Who Must Return Money Mistakenly Sent to a Taiwan Account

An American freelancer in Taipei tried to pay a local collaborator and instead sent the fee to a stranger: they owed the account holder nothing and had no contract with them. This is an invented example. The confirmation records the amount, time and destination account; the invoice shows a different account number. Asked about the transfer, the holder sent a one-line reply: the money had gone to living expenses.

Article 179 of Taiwan's Civil Code requires someone who receives a benefit without legal cause, thereby causing another person a loss, to return that benefit. The rule also covers a legal cause that existed at first but later disappeared. In this example, the payment had no legal cause from the outset: no debt or contract entitled the holder to receive it.

The account name and the person who benefited

For the example as described, Article 179 connects three elements. The money credited to the holder's account is the benefit; the corresponding money lost by the freelancer is the loss. The absence of a debt or contract explains why this recipient had no legal basis for the payment. Those elements must connect the recipient's benefit with the sender's loss. An unfamiliar name alone does not establish them.

Now change one detail in the hypothetical: the holder says a relative withdrew the cash. Who should repay? Article 179 places the duty on the person who received the benefit. That reply alone does not establish that the relative was that person. Identifying the beneficiary requires more than choosing between the account name and the name of whoever collected the cash. Nor does the article assign liability merely because the account is personal or belongs to a business.

Keep the invoice and transfer confirmation together: one records the intended payment destination, while the other shows where the money went, making the account-number error visible. The numbers differ. Any later account of the withdrawal belongs alongside them, with its source clear: what the holder said, what a record shows, and what remains unconfirmed. The example supplies no finding about who a court would ultimately hold responsible.

Recovery from the recipient also leaves a separate contractual question: what happens to the fee owed to the collaborator? Article 179 governs return of the recipient's benefit; it does not say that a mistaken transfer discharges a debt under another contract. The collaborator's payment claim needs to be considered under that contract.

Four payments that cannot be reclaimed

Before calculating repayment, consider the purpose and circumstances of the payment. Article 180 bars a demand for return in four cases:

Entering the wrong account number alone does not establish that the payment performed a moral obligation or that the payer knew no duty existed when paying to discharge a debt, as required by Article 180, items 1 and 3. Discovering the mistake afterward does not establish that earlier knowledge. In our example, the freelancer was also not paying off an unmatured debt owed to the holder.

Other transfers may fall within another exclusion, depending on the arrangement behind the payment. The fourth exclusion retains its exception where only the recipient has the unlawful cause; calling a payment unlawful without considering whose side the cause lies on would omit part of Article 180. The account-number error alone therefore does not settle whether the sender can recover.

What must be returned

Article 181 covers the original benefit and anything further obtained from it. The recipient must return both. If the nature of the benefit or other circumstances make return impossible, the recipient must repay its value.

Did the credited money earn interest, or was it used to obtain another gain? The confirmation does not answer that. Any such further acquisition falls within Article 181, if it occurred. Bank interest is only an example; the provision is not limited to that kind of gain. Assessing the return amount requires evidence of what the recipient obtained, not just the sender's transfer amount.

Spending the money and learning of the mistake

Under Article 182, paragraph 1, a recipient escapes both return of the benefit and repayment of its value only if they did not know there was no legal cause and the benefit no longer exists. Spending alone does not establish disappearance of the benefit. The holder's living-expenses reply leaves that second condition unresolved.

An unaware recipient whose benefit remains does not qualify for release under Article 182(1), and must still return it as required by Article 179 and Article 181.

Knowledge at receipt and knowledge acquired later have different reference points under Article 182, paragraph 2. Someone who knew at receipt that there was no legal cause must repay the benefit obtained at receipt, plus interest. Someone who learned later must repay the benefit still existing when they learned, plus interest. If there is loss, the recipient must also compensate it.

No rate appears in Article 182. Nor does that article expressly make the transfer date or credit time the starting date for interest. Its reference to the benefit existing when the recipient learns of the missing legal cause should not be turned into a claim that every mistaken transfer earns interest from the day it was sent.

What the reply can help establish

In the hypothetical, the confirmation dates the credit, while the message records the holder's explanation. Preserve the exact reply and its arrival date, together with the request that prompted it. That exchange may help assess when the holder learned there was no legal cause, the question raised by Article 182(2). The reply's arrival date is evidence to consider, not a date the article automatically treats as the moment of knowledge.

Contacting the bank is a practical way to trace the error and request a correction. The mismatched account numbers give that inquiry a concrete starting point. Articles 179, 180, 181 and 182 impose no bank duty to reverse the transfer or disclose deposit information. Any bank-specific procedure needs separate confirmation with the bank.

Procedure and costs are discussed in small claims and simplified civil procedure. This column addresses the first recipient's civil repayment duty. It does not cover deception, account freezes, criminal proceedings, foreign-exchange reporting or the law a court outside Taiwan would apply.

Questions about the transfer records can be sent to Hovering International Law Firm at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw.

The freelancer can match the transfer to an account. To fill the gaps left by the living-expenses reply, the next exchange needs to address what the holder spent it on and when.

Official sources

• Taiwan Civil Code Article 179, Article 180, Article 181, Article 182 — national laws database, checked October 14, 2026.