The ATM Sent 20,000 Yuan to a Stranger. The Bank Blamed a Recycled Phone Number.

At an ATM in Xiaogan, Hubei, on Oct. 5, Mr. Xu picked “transfer to phone number.” He typed his own mobile number and sent 20,000 yuan from his father’s bank card. The cash dispenser was empty, so he wanted to move the money to his own account first. No text arrived. At home, his father got the debit alert. The money had gone to an account named “Xu Fei.”

Mr. Xu’s name ends with the same character, “Fei.” The ATM showed only the last character of the recipient’s name. He thought the account was his.

He tested the system again. At the same ATM, he sent 1 yuan to his own number. It went to Xu Fei. He tried two other ATMs owned by the same bank, 1 yuan each. Both went to Xu Fei. Three machines gave the same result.

A typed wrong digit would be a customer error. This was a system mapping error.

Phone-number transfer looks simple. The customer enters a mobile number. The bank looks up which bank card is linked to that number. The money moves.

The weak point is “linked.” A mobile number can be linked to a bank card for years. When the number is stopped and recycled by a telecom operator, the bank’s old binding does not disappear. The number gets a new owner. The bank’s database still points to the old one.

Mr. Xu’s number may have belonged to someone else before it came to him. That person may have bound the number to a bank card and never removed it. The bank did not check whether the person holding the number now was the same person who had bound it then. The ATM showed one character of a name. Mr. Xu saw “Fei” and believed it was himself.

The screen gave him a name fragment. The system gave him a historical binding. The truth was not on the screen.

The first claim is against the recipient. The money sits in Xu Fei’s account. Under Chinese law, that starts a claim of unjust enrichment. Article 985 of the Civil Code says a person who obtains a benefit without a legal basis must return it to the person who suffered the loss.

Money in a bank account is generally treated as owned by the account holder. Mr. Xu cannot say “that is my money, the bank must move it back.” His claim is for the return of an unjust benefit. The person who owes that return is Xu Fei.

Xu Fei’s messages do not help him. He first said he had only one bank card and had not received the money. Then he said he had borrowed from an online lender and the money might have been deducted. Then he said his earlier statements were lies and accused Mr. Xu of being a scammer.

None of those statements gives him a legal right to keep the 20,000 yuan. If an online lender deducted the money, Xu Fei needs to pursue the lender. He cannot pass that loss to Mr. Xu. If he did not receive it, the bank flow will show where it went. If he knew the money was not his and refused to return it, the chat records become evidence against him.

A civil lawsuit for unjust enrichment is the most direct route. Mr. Xu can ask for the 20,000 yuan plus interest for the period the money was held. A police report also matters. Police can help preserve evidence, contact the recipient, and seek a freeze on the account if the facts support it.

The criminal route is narrower. A refusal to return money received by mistake is usually a civil dispute. In some circumstances, it can be discussed as embezzlement. Courts do not treat every mistaken transfer the same way. Mr. Xu should not lead with “he will go to jail.” He should lead with a civil claim and use police help to secure the evidence and the account.

The bank’s system has visible problems. First, it relies on a historical binding. A phone number bound to a card years ago can still receive money today. The bank does not require a strong check that the current real-name holder of the number is the same person as the account holder.

Second, the ATM gives too little information. It shows only the last character of the recipient’s name. A masked full name, the receiving bank, and the date the number was bound would all help. A pop-up that says “recipient: *Fei, bank: X, number bound in 2016” would have stopped Mr. Xu. The technology is not exotic. The question is whether the bank wants to rebuild an old system and pay for the data links.

Third, the data is split. A phone number may be bound to cards at several banks. The paying bank may not know the full current binding status. The telecom operator says it clears only its own system. Third-party bindings must be removed by the user. The bank says the customer can go to a branch for phone-number verification. Both statements are reasonable on their own. The risk lands on the customer.

Legal liability does not follow automatically from a design fault. In Chinese court practice, the key question is whether the bank actually kept the money.

If the bank deducted the money to offset a debt, a court may order the bank to return it. The bank’s right of set-off cannot defeat the claim of a person who sent money by mistake.

If the bank was only a channel and the money stayed in the recipient’s account, the bank usually is not treated as unjustly enriched. The claim runs against the recipient.

Mr. Xu’s case looks like the second type. The bank did not keep the 20,000 yuan. It followed an old binding and moved the money. A direct lawsuit against the bank for the 20,000 yuan is weaker than it looks.

That does not mean the bank has no responsibility. The pressure point is different. The bank cannot simply debit Xu Fei’s account because Mr. Xu is anxious. If a bank could move money out of one customer’s account to fix another customer’s mistake, the next mistake could run in the other direction. Due process protects every account holder. The bank cannot skip it because the customer is upset.

The better route is a written complaint to the financial regulator, including the 12378 hotline. The complaint should not be only “my money is gone, pay me.” It should ask concrete questions. How does the bank verify that the current real-name holder of a phone number is the same person as the bound account holder? How does the bank handle a phone number that was recycled by a telecom operator? Why does the ATM show only the last character of the recipient’s name? Will the bank add a confirmation screen showing the masked name, the receiving bank, and the binding date? What is the bank’s written plan and timeline for fixing the system?

Those questions reach the compliance and technology departments. A complaint that stays at the counter reaches only an apology and a paper cup.

The telecom operator’s role is real but harder to pin down. Recycling phone numbers is normal. The problem is what happens after recycling. A number is not just a string of digits. It can carry bank cards, payment apps, delivery accounts, social accounts, and loan accounts.

The telecom operator says it clears its own system when an old number is stopped and reissued. It says third-party platform bindings must be removed by the user. If the binding is in a bank system, the user should contact the bank. That is accurate as far as it goes. It also leaves the new user to discover the old bindings one by one.

Some experts argue that an operator that fails to warn a new user about possible financial bindings can bear supplementary liability. That means it pays in its own range of fault when the direct debtor cannot pay. The idea has force. The proof is difficult. Mr. Xu would need to show a specific breach: a freeze period that was too short, a missing warning, a failed assistance process. The number has been in use for years. The trail is cold.

The better fix sits at the system level: a warning at resale, a status link between telecom and bank systems, and a single entry point where a new number holder can query and unbind financial accounts. Those are cost questions, not technical mysteries.

What Mr. Xu should do now. First, preserve evidence. Keep the transfer receipts, the bank statements, the ATM slips, the police report, the chat records, the call logs, the bank branch explanation, and the date he activated the phone number. The three 1-yuan transfers matter. They prove a system mapping error, not a one-time typo.

Second, sue the recipient. File an unjust enrichment claim against Xu Fei for 20,000 yuan plus interest. With the receipts and the three test transfers, the evidence is straightforward. A court mediation or judgment is a more credible pressure point than a WeChat argument over who is the scammer.

Third, keep the police report active. Ask whether the account can be frozen while the civil case proceeds. Police cannot resolve every mistaken transfer, but they can help with evidence and contact.

Fourth, file a written complaint against the bank with the financial regulator. Focus on the system: real-name verification, historical bindings, name display, and the absence of a confirmation screen. Ask for a written reply. An oral explanation at the branch is not a fix.

Fifth, complain to the telecom operator about the recycled-number warning process. Ask what notice is given to a new number holder, what freeze period applies, and what help is offered for financial unbinding.

Sixth, if a new phone number comes into the family, go to the bank and run a phone-number verification. Clear the old bindings. This is not a cure for the past. It is a lock for the next time.

The argument about responsibility can run for months. The practical fix is smaller than the argument. Before a phone-number transfer, the screen should show the recipient’s masked legal name, the receiving bank, and the date the number was bound. If the number was recently recycled, the screen should say so and require a second confirmation. The customer should not have to guess from one character.

Until that screen exists, the only reliable combination is card number plus account name. A phone number is a convenience. It is not an identity. An ATM that shows one character of a name is not telling the customer who will receive the money. It is asking the customer to trust a database that may be years out of date.

Mr. Xu’s 20,000 yuan should go back to Mr. Xu. The person who owes it is Xu Fei. The institution that should explain its system is the bank. The regulator that should ask for a timeline is the financial authority. And the next customer at the ATM should see more than one character before the money leaves the account.