{"took":614,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":5,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8461336","_score":7.2088976,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XXXX XXXX  and while sitting and listening to the computer keyboard get repeatedly clicked by XXXX  while she (twice due to my idea to request check images) completed four, I believe, account statement requests for me that I did not get to witness, observe or confirm in the process, I did what was was required, turns out, to simply ask one question which would have taken XXXX minutes, to the Merrill Lynch representative, who was in the branch at the time, and instead, we compliantly but outside of any posted or agreed-upon rules, terms or regulations, and while doing this was against my rights and will, scheduled an appointment for the next day, at XXXX, which would have been, and was to be with the Merrill Lynch Manager of that BOA office XXXX XXXX XXXX I told XXXX, who works for BOA and NOT Merrill Lynch the simple and only reason why I wanted to talk with the ML guy. No, gotta come back the next day at a time they say. Notably, he was not the only ML person, I do not think, and nor was there a line by or outside XXXX  door for anyone waiting to talk or meet with him. I can only imagine why that was the case, but anyway, the next day at appx. XXXX!!!, not XXXX  when the bank ruthlessly, pointlessly and without any explanation, required I be there and when he could meet, I arrived and walked back to his door, though I did not even know that is where the meeting was to be held, or that it was even to be held with him, including sinc there are XXXX other offices right next to him. His murky-glassed door was closed, and no one was inside expect him, who was seated at his desk far back at the opposite side of the rectangular-shaped office. I do not believe he had a sign outside the door either, that said ML or his name or both. WEIRD...so, I tapped on the glass and he strolled across the rectangular office where he sat at the back and that was mostly surfaced with carpet and not anything else, and he opened the door and said: \"XXXX?\" \"Yeah, that's me.\" And he turned and began walking back to his desk and, with that being the only extent of the verification, began talking over his left shoulder began telling me account information! He also said that he tried to call both numbers on the account, but neither worked. HUH? He did not even ask me the number, or numbers, or give me a chance to correct or clarify, perhaps, any outdated numbers that might have been the issue, if there even was one. But, also, I had an email that they had, which is proven by the statement requests they sent me the day before, so if XXXX was so obsessively condemning and blaming of a failed telephonic communication situation, then why did he not offer to discuss or correct the phone number situation, if there even is one which I question, or if that's not enough, email me? Why did XXXX  not email me, and what in the world was he going to email me about, and why did he try to call? Regarding the phone numbers, I replied to XXXX  that: \"The \"whole thing is old\", years old, and the accounts have been 'asleep'.\" I also said that \"I have new info about which I told the lady, which was XXXX  (see complaint #1)\" yesterday about.\" He did not ask about that or all of that information. Big deal!!...I thought, can we just talk about your company, Merrill Lynch and my reason, from me that is, for being in the office? XXXX  did not know me, I had been told of the requirement which was to meet with XXXX, or ML, so what was he doing calling me, or trying to call me he alleged, let alone if he had email at his access and disposal. But he seemed to not care at my response about the phone. No, he kept on about me and the accounts. THIS GUY WAS WAY OUTSIDE THE RULE BOOK! Oh, I thought, so he verifies by first name? That, folks, is what he did and what happened, but I am not in charge, do not know what they do during their required, schedule meetings and also in this eery and seemingly-undisciplined branch. \"Yeah, that's me.\" again was the identity confirmation...He said that he looked and all I have, not all he could find, but all I have, is what he said, is an XXXX account with Merrill XXXX. I sat down, and watched as he chaotically and in a greatly-scattered fashion, laughably to me sloppily and immaturely tried as he did, attempted to wrangle and direct the appointment, but I also had not even talked about the inquiry, yet!! From me, at least, he had no idea why I was there, or what was the request...unless he had talked to people in XXXX  and also outside of XXXX. Did people in XXXX  with Merill Lynch try and run and end-around play and influence this man's normal way, possibly of thinking, but, or of dealing with customers and doing his own licensed, albeit also in another state, work? I told him I am not here to talk about the Merrill XXXX XXXX account, and I never mentioned or asked about it...Creepy, possibly highly illegal what really was going on. But he crashed the conversation again, and didn't even pay attention to the point I was trying to make, which was so simple and easy, and said, and again this is also while and after never verifying me, and at that point he released a not-nice, very disturbing grin, so he became thrilled or enticed at something, clearly. Well, nothing was funny to me.. Again he said, \"But XXXX, what I am saying is all you have is an XXXX. I am trying to help you.\" HA! He said he is trying to help me, yet he did not verify me, we never met, and not only had I told XXXX  the reason and purpose for the meeting, but Dude, himself, had not asked me why I was there, what he COULD do to assist, or what account(s) I wanted to talk or learn about, possibly even open. How did he know I did not want to open an account, transfer XXXX to an account, or under what or whose authority did he go digging throughout my BOA - not Merrill Lynch - accounts? XXXX  did not work for, or at Bank of America, yet he only blared that all I had, or what he could not find, was the XXXX   Account. Finally, I broke the convolusion and unprecedented trickery and conspiracy of sorts, and through the simply rotten and bad service I had received there till then, as well, and said similar to XXXX  \"Sir, you have not let me even ask anything or tell you why I am here.\" And he did not even take that, no it was like he may have known all along what I sought, and what information I sought but aggressively and poorly, too, kept trying to keep us away from that area or even account. \"I just want to know about the company XXXXK, that I had with the XXXX XXXX  of XXXX and then XXXXXXXX XXXX which I know was with Merrill Lynch. I had to tell him to \"Please stop\" in the midst of all this and before I even was allowed to get to that point. Stunned and feeling royally abused by this maniacal treatment and unhinged, licensed broker who works with retirement accounts so someone, in their old age can pay medical bills and survive aging and golden years, I stated again: \"This is the only point, I had a XXXXK with Merrill Lynch. It was expertly managed, I think subject to generous contributions and...\"XXXX, I am trying to help you.\" Me, something just like: \"No, sir, you are not; you are not acknowledging, you are cutting off and are not answering the question. He replied, \"Yes I am.\" He actually condemned and accused me of being wrong about why I was there and that we had not even talked about, which we had not, two words: Merrill Lynch. How dare him not acknowledge or comment on a twice-stated purpose for being there, and inquiry that I verbally presented, and tell me that though he flew right past it and aggressively refused to \"go there\" that \"he was trying to help\"...Help with what, by the way, he is only doing what is required by law or the bank is paying him to do. It wasn't like I was trying to log into a portal that wasn't working, and then when you sit at one of those desks in such an appointment, I am most curious: What type of \"help\" could even be, broadly speaking, mustered or provided. Plus, from XXXX  and noone, I had not even asked for \"Help\", for crying out loud. I had stated, twice at that point to just XXXX, but also XXXX times in the bank, and previously once to Merrill Lynch in XXXX, what information I was seeking, if not demanding. Just after I point out to him that he was not answering the question, he started motioning with his hands toward me and getting, oddly and so unprofessionally, animated. At that point, and truly feeling a form of being tricked, imprisoned and entrapped, if not worse, I decide for my safety I need to quickly retreat and leave. He can't wipe or resist the sinister grin, and again gets animated with his hands...while sitting at his desk. Wow....I vacate the office and, in the process, ask for the XXXX  MANAGER. IMPORTANT, I had an appointment, vacated the office and, in the process of doing so which was also within the mandated and required appointment, asked for a Branch Manager. XXXX\"S REPLY: \"I CAN\"T HELP YOU.\" Once again, with the word \"help.\" Oh, so now with no account resolution or willingness, which was available to many extents and he must, hopefully, have known that he throws around the word \"Help\" Hmmmmm. He was saying something I think, but anyway be that, for the moment so to speak, as it may, I said he cannot \"help\" with a XXXX MANAGER. Why, XXXX? What prevents you from going to the counter and asking, like I could or like any staff could, for a person? Of course he could have done that, and he even could have called a superior with Merrill Lynch in the process. Nope, neither happened. I had not slowly left his office, no I split with a quick dart and escape to safety, and then went and sat in the chairs, probably XXXX  from his door, that are in the main lobby. Astoundingly and for the ensuing ten minutes, as I recall, I just sat in the lobby. XXXX  can't stop...he says things loudly from his office even at that point, and then a tall lady, who had dealt with a strange-acting fellow, it wasn't XXXX, the day before with a safety box and that I had complimented her about with what she told him, which was: \"You need to talk to your attorney.\", walked up and asked me in response to my seeking Management, what was going on. This is unreal, XXXX  shouted at her - XXXX  - from, at that point, not 30' but 40' while seated at his desk (remember the square, mostly carpet office): \"DONT WORRY ABOUT IT.\" There were customers around, he did not work for BOA, either, and he is shouting at a person, a female nonetheless and he is a male, and then from XXXX  away, too? Interesting, no sooner as I fled his office, he followed me out and, basically after I had told him, which I think I did, that I don't feel comfortable or safe with this and/or to leave me alone which I would have said, and think I did, just before exiting the door threshold after he wouldn't stop yapping and diligently trying to flip the script, and refuse and manipulate service, too. But, while I was in what I considered a safe, or no, safer, or no more open space, which proved equally unsafe, he walked right up to my face and, confrontationally, almost attacked me is what I thought, physically and with possible force of some kind; what was he was considering, wanting, or was he going to do? Was he trying to provoke me, trying to provoke an uncomposed or undisciplined, anything but inappropriate, let alone possibly physical, or \"usable\" reaction by me? He had the wrong person, wrong guy and I did all this, still, while he had mowed past a XXXXtime, simply-stated inquiry. Was that what XXXX  wanted was trouble? I put my arm out, and stepped away in defense, physically and protectively, for myself. And this is in a bank.... After that, and I exclaimed to both him and the Associate who was onlooking from her desk in a dazed stare, but with a tad bit more volume so she could hear, but certainly with restraint and poise, yet also in a manner of asking for help, too, what a loud scene of madness he was causing and exhibiting right in front of the customers, despite my request to be left alone, also his BOA co-workers, which are not ML so technically are not co-workers, and the cameras and, of course, too. What a fool!, he was not leaving me alone or honoring or respecting my prior, fervent request for no more of him, verbally or physically. In fact, I also told both of them why I left the office, yet he still wants to so-called run me down...So, I sat there in silence in the lobby and with no one coming up to for about ten minutes. Finally, I said I request a Branch Manager - THE Branch Directing, top-boss Manager. They go back, and I think it was both XXXX and the Associate from the day before, but within a few more minutes, one returned and said that \"She's gonna give you a call.\" I replied that, \"No, that is not going to work.\" For one, I am here by ML and BOA requirements, which is for an appointment for ML, and overall for an appointment, so now while at the appointment and in order to conduct business for the appointment, is still underway (I said that) I have to leave to get a call, but not by ML but BOA, and BOA is not ML? Secondly, who is \"she\" one might wonder, because the Agent did not say and just said that \"She is going to give you a call.\" What a sick and horrific, totally against the idea of customer service, promoting and earning business and profits, mess of deranged conduct and behavior I was being forced to deal with, that it all was, after all I had been required to schedule and appointment and was there for the appointment, but they did not get that most-fundamental element of the equation. Yet I had an appointment, huh? Please oblige what is allowed, constitutes or can or cannot occur in an appointment? Later, I told XXXX  or XXXX, and I recall both: how for example did XXXX  not know I was asking XXXX  for a XXXX  because I had a XXXX, or that I was not feeling well or that I wanted to make a deposit with BOA? Truth be told, how did XXXX  know, or not know that I was saying, or wasn't saying, that I was having chest pain or cold sweats, or feeling light-headed and to please call an ambulance? \"DONT WORRY ABOUT IT.\"...is what XXXX  had shouted, despite my still being there for a schedule meeting, for a meeting and for unprovided information, from afar. Eventually, after I had been sitting there for many minutes, the taller lady, XXXX  from the day before, walks up and says that she is going to get an Associate to help. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX First, I did not ask for an associate, next I did not ask for BOA service, and also I was there and had been there for ML, obviously, so what in the world was the BOA up to, or trying to do. What was the Associate, actually a non-ML but also a young female, for the record which I think should be noted, going to do, answer ML account questions or provide ML account information through or with a computer or record system that the Associate could not access and for a banking entity, ML, that the Associate did not even work for? Just the day before, as the Branch Manager knew, I had expressed the reason for seeking ML information, and the BM knew the subject and content. What exactly was the \"associate's\", again a young female which should be noted in this report for other concerning reasons, role either for BOA, ML, or for my ML appointment, then? Plus, I repeated to XXXX, as I had done to XXXX, that I sought the Branch Manager...At XXXX XXXX  - truly whoever this lady is who never stated her reason or purpose for talking with me, or her title, or whether she was with ML or BOA, asked - without stated purpose or reason - for my name and phone number, which I did not provide to her. What does she care? She's not the XXXX Manager, is with Bank of America and not ML, and did not tell me why she sought or requested (but obviously did not need) such information. I tell XXXX that the Dude, no not in the XXXX XXXX, had unsafely and errantly begun, verbally and aggressively, full account and customer-identifying discussions despite no verification, did not ask how he could \"help\" - important point: No, He never asked how he could \"help\" or what the reason for my being there or the appointment was, but he also refused physically to stay away from me in the lobby, and encroached in my face, too. Also, he criticized without verification, confirmation or effort to correct the alleged phone number obsession he apparently also had, and the fact that he \"tried to call both numbers but neither worked.\" Well, in my meeting with XXXX  the day before we had corrected the contact information, so there should not have been a second phone number. But, again, I had email too since apparently there are carrier-problems with the phone? At approximately XXXX  and to XXXX, the taller lady and also the safety-box lady from the day before, was told by me, again, that: \"I had a XXXXK with Merrill Lynch and want to know all about it, its contributions and if or however, it exists.\" I did tell XXXX  how commended she should be for dealing with the guy from yesterday, who had an armful of objects and items in both arms that he'd retrieved from his safety boxes, but I also told her how bad I felt for the verbal abuse that the ML unleased on the BOA staff, in the BOA building, in public. I said, despite bad or good service, you all do not deserve to have to deal with that madness. Twice during my wait for the XXXX  Director, I was told that she, XXXX  I guess, was in the back on the phone with a Client. XXXX  talked to, two of her staff told me, the Client for a long time while I sat in the chair, and also while the staff really waned me to leave and to get a phone call, instead, from XXXX, again who is not ML. Finally, and at appx. XXXX I told XXXX  that is, as I recall - but I told at least one person and it was either XXXX  and or XXXX: (with all the dilydallying and confused and overlapping staff and companies, too) I was going to have to start charging for my time. At first I asked her about minimum wage, but she did not accept or decline that, but since I was allowed to keep sitting there and with nothing happening and nothing from ML and no Manager showing up, apparently that was okay and I was operating with accepted and reasonable terms and expectations. So, maybe she didn't think there was much value or worth in that figure, and thought it should be more or less for my time and the complained abuse, and duress and emotional stress, and overall publicized staff insanity, but I was thinking I should be paid for the whole experience with a higher dollar figure, and still do. I do not know, but that is also not my purview, or decision to officially make. Nonetheless, I have documented that, as of confirmed XXXX  and while telling XXXX who was standing to my left, I placed the bank on a type of verbal notice that, at that point and assuming all that was said, happened, occurred, been refused, and even physically happened, I was charging money for my time. Oddly, while XXXX  who probably was not too fond of herself being rudely interrupted when talking to a customer, she was blurtingly and coldly, in my view, interrupted from...the Associate, XXXX. \"Sorry to interrupt, but...\" and she just begins talking without even asking her own co-worker, XXXX, if she can interrupt. Just before the interruption by the unhinged XXXX, XXXX  said that, regarding Merrill Lynch, \"the Market Manager is going to call you. The Branch Manager is still on the phone in the back.\" She does not even say who the Market Manager is, or what there name is, or whether they are with BOA or Merrill Lynch, or with the Arizona region or the Texas region, or even about what the Market Manager is going to call. I replied by saying that \"I am going only to talk to the Branch Manager, and since it'll be a couple hours before the Market Manager is going to call....\" I just chuckled, for one basic reason being that I had not strolled in but, still at at time, was only there physically for an appointment. Also what disturbed me, and I told XXXX  this, is that a XXXX XXXX worker is caught in the middle of ML shouting, Associate interruptions and repeated call-back games. Appropriately, both leave but since XXXX  did so, courtesy of the invasive Associate's interruption, I yield to BOA and ML, or BOA or ML, and my advisors what that means for the requested compensation. Moving on...Still sitting there, I walked at some point over to the Associates desk, and I walked behind her desk too, which is totally fine and not illegal particularly because that, what a joke, is where the business cards were that are for aspiring and interested customers, and picked up both of the two cards: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, who is the Officer or Financial Center Assistant Manager, 2XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  I am not presently sure, but I do not think the Associate's card was behind that desk, which clearly is not for any one person but is a multi-staff station. The Associate was standing behind the counter and as I stood behind the desk, which was in the lobby and 25' away, and in plain sight of all customers included, I lifted up to show her only what I had done which was to get, drumroll, two business cards...which are not for any staff but only for customers. The staff know their contact information(s). XXXX minutes later, the Associate, XXXX, walks by me, despite my having told everyone for my reason for being there, and at that point what I requested and required, and stands over me to my left arm and says: \"Are you ready to meet?\" Wow. I asked if she was the Associate, and she replied: \"yes.\" My response while remaining seated was the instruction: \"Please leave me alone, I already asked for and only for a Branch Manager; so please and you knew that from before and know that, leave me alone.\" Finally and at XXXX XXXX walks out from the back bowels of the building, perhaps where the drive-through station actually is and/or where she had spent the last appx. XXXX minutes, and sits down. At one point I asked her if she was recording the conversations and she replied that \"no, that is not legal.\" When XXXX  walked up, which was finally after the unleashed staff had probably become exhausted amidst and amongst their inhumane, sporting and taunting and provocative activities and gigs, XXXX  said something so interesting: \"Hi XXXX, its me XXXX, the same person that met with you yesterday.\" I thought: Oh my....got it, XXXX, what does that matter, meaning an attempt at a refresher course of that, over a separate issue which involved the ordering of statements, we met yesterday. But, still, I was concerned at who, exactly, was truly the Location's manager, and I ask this because the emails said that, actually, XXXX  was not ultimately the Manager. Either way, despite all that had occurred, XXXX  first and best was to remind me, as she saw fit, that we had met yesterday. She wound up sitting down in the chair to my right, or remaining standing but still without any inquiry as to what had happened, so I repeated it. I summarized and broke down the timeline. She just gazed. Truly all signs did indicated to me, and I mean no ill-will, that even she was apathetic to, in that case, regulations, banking and customer rights, the fact that a required appointment, itself, was the only reason I was there, and any/all other factors  that had or might have legally been going with all that. Then I told her, candidly and sincerely, that I truly believe a case could be made that a bank had robbed me, I said exactly that the bank had robbed me, to name a few, of time, transparency, information, safely-guarded energy, and all of the above that was not just financial in nature. I told her that, no, \"the Market Manager cannot call me until further notice due to all that transpired today.\" I do believe I also told her about my billing for the time, but I also told her that, for all those reasons. Thank you XXXXF for being available and providing the intermediating service that you do.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-01T19:44:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"89101","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8461336","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-03-01T19:26:08.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["What exactly was the \"associate's\", again a young female which should be noted in this report for <em>other</em> concerning reasons, <em>role</em> either for BOA, ML, or for my ML appointment, then?"],"issue":["Problem with a lender or <em>other</em> company charging your account"],"sub_product":["<em>Other</em> banking product or service"]},"sort":[7.2088976,"8461336"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":7.072669,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial Corporation.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Truist Financial Corporation respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Truist Financial Corporation to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Truist Financial Corporation, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct from management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\n\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Truist Financial account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Truist Financial Corporation did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Truist Financial Corporations custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Truist Financial Corporation promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Truist Financial Corporation was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Truist Financial Corporation owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Truist Financial Corporation did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Truist Financial Corporations conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Truist Financial Corporation has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Truist Financial Corporation must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.\n \nTruist Financial Corporations Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: Based on our investigation, Truist denies your claim for reimbursement because our investigation reveals the activity/transaction(s) was authorized.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: You have advised that you were a victim of fraud... The information was keyed according to the Outgoing Wire Transfer Request Agreement, which you confirmed and signed.\nRefuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nTruist Financial Corporations position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Truist Financial Corporations view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely on) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Truist Financial Corporation morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Truist Financial Corporation encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Truist Financial Corporation.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Truist Financial Corporation carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Truist Financial Corporation, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is Truist Financial Corporation here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Truist Financial Corporation adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Truist Financial Corporation that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Truist Financial Corporations capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, Truist Financial Corporations indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions\n  \nand capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Truist Financial Corporation has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nTruist Financial Corporation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple chequebooks;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation\n  \nto the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nTruist Financial Corporation is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability  Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Truist Financial Corporation in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Truist Financial Corporations business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Truist Financial Corporations non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable\n \nconsumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX  XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 9\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTruist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC\nRe: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care has been breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence and/or have not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages that I have suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall serve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you have engaged in, is a pattern or a practice of wrongful and negligent conduct which has enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX  (the Company), with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains.\n Money was transferred from my account via bank wire, credit card, debit card and through intermediaries named \"XXXX XXXX in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1\n    \nPage 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation, whether by raising chargeback and recall in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXXusd!\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm, and insist that you reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it. The overall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced and naive, in pursuit of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered the fraud that was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as\n 2\n\nPage 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nwithholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial products are often abstract and complex, theres no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of investors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies, know-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of their customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme and therefore by their nature are jointly  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for investment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the investments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged thus causing significant economic damage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions; and the fraudulent transactions the Company perpetrated were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated which would have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to their crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include, but are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and malicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts and crypto currency wallets in multiple countries and used them through their accomplices from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated through\n 3\n\nPage 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nlegitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent\nnames, credentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name, officially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being conducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and furthermore, the call center, marketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden entities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum of financial maneuvers, is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a license and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require registration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data (e.g.: the manufacture of false charts). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the existence of the trades was fabricated. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using it to purchase various luxurious, non- essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields.\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer).\n11. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data\nrepresenting the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my\nhealth.\n4\n\nPage 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nArmed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me, until I transferred all my savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square and honorable business dealings along with honesty, to maliciously take advantage of my trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to conclude that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation of a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the XXXX XXXX  well established in the case of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe XXXX XXXX  requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing the instructions of a client. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the funds of the client.\"\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution is able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it has become glaringly obvious to me that at best, no adequate\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    5\n\nPage 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX\ninformation and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable individual would make,\" it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment instruction is made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank is liable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on and suspended transactions until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transactions were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I am a fraud victim. (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [3].\nA financial institution would never be as reckless with its own assets as has been the case with my assets, and if you had treated my assets as though they were your own, this would not have been made possible. The debits made from my account should be reversed as a result of your failure to take proactive measures to protect it, just as you would do if your own assets were in a similar state of peril. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about an individual that adversely affects their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be liable to more than one regulatoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  More often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly, to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence. A plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T18:39:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29681","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6296648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-08T23:55:35.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to <em>help</em> establish this."]},"sort":[7.072669,"6296648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":4.4930706,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are so many <em>other</em> ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful."],"issue":["<em>Other</em> transaction problem"]},"sort":[4.4930706,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7135443","_score":4.476248,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX\nThis is my complaint against CHASE BANK. \nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI would like to draw your attention to XX/XX/XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to CHASE BANK, in which I clearly stated\nhow this scam has affected me personally, psychologically andfinancially. \nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't\nshow their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace\nof mind.\nMy complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper\ninvestigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what\nI believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I \ncomprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, CHASE BANK never acknowledged my complaint,\ntherefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, \nand XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, \nthe following (i) whether CHASE BANK did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements \nof the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of \nCHASE BANKs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to me and if so, whether that \nduty was breached; (iii) whether CHASE BANK promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the \ntransaction(s) in question (iv) whether CHASE BANK was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether CHASE \nBANK owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CHASE BANK did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether \nCHASE BANKs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether CHASE BANK has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me \nfor the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors \nmaking an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the \ncustomer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. \nIn this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that \ntheir customer is being scammed. In other words, CHASE BANK must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted \nto a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing \nwith a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care \nof the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most \npeople behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although \nreasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CHASE BANK did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the \nmost obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person \nshould be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all CHASE BANK has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not \nhaving the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, \nhas maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich \nexperience.\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a phone call in the morning at about XXXX XXXX. The caller identified himself as XXXX XXXX, ID ss(or XXXX) XXXX \nfrom XXXX. He stated that he was confirming a purchase that was made on my XXXX account of a gold XXXX that was to be delivered \nto an address in XXXX New York the next day on the XXXX. I told him that I had not made such a purchase and it needed to be cancelled. \nHe said he would cancel it, but he needed to transfer me to their fraud division and asked me to hold for a moment. This was at XXXX XXXX.\nThe next person got on the line (XXXX XXXX), the same phone number. This person identified himself as XXXX XXXX BadgeXXXX XXXX \nU.S. Marshall. He proceeded to describe that my name was used to open several bank accounts, in Texas, New York, New Jersey, etc. rent \na vehicle and that my name was being used in a money laundering scheme and possibly drug smuggling. He then started to tell me that he \nneeded me to talk to one of their U.S. Marshals that were in that department and proceeded to transfer me to yet another person. He had \nme stay on the line and not hang up for the whole day. The next person got on the line but had a different phone number, 1-XXXX. \nHe identified himself as a U.S. Marshall, XXXX XXXX, badgeXXXX XXXX, assigned to my caseXXXX XXXX, and that he would explain what \nwe could do to protect my money and provide proof that I was not involved with committing any of the fraud. \nHe said I needed to pull all my money out of my bank account and secure it so they could open a new account to put it into at my bank. \nHe then said to stay on the line no matter what and to not tell anyone what we were doing and asked how much money needed to be \nsecured, I then gave him my balance in my bank account. He never asked me for my actual bank account number. He then had me go to the \nbank and withdraw as much as I could in cash to take to a specific Bitcoin ATM that they provided to me after I let them know what city \nI was in. I used XXXX all day long because my car was in the shop.\nI withdrew XXXX cash and proceeded to the Bitcoin ATM address they gave me. He kept stating that my XXXX trips would be refunded \nafter all this was done. They sent me a QRC code to use at the Bitcoin ATM. I deposited the cash into the ATM and kept the receipt. Then \nhe directed me to buy as many XXXX  cash cards as I could to secure the rest. I went to XXXX and was only able to purchase XXXX  cash \ncards for the amount of XXXX each. Then he asked if I could do an ATM cash withdrawal at XXXX for the rest. I was only able to \nwithdraw XXXX because of limits.\nI told him I was at all my withdrawal limits and could do no more for XXXX hrs.\nHe then said that once we got all my money secured that he would set up an appointment for the next day to meet another Marshall in \nperson who would help me set up my new bank account and provide me with my new Social Security number and transfer all my money \ninto the new account.\nHe said he would postpone his case for a day so we could continue the next day because if we did not secure my money, they would close \nmy bank account and my Social Security number forever.\nThe next day, XX/XX/XXXX I was exhausted and didnt want to work with him anymore. I transferred my savings to checking for the next \nround of securing my money. I told him this and told him I did it because I needed to pay some bills with it and was leaving some money \nin my account,\nHe then got upset and said I broke the rules and hung up on me.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along!\nCHASE BANK is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you \ndon't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the \nred flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or \nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual \nand how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for \nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are \ndeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised \nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and \nfinancial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that \nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, \ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market \nparameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial \nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is \nadopted by CHASE BANK in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by \nstrictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems \nto me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby \nkeeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk \nmanagement system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the \ndigital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat\nlandscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and \nexperience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nCHASE BANKs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to \nmitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as \nthe direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair \nand reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX\n\nPage 1 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY\nRe: Demand Letter \n For negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam, \nThe goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as \nyou have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and have not acted in a reasonable and prudent \nmanner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall \nserve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among \nothers.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing an atypical, non-routine \ntransaction(s), and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein \nand/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of wrongful \nand negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that \nresulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in \nquestion are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation\norchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim \nat contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named\nBitcoin Of America in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher\nlevels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the\nsituation, whether by raising chargeback in respect of the transaction in question or reimbursing\nme and crediting my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced transaction, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also\nan irresponsible and reckless disregard for the customers financial safety.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XX/XX/XXXX)\nPage 2 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \n2 \n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and\ndemand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and \nsensitivity to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as \npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, \nstandards, and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where \nsuitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained \nherein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience or upon \nfacts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that \nsubstantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate \nopportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the \nScammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the \nfraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized \nas withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make \nan informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A \ncomplication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well \nto identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required \nto promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers. \nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive \nvictims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme \nand therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially \ninjurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The \nfalse statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transaction(s) the \nScammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on \nme which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-20T02:01:40.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"92071","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7135443","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-06-20T01:04:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Second, it shall \nserve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among \n<em>others</em>."]},"sort":[4.476248,"7135443"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12759789","_score":3.568914,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX\nI have been fighting Comenity bank since XXXX XXXX XXXX because they are trying to force me to pay for services I did not receive.  I have written numerous letters, talked to over XXXX  different people and got nothing but conflicting information.  They have destroyed my credit rating because they did not follow proper procedures when a cardholder reports a crooked merchant like XXXX XXXX XXXX  and whoever XXXX  XXXX  is. This bank is the worst one I  have ever dealt with since I have been doing  business, and that has been over 70 years. Why is this bank still allowed to remain in business? I have added excerpts from some of the customer complaints. Most of them have the same problem with Comenity. This is what they are doing: Comenity bank is using fraud and unethical practices to force cardholders to pay for services or products they do not receive. They use extortion to force them to pay and if they dont pay, Comenity will use black mail to force them to pay or they will destroy their credit rating. Credit ratings play a major role in every business transaction and Comenity knows this. These are some of the complaints: Comenity Bank Reviews THEY ARE CROOKS TO THE FULLEST. How could a bank like this still exist? No consequences. Where is the law? Is this the USA? Stay away from this bank. They charge for payments that don't go thru even though you get a conformation # from them. Got a janky answer from the manager that it take up to 15 day for them to get an answer.\nI have written three letters explaining this problem to this company but never receive a response!  I will not pay this bill; it is for a bogus account listing a bogus card, from a very disreputable company. DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS COMPANY!\nI'm sorry, but this is a fraudulent charge to me, and Comenity Bank has unethical business practices. This bank harassed me to pay it, they made collection calls and have been rude and distrustful even though I paid my account in full and closed the account. Helpful (0)\nEveryone should max out all their Comenity credit cards and refuse to pay. Most of the cards seem to be retailers and most people can live without retailers' cards. This will cause enough of a hiccup to get official attention to correct this corporation's thefts.\nThey would not work with me because they said the XXXX had been turned over to collections. I do not even owe this debt, and it is continuing to affect my credit score to the point where my home insurance doubled and is now XXXX more a year.\nThere I was, my car already serviced and Comenity told me to bring my card back when I received it and receive the service then!! I told Comenity, yeah Like this merchant is going to let me drive off and trust that I'll come back to pay for it, LMAO! I had to end up using another credit card I had and told Comenity to keep their card, dont mail it to me.\nPlease do not enroll with any credit card from Comenity Bank /Bread Financial. It is antiquated and a scam. There are some department stores that use them as well as XXXX Do not apply for anything with this bank.\nI can well understand why this \"joint\" has only 1 star rating. Comenity bank is usury at its finest. They are inconsistent, dishonest and scammy. Their accounts often include hidden fees and minimums. Payments will be applied randomly to multiple financed plans and their system does not have real time balance reporting. Their websites are trash. They will also randomly close accounts for no reason. Comenity: expect to be scammed.\nI used to have comenity bank with my XXXX  account and they were to difficult to deal with so I closed the account after they ruined my credit score on items I never bought. Now, I see they are doing the same thing with my XXXX  card. After i finally get out of the mess theyve made with that, I will never ever do business with any company that uses comenity, But since then Comenity bank calls 2 times a day and won't say anything when I answer. Checked them out and they are most likely a rip off scam company. They told us that we didn't pay the interest XXXX XXXX and all of the added fees. They sent us a bill - to our old address, again - and reported us again. Knock a hundred points off of our credit, zero confidence that they won't just do it again. AND when we were talking to them, the rep was rude, treated us like criminals, and hung up on us. Never again will I get anything from this bank. Never, ever, ever.\nComenity Bank is terrible, customer service rep's are just as bad. I purchased merchandise and donated XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I was not satisfied with the merchandise so I returned it. They credited by card all but the XXXX that I donated to XXXX XXXX. I later received a bill stating that I had a late fee. I did not have any other purchase on my card. They billed me late fees for XXXX months so I paid the late fee so it wouldn't impact my credit. The next month I received another late fee. My card is not late because I returned the merchandise. They are charging me monthly charges for the XXXX charges. I tried to dispute the matter.  I was given the wrong address, I had to contact the XXXX. This bank is definitely a SCAM. I'm closing my card and sharing my story on all social media platforms.\nComenity bank is such a scam you sent your money on time and they said oh no it takes 10 days to process so they give you late please I close my account immediately thank God the bogus late fees and interest charges which I am not going to pay I wish the companies that use them would not use them because I actually like the companies How come they are not aware of what a scam these people are? \n\nThey are quick to charge a late fee. I had a dispute with them and they never investigated it to get me a refund but the company I had a dispute with settled it later when I called the customer service number instead of the location of the disputed amount.\nPlease stay clear . This horrible greed . Plus I closed acct out last mth I pd it on XXXX XXXX they charged me late fee w acct closed in XXXX  said I may have pay another XXXX if interest from closed acct not pd by XXXX XXXX on closed out acct pd off XXXX bl just has pay interest fees today XXXX . Scammers very money hungry \nDO NOT GET INVOLVED WITH THESE PEOPLE!!! SCAMS. Got XXXX  credit card to buy a sofa XXXX my balance has never gone below that, no matter how much I paid. They now are FORCING account holders to give direct access to your checking account. Call customer service...you get charged XXXX to talk to someone.\nAny card I get I make sure it is not a commenity card. They are terrible, we received XXXX  calls a day on vacation for XXXX dollars. We were on tours and stuff and couldnt go thru getting the card out and writing down confirmations so we sent it to voicemail and took care of it at the hotel however it was ridiculous.\nThey will be hearing from my attorney and I am considering a class action lawsuit. STAY AWAY FROM COMENITY: THEY ARE FRAUDULENT THIEVES.\nI did not sign up for this terrible bank.I had a credit card with XXXX Well they changed my credit card to this terrible bank. Right away after the change I figured out how incredibly crooked Comenity bank is. They do not even have an App. They try to cheat people by making it very hard to find information. I paid off the entirety and will never do any business with them ever again. These kind of banks should never be allowed to operate. .Also XXXX  i am canceling your card After XXXX years just because you knew this bank was horrible but you were getting greedy and you thought you could get more interest and late payments from poor people that could not figure out how to find and understand how to pay this crooked scam company. Shame on you XXXX  for not caring anymore either.\nIm hiring a lawyer and I will go to the news. The store itself floor decor got hung up on and theres nothing they can do. I have my proof and I will not let them get away with this not even a star rating.\nI filed a dispute with them last XXXX  and they did nothing but kept telling that the dispute was still open but one is not supposed to pay any interest on account with a dispute.\nThey are shameless thieves...I was supposed to have paid my XXXX  card in full and after paying it off they charged me an interest of XXXX which rose in three months to XXXX dollars because they never sent letters or emails or text messages. They are the worst for credit cards, I don't recommend it. They are rats.\nJust like everyone else I would give 0 stars if I could. Worst bank ever and I am over XXXX years old so I have experience with banks. If you ever think about getting a credit card from this bank don't. You will have more issues resolving your problems than it is worth. They may even ruin your credit and no one including corporate wants to resolve any issues.\n\nIn XXXX  years of banking this bank is the WORST banking experience I have ever had ,of the 20 banks I have dealt with this one is rock bottom.I gave it a one star rating,if I could of I would of gave it a MINUS XXXX !!!  I owed them like XXXX  cents and the charged me a fine of XXXX plus interest ! I filed a complaint notice and got no response. When I got this ridiculous charge I paid it the next day just to get rid of it and then they hit me with a late charge and more interest !!! Their processing department must be the pony express. DO NOT OPEN AN ACCOUNT WITH THIS BANK, BE AFRAID BE VERY AFRAID !!!\nComenity Bank finds new ways to rob customers and charge interests that are not easy to understand, especially when you have the XXXX Credit Card and choose the 12-month financing option. Be careful and ALWAYS ALWAYS review your statements before making the payments. Comenity Bank is the worst Bank to deal with, they only care about taking money from you. They charge me XXXX as fees for one month, and I pay my card automatically every single month. Don't take any card from them, you will regret it!\n\nDo not apply for any kind of credit card unless you know what bank is being used for the credit. Comenity bank is a scam bank and will continue to charge you so called late fees long after you closed the account. They are also collections so they will turn it over to collections while you have no idea you owe money to a closed account. Complete scam.\n\nCrooked as can be. They do XXXXXXXX XXXX card and routinely send emails saying your payment is due on a certain date. When I go to pay in advance, late charges are already applied. I rarely receive payment emails before the payment is due. We have plenty of money. We just can't work with this company in a fair way.\n\nWe were with XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX. We were sold to Comenity and have had problems ever since. We pay our bill in full every month so I dont understand why when we use the card we are denied. This has happened to my husband very recently for the second time. I was also denied access on my card. Weve both been issued new cards and it happened again. Ive been embarrassed at the registerEnough is enough. They have been nothing but trouble.\nTerrible at best. I received a bill from XXXX  years ago that was payed ten tears ago. Comenity bank states that I am 4 months late on payments, but how can that be from a charge that was paid XXXX  years ago. Insane!!\nUse Comenity if you are BRAVE enough, so tired of arguing with them every month. Yes, they gives you headache at every month. Just when you are tired, they got a BIG piece of you without knowing it. It is not even qualified a legit bank to start with!!\nThey are a scam they take your Electronic payment from your bank account and say you did not pay. Then ask for your bank to send proof and say they never received that. And still want you to pay the bill even when its paid off.\n\nI have paid my bill consistently online and before the due date. They have no record of the payments and do not want to discuss it with me. I have tried to talk to their customer service but I could not understand a word they said. They finally hung up on me. I have told them I will not make another payment until they straighten out my account. Now I am receiving XXXX XXXX XXXX calls a day.\n\nI have the exact same problem with Comenity bank. My payment was due on XXXX, I sent my payment on XXXX , this bank claims they received the payment on XXXX. so they get to charge the late fee and interest. I called them , their answer is to check before due date to make sure the payment is in.\n\nThis bank does not expedite credit fraud investigation reported by credit card owners. They have taken XXXX months on my credit investigation and instead of investigating in a timely manner they kept charging me for the disputed charges and late fees, reduced my credit limit from XXXX XXXX XXXX. My original dispute investigation is still not resolved.\n\nAs a travel nurse making exceptional income, I will NEVER use this card again nor will I accept a credit line increase. WORST BANK EVER!!!!!!!!!\nOn XXXX XXXX I called their customer service line and asked the rep if I pay the balance today would there be any additional interest added to the account. They assured me that the final balance was the final balance. I also told them when I hit send on the payment that I wanted to close the account. Today I am looking at a bill for XXXX  more dollars. This company is a complete rip off and I would never recommend them to anyone.\nComenity Bank is a real life nightmare. No customer service skills, no resolutions to problems, a website that doesn't work and the inability to properly handle payment transactions. Move away from this bank as quickly as possible. . I know how to treat customers, and how I want to be treated. I've had XXXX XXXX  for XXXX  years, until today, you all know the problems. I have been a member of XXXX  for XXXX  years. I feel XXXX  did me wrong by turning the credit card over to such a poorly run, and understaffed bank. They had to know but didn't care because I'm sure palms were greased, and greed took over. I'm sorry I renewed my membership several months ago, but after XXXX  years of membership, it won't happen again, they caused our problems.\nSTAY away from them. They are crooks. I think they just string people along until they give up and pay it. They haven't met me. I will be filing a complaint with the feds. I've won before, I will again.\nI have been asked by a XXXX  representative to please keep using the card. Well, I've thought about it and no I will not use this card. Finally, their customer service representatives were terrible. They did not even try to help me and left me with XXXXXXXX  credit for XXXX  days!\nXXXX  switched to this company-try to follow up with Comenity Bank after receiving a letter that my due date had changed by a phone call but if I wanted to speak with a live voice would be charged XXXX XXXX what the heck was XXXX  thinking(not). Still awaiting current bill in mail. Will not setup any online service with this company (Comenity), in fact will stop using this card. XXXX  credit card service has lost a customer.\nXXXX  changed my VISA from XXXX XXXX XXXX to Comenity and its horrible. XXXX  responded to my complaint to the XXXX  in a professional manner but I got a letter from Comenity that was arrogant, obnoxious and a lie as far as their responsibility for unjustly charging me with late fees. Stay away from this bank that at the very least is incompetent with non existing customer support and whose business practices border on unethical.\nVery shady practices. Looks like they are there to get you in an endless loop to rip you off. A XXXX  purchase needed up with a XXXX bill. Their website is not available when I am ready to make the payment and couldnt get them on the phone also. Even after making the payment, they said that I might be getting a bill. When asked for what, they said that there is a daily charge and the balance I paid might not have that charges. Unbelievable!!! How can such a financial institution exist?? Feel awful for the customers who fell into their trap.\nComenity Bank operates worse than you would expect if you were dealing with a third world county bank. DO NOT TAKE OUT A STORE CREDIT CARD IF THE BANK INVOLVED IS COMENITY BANK.\nEach time Im told they will send me a new card, meaning I will be issued XXXX  cards I guess. I cant pay my balance without my account number. On phone Im told I can pay them for an extra fee. I dont think this is legit bank & they have all our info. Now I just want to pay my bill by cashiers check & be done with them which will also hurt my credit. But I dont know how.\nXXXX  issued me this card without my approval, then I canceled the account without activating the card. This was the beginning of a huge mess with nobody answering the phone. Tried to complain to XXXX  and couldn't get through to the right people there either. Stay away from this horrible bank and from XXXX  too.\nComenity recently took over servicing for a XXXX  Visa card from XXXX XXXX XXXX - which worked great for many years. Can't get an online account, can't get a service rep. This deserves NO stars. AVOID at all costs!!\nI received my XXXX  card, i also activated it, set up on line account, cant sign on to view my account, not going to use this card, will cancel it, i dont understand why XXXX  left XXXX XXXX XXXX  for these people, their customer service stinks.\nI have had a credit card affiliated with XXXX  for over XXXX years. XXXX XXXX XXXX serviced it. And I was happy with it. They saved me from fraud a couple of times. Apparently XXXX  dropped XXXX XXXX XXXX  for Comenity Capital bank. After reading some of these reviews I am going to steer clear of Comenity Bank. \nI can't get an online account set up and can't get a service rep. They are terrible!!! I don't understand why XXXX  made this change.\nI've had so many issues with this card. I tried to make a payment but their online and phone system was down for weeks so I was charged a late fee for that. I paid the next month and there's no history of me paying it at all even though I received a confirmation number. Customer service is rude and incompetent blaming me for not paying it in store when there system hasn't been working. Once I pay this card off I will be closing my account.\nComenity bank is charging interest on paid off balances and late charges on top of that. They have no regard for what is right, and calls are back-to-back. I would not recommend Comenity Bank to save my life!\nI cannot believe this company calls themselves a bank! This is the worst company ever! They made a $XXXX  mistake on my account. That's insane. Thank goodness I don't do business with them anymore.\nThey suck. On XXXX/XXXX  I mistakenly paid $XXXX  on a $XXXX  bill. They said I would have a check by XXXX. Nope, one operator said it is in the mail. This last operator said it is being processed. I told them, I am XXXX  and XXXX  costs me XXXX. I have no money to pay for it. They can't fed ex it nor can they call me or email me to let me know it was sent.\nComenity Bank does not Protect its credit card customers against unprincipled, unscrupulous merchant actions against its unknowing Comenity Bank Credit Card users. Please, beware of your online transactions using Comenity Credit Card. This bank does not protect its customers money,\nThey're trying to extort payments for returned items. I won't bore you anymore with the details except to say that If I see any financial ,banking or lending institution even remotely associated with Comenity I will try to get away from it as fast and far as humanly possible!\nThey're still charging me fees AFTER the card was supposedly closed. This is fraud and theft, and I'm in the position of having to fight with them because if I just don't pay it they could report to credit bureaus as an unpaid balance. Avoid any card through this bank at all costs--they're scam artists.\nHolding my payment hostage: I made a payment to Comenity XXXX more than the minimum payment which I frequently do. The payment was made on time but the payment somehow was inadvertently posted to a dead/closed account that was over XXXX years old. Why or How Comenity was able to post monies to a closed account.\nThe XXXX  Credit Card, managed by Comenity Bank, is a total fraud. I had autopay setup but then they stopped it without telling me. and then stacked up XXXX  months of late fee, and no notifications what-so-ever, until an agent called me i have XXXX months of late fee XXXXXXXX) stacked up. Total scammers... for a purchase of XXXX they should not be on this earth.\nComenity bank sent me a letter telling me that I owe them all the multiple transactions they stole from me or they will report me to the credit bureau. When I looked at my credit card statement, It showed the original transaction I made at Sportsman's, then it shows XXXX additional debits each for the same amount of over XXXXXXXX, but the debits are described as recurring payments.\nWhen I called them to resolve the issue, they told me they had fixed the issue, but they never did. I have called them many times and even though they admit this is a mistake, they tell me that they fixed it, but they still haven't.\nMy credit score is in the XXXX's for the last XXXX  years and now they are threatening to destroy it. I think I am going to get a lawyer and sue them. This is the most frustrating financial issue I have ever dealt with.\nWebsite and phones do not work AT ALL - don't try to pay them, you can't. Will just get you extra fees. They are a XXXX company - happy to give you credit at a high rate. NOW cannot even pay. Tried online. try calling. this is XXXX Just want to pay off and cancel this card. NOT WORTH THE HASSLE!\n Rude employees, XXXX  months trying to get a fraud charge taken care of. No one cares or bothers other than being rude and hanging up after a XXXX hour wait.Ask for supervisor was given another rude and non caring, uneducated employee. . Where the heck is this bank ? Well not sure it is a bank. I want my card closed and the false charge taken off. Does anyone care. I guess reviews don't mean anything because it is quite obvious they don't read them. Hundreds of reviews on this bank and they are still open. System has been down for XXXX weeks. CLOSE MY ACCOUNT.\nI have the exact experience with these people. Comenity Bank is a rip-off and so is XXXX! I have been charged a restocking fee and a late fee because I chose to fight this. Thus far Comenity says I owe them XXXX ALL IN RESTOCKING AND LATE FEES. I REFUSE to pay.\nI think it's literally been almost XXXX weeks now. Can't see my balance, can't pay my bill, I had to assign another payment method for all my Afterpay and pay pal pay-in-four purchases because the card is not going through when automatically billed...This is a disgrace - who monitors these XXXX anyway?\n\nThis company will try and ruin you. After calling them never wanted to tell me anything and the emails they kept sending me were the same ones over and over again. The unprofessionalism with these people are sick.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-01T18:05:59.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75216","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12759789","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2025-04-01T17:33:24.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["NOW <em>cannot</em> even pay. Tried online. try calling. this is XXXX Just want to pay off and cancel this card. NOT WORTH THE HASSLE!\n Rude employees, XXXX  months trying to get a fraud charge taken care of. No one cares or bothers <em>other</em> than being rude and hanging up after a XXXX hour wait.Ask for supervisor was given another rude and non caring, uneducated employee. . Where the heck is this bank ? Well not sure it is a bank. I want my card closed and the false charge taken off. Does anyone care."]},"sort":[3.568914,"12759789"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":5,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":5}]}},"product":{"doc_count":5,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":5,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money was taken from your account on the wrong day or for the wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":5,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":5}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":5,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":5,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":5}]}},"company":{"doc_count":5,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Bread Financial Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":5,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"NV","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":5,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":5,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":1},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{}}}