The fact that he is sued, then there's a ground that he committed a crime.
It was mistakenly sent to his account but he did not tell the bank about that, he himself is aware that the money is not his, so he has to report it to the bank just to be safe. What if for example the amount of money wrongfully sent to his account is link to illegal transactions, and he spent the money, so he might be charge to be connected with the drug transactions, so the morale of the news here is we should be responsible, we should not be greedy.
We cannot judge it only on one side because the initial error occurred because of the negligence of the employee who sent the wrong money, while every employee must have great accuracy and responsibility. So in this case, in my view both are wrong and both can be sued until finally an agreement in the form of kinship by returning the money that has been used is the best way. Because it can't be if only one of them is sued, because the people who received the money and have used it have said they are willing to return it, so in this case there is no longer anything to sue because they admit each other's guilt. It was mistakenly sent to his account but he did not tell the bank about that, he himself is aware that the money is not his, so he has to report it to the bank just to be safe. What if for example the amount of money wrongfully sent to his account is link to illegal transactions, and he spent the money, so he might be charge to be connected with the drug transactions, so the morale of the news here is we should be responsible, we should not be greedy.
But apparently someone believes in it if such comments are made. And in general I do not like the concept that a person is good if he corrected his mistakes. Thus, the life of those who initially lived honestly and did not make any "mistakes" that later required correction is depreciated. 
