2024年12月26日，浙江寧波發生一起因轉帳失誤而引發的高額資金糾紛事件，引起社會廣泛關注。李女士在使用手機銀行進行轉帳時，因誤選同名帳戶，將高達240萬元人民幣錯誤轉入一名被法院列為被執行人的帳戶，最終導致資金被凍結且無法追回，陷入漫長且複雜的法律程序。

事情的起因源於一筆民間借貸。李女士原本是為了協助朋友杜大姐償還一筆共計305萬元的借款，其中240萬元需先轉交給一名中間人賈莹，再由對方統籌處理還款事宜。然而，在操作手機銀行轉帳時，系統自動跳出與收款人姓名高度相似的帳戶選項。由於姓名僅一字之差，加上姓氏不同，李女士在未進行充分核對的情況下，誤將款項轉入名為「尹莹」的帳戶，轉帳程序隨即完成。

李女士很快發現轉帳異常，卻已為時過晚。經查證，收款人尹莹並非原定的中間人，而是一名因經營性貸款嚴重逾期而陷入債務危機的被執行人。早在2024年5月，尹莹便因拖欠銀行貸款高達700萬元，被銀行起訴並依法申請財產保全，其名下多個帳戶已遭法院全面凍結。李女士誤轉的240萬元進入該帳戶後，立即被納入執行範圍，並因銀行債權屬於優先受償順位，相關款項被其他債權人依法劃扣，導致資金完全無法取出。

在多方聯繫無果後，李女士選擇透過法律途徑維權。2025年2月，法院作出一審判決，認定尹莹構成不當得利，依法應返還李女士240萬元。然而，判決結果並未真正解決問題。由於尹莹長期失聯，且其名下財產早已被多重執行措施控制，即使法院判決成立，實際執行仍面臨極大困難，返款遙遙無期。

2025年11月，李女士進一步向法院提出執行異議，主張該筆款項屬於誤轉資金，不應納入對尹莹的債務清償範圍。然而法院審理後認為，李女士對尹莹僅享有一般民事債權，無法對抗銀行依法享有的優先執行權，因此裁定駁回其異議申請。目前，李女士已依法提起執行異議之訴，案件仍在等待開庭審理，最終結果尚未出爐。

此案也引發銀行業與法律界的高度關注。多名律師指出，在現行法律框架下，誤轉帳款一旦進入被執行人帳戶，且遭法院查封或凍結，原轉帳人往往處於極為不利的地位，即便主觀上不存在過錯，也難以突破既有的執行秩序。銀行方面則再次提醒民眾，進行大額轉帳時務必反覆核對收款人姓名、帳號及銀行資訊，避免依賴系統自動填充功能，並建議啟用「延時到帳」或「轉帳撤回冷靜期」等風險控管機制。

這起事件充分暴露了數位支付時代下，看似便捷的金融操作背後所潛藏的高風險。一次看似微小的疏忽，可能導致數百萬元資金長期被凍結，甚至最終無法追回。對一般民眾而言，這不僅是一堂昂貴的金融風險課，也再次提醒，在快速與便利之外，謹慎與確認，仍是資金安全最重要的防線。

On December 26, 2024, a high-value transfer mistake in Ningbo, Zhejiang Province, drew widespread public attention after a woman inadvertently sent a massive sum of money to the wrong bank account, triggering a complex legal dispute. Ms. Li mistakenly transferred 2.4 million yuan to the account of Yin Ying, a court-listed enforcement debtor, due to a name-selection error during a mobile banking transaction. Because the recipient’s account had already been frozen by the court, the funds became inaccessible and could not be recovered.

The incident stemmed from a private loan arrangement. Ms. Li had intended to help her friend, known as Ms. Du, repay a debt totaling 3.05 million yuan. Of that amount, 2.4 million yuan was to be transferred to an intermediary named Jia Ying, who would then handle the repayment process. However, while making the transfer via a mobile banking app, the system automatically populated a list of accounts with similar names. Due to a single-character difference in the given name and a different surname, Ms. Li mistakenly selected an account belonging to Yin Ying. Without carefully verifying the details, she completed the transaction.

Ms. Li soon realized something was wrong, but it was already too late. Subsequent checks revealed that Yin Ying was not the intended intermediary but an individual facing a severe debt crisis. As early as May 2024, Yin Ying had been sued by a bank for defaulting on an operating loan totaling 7 million yuan, leading the court to freeze multiple accounts under her name. When Ms. Li’s mistakenly transferred 2.4 million yuan entered the frozen account, it was immediately brought under enforcement control. Because bank claims enjoy priority in enforcement proceedings, the funds were deducted to satisfy outstanding debts, leaving no possibility for withdrawal.

After repeated attempts to resolve the matter failed, Ms. Li turned to the courts. In February 2025, a court ruled that Yin Ying had committed unjust enrichment and was legally obligated to return the 2.4 million yuan. However, the ruling did not bring practical relief. Yin Ying had been out of contact for an extended period, and her assets were already subject to multiple enforcement actions. As a result, despite the favorable judgment, actual recovery of the funds proved extremely difficult.

In November 2025, Ms. Li filed an enforcement objection, arguing that the funds were transferred by mistake and should not be used to repay Yin Ying’s debts. The court rejected the objection, holding that Ms. Li’s claim constituted an ordinary civil debt and could not override the bank’s legally protected priority right to enforcement. Ms. Li has since filed a formal lawsuit challenging the enforcement decision, and the case is still awaiting trial.

The case has attracted significant attention from the banking sector and legal professionals. Lawyers have pointed out that under the current legal framework, once mistakenly transferred funds enter the account of an enforcement debtor and are frozen or seized by the court, the original sender is often placed in a highly disadvantaged position. Even when there is no subjective fault, it is difficult to disrupt the established order of enforcement. Banks have reiterated warnings to the public to exercise extreme caution when making large transfers, advising customers to double-check recipient names, account numbers, and bank details, avoid overreliance on auto-fill functions, and activate delayed transfer or cooling-off features where available.

This incident highlights the hidden risks behind the convenience of digital payments in the modern era. A single moment of inattention can result in millions of yuan being frozen for years, or even permanently lost. For ordinary citizens, it serves as a costly lesson in financial risk awareness and a stark reminder that, beyond speed and efficiency, vigilance and verification remain the most essential safeguards for protecting one’s assets.