Bob meant to send a bank transfer to to his friend Boris Johnson, but instead sent it to Doris Johnson. Does he have a cause of unjust enrolment against the latter?
2 Answers
Not only does Bob have an unjust enrichment cause of action to demand that the recipient return the money, but the recipient can be criminally prosecuted if they refuse. Refusing to make reasonable efforts to return property that was mistakenly made available to you is considered theft.
Party A intends to make a bank transfer to Party B. However, unbeknown to Party A, the funds have been mistakenly paid into the bank account of Party C. Party C has refused to pay the funds back. In this scenario, Party C has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Party A.
https://www.ashfords.co.uk/insights/articles/unjust-enrichment-and-restitution
The money isn’t legally yours - so you’ll need to pay it back. Otherwise, you could end up being charged with ‘dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit’ under the Theft Act 1968 and civil action can be taken against you in county court.
[Note: you have to click on "What should I do if I receive a payment in error?"; doing ctrl-f for the passage will not work otherwise.]
This applies in other jurisdictions as well; here's an example from Pennsylvania: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/us/bank-deposit-error-couple-spending-spree-trnd/index.html
As noted in the comments, you should be careful about returning money that was allegedly sent in error. however. The cite I gave above is a case in which the recipients didn't attempt to notify the bank of the error, and instead withdrew the money and spent it. It's a common scam to send money through a reversible method, tell the recipient that the payment was erroneous and ask for it back through a nonreversible method, and then reverse the initial transfer. If you see a transfer that is likely erroneous, you should not withdraw the money, but instead notify the bank, and see if they can handle it.
- 6,689
- 13
- 32
Is a mistakenly sent bank transfer a cause for unjust enrichment?
Yes.
This is one of the paradigmatic, textbook fact patterns justifying an unjust enrichment claim.
- 257,510
- 16
- 506
- 896