Al Ain court orders return of Dh40,000 mistakenly transferred to inactive bank account

Abu Dhabi: The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases ruled that a woman was entitled to recover Dh40,000 that she had mistakenly transferred to an inactive bank account and authorised the bank to return the money to her. The court found that there was no financial or contractual relationship between the woman and the account holder that could justify the transfer. It was also established that the defendant had been outside the country since 2024 and that the transferred funds remained in his account. The woman filed a lawsuit against the man seeking the return of Dh40,000, as well as compensation for the damages she had suffered, along with fees, expenses and lawyers' fees. She said she had mistakenly transferred the money from her bank account to the defendant's account despite having no financial or contractual relationship with him that could justify the payment. She was unable to recover the money despite contacting the relevant bank and subsequently filed a report with the competent authorities. The case was closed due to insufficient evidence. As evidence for her civil claim, she submitted a copy of the bank transfer receipt and the Public Prosecution's order in the criminal case. The order stated that the defendant had been outside the country since 2024 and that there was insufficient evidence to establish an intention to possess the money. During the court proceedings, neither the defendant nor his legal representative attended. A representative of the bank appeared and submitted a statement confirming that a Dh40,000 transfer had been received in the defendant's account from the plaintiff's account. The bank said the money had been credited to the defendant's account and had not been transferred, withdrawn or otherwise used by the account holder. The account had also been inactive for more than seven months. According to the bank, the available balance was Dh39,831. The difference between the amount transferred and the remaining balance was due to periodic fees charged to the account. The bank said it could deal with the funds in accordance with the court's decision. Before issuing its ruling in the commercial case, the court directed the plaintiff to take a supplementary oath. She swore: “I swear by Almighty God that the amount claimed, which is 40,000 dirhams, was transferred from my account to the defendant’s account by mistake, and I have no financial or contractual relationship with the defendant, and I do not owe him any amount.” In its ruling, the court said the bank's statement confirmed that the Dh40,000 had been transferred from the plaintiff's account and credited to the defendant's account without being withdrawn, transferred or otherwise disposed of by him. The amount remained in the account, apart from the periodic fees deducted by the bank. The court said it had administered the supplementary oath to complete the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. It also noted that the Public Prosecution's order confirmed that the defendant had been outside the country since 2024 and that the criminal case had been closed because of insufficient evidence of criminal intent. However, this did not prevent the civil court from considering the transfer and determining whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover the money. Based on the documents, the bank statement and the plaintiff's supplementary oath, the court concluded that the Dh40,000 had been transferred to the defendant's account by mistake and without any legitimate reason for him to retain it. There was no evidence of a contractual relationship or debt between the parties that could justify the transfer, nor was any evidence presented to establish the defendant's entitlement to the money. The court therefore found that the funds remained in his account without a legal basis and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover them. The court authorised the plaintiff to recover the amount transferred from her account to the defendant's account and ordered the bank to return the money immediately. It ordered the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses. The documents contained no evidence that the defendant intended to take possession of the mistakenly transferred funds.