Globo manages to seize house from man who bought a R$ 318 house using an incorrect Pix payment method. See the property.
The case was judged this Monday (21) by the 3rd Civil Court of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro
247 - Globo has successfully blocked a house purchase by a man who received an incorrect payment of R$ 318 from the network last December. The judge ruled that the man had misappropriated money that did not belong to him. The decision can be appealed to a higher court. reporter is from the TV News portal.
The case was judged this Monday (21) by the 3rd Civil Court of the Court of Justice of Rio de Janeiro. According to the decision signed by the presiding judge Luiz Felipe Negrão, to which the column had access, the Brazilian media conglomerate explained that the mistake in the deposited money was caused by a lack of updating of the data of who should receive the amount in Globo's financial system.
The controversy began on December 27, 2021. Globo claimed that it had reached a labor agreement with a journalist and, by court order, made the deposit that day. However, the responsible department sent the amount to the account of Marco Antônio Rodrigues dos Santos, a man who had nothing to do with the matter.
After noticing the error, Globo contacted the man via WhatsApp and Telegram, and received information that Marco Antônio had bought a house in the Irajá neighborhood, in the northern part of Rio. Indignant about the fact, the broadcaster went to court to try to block the use of this property and prove that there had been misappropriation of unlawful money.
In the ruling that favored Globo, Judge Luiz Felipe Negrão stated that there is documentary evidence that Marco Antônio Rodrigues appropriated funds to which he was not entitled. According to the judge, the man had to investigate the origin of the unlawful sum he received, and the broadcaster is within its rights to attempt to recover the funds.
"Given that there is documentary evidence accompanying the initial petition and its amendment, indicating that the defendant did indeed appropriate an amount he should not have received, and further, that prior to the filing of the lawsuit he was contacted by the plaintiff and refused to return the amount in question, claiming that he had acquired a property, it is appropriate to grant urgent precautionary relief in favor of the plaintiff," he explained.
Subscribe to 247, Support via Pix, Subscribe to TV 247, in the channel Cuts 247 and watch: