這起來自智利的離奇事件，堪稱全球最具戲劇性的「員工誤發薪資案件」之一。整起事件起因於一起公司內部的人為錯誤，卻最終演變成勞資雙方的法律爭議，甚至引發社會輿論對「錯誤付款」與「法律邊界」的深層討論。

事件發生於智利聖地亞哥一家名為Consorcio Industrial de Alimentos（Cial）的食品公司。2022年5月，一名員工（姓名未對外公開）原本月薪約為 50萬智利比索（約合新台幣1.7萬元），但公司會計在薪資發放過程中發生嚴重錯誤，誤將1.65億智利比索（約合新台幣570萬元）匯入該員工帳戶。這筆金額相當於他平時工資的三百多倍。

當公司發現異常後，立即通知該員工歸還多出的金額。起初，該員工承諾會「隔天退回」，但隔天卻人間蒸發，不僅沒有返還款項，甚至失去聯繫。數日後，公司多次嘗試聯絡未果，最終報警並提起刑事訴訟，控告他涉嫌「盜竊公司資金」。

案件在智利社會引起極大關注。許多民眾對此抱持戲謔與懷疑態度，甚至將此事件戲稱為「史上最幸運的上班族」。然而，隨著案件進入司法程序，法律層面的辯論卻變得極為複雜。

在審理過程中，法院指出該員工的行為不構成「盜竊（robo）」罪。理由在於：

1. 該筆款項並非員工「非法取得」，而是由公司「主動錯誤匯出」；
2. 員工並未以暴力、詐欺或非法入侵手段獲取資金，因此不符合刑法中「竊盜罪」的構成要件；
3. 此案應屬於民事糾紛範疇，屬「不當得利」或「無權佔有」的問題，而非刑事犯罪。

最終，法院於2025年正式裁定：
該員工無需承擔刑事責任，也不構成犯罪行為。至於民事部分，公司若要追討款項，必須另行透過民事訴訟途徑解決。由於案件拖延多年，公司並未能在法定時限內完成追訴程序，因此這名員工最終也無需返還那筆誤發的1.65億比索。

這項裁決在智利國內引發兩極評價。部分人認為法院的判決「依法有據」，強調刑法不應擴張解釋至民事錯誤行為，否則將破壞法治原則。但更多人質疑該判決過於寬鬆，認為員工明知金額異常卻選擇逃逸，理應受到懲罰，否則恐助長「鑽法律漏洞」的風氣。

法律學者則指出，此案突顯出智利法律體系中關於「誤匯款」與「不當得利」之間的灰色地帶。根據智利民法規定，若收款人明知款項非自己所得仍拒不歸還，理論上仍可能需負返還責任。但由於公司當時並未妥善提起民事訴訟，導致追討權限時效過期，使該員工得以「合法保有」這筆巨款。

如今，該員工仍下落不明，據信已離開智利，可能移居海外。這起「誤匯巨款事件」成為智利乃至拉丁美洲法律圈的經典案例，被視為「法律與道德脫節」的現代寓言，也提醒企業在薪資與財務管理上必須加倍謹慎，否則一個小小的錯誤，足以造成數百萬美元的損失。

This bizarre case from Chile has been described as one of the most dramatic “salary mistake” incidents in recent years. What began as a simple payroll error eventually escalated into a legal and ethical debate over the boundaries of criminal and civil law.

The incident took place in Santiago, Chile, at a food processing company called Consorcio Industrial de Alimentos (Cial). In May 2022, one of the company’s employees—whose name has not been publicly disclosed—was accidentally paid 165 million Chilean pesos (around USD 180,000 or NT$5.7 million) instead of his usual 500,000 pesos (around USD 550). In other words, he received over 300 times his normal salary.

Once the company discovered the error, they quickly contacted the employee and requested that he return the excess funds. Initially, the employee agreed to do so “the next day,” but he soon vanished—he stopped showing up for work, did not return calls, and could no longer be located. After multiple failed attempts to reach him, the company filed a police report and launched criminal proceedings, accusing him of theft.

The case immediately attracted widespread attention in Chile, with many social media users jokingly calling him “the luckiest employee in the country.” But as the case entered court, the legal debate became much more serious.

During the trial, the court ruled that the employee’s behavior did not constitute theft under Chilean criminal law. The judges explained:

1. The payment was not obtained through illegal means, but rather due to an administrative mistake made by the company.
2. The employee did not use deception, violence, or intrusion to obtain the money, which are essential elements of theft.
3. Therefore, the situation was a civil matter, not a criminal one—specifically a case of “unjust enrichment” or “unauthorized possession.”

Ultimately, in 2025, the court issued its final decision:
The employee was not criminally liable and would not face any penalties. Moreover, since the company failed to file a proper civil lawsuit within the legal time limit, the man was not required to return the 165 million pesos he received by mistake.

The verdict provoked strong and divided reactions across Chile. Some legal experts argued that the decision was correct—criminal law should not be stretched to cover civil errors, as that would undermine the rule of law. Others, however, criticized the ruling as overly lenient, saying that the employee clearly knew the money was not his and chose to flee, which should have had consequences.

Legal scholars noted that the case highlights a gray area in Chilean law regarding “mistaken payments.” Under Chile’s civil code, someone who knowingly keeps money that does not belong to them can be forced to return it, but only through civil proceedings. Since the company mishandled the process and missed the filing deadline, the employee effectively kept the money legally.

As of now, the employee’s whereabouts remain unknown—he is believed to have left Chile, possibly relocating abroad. The case has since become a textbook example in Latin American legal circles, often cited as a modern parable about the conflict between law and morality, and a cautionary tale for companies: a single accounting mistake can lead to enormous losses.