I can no longer find a good source, but I believe in the Citigroup case, they owed that money, it is just that instead of making a standard monthly payment, they paid a large fraction (maybe even all?) of what was owed. That's quite different from sending money into the ether/random recipient. That makes matters substantially more difficult.
Correction: Citigroup didn't owe the money, they were acting on behalf of Revlon, who owed the money.
Correction: Citigroup didn't owe the money, they were acting on behalf of Revlon, who owed the money.