A 46-year-old masseur in Singapore immediately alerted the bank and the police after he discovered he had transferred S$5,000 to the wrong account via an ATM machine in Sembawang on Nov. 15, 2022.

However, in December 2022, the bank informed the man, surnamed Yu (transliteration), that it could not help him get the sum back as the bank could not get in touch with the recipient, reported Shin Min Daily News.

It was not until six months later that Yu finally found out that the account he accidentally transferred the money to belonged to a logistics company and contacted its director via WeChat with the help of the police.

To Yu's surprise, instead of getting his money back, the company director, surnamed Guo (transliteration), kept asking him to prove that the transfer did not involve money laundering or fraud.

What happened

Speaking to Shin Min, Yu said he made the transfer in 2022 after he was entrusted by his friend in China to send the money to the latter's son, who was studying in Singapore.

He subsequently made a transfer at an ATM machine at Sembawang MRT station.

Yu only realised he had selected the wrong recipient after his friend told him that their son never received the transfer.

"I am not sure whether I had the logistics company's account from before and selected it as the recipient because I previously helped someone else to make a payment," shared Yu.

Yu said he alerted the bank immediately after finding out his mistake and lodged a police report the next day.

The Singapore Police Force (SPF) confirmed with Shin Min that a police report was lodged and investigations are ongoing.

Kept finding excuses not to return money: Yu

After contacting Guo, Yu informed him that he had mistakenly transferred S$5,000 to his company and asked Guo to return the money, reported Shin Min.

To support his claims, Yu also showed Guo the police report he lodged and the transfer record.

While Yu thought he would be able to get his money back, little did he know that this would only be the start of a prolonged back-and-forth.

According to Yu, Guo initially said his company would need to investigate the case.

Later on, he told Yu that he had relinquished the ownership of his company in September 2023.

He also asked Yu multiple times for evidence to show that the transfer did not involve money laundering or fraud.

In response, Yu said if Guo thought the money was suspicious, he should have handed it to the police for investigation.

"If the police found issues with it and want to confiscate it, I will not object. However, Guo cannot just keep my money in his pocket and refuse to return it to me," lamented Yu.

Yu still hasn't received money back after 21 months

Yu added that even when he told Guo that he would need the money back to pay for his father's medical bills in June 2023, Guo apparently still said he would need to investigate, reported Shin Min.

A screenshot of Yu and Guo's conversation on WeChat in the same month also showed that Guo had requested Yu to find sureties in Singapore.

This would ensure that the company could get the sum back if the money was found to be sent by someone else after the company returned the money to Yu.

After Yu's father passed away in July 2023, Yu flew back to China for his father's funeral.

At the time, he asked Guo to return the money again, but there was no response.

As of September 2024, 21 months has passed since Yu made the transfer, and there are no signs of getting the money back.

Guo's response

When Shin Min approached Guo, he pointed out how different his company's bank account number was from Yu's friend's bank account number.

This was why he became suspicious of the money, as there was no way Yu could have transferred the money solely out of negligence.

Guo added that when Yu spoke to his friend, they mentioned the costs of shipping items back to China.

Hence, he said he could not rule out that the money was meant to be shipping payment, and he needed to make sure Yu was not scamming him before returning the money.

When Shin Min asked whether Guo could verify Yu's claims by checking his company's accounts, Guo said he could not access the records as he had transferred the ownership of the company to someone else.

He also insisted that Yu should be the one proving that the transfer was not a fraud.

According to Shin Min, the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA) records indicated that Guo is the sole director and shareholder of the logistics company.

Yu could escalate case to civil and criminal courts: Lawyer

A lawyer told Shin Min that if Yu's account of events was true, he could request for his money back by escalating this case to the civil and criminal courts.

The logistics company "does not have the right" to keep the sum and that it should hand the money to the police immediately if it finds the money suspicious.

It is against the law for the recipients to keep and use money transferred to them when they are aware that the transfer was made by mistake, added the lawyer.

In July 2024, a National Environment Agency (NEA) officer, 59, was fined S$5,000 after he admitted to withdrawing and using a S$20,000 PayNow transfer sent to him by mistake.

The victim had initially planned to transfer the amount from his DBS corporate business account to his personal account, which was linked to his mobile number.

However, he mistakenly keyed in the officer's number because it only had one different digit from his mobile number.

Related stories

Top image via Shin Min Daily News