4 ms·
Note that this ruling hinges on a corner case where the recipient is owed money by the sender (presumably in an amount less than or equal to the amount sent).
by KMag 6y ago
Note that this ruling hinges on a corner case where the recipient is owed money by the sender (presumably in an amount less than or equal to the amount sent).
In effect, Citibank accidentally paid back loans early. Hopefully their terms didn't include prepayment penalties, so at least they can save on interest.
- Decker87 6y agoExactly. I'm surprised the article is so poor to not explain this.It's slightly more complicated in that there is a dispute about what money was owed when.
- KMag 6y agoUnfortunately, they get fewer page views if it's explained in a way that makes the law seem closer to being reasonable here.
- spacemanmatt 6y agoAlthough the article didn't go deep into the ins and outs of the ramifications, I think the article did a reasonable job of explaining the legal situation relevant to the story to casual readers, albeit at the cost of the backstory. From the article: > If the beneficiary is entitled to the money and did not know it was accidentally wired, they can keep it. Revlon lenders said they believed Citibank was wiring prepayments for a loan.