> Ordinarily, the law would be on Citibank's side here. Under New York law, someone who sends out an erroneous wire transfer—for example, sending a payment to the wrong account—is entitled to get the money back.
> But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn't have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it's free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.
There's a major UI issue here, no doubt about it.
But, it's important to also point out how bizzare this exception is, how did this even get included as the one and only exception?
> But the law makes an exception when a debtor accidentally wires money to a creditor. In that case, if the creditor doesn't have prior knowledge the payment was a mistake, it's free to treat it as a repayment of the loan.
There's a major UI issue here, no doubt about it.
But, it's important to also point out how bizzare this exception is, how did this even get included as the one and only exception?