movable good. Aside from physical cash found on a sidewalk, monetary transactions simply don't fit that definition. Therefore, such a law might apply to finding a stack of bills on the floor, but it shouldn't extend to bank transfers.

I was genuinely concerned we might stumble into that whole mess regarding movable and immovable property.
I know this is a debated topic, but if funds aren't truly mobile, how can they be transferred from a branch on Fifth Avenue to one on the Potomac? There is certainly room for interpretation here. Modern currency—or rather, debt masquerading as value—feels outdated compared to the old statutes. You’re right that this article isn't crystal clear, though I would be surprised if a judge didn't interpret its implications quite strictly.
As I mentioned in my initial post, I have no idea how this actually works in practice here in America. I find it somewhat surprising that the wording in our laws isn't a bit more specific. For comparison, here is how a similar matter is structured under German law:

Quincy:

If someone gains an advantage at another's expense without any legal basis, they are obligated to return it. This obligation remains in effect even if the initial reason for the transfer disappears later or if there is a failure of performance to achieve the intended result of the legal transaction. A contractual acknowledgment of the existence or non-existence of a debt relationship also constitutes a performance.

There is no need to overthink concepts like "real estate" or "physical assets"; the contingency is defined much more concretely. It seems our local translators are simply experts at overcomplicating and ruining things.

The issue of bank secrecy remains. A bank is not only under no obligation, but is actually prohibited from disclosing information regarding an account holder who received such a payment. One could potentially file a lawsuit against an "unidentified perpetrator," then attempt to obtain that data via a court order. 🤷

True, though the situation becomes significantly simpler if you mistakenly transfer funds to a corporation. In those instances, the recipient's details are public knowledge—for example, at Wells Fargo, I can identify exactly which company is behind an account, which tells me exactly whom to sue.

Thomas Fowler84 said:Has she filed a police report yet?
Retaining funds that you know do not belong to you is a legal violation.
The real challenge will be the burden of proof.
In Germany, for instance, this falls under § 812 BGB; it should be the same here in the US.

She filed the report.
We know exactly who got the money—full name and everything. They just refuse to pay it back. Now she’ll have to deal with them in court. I'm sure the money will eventually be returned. Basically, legally speaking, you can't just keep someone else's cash.

Hey everyone

I’ve run into a bit of a mess regarding a deposit I made into my father's checking account at JP Morgan Chase. Back on February 18th, I went in to deposit funds into his account $500 to cover a loan installment, but when he checked the ATM today, it turns out only $167 was actually credited. I looked over the receipt copy I was given at the time, and it clearly states I deposited $167, even though I handed the teller $500 in cash. During the transaction, I wasn't hyper-focused on the specific amount being typed into the system; I just told the lady $500 to put it toward this specific account. She asked me one more time to confirm the amount, I said yes, handed over the cash, signed the slip, and walked out. Most likely, the teller just made a clerical error—I don't honestly believe she was trying to screw me over by taking $333 and only posting 500. Has anyone dealt with something like this before? How on earth do I prove that I actually handed over $500 instead of the 500 that shows up on the record, especially since it's already been a week? Is there any way to verify this, or am I just stuck writing off those extra $333?

Thanks in advance

...

From what I understand, at JP Morgan Chase, they usually log a copy of the deposit slip—the one they keep on file—noting which specific denominations were received. So, you know, something like seven $200 bills and one $100, or maybe one $1,000 and one $500, or whatever the actual mix happens to be... You might be able to ask them to take a look at that record. Though, honestly, I wouldn't get my hopes up too high. They always have that fine print telling you to double-check everything right then and there, because once you walk away, they pretty much won't entertain any later complaints...

I went through the exact same thing—my employee refused to acknowledge the transaction, wrote down a smaller amount on the receipt, and basically pocketed the difference.
If you know anyone with some actual influence, you should reach out. If she refuses to admit what happened like they did in my case, there’s security footage that shows exactly how much cash was handed over at the teller window.

Alright... thanks for the help... I think I'll head down to Bank of America now to see what can be done about this.

Maybe this gives you a little hope: a few years back—before I even used online banking, I did everything at the teller window—I went to withdraw a big, messy amount from Wells Fargo. When they paid me out, they gave me the exact thousands, but the hundreds were left behind. I realized it once I got home, so I called the bank (I actually remembered the teller's last name, by some miracle) and they told me they have to balance the drawer with all the deposits and withdrawals at the end of the shift anyway, so any surplus would show up. I'm assuming it was just a random mistake rather than someone trying to pull a fast one on me, but yeah, I got my money back without any drama.

Look, just head down to the Bank of America branch. They run their reconciliations at the end of every single day, and usually, if there’s any discrepancy larger than $17, they have to file an official report. So, if she didn't "pocket" a surplus of $333, there’ll be a paper trail.
Another thing you should do is double-check the receipt specifications. If she’s still being difficult—like, say, if the slip says she only took in $167 when you know for a fact you handed over $500—then go straight to the branch manager and demand to see the security footage. You know, don't take no for an answer.
As for a fourth option? There isn't one. I mean, they probably have some fine print saying they won't honor late claims or whatever, but honestly, using those three methods is your best bet to get your $333 back.

Good luck. Let me know how it goes.

All sorted out
Based on the records from February 18th and the deposit slip—where the lady at the teller window actually sat there counting out the specific bills she received—she realized I’d made a mistake. She was incredibly professional about it, too; she apologized and immediately wired the difference into my father's account, which is where that money was always intended to go anyway.

I’m just trying to wrap my head around this... so they determined there was a cash surplus in the drawer that day (is that why you brought up the incident report?) and they had all your info, plus the recipient's details... and yet, absolutely nobody from Bank of America reached out to either of you?

I’ve been wondering about this myself... does the payment description on the slip specify whether it's for $167 or $500?

Kimberly Nguyen said:I’m just trying to wrap my head around this... so they determined there was a cash surplus in the drawer that day (is that why you brought up the incident report?) and they had all your info, plus the recipient's details... and yet, absolutely nobody from Bank of America reached out to either of you?

It’s plain rude. If they caught the error, they should have spoken up. Now that we've filed the complaint, what can you even say about people like that?

Andrew Martin13 said:It’s plain rude. If they caught the error, they should have spoken up. Now that we've filed the complaint, what can you even say about people like that?

The payment breakdown was right there on the receipt from $167, specifically on the copy they kept for themselves (5x$67, 1x500)... It’s obvious my wife entered the wrong amount for my transfer, yet they just pocketed the full sum without a second thought. When I showed up at the service desk to file a claim, they basically admitted they assumed I wouldn't notice and wouldn't bother following up. Honestly, she didn't even realize her error until the very end of her shift. By the time I arrived, she apologized and they covered the difference... But here is the kicker: why on earth didn't they contact me? They have all my details in the system—my address, my home phone number, everything. 🤷If they had tried to deny receiving that specific payment or refused to settle the balance, I would have taken them to court. The receipt clearly shows exactly how much cash they took from me versus what they actually credited.

Quincy:

Andrew Martin13 Asks: It’s just plain disrespectful. If they realized they messed up and chose to stay silent instead of letting us know that a complaint had been filed, what does that even say about their integrity? Honestly, what can you even say about people like that?

I’ve been trying to wrap my head around how much I actually picked up on that woman at the teller window. They keep these daily logs tracking every single cent of surplus or deficit... but now I'm stuck wondering: is that ledger maintained for the entire branch, or was she just keeping her own little private tally?
I’ve dealt with this same lady both times. I go there every single month to settle my bills, so I know her inside and out—it wasn't even an issue getting an appointment with her.

It’s just plain rude, honestly, how they act