Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
3 min of reading 
1 comment 
Lawyer Who Received Amount by Mistake Tried to Use the Money to Purchase a Property, but Judge Ordered Immediate Blockage of Funds.
A million-dollar mistake led the Justice of Rio de Janeiro to block R$ 318.6 thousand mistakenly transferred by TV Globo to a lawyer. The case, judged by the 4th Civil Court of Barra da Tijuca, involves a Pix transfer made in September 2021, when the broadcaster was fulfilling a labor agreement but ended up sending the money to the wrong person.
According to the case, the amount was meant for the lawyer of a former employee of the broadcaster. However, due to a failure in the internal registrations of the legal and financial departments of Globo, the amount was directed to another professional, with no relation to the case. Upon realizing the mistake, the broadcaster tried to reverse the transaction with the bank, but the refund was no longer possible as the amount had already been moved.
How the Million-Dollar Mistake Happened
The payment was made as part of a labor judicial agreement established by Globo.
-
Urban birds are using glass, plastic, wire, and even handcuffs to attract females, and scientists have discovered a curious ritual that shows how human trash has become mating decoration in nature.
-
Forget the common asphalt in Brazil: highway is paved with recycled plastic for the first time, incorporating more than 87,000 PET bottles in a technology that could transform roads across the country and potentially retire petroleum from pavement composition for good.
-
FedEx transforms Memphis into an air parcel city: a superhub of 940 acres, 171 airplane gates, 84 miles of conveyor belts, and up to 484,000 packages per hour drive the most frenetic logistics heart in the U.S.
-
As the world opens its eyes to PIX invented in Brazil, Eduardo Bolsonaro joins the USA and suggests replacing the system used by more than 170 million Brazilians; Trump accuses PIX of harming giants like Visa and Mastercard.
The company confirmed that the transfer was made based on incorrect banking information of a lawyer who had provided services in another case.
Instead of returning the amount, the professional who received the Pix claimed to the broadcaster that he had used the money as part of a contract to purchase an apartment.
Faced with the impasse, Globo filed a lawsuit to recover the amount transferred incorrectly.
The judge Luiz Felipe Negrão, when analyzing the case, considered “evident the plaintiff’s right to restitution” and ordered the immediate blocking of R$ 318,600.40, in addition to preventing the lawyer from completing the purchase of the property or transferring his rights over the contract.
Judicial Decision and Grounds for the Blockage
In the decision, the judge emphasized that the defendant “does not have extensive assets” and that, by quickly appropriating the amounts received by mistake, he jeopardized the useful outcome of the process.
The judge pointed out that the undue transfer did not constitute a donation or legitimate payment, but a material error with a clear right to restitution.
The court understood that retaining the funds and blocking the purchase were necessary to ensure the return of the amount, as the lawyer had shown an intention to use it irreversibly.
The decision also prevents any assignment or negotiation of the property purchase contract until the end of the process.
Financial Errors and the Duty of Restitution
Cases of mistaken bank transfers, especially via Pix, have become more common with the digitalization of payment methods.
According to established understanding in the courts, amounts received by mistake must be immediately returned, under penalty of unjust enrichment and possible civil and criminal liability.
In Globo’s case, the judge considered the risk of dissipating the funds and the urgency to preserve the right to recover the amount, which justified the precautionary measure of blockage prior to the final judgment.
The action is ongoing.
Errors like this expose both the vulnerability of automated systems and the ethical and legal dilemmas faced by those receiving undue amounts.
The court, in this case, sought to avoid irreparable damage and ensure the restitution of a substantial amount.
And what do you think of the decision? Should someone who receives money by mistake immediately return it, even if they have already used it? Or should the bank and the company be held accountable for the error? Leave your opinion in the comments; we want to know how you view this type of situation.
Só não entendi onde está o valor “milionário”. Ou alguém errou na quantia, ou alguém não sabe o que significa milionário