Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
A Case of Duplicate Transfer Led the TJMT to Determine Immediate Refund, Monetary Correction, and Compensation, Reinforcing Principles of Good Faith and Impact Also on Errors in Operations via PIX.
The decision is from the Second Chamber of Private Law of the Court of Justice of Mato Grosso (TJMT) and was based on the principles of objective good faith and the prohibition of unjust enrichment.
The original title contains a typographical error (“for incorrect PIX”), maintained as per editorial instructions.
-
Chinese have taken over the factory that Jaguar Land Rover built for over R$ 1 billion in Rio de Janeiro and will transform the plant that produced luxury cars into a machine for 100,000 vehicles per year.
-
More than 3,900 Brazilian municipalities are unable to pay their own bills, and yet two city halls located just 700 meters apart continue to operate separately, each with a full structure.
-
Lula joins Mexico and Spain to defend Cuba after Trump threatens the island and says that the world cannot sleep and wake up every day with a president of the Republic threatening to go to war.
-
The report shows that the center of the global economy is shifting to the South, with BRICS and emerging markets growing above the global average while Europe barely reaches 1% and the United States spends trillions on wars.
Duplicate Transfer Generated Judicial Dispute
The case involves process 1022601-23.2021.8.11.0015, related to a loan agreement that provided for payments via transfer.
On the stipulated date, the debtor made the correct transfer, but an operational failure resulted in sending the same amount from another account.
Documents presented in the process, such as statements, receipts, and notarial records, as registered by the court, demonstrated that there was duplicate credit and that the recipient was aware of the mistake.
However, the beneficiary reported that he would keep the amount to offset a supposed debt between the parties.
The Chamber dismissed this justification due to the lack of contractual provision allowing this type of compensation.
Legal Basis for Refund
According to the ruling, retaining an amount received without legitimate cause violates objective good faith, a principle that guides contractual relationships.
The rapporteur, Judge Maria Helena Gargaglione Póvoas, highlighted that keeping the amount, even after notification about the error, characterizes unjust enrichment, which motivated the determination for restitution.
The understanding of the panel was unanimous in establishing the refund, with adjustment by IPCA and interest by Selic rate, counted from the date of the undue transfer.
Moral Damages Analyzed by TJMT
The conviction included compensation for moral damage.
According to the court, the recipient’s resistance in returning the amount led the author to seek the Judiciary, which, according to the panel, exceeded what is considered common inconveniences in payment situations.
In the vote, the rapporteur noted that there was wear and tear resulting from the repeated and unjustified refusal, as the documents evidenced the error in the bank operation.
As a result, compensation of R$ 10 thousand was established, adjusted by IPCA and with interest from the date of citation.
Criteria Defined for Correction and Interest
The decision establishes that the principal amount must be updated by IPCA and receive Selic rate interest from the date of the duplicate transfer.
The compensation for moral damages follows the same indices, but with interest counted from the citation.
According to civil law specialists consulted by courts in similar decisions, this combination of indices is applied to preserve the real value of the debt and reflect the period of undue retention.
Evidence Considered in the Judgment
The set of evidence included bank statements, transfer receipts, and notarial records of conversations between the parties.
These elements were cited in the process as decisive in proving the duplication and the recipient’s awareness of the error.
With this evidence, the Chamber concluded that the refusal lacked contractual or legal foundation.
Case Relation with PIX Errors
Although the case deals with a traditional bank transfer, recent court decisions have applied a similar understanding for operations via PIX, as it has equivalent operational nature.
According to the Central Bank, the Special Mechanism for Refund (MED) was created to allow for temporary blocking of amounts in situations of fraud or failure, including undue sending.
Specialists explain that MED does not resolve all cases but provides a tool to expedite the analysis of transactions that should not have occurred, according to definitions by the authority itself.
Financial institutions recommend that, in case of incorrect sending, users immediately report the incident in the bank’s app and gather proof of the operation, as well as file a police report when recommended.
Principles Reaffirmed by the Judgment
The TJMT reinforced, in the ruling, that objective good faith and the prohibition of unjust enrichment govern financial operations and contracts.
The court highlighted that the return of amounts received unduly is a legal requirement, regardless of the payment method or the recipient’s intention.
Contract law specialists point out that this understanding has been consistently maintained in different courts across the country when there is evidence of error and unjustified retention.
Practical Guidelines for Financial Operations
The case serves as a reference for users of bank transfers and PIX.
Lawyers consulted in similar decisions assert that the safest conduct, both for those sending and receiving unduly, is to act transparently and document all communications.
For incorrect sends, guidance includes notifying the bank, keeping proof, and seeking legal advice if the amount is not returned.
For those receiving, specialists recommend immediate return, as retention without legitimate cause tends to generate liability.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!