California Codes

Cal. Commercial Code § 11207 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)Subject to subdivision (b), if, in a payment order received by the beneficiary’s bank, the name, bank account number, or other identification of the beneficiary refers to a nonexistent or unidentifiable person or account, no person has rights as a beneficiary of the order and acceptance of the order cannot occur.

(b)If a payment order received by the beneficiary’s bank identifies the beneficiary both by name and by an identifying or bank account number and the name and number identify different persons, the following rules apply:

(1)Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), if the beneficiary’s bank does not know that the name and number refer to different persons, it may rely on the number as the proper identification of the beneficiary of the order. The beneficiary’s bank need not determine whether the name and number refer to the same person.

(2)If the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by name or knows that the name and number identify different persons, no person has rights as beneficiary except the person paid by the beneficiary’s bank if that person was entitled to receive payment from the originator of the funds transfer. If no person has rights as beneficiary, acceptance of the order cannot occur.

(c)If (i) a payment order described in subdivision (b) is accepted, (ii) the originator’s payment order described the beneficiary inconsistently by name and number, and (iii) the beneficiary’s bank pays the person identified by number as permitted by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the following rules apply:

(1)If the originator is a bank, the originator is obliged to pay its order.

(2)If the originator is not a bank and proves that the person identified by number was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the originator is not obliged to pay its order unless the originator’s bank proves that the originator, before acceptance of the originator’s order, had notice that payment of a payment order issued by the originator might be made by the beneficiary’s bank on the basis of an identifying or bank account number even if it identifies a person different from the named beneficiary. Proof of notice may be made by any admissible evidence. The originator’s bank satisfies the burden of proof if it proves that the originator, before the payment order was accepted, signed a record stating the information to which the notice relates.

(d)In a case governed by paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), if the beneficiary’s bank rightfully pays the person identified by number and that person was not entitled to receive payment from the originator, the amount paid may be recovered from that person to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution as follows:

(1)If the originator is obliged to pay its payment order as stated in subdivision (c), the originator has the right to recover.

(2)If the originator is not a bank and is not obliged to pay its payment order, the originator’s bank has the right to recover.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Ozer Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, Nat'l Ass'n (E.D. Cal. 2025).
Ozer Holdings, LLC v. Citibank, Nat'l Ass'n (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 6× “(“Citibank”) on February 15, 2024, alleging Citibank 20 violated Cal. Comm. Code § 11207 and breached its duty of care regarding bailment of plaintiffs’ 21 funds.”
Grand Bayman Belize, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo & Co. (C.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 4× “16 Cal. Com. Code § 11207 (a). Essentially, Grand Bayman claims Wells Fargo violated 17 this provision by accepting the Wire Transfer.”
Attisha Enter. Inc. v. Capital One Bank (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 3× “25 These situations are governed by California Commercial Code Section 11207, which 26 provides that in general, a bank cannot accept a wire transfer order if “the name, bank 27 account number, or other identification of the beneficiary refers to a nonexistent or 28…”
S&S Worldwide, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 2× “By contrast, if the beneficiary's bank "knows that the name and 18 number identify different persons" and the person paid by the bank was not "entitled to 19 receive payment from the originator," then "acceptance of the order cannot occur," see 20 Cal.”
BPi Bright Power, Inc. v. Umpqua Holding Corp. d/b/a Umpqua Bank (N.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Com. Code § 11207 (b). The safe 15 harbor applies so long as the beneficiary bank “does not know that the beneficiary’s name and 16 account number refer to different persons.”
Attisha Enter. Inc. v. Capital One Bank (S.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 2× “3:20-cv-01366-BEN-RBB 1 || One: (1) negligence and (2) violation of California Commercial Code section 11207 2 (“Section 11207”).”
Meridian Growers Processing, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 2× “6 Cal. Com. Code § 11207 (b). Effectively, section 11207(b) provides a “safe harbor” for a bank 7 that relies on the account number specified in a payment order as identifying the beneficiary of 8 the order.”
Ozer Holdings, LLC & Jt. Props., LP v. Citibank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “Background 25 Ozer and Joint filed this action against Citibank on February 15, 2024, alleging that 26 Citibank violated California Commercial Code section 11207 and that it also breached its duty of 27 care under California law regarding the bailment of Ozer and Joint’s funds.”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 11207(a) — 1 case
Meridian Growers Processing, Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2024). “6 Cal. Com. Code § 11207 (b). Effectively, section 11207(b) provides a “safe harbor” for a bank 7 that relies on the account number specified in a payment order as identifying the beneficiary of 8 the order.”
— Cal. Commercial Code § 11207(b) — 1 case
Grand Bayman Belize, Ltd. v. Wells Fargo & Co. (C.D. Cal. 2021). “16 Cal. Com. Code § 11207 (a). Essentially, Grand Bayman claims Wells Fargo violated 17 this provision by accepting the Wire Transfer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.