A woman accidentally transferred 71 million VND instead of 71,000 VND to a Grab driver, leading to a dispute over the refund process.
On March 21, 2025, V.L.L. expressed her frustration over not receiving the 71 million VND she mistakenly sent to the Grab driver N.T.Q. This mishap occurred on March 15, 2025, when she booked a GrabBike in Vung Tau, Vietnam. Upon finishing her ride, she mistakenly transferred 71 million VND for the fare instead of the intended 71,000 VND. When she attempted to contact the driver to rectify the situation, she found that he had turned off his phone.
Two days after the incident, seeking assistance, V.L.L. posted the driver’s information on social media, hoping someone might help her retrieve her funds. This action, however, led to a further complication when the driver’s family demanded a public apology before they would agree to return the money. “We would like to thank the online community for their concern and sharing,” the family posted on social media, suggesting that the driver had been unreachable due to personal matters, which resulted in misunderstanding.
A meeting has been set for March 25, 2025, to resolve the situation and return the funds. However, tensions remain high between both parties. Lawyer Truong Van Tuan commented, “Grab needs to cooperate in resolving the issue according to their management regulations.” He also suggested that N.T.Q could consider legal action against V.L.L. for sharing his personal information online, stating that if the driver believes his reputation has been damaged, he could sue her in civil court.
Legal experts affirm that, according to Vietnamese law, the person who receives money due to error holds the responsibility to return that amount. “If the recipient intentionally does not return the money or is unable to return it, this action may be considered illegal appropriation of property,” noted Lawyer Tran Thi Thanh Thao. Actions deemed as holding money wrongfully could lead to administrative fines or criminal prosecution.
Many people following the unfolding story have raised questions about why N.T.Q did not self-initiate contact with V.L.L. to return the mistakenly transferred amount immediately after the incident. Settling such dilemmas typically takes time, with regulations suggesting that recipients should return such funds within 10 to 15 days, although actual results may vary based on various factors.
On March 19, during a meeting at a local agency in Vung Tau, the driver and his family attempted to work with V.L.L. to address her claim, but they could not agree on a course of action. The family's insistence on L. publicly apologizing before returning the money turned into a roadblock, complicating what should be a straightforward dispute resolution. In her defense, V.L.L. stated that she had attempted multiple times to contact the driver and even sought help from Grab to return her funds, but those efforts led nowhere, hence her public plea for help.
Grab has responded by placing N.T.Q's account on hold and advising V.L.L. to report the incident to authorities. This response indicates Grab’s willingness to assist in the situation while also fulfilling their responsibility in appropriately managing driver misconduct. The company has stated, “We are prepared to support information and work closely when requested by the authorities.”
Moving forward, the scheduled meeting on March 25 promises to be crucial for both parties. Family members from both sides have expressed hope that this meeting will lead to a resolution. In one recent update on social media, L.'s family stated their gratitude for the community's concern while also recognizing the driver’s family’s difficult situation. They stated, “We hope the online community can bring joy,” indicating their desire for a prompt and amicable end to the matter.
This incident sends ripples beyond the immediate participants, highlighting the importance of clarity and attentiveness in financial transactions, especially through digital means. Legal advocates emphasize the fundamental right of individuals to reclaim their funds, stressing that miscommunication and modern transaction methods can complicate simple matters. Given the legal guidelines, the expectation remains that the driver ultimately fulfills his obligation to return the mistakenly sent funds, and as this case evolves, its outcome could shed light on consumer rights in Vietnam's burgeoning digital economy.
