Driver who received R$131 million by mistake has been waiting for 1 year for compensation Driver Antônio Pereira do Nascimento received R$131.8 million by mistake in his account in 2023, returned the amount and is now seeking a reward in court, in addition to compensation for moral damages. The request is based on an interpretation of the Civil Code that guarantees payment to anyone who returns lost property, but the application of this rule to bank transfers made in error is still the subject of legal dispute. The case gained a new chapter this year. After dismissing witnesses, the judge decided not to hear the motions for clarification presented by the driver's defense. In practice, the appeal was not analyzed due to a procedural issue. But is it possible to be entitled to a reward in this case? Lawyer Vivian Furukawa, in an interview with g1 held in January, explained that the action rekindles a rare debate in the Judiciary: can a bank deposit made in error be considered a "lost thing"? If so, the law provides for the payment of a reward to the person responsible for returning it. ? Motions for clarification are a procedural instrument used to request clarification or correction of points considered omitted, contradictory or unclear in a judicial decision, in cases provided for by law. ? Click here to follow the g1 TO channel on WhatsApp Understand the law Vivian Furukawa explained that Antônio's request is based on articles 1,233 and 1,234 of the Civil Code, which deal with the so-called "discovery of someone else's lost property". The rule provides that the discoverer receives a reward of at least 5% of the value of the returned item, in addition to possible compensation for conservation and transportation expenses. The lawyer summarizes the two pillars of the law: ? Duty to return -- The legislation determines that anyone who finds a “lost other person's thing” must return it to the owner or hand it over to the competent authority. It is a legal obligation, not a choice. ? Right to reward -- Article 1,234 guarantees the discoverer a minimum reward of 5% of the value of the returned item, in addition to compensation for any conservation or transportation expenses. In Antônio's request, the 10% claimed exceeds the minimum provided by law, but follows the understanding that the amount returned, even if virtual, could be considered a lost asset. “The discussion — and where the bank should focus its defense — is whether a wrong bank transfer fits into the concept of ‘lost thing’,” explained lawyer Vivian Furukawa. Driver received almost R$ 132 million by mistake Reproduction/TV Anhanguera She points out that jurisprudence usually differentiates between two situations: Finding a physical item, such as a suitcase with money, when the owner is unknown and the person needs to act actively to locate it. Receiving a value by mistake, such as a wrong PIX or TED, whose sender is traceable and in which the bank is able to reverse the operation as an accounting correction, and not as a finding. This difference can be decisive for the driver's case. "It's a very peculiar case, which could create jurisprudence on how the law views 'finding' in the virtual environment. If the court understands that the banking system equates 'Pix's error' with a 'lost thing', it will give the right to Antonio and open up room for other processes", he said. responded until the last update of this report. READ ALSO: Deposit by mistake and legal dispute: see chronology of the case of driver who received R$ 131 million from the bank Driver who received R$ 131 million by mistake lives with the expectation that justice will be done Millionaire for a day, fame and trouble: what is known about the driver who received R$ 131 million by mistake and now sues the bank Antônio Pereira became a millionaire for seven hours Reproduction/TV Anhanguera The process continues without a deadline to judge the requests made by the driver. Antônio asked for 10% of the amount returned, equivalent to R$13 million, as a reward. In addition, he stated that he had suffered psychological pressure from the bank manager and said that his account was classified as VIP, which would have generated undue charges. For this reason, he also asked for compensation for moral damages. I didn't have a van. This could have been bought, but I didn't buy it. I could have bought it and then paid for the van. That's the only way I would buy it: first the van, then I would pay. But I didn't buy it. I didn't do that", he said. See the chronology of the case of the deposit of R$ 131 million made by mistake to Antônio Pereira Arte g1 See more news from the region on g1 Tocantins.