An extraordinary case of illicit enrichment recently occurred in Xuanwei City, Yunnan Province, China, where citizen Li went to the bank to transfer money from his company account to his client's account and handed over 25,000 yuan to the cashier, but he accidentally entered the wrong number when filling out the form. , wrote an extra zero and wrote 250,000 yuan. Unexpectedly, the bank employees were negligent and immediately transferred 250,000 yuan to the account of a third party, Long. After the incident, the bank sued the man and demanded the return of the additional 225,000 yuan deposited.
According to Chinese media, on the day of the incident, citizen Li went to the bank to make a transfer and handed over 25,000 yuan to the teller. After the cashier counted the money from Li, he took the slip handed to Li. However, when Li filled out this form, he accidentally filled it out incorrectly and wrote the amount of 250,000 yuan.
Shortly after Li left the bank and arrived at his office, he discovered that the money transfer amount was incorrect, so he asked the company's accountant to contact the bank. But the bank said that he was not mistaken, and ignored the accountant, as a result, the entire amount was credited to the account of citizen Long.
After the incident, the bank asked Long to return the money, but Long ignored the bank and even scolded the bank employees with the words: "I am not responsible for the way your tellers work."
The bank then sued Long and demanded that he reimburse the additional 225,000 yuan he received by mistake.
However, the court's decision was very different from the bank's expectations: the court did not support the bank's claim and the bank lost the case.
The court's argument was that the money was deposited with Li and the bank had a contractual relationship with Li, so Li should be held responsible for the matter, not Long. The court ruled that the bank filed an incorrect claim.
After the bank lost its lawsuit against Long, it did not hesitate to sue Li, asking Li to return an additional 225,000 yuan.
The bank's argument was that the teller saved an additional 225,000 yuan and helped Li pay off his 225,000 yuan debt to Citizen Long, so Li received the benefit, which constitutes unjust enrichment, and should be held responsible for the return.
Article 122 of the Civil Code of China provides that since other persons have no legal basis and receive an improper benefit, the person who suffered the loss has the right to claim the return of the improper benefit.
The so-called unjust enrichment refers to the legal fact that there is no legal basis for obtaining an undue benefit and harm to the other party. The bottom line is that no one can gain at the expense of others' losses.
Simply put, the bank believed that Lee received a benefit for no reason, but in the new court, a citizen of Lee argued that he did not receive any benefits for two reasons.
Firstly, Li said that he did not owe Long a large amount of debt, he only had to transfer 25,000 yuan to Citizen Long, and it was the bank, not himself, who deposited an additional 225,000 yuan into Long's account, which could not bring Citizen Li any benefits.
Secondly, Li said that he was making the bank transfer for Citizen Long, not for himself, so he had no basis for illicit enrichment.
And as a result, the bank again lost the case. The reason the bank lost the lawsuit is very simple. It was the bank that sent the extra 225,000 yuan to Citizen Long's account, and Li did not receive any benefit, which is not unjust enrichment under the law. Naturally, Li could not be required to return the 225,000 yuan.
But the bank did not calm down this time either and for the third time filed a lawsuit with the court, hoping for a radical change in the court of second instance, but the bank's idea failed and the result did not change.
At the moment, the bank has conducted three lawsuits and lost all three court cases, all the money still remains with citizen Long