Mistaken instant transfers in Jordan: From unjust enrichment to criminal liability

Wrong-recipient transfers in instant-payment systems involve correct execution of an authenticated order but a payer’s mistake as to the beneficiary identifier. Jordanian practice oscillates between treating the outcome as civil undue payment and escalating to criminal proceedings when the recipient retains the funds. This article develops a sequenced account that separates (1) execution under the payment-service contract, (2) private-law entitlement to the credit, and (3) conditions for penal attribution. It anchors that sequence in the doctrine of causa in obligations, unjust enrichment and payment of the undue, and it reads Penal Code Article 424 against Jordanian judgments and comparative wrongful-credit models. As a matter of private law, a misdirected transfer does not extinguish the payer’s debt to the intended creditor unless performance reached that creditor or an authorised representative; the mistaken beneficiary’s enrichment is prima facie without causa and triggers restitution. As a matter of criminal attribution, the initiating transfer is voluntary, so liability should not be built through expansive theft or fraud analogies. Article 424 should apply only after a provable knowledge/notice point at which the recipient actually learns of the mistake and then engages in conversion. The proposed Article 424 checklist is cumulative as to mistaken receipt, actual knowledge and post-knowledge conversion, while the listed conversion behaviours are alternative indicators of the same material element. The result is a workable boundary that preserves civil autonomy, targets opportunistic retention, clarifies the burden of proving notice, and supports regulatory guidance for banks and payment service providers.