Succesful return of €7500 to a resident of Denmark

A Danish client mistakenly wired €7,500 to a resident of Ukraine who refused to return it. Disputes Law Firm recovered the full amount through litigation and a court-approved settlement.

A €7,500 payment sent to the wrong recipient, a Ukrainian resident who refused to return it, and a National Bank of Ukraine ban on cross-border currency transfers. How Disputes Law Firm brought the full amount back to the client. Introduction In April 2023, a Danish citizen approached Disputes Law Firm after mistakenly transferring €7,500 to the account of a Ukrainian resident. The recipient refused to return the money voluntarily. The case ended with a settlement agreement approved by the court on February 8 — and the client received the entire amount in his foreign currency account abroad the same day. Background The recipient's banking details had been stored in the client's payment system from earlier charitable transfers to victims in Ukraine. Making another payment, the client selected the saved template, and €7,500 went to a person for whom the money was never intended. The recipient kept the funds. He responded to the client's requests but did not return the money, and by the time the client retained counsel the situation was beyond informal resolution: the payer was in Denmark, the recipient was in Ukraine, and the money sat in the recipient's account. Why the Money Could Not Be Returned the Ordinary Way The difficulty in this case was not proving the mistaken payment but enforcing whatever judgment might follow. In February 2022, the National Bank of Ukraine banned foreign currency transactions and cross-border currency transfers abroad, including transfers made to enforce court decisions. For the client, that meant a judgment in his favor would not give him what he actually needed. The recovered amount would stay in Ukraine, in an account from which it could not be remitted to Denmark. The only workable channel was an attorney holding a foreign currency account outside Ukraine. This shaped the entire strategy: the judgment was not the goal in itself, but a tool to move the funds to the one link in the chain from which they could lawfully reach the client. Legal Position and Steps Taken The firm began with pre-trial resolution and negotiated with the recipient over a voluntary return of the funds. The talks led nowhere: the recipient kept setting new conditions for the transfer, and it became clear that litigation was unavoidable. Attorney Dmytro Chuguienko of Disputes Law Firm prepared and filed the claim and appeared at every hearing. Together with the claim, the firm filed an application for interim measures, and the court froze the funds in the recipient's account. That step locked the disputed amount in place and removed the risk of it being moved before the case ended — without it, any later judgment could have proved unenforceable. During the proceedings both sides concluded that a settlement agreement was the most effective way out. Its terms were built around the mechanism described above: the funds go to the client's representative in Ukraine, attorney Dmytro Chuguienko, who then remits the amount to the client's foreign currency account abroad. In exchange, the client and his representative waive their remaining claims and the case is closed. Outcome On February 8, the court approved the settlement agreement between the parties and dismissed the case. The same day, attorney Dmytro Chuguienko sent the agreed amount to the client. The €7,500 mistakenly transferred was returned to the payer in full. Conclusion Legally, the case illustrates the gap between being right and being paid. A mistaken transfer gives the recipient no ground to keep the money, and the outcome on the merits was never in serious doubt. The real obstacle was wartime currency control, which turns a judgment into a formality when there is no lawful route to move the money across the border. The practical value of the chosen strategy lay in combining two tools. The interim measures secured the disputed sum in the account, while the settlement agreement — with the attorney designated as the link for the onward transfer — delivered the money faster than enforcement proceedings, which under the ban would not have achieved the client's actual goal.