Facts
The plaintiffs, X. and Y., Russian nationals, had business relations with [B.], also a Russian national. On 23 December 1996, [B.] opened a named account in US dollars with Bank Z. SA, with power of attorney in favor of his wife and daughter. The plaintiffs also opened accounts with the same bank. On 24 March 2000, the bank transferred the sum of $2,030,000 from B.'s account to the plaintiffs' numbered accounts without a valid transfer order from B. The plaintiffs then invested the transferred funds in securities. On 12 September 2000, [B.] contested having signed a form A stating that the assets in his account were partly owned by the plaintiffs. The bank then withdrew the securities from the plaintiffs' numbered accounts and transferred them to B.'s account.
The plaintiffs brought an action against the bank before the Court of First Instance of Geneva, which ordered the bank to pay the plaintiffs the sums of CHF 1,734,224 and CHF 1,592,652. The Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva annulled this judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs exercised a appeal for revision before the Federal Tribunal, which rejected their appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal examined the issue of misappropriation of a bank transfer and unjust enrichment. It considered that the bank transfer must be qualified as an assignment within the meaning of art. 466 CO. The assignment is a unilateral double authorization from the assignor, which authorizes the assignee to perform a service for the benefit of the assignee and allows the assignee to receive such service from the assignee.
The Federal Tribunal also examined the issue of identifying the economic beneficiary of the values deposited by bank clients. It considered that the identification of the economic beneficiary has no effect on private law and that the form A used for this identification cannot be considered as a transfer…