The woman charged 3.85 million and then returned 850,000 to the defendant’s bank claiming “unjust enrichment”, which sparked heated discussions: lawyers clarify doubts

For the kind of high-risk investment on the Internet, we still have to be cautious, so that improper operation is particularly easy to cause trouble.On April 8, Ms. Luoyang Yao, who invests in trust products, said that she had received a notice from the Beijing Supervision Bureau of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Beijing Supervision Bureau had conducted an investigation according to the procedures regarding the wrong amount of money paid to her by the bank involved.

Ms. Yao, 46 ​​years old this year, was originally a high school teacher. In May 2021, under the recommendation of the person in charge of the trust company Zhengzhou Wealth Center, she invested 3 million yuan to purchase a trust product with a term of 20 months, January 2023 Expires on the 31st.

On September 26, 2021, the trust company returned the trust principal to each investor in advance, and the Beijing branch of a certain bank executed the refund. According to a report from China Business Connection, Ms. Yao recalled that she received 3.85 million yuan at 20:57 pm on September 26. When she received it that night, she felt that the payment was sudden. “This time is very delicate. September 26 is Sunday, and normal payment will not be on Sunday night.”

The more she thought about the money, the more she felt that something was wrong, so she contacted a wealth consultant that night, and the other party said that she would wait until Monday to ask about the situation. “At noon on September 27th, the other party told me that the money was returned by mistake. The trust company held an emergency meeting in the morning and sent me an announcement saying that only 19.3% (more than 570,000 yuan) of the principal was refunded, but the announcement was signed. The date is September 24.”

The day after the incident, Ms. Yao refunded 850,000 yuan through the bank account, leaving her trust principal of 3 million yuan at the time. I thought that this matter could come to an end, but what Ms. Yao did not expect was that on January 24, 2022, Ms. Yao became a defendant for “unjust enrichment”, and the deposits in her name were also frozen by the bank.

According to the report of Huashang Connection, the complaint of the bank on December 17, 2021 shows that the cause of the case is a dispute over unjust enrichment.

In this regard, Ms. Yao said that she couldn’t understand, “I made the wrong money. If the bank made the wrong call, the bank will contact the customer as soon as possible, but the bank did not do this, did not apologize, and suddenly sued the customer. The court is still righteous.”

April 18 at noon,Positive newsThe reporter contacted Yang Qi, a lawyer from Henan Style Law Firm, for consultation on the legal issues involved in Ms. Yao’s incident. Yang Qi said that due to insufficient evidence at present, it is impossible to make a specific judgment, but it is worth paying attention to whether Ms. Yao confirmed with the trust company that the amount of trust principal recovered is 570,000, which is the key to determining unjust enrichment. At the same time, it is necessary to look at the investigation results of the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and make a comprehensive judgment.

As for whether the bank has the right to tell Ms. Yao unjust enrichment as the plaintiff, Yang Qi said that it depends on whether the trust company authorizes the bank to handle the transfer business and the authorized amount. “If the transfer instruction sent by the trust company to the bank is indeed an amount of more than 570,000 yuan, but the transfer amount is incorrect due to an error in the banking system involved, the bank has the right to ask Ms. Yao for the excess money, if Ms. Yao refuses return, the act constitutes unjust enrichment.

Hashtags: bank card collection