Look at the Citibank Revlon case from last year [0]. In a clerical error, Citi sent $900m to a bunch of hedge funds, related to some Revlon debt. It asked for it back. It got about $400m. It sued for the other $500m… and lost in court.
I’m not saying this is identical to that case, which depended upon New York law. But it is far from clear-cut and I think you are being way too confident in your view, since nothing like this has ever appeared in court.
The document you cited actually supports toomuchtodo’s position:
“The law generally treats a failure to return money that is wired by mistake as unjust enrichment or conversion and requires that the recipient return such money to its sender. Under New York law (which applies here), however, there is an exception to this rule: The recipient is allowed to keep the funds if they discharge a valid debt, the recipient made no misrepresentations to induce the payment, and the recipient did not have notice of the mistake.”
I’m assuming no debt was owed to these random people.
If I am not mistaken, In Citi's case the hedge funds were going to get that money anyway but a bit later, they thought they got the money early, so they kept it.
I’m not saying this is identical to that case, which depended upon New York law. But it is far from clear-cut and I think you are being way too confident in your view, since nothing like this has ever appeared in court.
[0] the decision: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rrBrQQPB...