The Supreme Court of Russia has agreed to rehear the case of a Kazan resident who sent 1 million rubles to a stranger by mistake after entering the wrong phone number during an ATM transfer, and who has struggled to recover the funds. This development comes as reported by RIA News, citing the court’s ruling.
The borrower took a loan to renovate her apartment and attempted to transfer the money to a worker via an ATM. The funds were intended for construction materials, but a wrong phone number caused the entire amount to be sent to an unfamiliar recipient. The bank stated that once a transfer is completed, altering payment details or canceling the transaction is technically impossible, leaving the woman with no straightforward path to recovery.
The recipient, the man who received the money, claimed that he had long since lost the card that triggered the dispute. He said he only learned of the payment when he visited a bank to unblock another card. According to him, the fraudsters had already drained nearly all of the funds from his accounts.
In the first instance court, the plaintiff faced rejection, with the court asserting there was no evidence that the claimant deposited the money through the ATM. It was noted that the ATM’s transaction log did not reveal the identity of the person who initiated the deposit.
However, the Supreme Court rejected that line of reasoning. It ruled that the trial court failed to weigh the evidence in full context and to consider how all banking operations on both the borrower’s and the recipient’s accounts aligned with the dates and sums in dispute. The higher court emphasized the need to assess the entire sequence of transactions and the parties’ statements to detect coincidences or inconsistencies that could sway responsibility for the transfer.
As a result, the Supreme Court sent the matter back to the first-instance court for reconsideration. The woman continues to demand that the recipient return the full 1 million rubles that were mistakenly transferred.
The case highlights broader questions about consumer protection, error correction in electronic payments, and the responsibilities of banks when transfers go to unintended recipients. It also illustrates the challenges courts face when evaluating digital transactions that leave little to no trace of the initiating party beyond the recorded account activity and the statements provided by the involved individuals.
While some observers see this as a rare instance of the courts taking a closer look at the reliability of transaction records, others caution that decisions in such cases can set important precedents for how accidental transfers are handled in the future. The outcome could influence how banks document transfer initiations, how they communicate with customers about mistaken transfers, and how courts interpret the interplay between transaction data and claimant testimony in similar disputes across the country.