{"id":4546,"date":"2026-08-10T09:00:05","date_gmt":"2026-08-10T02:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/wrong-bank-transfer-in-thailand-how-to-get-your-money-back\/"},"modified":"2026-08-10T09:00:05","modified_gmt":"2026-08-10T02:00:05","slug":"wrong-bank-transfer-in-thailand-how-to-get-your-money-back","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thailawonline.com\/th\/wrong-bank-transfer-in-thailand-how-to-get-your-money-back\/","title":{"rendered":"Wrong Bank Transfer in Thailand: How to Get Your Money Back"},"content":{"rendered":"

You tap “confirm” on your banking app, and 31,000 baht disappears into a stranger’s account because one digit of the account number was wrong. It happens every day in Thailand \u2014 to Thais and to expats paying rent, sending money to a spouse, or settling a builder’s invoice. For years, banks routinely told the sender it was their problem: “we cannot reverse the transfer, contact the account holder yourself.” A recent Supreme Court decision, Dika No. 8557\/2568<\/strong>, changes that conversation. The Court held that a bank must return money mistakenly transferred into a suspicious account, and that a bank cannot simply shrug and leave the victim to chase an unreachable stranger.<\/p>\n

This article explains what the Supreme Court decided, the legal rules behind mistaken transfers under the Thai Civil and Commercial Code, and the practical steps to take \u2014 in order \u2014 if you ever send money to the wrong account in Thailand.<\/p>\n

Dika 8557\/2568: the case in brief<\/h2>\n

The facts were painfully ordinary. In March 2020, a woman tried to transfer 31,000 baht from her bank account to her daughter. She mistyped a single digit of the account number. The money landed in the account of a Myanmar national \u2014 an account that had been opened the same day<\/em>, a hallmark of the “mule accounts” used in online scams. She reported the mistake immediately, the police issued an order freezing the funds, and she asked the bank to return her money. The bank refused, arguing it had no contract with her that required it to hand over money sitting in another customer’s account.<\/p>\n

The trial court (sitting as a consumer case) ordered the bank to pay. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court’s Consumer Cases Division restored the trial judgment: the bank had to return the 31,000 baht plus interest at 3% per year from the date of filing until payment.<\/p>\n

The legal reasoning<\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court relied on several provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC):<\/p>\n