Hubei Bank’s teller charged an additional 0, “I am not responsible for leaving the teller” and the depositor refused to return the money… Is this OK?

Hubei Songzi recently arbitrated a dispute over unjust enrichment. A depositor went to the bank to deposit 2,500 yuan (RMB, same below, about US$375). However, due to an operational error, the bank teller entered an extra “0” and mistakenly registered 2,500 yuan as 25,000 yuan. When the depositor discovered that his account balance had increased, he not only failed to inform the bank but also transferred the excess money to his wife. After the bank’s request for a refund of NT$22,500 was rejected, he filed a lawsuit in court. The court pointed out that the notice posted by the bank that “cash will be counted individually and will not be held responsible if it goes out of counter” cannot be used as a reason for refusing repayment. After the judge’s mediation, the depositor finally agreed to return all the money.

Hubei Daily reported that the incident occurred in December 2025. Depositor Yan went to the bank to make a deposit and handed over 2,500 yuan in cash to the bank staff. However, the staff was careless and entered 25,000 yuan into the system, resulting in Yan’s account being overdrafted by 22,500 yuan.

After leaving the bank, Yan discovered that her account balance had increased, but she did not actively inform the bank. Instead, he transferred the money in the account to his wife. When the bank checked the account that night, a difference of 22,500 yuan was found. It immediately reviewed the surveillance video and confirmed that Yan had made an input error when handling the deposit business, so it contacted him to request a refund of more deposits.

Yan believed that the extra money should be his own and refused to return the money on the grounds that it was posted at the bank counter, “The cash will be counted personally and we will not be held responsible if it goes out of the counter.” After repeated negotiations between the two parties failed, the bank sued Yan for unjust enrichment and demanded the return of 22,500 yuan.

The court held that the actual cash distributed by Yan was only 2,500 yuan, and the additional 22,500 yuan in the account had no legal basis and directly caused economic loss to the bank, which met the elements of unjust enrichment.

According to Article 985 of the Civil Code, the beneficiary has no legal basis to receive unfair benefits, and the person who suffered losses has the right to request compensation. Therefore, even if bank employees make mistakes, depositors cannot receive money that does not belong to them.

As far as the notice “We are not responsible for leaving the counter” is concerned, the court pointed out that it is a draft statement given unilaterally by the bank. It cannot be used to absolve oneself of responsibility, limit the rights of the other party, and cannot resist the Bank’s request for withdrawal in accordance with law.

Finally, after the judge explained and argued the law, Yan agreed to return 22,500 yuan, the two parties signed an arbitration agreement, and the dispute was resolved.

This incident has also started discussions online. Some believe that since the court has determined that “no responsibility will be taken” notices cannot be used as a reason to deny a refund, banks should consider removing the corresponding notice. The judge reminded that bank operational errors do not mean that excess funds can be kept as their own. People should proactively approach the bank to deal with similar situations to avoid legal disputes.