Compiled from: Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court
 
With the rise of the internet and the widespread use of personal electronic devices, transfers and remittances have become increasingly convenient. While enjoying the benefits of technology and the development of the times, we often encounter some troubles. Especially for enterprises with frequent payment transactions and numerous client interactions, erroneous remittances occur from time to time. In such cases, issues of unjust enrichment arise between the remitter and the recipient due to the lack of a basis for debt repayment. The remitter can claim the return of the erroneously remitted funds from the recipient. However, if the account into which the third party accidentally remitted funds is a frozen account of the judgment debtor under court enforcement, can the third party request the enforcement court to return the funds?

 

Case review
On July 11, 2023, during the enforcement of a loan dispute case between Contemporary Automobile Company and Aesop Trading Company, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court froze Bank A account under the name of Aesop Trading Company with a limit of 5.1 million yuan. At the time of freezing, the account balance was over 700 yuan.
 
On October 16, 2023, Dajiang Taxi Company mistakenly remitted 480,000 yuan as a vehicle purchase payment to Bank A account under the name of its former partner, Aesop Trading Company, during an online transfer. Upon discovering the erroneous remittance, Dajiang Taxi Company immediately contacted Aesop Trading Company but was informed that Bank A account had been frozen by the enforcement court due to the loan dispute and could not return the funds.
 
On October 17, 2023, Dajiang Taxi Company filed a written objection with the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court, requesting the return of the 480,000 yuan mistakenly remitted to Bank A account.
 
Upon review, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court found that from July 11, 2023, to the period of the objection review in this case, multiple funds had been continuously remitted into Bank A account.
 
After trial, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that Dajiang Taxi Company's request for the court to return the funds on the grounds of erroneous remittance essentially sought to exclude the enforcement of these funds based on ownership, which falls under the scope of third-party objection review. Therefore, this case should be reviewed as a third-party objection case. Regarding whether the 480,000 yuan should be returned, since the monetary funds remitted by the third party, Dajiang Taxi Company, into Bank A account of Aesop Trading Company are fungible items, a type of special movable property with high substitutability, and in the absence of the account being specifically designated and sufficient evidence provided by Dajiang Taxi Company to prove otherwise, ownership should be determined based on the state of possession of the monetary funds. Moreover, the unjust enrichment claim that Dajiang Taxi Company holds against Aesop Trading Company due to the erroneous remittance falls under the category of creditor's rights, not property rights, and this claim does not have priority over other ordinary monetary claims. Therefore, it cannot exclude enforcement. Ultimately, the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court ruled to reject the objection raised by Dajiang Taxi Company.
 
 
Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 234
 During the execution process, if a third party raises a written objection to the subject matter of execution, the people's court shall review it within fifteen days from the date of receiving the written objection. If the reasons are valid, it shall rule to suspend the execution of that subject matter; if the reasons are invalid, it shall rule to reject the objection. If the third party or the parties are dissatisfied with the ruling and believe that the original judgment or ruling is erroneous, the matter shall be handled in accordance with the trial supervision procedure; if it is unrelated to the original judgment or ruling, they may file a lawsuit with the people's court within fifteen days from the date of service of the ruling.
 
 
Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Execution Objections and Reconsideration Cases by People's Courts
Article 25, Paragraph 1  
For objections raised by a third party, the people's court shall determine whether the third party is the rights holder according to the following standards:
For registered immovable property, the determination shall be based on the immovable property register; for unregistered buildings, structures, and their ancillary facilities, the determination shall be based on relevant evidence such as the land use right register, construction project planning permit, and construction permit;
For registered specific movable property such as motor vehicles, ships, and aircraft, the determination shall be based on the registration of the relevant administrative department; for unregistered specific movable property and other movable property, the determination shall be based on the actual possession situation.
[1] Bank deposits and securities held in financial institutions are determined based on the account names registered with the financial institution and the clearing and settlement institution; if securities are held in the name of a custodian institution with legitimate business qualifications, they are determined based on the account name of the actual investor registered with that institution.
[2] Equity is determined based on the registration with the administrative authority for industry and commerce and the information disclosed in the enterprise credit information publicity system.
[3] (5) For other property and rights, if registered, they are determined based on the registration with the registering authority; if not registered, they are determined based on evidence such as contracts that prove property ownership or the rights holder.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
[4] In enforcement proceedings, if a third party mistakenly remits funds to the account of the judgment debtor that has been sealed by the court, the handling method is not simply to return the funds directly, but to make a ruling based on a comprehensive consideration of the rules for determining ownership, the timing of ownership transfer, and a comparison of the priority of the third party's unjust enrichment claim against the judgment debtor and the ordinary monetary claim of the applying enforcement creditor against the judgment debtor.
 
[5] It is worth noting that currency, as a special type of fungible thing, due to its highly substitutable nature, should apply the ownership determination rule of "possession is ownership." Moreover, currency is movable property, and ownership transfer is completed upon delivery. Therefore, the 480,000 yuan remittance in this case underwent ownership transfer upon reaching the account of the judgment debtor, Yisuo Trading Company. However, the monetary debt between Dangdai Automobile Company and Yisuo Trading Company, arising from a loan contract, falls under the category of ordinary claims. The corresponding claim between Dajiang Taxi Company and Yisuo Trading Company, arising from unjust enrichment, also falls under the category of ordinary claims and does not have a basis for priority in repayment. Thus, Dajiang Company's request was not supported by the court.
 
[6] It can be seen that when remitting funds, one must carefully and thoroughly verify key identifying information such as the payee's name, account name, bank, and account number to avoid mistakenly transferring funds to the wrong account, thereby preventing unnecessary losses and trouble.