Bank error case that led millions to a driver’s account in Tocantins advances in court and involves request for reward, moral damages, fraud attempts, and debate on the Civil Code.
The driver Antônio Pereira do Nascimento, from Tocantins, states that he intends to renovate the house where he lives and buy a new van to work if he receives any amount in the lawsuit he filed against Bradesco after returning R$ 131.8 million mistakenly deposited into his account.
The case is being processed in the 6th Civil Court of Palmas and includes a request for a reward exceeding R$ 13 million, in addition to R$ 150,000 for moral damages, according to information released about the lawsuit.
The case became known after Antônio found R$ 131,870,227.00 in his checking account.
-
McDonald’s Ice Cream Machines Often Break Due to a Single U.S. Manufacturer, Error Codes, and a Lucrative Repair Model
-
WD-40’s Secret Formula: How a $620 Million Business Thrives Without a Patent
-
Lonely? This Chinese humanoid robot with soft skin and AI offers 24/7 conversation and stress detection.
-
Advanced Crash Test Dummies with Fake Bones and Organs Can Cost Up to $1 Million, Mostly Produced by U.S. Firm Humanetics
Before the deposit, the balance was R$ 227.
Upon identifying the amount, the driver contacted the bank to report the error and return the money, as reported in news articles about the case.
Even after the million-dollar transfer, Antônio claims he did not use a single cent of the amount received by mistake.
In an interview, he said that his plans, if he obtains any compensation or reward in court, are related to housing and his work as a driver.
“I would renovate my house and buy a van for myself, as I am without a vehicle. I work as a driver, and I would buy a new van. I needed to buy and didn’t buy anything, didn’t spend even a real,” he told G1.
The driver’s defense requests that the court recognize the right to a reward for the voluntary return of the money.
The requested amount corresponds to 10% of the amount mistakenly transferred, or R$ 13,187,022.00.
Additionally, the lawyers are claiming R$ 150,000 for moral damages, alleging that Antônio faced emotional distress, embarrassment, and undue charges after the incident.
Request for reward in the Civil Code
The lawsuit was filed in July 2024.
In the petition, the defense argues that the spontaneous return of the amount should be analyzed based on Article 1,234 of the Civil Code, which deals with the restitution of found items and provides a reward to those who return the item to the owner or legitimate possessor.
According to the lawyers’ interpretation, the rule could be applied to the case as it involves an amount that was available in the driver’s account due to a financial institution’s error.
The process discusses whether this understanding also applies to bank transfers made in a digital environment.
Bradesco is cited in the lawsuit as responsible for the erroneous deposit.
Reports published about the case indicate that the money should have been transferred to another financial institution.
Contacted by the press, the bank stated that it does not comment on cases pending in court.
Another point raised by the defense involves the alteration of Antônio’s bank profile.
According to the process, his account was improperly elevated to the “VIP” category after the deposit, which resulted in higher fees than previously charged.
The lawyers also claim that the driver suffered pressure, public exposure, and embarrassment after reporting the error.
These arguments are part of the claim for moral damages, but they still depend on judicial analysis.
Lawsuit against Bradesco in Palmas
The action is ongoing in the Justice of Tocantins.
In March 2026, Judge Lauro Augusto Moreira Maia determined that there was no need to hear witnesses and considered it possible to rule on the case based on the documents already presented by the parties.
With this decision, the process entered the phase of defining the merits of the claims.
Antônio’s defense filed a motion for clarification, a resource used to request clarification, correction, or supplementation of a judicial decision when there is omission, contradiction, or obscurity.
According to a report citing information from the Court of Justice of Tocantins, the request was still under analysis and within the legal deadline.
There is no confirmed public information, in the sources consulted, of a final sentence following this movement.
The court’s decision should determine whether Antônio is entitled to the millionaire reward or not.
Until there is a judgment, the payment of the R$ 13.1 million requested in the action is not guaranteed.
Experts analyze reward for returned money
The defense’s thesis is that the return of the money allows for the application of the reward rule provided in the Civil Code.
However, experts consulted by the press point out that there may be a legal difference between finding a lost item and receiving an erroneous bank transfer.
For this interpretation, amounts transferred through the financial system have identifiable origins and can be traced by the institutions involved.
Therefore, the judicial discussion should evaluate whether the “found item” principle applies to a digital banking operation.
The controversy also involves the percentage requested.
The defense demands 10% of the total returned, while the article of the Civil Code cited in the reports provides for a reward not less than 5% for those who return a found item.
It will be up to the court to decide if the rule is applicable to the specific case and, if so, what amount would be due.
While the process continues, Antônio states that he has maintained his work routine.
He says he is still approached by people who remember the episode and ask about the money.
“Every now and then I’m somewhere and someone says: ‘Hey, what about the money?’. Man, I had even forgotten about it,” he said.
Fraud attempts after case publicity
The exposure of the case led to fraud attempts against the driver.
Antônio reported that he was approached by people posing as lawyers and charging supposed fees related to the process.
According to him, the charge raised suspicion because his defense had not requested any fee payments.
The driver stated that he realized the fraud attempt when falsely informed that the result of the action had already been published.
“When they charged me money, I saw it was a fraud. They said the result was already out, but it was a lie. Pay a fee? The lawyer didn’t charge me any fee, nothing, it was free,” he reported.
The episode was cited by the defense as part of the troubles faced by Antônio since the case became publicly known.
The lawyers mention harassment, emotional distress, and embarrassment among the grounds for the compensation claim.
Deposit of R$ 131 million occurred in 2023
Antônio received R$ 131,870,227.00 in June 2023, according to reports published about the case.
The money was available for about seven hours until it was returned to the bank.
After the correction, the account balance returned to the previous level of R$ 227.
At the time, the driver said he did not consider keeping the amount.
The spontaneous return is the main point used by the defense to support the request for a reward.
Reports on the case also state that Antônio had been a Bradesco account holder for about 25 years.
This information appears in publications citing TV Anhanguera, a Globo affiliate in Tocantins, as the source of the information.
The case went through a conciliation hearing in February 2025, but there was no agreement between the parties.
After that, the defense stated that it would maintain the request for a reward and compensation in court.
The legal dispute began to focus on two fronts: the request for a reward for the returned amount and the claim for moral damages for the effects attributed to the episode.
The bank, in turn, did not comment publicly on the merits of the action, claiming it was a sub judice case.
If he receives any amount, Antônio says he intends to use the money to renovate the house and buy a van.
The driver’s declared intention is directly related to his professional activity and the routine he says he maintained after returning the R$ 131.8 million.
The court still has to decide whether the spontaneous return of an amount deposited by bank error entitles one to a reward.
