The question can be reworded like this:
A company is about to restructure, which will avoid settling some valid debts in full. In this variation of the news story, the company validly owes money to many creditors, who will have to settle for a loss during the restructure. One of these creditors, covertly hires a hacker, who "creates" the fumbled money transfer. To prevent the guilty creditor being identified the hacker fixes it so the next time the accounts operator uses their payment module, a list of 10 selected creditors will be paid in full, one of which is his employer, the other 9 are red herrings.
The answer is probably this:
If it's done cleverly and not suspected to be a hacked outcome, then it'll be treated as a valid payment of a valid debt, and hard to get it repaid. Same as in the news story.
If its suspected to be a result of foul play (e.g. by a creditor or hacker or grudge-bearing insider), the police will look into the books, dealings, phone calls etc of all 10 companies and the paying company, and anyone else they believe relevant, and see if evidence exists to support their suspicions. If not, then as above.
If there is evidence pointing to foul play, there are now 2 or 3 possibilities.
If no specific evidence implicates any given party, then even if it's clear there was foul play, each recipient can plausibly deny involvement, and the fact it was foul play doesn't invalidate or undermine their stance. They all (including the guilty creditor) get to keep the money if they can maintain their position and don't mess up.
If there is evidence/suspicion pointing to some specific creditor, but not enough to successfully prosecute or litigate, it comes down to moral pressure, media perception.... is it uncomfortable enough that the company alleged to have engineered it, repays the money, or do they keep it.
If there is enough evidence to successfully prosecute or litigate, then the money will be repayable, and probably criminal charges will be followed up.
This reminds me of the criminal question, if a crime is done and the evidence shows its one of 2 identical twins (Jane and June), but can't distinguish which, and both can and do plausibly claim its the other, and a prosecutor can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jane was the criminal and also can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that June was the criminal, and its clear one is honest and one lying, then they don't get to say "its one of them so lock both up". They have to let both go.
In this case, even a suspicion or certainty that one of the 10 creditors created the payment by hacking or fraud, is useless, for prosecution or litigation, because its not enough to be able to say the payment was by fraud. (A payment of a valid debt can be fraudulently paid and still validly kept if a company genuinely wasn't aware and acted correctly.) You have to be able to show some specific recipient has money that wasn't received in good faith, and therefore has "dirty hands", to be able to recover money from them, or prosecute them for it. In that sense its a bit like the identical twins thing.