A little while ago on this blog, I noted the mistaken payment case of Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd v Manivel [2022] VSC 482 (26 August 2022). It has been a recurring theme of my notes on these kinds of cases that the recipients of mistaken payments not only must make restitution of those payments, but also that they run the risk of criminal prosecution. Now comes the unsurprising news that the key recipients of the money at issue in Foris v Manivel have indeed been charged with theft:

Couple mistakenly given $10.5m from Crypto.com thought they had won contest, court hears

Money from crypto exchange was allegedly used to buy four houses worth $4m, vehicles, art and furniture, police officer tells court

A Victorian woman accused of theft over a $10.5m mistaken cryptocurrency refund has been released on bail as she awaits trial, despite claims she allegedly tried to flee the country. Thevamanogari Manivel and her partner, Jatinder Singh, appeared by video link from prison in Melbourne magistrates court on Tuesday when they were committed to stand trial on theft and other charges. …

The Crypto.com account was in Singh’s name but the transfer may have been sent to Manivel’s account as he used her bank card to buy cryptocurrency, the court heard.

Read More »

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer, so we are told. And it gets really dreadful indeed when computer buzzwords like “crypto” get included. And so it is with cryptocurrency trading platform, Crypto.com. In May 2021, it accidentally transferred Aus$10.5m [€7.35m; US$7m; St£6.3m] to an Australian woman, Thevamanogari Manivel, when processing an Aus$100 [€70; US$67; St£60] refund. Although computers were involved, the problem was plain old human error: Manivel’s account number had been accidentally entered into the “payment amount” field. Worse, they failed to notice the error until the following December, seven months later, by which time much of the money had already been given away to six other family members or spent on various luxury purchases, including an Aus$1.35m [€945,000; US$900,000; St£810,000] home in Craigieburn, Melbourne, for her sister, Thilagavathy Gangadory. [Update: Crypto has company – a Texas bank made the same mistake to deposit US$37m in a customer’s account; but, unlike here, the Texas customer alerted the bank and returned the money].

This sounds like a classic exam question, but it is in fact the scenario faced by Elliott J in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Australia, in Foris GFS Australia Pty Ltd v Manivel [2022] VSC 482 (26 August 2022).…

Read More »

I have warned many times on this blog (especially here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here – with examples from Ireland, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the US) that the recipient of a mistaken payment not only has a duty to make restitution of that unjust enrichment but also faces potential criminal liability for theft if the payment is kept (and, worse, spent) rather than returned. A recent cause célèbre from South Africa provides another cautionary tale:

Sibongile Mani sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment for theft of NSFAS funds

Walter Sisulu University (WSU) student Sibongile Mani [left] has been sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for theft relating to R14 million [€870,000] accidentally credited to her account by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in 2017.

East London Regional Court Magistrate Twanette Olivier found Mani guilty of stealing R818,000 [€51,000] of the funds.

She was only entitled to a R1,400 [€87] food allowance and was accused of failing to report when R14 million [€870,000] was credited to her account erroneously. She instead embarked on a spending spree. …

A little more background:

Key events that led up to the sentencing and appeal of NSFAS ‘millionaire’ Sibongile Mani

…
June 2017
A technical glitch led to funding administrative company Intellimali erroneously transferring R14m into Mani’s account.

Read More »

Banks are more often cast in the role of Scrooge than Santa; and, even when they start out in the latter role, they end up in the former.

For example, where over-active ATMs played Santa and permitted withdrawals of amounts greater than available funds or credit, the bank quickly became Scrooge, insisting that all money withdrawn by customers in excess of their balances will have to be repaid. Unlike in monopoly, you cannot retain the proceeds of a bank error in your favour. It’s not a gift either from God or from the bank. As I have explained many times on this blog, this is a mistaken payment, and the recipient must return it, unless there is a defence. And, if it is not returned, it could constitute theft.

Just before Christmas, Santander bank found itself first as Santa and then as Scrooge:

Bank accidentally deposits $176 million into people’s accounts on Christmas Day

Thousands of people received a surprise gift on Christmas Day this year when European bank Santander accidentally deposited £130 million ($176 million) across 75,000 transactions.

The mistake happened when payments from 2,000 business accounts in the U.K. were processed twice, meaning some employees saw their wages double, while suppliers also got more than they were expecting.

Read More »

This is the fourth post (in a series of seven; see also parts I, II, III, V, VI and VII) discussing Samsoondar v Capital Insurance Company Ltd (Trinidad and Tobago) [2020] UKPC 33 (14 December 2020) (Samsoondar) and Surrey County Council v NHS Lincolnshire Clinical Commissioning Group [2020] EWHC 3550 (QB) (21 December 2020) (Surrey). In my first post, I introduced the cases and issues. A claim to restitution for unjust enrichment failed in the first but succeeded in the second. In my second post, I examined whether the defendants were enriched at the expense of the plaintiffs.

In my previous post, I considered whether compulsory discharge of the debt of another could have provided a cause of action in Samsoondar and Surrey, concluding that it could not in the former but that it could in the latter; and I considered whether Surrey could rely upon a policy-motivated cause of action, consisting in the unlawful obtaining or conferral of a benefit by a public authority. With some difficulty, Thornton J held that Surrey could indeed rely upon it. In this post, I want to consider another – simpler, more straightforward – cause of action that may have been available on the facts of both cases, and that could, in particular, have alleviated the difficulties encountered by Thornton J in Surrey.…

Read More »

In the classic comedy television series Father Ted (Channel 4 | IMDB), the title character, Fr Ted Crilly (pictured left, as portrayed by actor Dermot Morgan) often claimed “That money was just resting in my account!”. We learn early in the first series that Ted was exiled to Craggy Island for stealing money intended to send a child to Lourdes and using it for a trip to Las Vegas (S1E3). In various subsequent episodes (S1E6; S2E4; S2E6; S3E8) he claims that the money was just resting in his account. I was reminded of this by an article (sub req’d) by Fiona Ferguson currently on the front page of Courts News Ireland:

Man claimed he ‘found’ €17k of fraud cash in his bank account

A Malawian man charged with money laundering who told gardai that he found €17,000 in his bank account when checking to see if his wages had been paid has avoided a jail term.

John Carlos (32) used some of the money to pay his college fees before transferring €12,000 to a savings account. He then contacted the bank to alert them to the €17,000 and the transfer he had made.

Read More »