Re:Judge: Citibank isn't entitled to $500M it sent to variou...
by jrochkind1 on Thursday February 18, 2021 @12:54PM
(#26183120)
That law does seem to make it a pretty straightforward case.
I'd assume that got included as an exception due to lobbying by lenders/creditors. :) If a hundred years ago or whatever, it might require some historical digging to ascertain the details.
If we're looking for rational reasons (and laws aren't always motivated by rational reasons), we could imagine that the creditor, assuming that it was a debt repayment, has already spent the money or whatever, it's not fair to make them give it back, they might not even have it anymore. They weren't just a random person with no reason to expect the wire transfer so should have looked into it more before just spending what wasn't their money -- they had all the reason in the world to assume it was their money, and go forward accordingly. And the money was owed to them after all, so they aren't exactly keeping what didn't belong to them, they just got what belonged to them back a bit early.
I'd assume that got included as an exception due to lobbying by lenders/creditors. :) If a hundred years ago or whatever, it might require some historical digging to ascertain the details.
If we're looking for rational reasons (and laws aren't always motivated by rational reasons), we could imagine that the creditor, assuming that it was a debt repayment, has already spent the money or whatever, it's not fair to make them give it back, they might not even have it anymore. They weren't just a random person with no reason to expect the wire transfer so should have looked into it more before just spending what wasn't their money -- they had all the reason in the world to assume it was their money, and go forward accordingly. And the money was owed to them after all, so they aren't exactly keeping what didn't belong to them, they just got what belonged to them back a bit early.