## Facts

- Al‑Jazeera hired Winmar, Inc. to perform construction work in Washington, D.C., with payments to be wired to Winmar’s designated Citibank account.
- In December 2005, Qatar National Bank (QNB), acting as sender for Al‑Jazeera, transmitted $474,677 via Fedwire (through a correspondent bank) to Citibank, and the funds were credited to Winmar.
- On January 30, 2006, QNB mistakenly transmitted a second $474,677 wire to the same account, duplicating the December payment.
- At the time of the duplicate transfer, Al‑Jazeera owed Winmar no more than $355,297, so the second transfer exceeded any remaining contractual obligation.
- Winmar learned of the duplicate payment on February 24, 2006, when Al‑Jazeera notified it; Winmar had not credited Al‑Jazeera for the second payment and retained the funds.
- QNB demanded return of the mistaken funds; Winmar refused, asserting a “discharge‑for‑value” defense under UCC Article 4A.
- QNB sued for money had and received (mistaken payment) and unjust enrichment, and moved for summary judgment.
- Winmar failed to file the required statement of genuine issues disputing QNB’s material facts under D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 7(h), so the court treated QNB’s supported facts as admitted.

## Issues

1. Whether QNB was entitled to restitution for a mistaken duplicate wire transfer paid to Winmar in excess of any debt owed.
2. Whether Winmar could retain the duplicate payment under a UCC Article 4A “discharge‑for‑value” theory.
3. Whether any genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment, given Winmar’s noncompliance with Local Civil Rule 7(h).

## Decision

- The court granted QNB’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held the January 30, 2006 transfer was an undisputed mistaken duplicate payment and that Winmar had no right to retain the overpayment.
- The court rejected Winmar’s Article 4A discharge‑for‑value defense because the payment exceeded any valid obligation and Winmar retained the excess after notice of the mistake.
- Judgment was entered requiring Winmar to return the mistakenly transferred funds.

## Legal Principles

- A recipient who obtains money by mistake may be required to make restitution under theories such as money had and received and unjust enrichment when retention would confer a windfall beyond any legal entitlement.
- Under D.D.C. Local Civil Rule 7(h), failure to submit a proper statement of genuine issues can result in the movant’s supported material facts being treated as admitted, and the court need not search the record to locate disputes.
- UCC Article 4A’s loss-allocation rules for funds transfers do not protect a beneficiary’s retention of a mistaken duplicate payment that exceeds the amount actually owed, particularly after the beneficiary receives notice of the error.

## Conclusion

The court ordered return of a mistaken duplicate wire transfer because the undisputed facts showed an overpayment beyond any debt owed and because Article 4A’s discharge‑for‑value concept did not justify retaining excess funds after notice, making summary judgment for restitution proper.


Qatar National Bank v. Winmar, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2009)