Man Ordered to Repay US$35,000 After Company Mistakenly Credits Account With Trillions

A court in central China has ordered a man to repay more than 252,000 yuan (US$35,000) after he spent part of an enormous platform balance that had been mistakenly credited to his account because of a staff error.

The case, heard by the Ningxiang City People’s Court in Hunan Province, centered on whether a consumer may keep and spend money that a merchant accidentally transfers into an online account. The court ruled that the money constituted unjust enrichment and must be returned.

According to the court, a man surnamed Li had repeatedly bought marketing and promotion services from a Shanghai technology company for his online business. After topping up his account on the company’s platform, he could use the balance to purchase services.

On September 27, 2025, Li transferred 1,000 yuan to the company for a platform recharge. After completing the recharge, a staff member mistakenly entered another user’s account ID number — 2641993383745792 — as the recharge amount and credited that sum to Li’s account.

Li later used part of the balance for platform purchases.

The company discovered the error on October 17, froze Li’s account and deducted the remaining balance. It also terminated some services Li had bought but that had not yet been completed, recovering more than 9,400 yuan in related costs.

That same day, the company sent Li a letter via WeChat, explaining the mistaken recharge and asking him to return the excess amount and compensate related losses within three days. Li did not respond, and the company sued.

The court said that although the mistaken balance existed only as virtual transaction figures on the platform, it had real purchasing power because 1 yuan in platform credit was equivalent to 1 yuan in services. Since Li had used the mistakenly credited amount to consume services, he had obtained a benefit without legal basis, while the company suffered a corresponding loss.

After deducting Li’s legitimate 1,000-yuan recharge and other recovered amounts, the court found that he had actually used 252,281.31 yuan from the mistaken credit. It ordered him to repay that amount to the company.

The judgment has taken effect.

The judge said unjust enrichment does not require proof of subjective fault. If one party gains a benefit without legal basis while another suffers a loss, and the two are causally linked, the beneficiary has a legal duty to return the gain.