Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
92 comments 
Decision Was Rendered on July 29, 2025, and Forced a Resident of Mato Grosso to Return an Amount Sent by Mistake by a Businessman from Tocantins
In a decision rendered this Tuesday (07/29/2025), Judge Renata do Nascimento e Silva, from the Support Center for Municipalities (Nacom), ordered a resident of Poxoréu (MT) to return R$ 10 thousand that she had received by mistake via Pix. The amount was transferred by a 42-year-old businessman, residing in Darcinópolis (TO), who was making two transfers of the same amount as part of a divorce settlement with his brother.
The first operation was completed correctly, but the second went to the wrong account after a mistake in the area code entered for the Pix key.
Typing Error Led to the Undue Transfer of R$ 10 Thousand
According to the case, the businessman realized the error right after the transaction and tried to contact the recipient through WhatsApp messages, but received no response.
-
According to an analysis by NASA, only one human-made structure is visible from space, and it is not the Great Wall of China or the Pyramids of Egypt.
-
After 377 years of history, the Brazilian Army will have its first female general: Colonel Claudia Cacho has been promoted to brigadier general by Lula and will receive the sword and command baton this Wednesday in Brasília.
-
A Mercado Livre customer opened their package and found 32 resumes of people looking for jobs crumpled as protective paper inside the box, exposing names, addresses, documents, and phone numbers of dozens of candidates.
-
Iceberg A23a, one of the largest in the world, is undergoing accelerated collapse and may disappear: what explains the end of the ice giant?
According to him, the woman blocked his contacts and even changed her social media profile to avoid identification. Without a response and faced with her refusal to return the amount, he sought assistance from the bank, which confirmed the operation but explained that it could not reverse the Pix without the account holder’s authorization.
With no alternative, the businessman filed a lawsuit seeking restitution of the amount, a judicial freeze on the amount, and damages for moral compensation, including the bank as a defendant on the grounds of omission. The financial institution, however, presented a defense stating that there was no failure in the service, as the error originated from the client himself.
Recipient Admitted to Having Used the Money and Claimed Unemployment
The woman’s defense acknowledged the receipt of R$ 10 thousand but stated that she could not immediately return the amount, justifying that she had used the funds to pay personal debts due to being unemployed and in a state of financial hardship.
Represented by the Public Defender’s Office, she requested installments of R$ 200 and obtained the benefit of free legal aid.
Even acknowledging the defendant’s financial situation, the judge based her decision on the prohibition of unjust enrichment, as outlined in articles 876, 884, and 885 of the Civil Code. According to the judge, anyone who receives an undue amount must return it, “regardless of intent or bad faith, as long as there is no legal cause justifying the obtained economic advantage.”
Judge Rejected Claim for Moral Damages and Bank Liability
The ruling concluded that all elements characterizing unjust enrichment were present: the loss of the sender, the gain of the recipient, the causal link between them, and the absence of just cause.
Thus, it was determined the full return of R$ 10 thousand, with monetary correction since 02/10/2022, the date of sending, and legal interest from the citation.
The magistrate rejected the claim for damages, understanding that the situation, although frustrating, did not exceed the limits of mere displeasure. The judge also dismissed the bank’s liability, acknowledging that the institution merely processed the data provided and authorized by the client, without any technical failure or illegal conduct.
Bank Was Exempt from Liability and the Case May Have Appeal
The ruling from the Tocantins Court of Justice (TJTO) was categorical in stating that the error resulted exclusively from human error in typing and not from a defect in the banking service. Therefore, the bank was completely exempt from liability.
The decision also states that, if there are insufficient funds in the woman’s account, the institution must inform the Court of any subsequent movements of the amount, under penalty of fine. The recipient remains obligated to fully return the R$ 10 thousand, duly updated. The case is still subject to appeal to the Court of Justice.
Source: Tocantins Court of Justice (TJTO) — Araguaína District: Court Orders Return of R$ 10 Thousand Pix Sent by Mistake and Exempts Bank from Liability (published on 07/29/2025).
Esse é o perfil do brasileiro em sua grande maioria, farinha pouca meu pirão primeiro e ****-se você. Povo medíocre e ignorante dá nisso.
E eu que depositei para um hotel que estava dando golpes e propagandas enganosas, solicitei o cancelamento do valor pago antecipado e eles simplesmente disseram, estamos passando por uma reestruturação e não tem data para pagar. Entrei com uma ação, as cartas do tjsp vai e volta sem cumprimento, a portaria vive vazia, ate o Celso foi lá. Hotel hns cabreuva.
Isso desde março de 2025.
Ela nunca vai paga essas parcelas se ja fez de má fé toda essa situação. Pessoa ta **** e ainda ainda mostra o motivo porque ta ña situação de pobreza.