A 47-year-old Indian national, Periyasamy Mathiyazhagan, has been sentenced to nine weeks in prison by a Singapore court for failing to return SGD 25,000 (approximately ₹16 lakh) mistakenly transferred to his bank account. The funds were meant for a personal loan repayment by a company administrator. Despite knowing the money did not belong to him, Mathiyazhagan used it to pay off debts and remitted some to his family in India. His case raises questions about accountability and the ethical implications of misappropriating funds received by mistake.
Details of the Incident
On April 6, 2023, an administrator at a plumbing and engineering firm mistakenly transferred SGD 25,000 into Mathiyazhagan’s account, thinking it was intended for the company’s account. After realizing the error, the administrator informed both Mathiyazhagan and his bank. However, due to a mix-up with addresses, the recovery letter sent by the bank reached the company instead of Mathiyazhagan. By May 2023, he had already transferred the entire amount to another account and used it to settle his debts. In court, he admitted to knowing the money was not rightfully his but claimed he had no means to return it without a repayment plan.
Background Context
Mathiyazhagan worked for the firm from 2021 until 2022. The legal troubles began when the erroneous transfer occurred, leading to a police complaint filed by the administrator on May 23, 2023. Investigations revealed that Mathiyazhagan had discovered the funds earlier that month but chose to use them rather than return them. This incident highlights systemic issues within financial institutions regarding communication and accountability when errors occur.
Questions and Answers
1. What led to Periyasamy Mathiyazhagan’s imprisonment?
Mathiyazhagan was imprisoned for misappropriating SGD 25,000 that was mistakenly transferred to his account by a company administrator who believed it was for the company’s account. Despite knowing it wasn’t his money, he used it for personal debts and sent some to his family in India 123.
2. How did the mistake happen?
The transfer occurred when an administrator at Mathiyazhagan’s former firm intended to pay off a personal loan but mistakenly sent it to his account instead of the company’s 12.
3. What actions were taken after the mistake was discovered?
After realizing the error, the administrator informed both Mathiyazhagan’s bank and later filed a police complaint when recovery attempts failed 23.
4. What was Mathiyazhagan’s defense during court proceedings?
He pleaded guilty and explained that he had used the money to settle debts and had remitted part of it back home. However, he did not offer any restitution during or after the trial 123.
5. What are the broader implications of this case?
This incident raises questions about ethical responsibility regarding accidentally received funds and highlights potential legal repercussions in such scenarios, especially in jurisdictions like Singapore where laws are strict.
