{"took":243,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":46,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8362010","_score":28.294518,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/2023, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). When 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 nature 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-16T19:26:21.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"20110","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8362010","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-02-16T19:01:58.000Z","state":"VA","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[28.294518,"8362010"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6869531","_score":28.22363,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing about XX/XX/2021, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX ( the Company ), which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America 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 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 nature 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-20T10:17:50.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"20876","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6869531","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-04-20T10:09:13.000Z","state":"MD","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[28.22363,"6869531"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9482046","_score":27.680038,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Between XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX - XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \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 nature 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 ) ( I had previously sent this claim before but my advisor has informed me I send some incorrect information )","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-11T20:36:05.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33068","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9482046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-11T20:15:21.000Z","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":["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 nature 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 ) ( I had previously sent this claim before"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[27.680038,"9482046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6710788","_score":24.083693,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On or about XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America ( BOA ) account to a fraudulent investment firm ( s ).\n\nWhen I informed Bank of America of the fraud I was told that BOA had no responsibility for the process or for protecting my funds.\n\nI believe there is an issue of liability. I ask these questions : 1. Whether BOA 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?\n\n2. Whether by virtue of BOAs 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? \n3. Whether BOA promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question?\n\n4. Whether BOA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures?\n\n5. Whether BOA owed duties to me, what the scope of those duties was, and whether BOA did not uphold those duties?\n\n6. Whether BOAs conduct was unfair?\n\nWhether BOA has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon 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.\n\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.\n\nAll of the evidence suggests that BOA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-17T19:46:25.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29414","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6710788","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-17T19:39:43.000Z","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":["Whether BOA promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question?\n\n4. Whether BOA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures?\n\n5. Whether BOA owed duties to me, what the scope of those duties was, and whether BOA did not uphold those duties?\n\n6. Whether BOAs conduct was unfair?\n\nWhether BOA has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[24.083693,"6710788"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10732839","_score":21.89222,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \nI was looking for a job, so I decided to put my resume on XXXX. Then, someone contacted me and offered me a job. The job description was that they were doing reviews for the company called COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF Page 2 of 6 XX/XX/year> Page 2 of 6 XXXX operating under the domain - XXXX. At first, I thought this was legit, and the scammers convinced me that this was an easy way to earn money, which I needed at the moment. \nFor that reason, I thought this was a good idea. \nI would've never sent the funds if I was aware that this could happen. I didnt know that there are criminals tricking people like this, and the bank did nothing to warn me about this and inform me of the risks involved. \n\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 nature 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-08T19:49:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33173","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10732839","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-11-08T19:39:59.000Z","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[21.89222,"10732839"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9627963","_score":18.45414,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/2024, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and client of Bank of America registered as XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \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 nature 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 : particularly vulnerable, or 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 : 1 ) 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 : A ) 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 : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. 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 ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\n\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 can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. \nIndeed, 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-26T19:34:38.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"18360","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9627963","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-26T18:39:16.000Z","state":"PA","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[18.45414,"9627963"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6531870","_score":18.45414,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, VA XXXX Consumer Protection Financial Bureau ( CFPB ) po box 27170 Washington, DC 20038 XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against Bank of America URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by Metamasktrading which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to the 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 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 XXXX 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 nature 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. Granted, 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. However, 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. \n\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. \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 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 : particularly vulnerable, or 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. \n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) 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 : A ) 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 : a. multiple chequebooks; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. 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 ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \n\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. \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 can not 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-02T22:16:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"234XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6531870","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-02-02T21:51:31.000Z","state":"VA","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[18.45414,"6531870"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9667434","_score":18.325851,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Commencing on or about XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX, which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \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 nature 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 : particularly vulnerable, or 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 : 1 ) 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 : A ) 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 : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. 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 ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. 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 can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. \nIndeed, 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.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-31T13:11:38.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"208XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9667434","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-31T13:05:58.000Z","state":"MD","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":["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 nature 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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[18.325851,"9667434"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10147020","_score":15.988222,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To : The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is to complain against the Bank of America URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - I sent my complaint letters 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 to my overall 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 practice 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 acknowledges my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX 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 Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \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 nature 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 Page 2 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX 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 learned 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 : particularly vulnerable, or 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. \nPage 3 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) 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. As regards the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) 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 : a. multiple chequebooks; b. suddenly increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. 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 ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. 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. \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 can not 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. \nPage 4 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX Conclusion : Based 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. \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 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. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-27T14:13:16.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"91601","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10147020","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-09-17T20:09:27.000Z","state":"CA","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":["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 nature 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 Page 2 of 4 XX/XX/XXXX those duties ; ( vi ) whether Bank of Americas"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[15.988222,"10147020"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9010315","_score":13.496679,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX United States The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington , DC XXXX XX/XX/year> WITHOUT PREJUDICE Subject : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to CFPB. \nCase Reference : XXXX Upon examining the response from BoA on XX/XX/year>, I have concluded that it is inadequate and unjust. \nThe investigation process appears to be biased against me as the victim, and lacks knowledge of good industry practices and compassion towards me as a customer. \nYour response seems to be based on a flawed understanding of my situation, and crucial information that contradicts your position. The decision made in relation to the issue I raised did not consider my vulnerability as a victim of financial crime and BoA 's responsibility to protect its clients from such crimes. \nFinancial institutions have a duty to conduct business with due skill, care, and diligence, and BoA 's subpar intervention in my case clearly falls short of reasonable business conduct. \nI am not looking for a debate about what could have been done, but rather a transparent, evidence-based investigation that considers my vulnerability, the sophistication of the scam, the shortcomings of XXXX to identify fraudulent companies, and BoA 's failure to identify suspicious transactions in a timely manner. \nWhen determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether BoA neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me, the scope of those duties, and whether they failed to uphold them ; whether their conduct was unfair ; and whether they have the ability and should compensate me for the harm that has occurred. \nFurthermore, it is completely preposterous that Bank of America stated in their statement that they would be happy to provide me with a provisional credit for the transactions of {$6.00} and {$11.00}. If I had known about the risks, which Bank of America never informed me about, I never would have sent the money. \n\nBank of America would have seen that this is a fraud if they had questioned me further at the time and asked how I had originally gotten in touch with this fraudster. \nThese kinds of frauds, in my opinion, happen on a daily basis, and financial institutions are more aware than their clients that this might happen to them. \nI hope that you will take these key points into account to reach a fair outcome. \n\nBoA had sufficient information available to justify and had the capability of stopping these payments altogether, but chose not to. \nXXXX. Educate clients : Banks can provide educational resources to their clients to help them identify and avoid scams. \nThis can include tips on how to recognize phishing emails, how to protect personal information, and how to avoid fraudulent investment schemes. \nXXXX. Implement security measures : Banks should have robust security measures in place, such as multi-factor authentication, to prevent unauthorized access to client accounts. They should also regularly monitor client accounts for any suspicious activity and notify clients immediately if any suspicious activity is detected. \nXXXX. Increase fraud detection : Banks should invest in advanced fraud detection systems to detect and prevent scams. This can include using artificial intelligence and machine learning to identify patterns of fraudulent activity. \nXXXX. Collaborate with law enforcement : Banks can work with law enforcement agencies to identify and prosecute scammers. They can also share information about scams to help prevent future incidents. \nXXXX. Provide immediate assistance : In the event that a client falls victim to a scam, banks should provide immediate assistance to help mitigate the impact. This can include freezing accounts, cancelling transactions, and providing financial support to clients. \nMisplaced Accountability : Victims of scams are often limited in their ability to react, as they instinctively and immediately respond to the demands of the perpetrator. It can be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to consciously refrain from such reactions. Giving off signals that make us vulnerable to these schemes is not the same as being grossly negligent, given the increasingly sophisticated nature of scams that are pervasive in society. \nIn my case, personal circumstances made me particularly vulnerable during the victimization period, as I was financially illiterate and inexperienced in the finance sector. This made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field. Since then, I have gained a greater understanding of the scope and nature of these crimes and the operations of the financial services sector on an international level. \nFinancial institutions are well aware of the risks posed by these crimes to their clients, who may have limited knowledge of these dangers. It is important to note that victims of scams are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions, but rather individuals who have been tricked, lied to, deceived, and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated and aggressive sales techniques can trap unsuspecting victims who are unable to escape until most or all of their funds have been lost or stolen by the scammers. A good comparison is to a perpetrator who \" grooms '' their victim while also assaulting them and preventing them from escaping. \nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim : Upon scrutiny, it is evident that your claims are flawed in attempting to thoroughly investigate the available facts, let alone provide an accurate portrayal of the role of Financial Institutions in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organization 's services, and other pertinent details regarding our relationship and its historical context. By focusing on inadequate due diligence checks, inconsequential references, and one-dimensional thinking, you present a distorted view of my fundamental rights as a customer, and offer a poor model for comprehending the issue in a well-reasoned and objective manner. \nThis approach also serves as a deficient guide to determining whether any wrongdoing occurred on your part. \nRegarding the \" authorization '' argument, you argue that statements such as \" the transaction has been authorized '' and \" the duty of care has been breached '' are incompatible. However, you have not demonstrated that these statements are logically contradictory or improbable with regard to each other. \nThey are not mutually exclusive when considered in the broader context. \nThe view that my authorization of the transaction renders me fully liable oversimplifies the situation and overlooks other relevant factors related to the breach of duty of care. Clearly, there are additional facts that must be taken into account beyond what initially appears. \nConclusion : Finally, as the foregoing analysis shows, BoAs grossly negligent failure to stop the fraud in question played a key role in causing my damages. BoA compounded such failures by making improper factual determinations and wrongfully rejecting the allegations made. BoAs failure to propose remedial action to achieve a just outcome in my case, as well as their ineffective assistance has resulted in my incurring staggering losses and runs contrary to their purported longstanding commitment to protecting the integrity and fairness of the market against any abuses. \nI formally request, in the name of justice as well as the points made above, that my case proceed with mediation/arbitration so that no party ends up suffering as a result of unjust actions and the refusal of anyone to take the basic responsibilities for enabling this to happen/doing nothing to set things right. \nThe information provided should meet the criteria for these reconsiderations. \nIf despite these objections, my concerns are not appropriately taken into consideration and are instead simply dismissed, you can be assured that alternative action will be taken, and I will make it a point to share our exchanges with the public so that at least pre-emptive action can be taken by other potential clients to avoid any dealings with organizations where customer security is not a priority. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-16T16:12:57.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"339XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9010315","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-14T19:35:24.000Z","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":["When determining what is reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and consider the following common queries : whether BoA neglected any rule, law, or regulation that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; whether they owed a fiduciary duty to me and breached it ; whether they promoted the questionable transaction despite being aware of its nature ; whether they were in compliance with their own policies and procedures ; whether they owed duties to me,"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[13.496679,"9010315"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9561046","_score":13.020031,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Bank of America to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Bank of America.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Bank of America\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by\ntaking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent\ncriminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise 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\nof Bank of America to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They\nsell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains\na traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Bank of America, I found their communication ineffective, which\nfurther hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or abouXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fell victim to a multi-layered scam\noperation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule,\nlaw, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct,\nthat may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of\nAmericas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power\nthe 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\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn\na blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other\nwords, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown 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\nin 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\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the\nevidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nBank of Americas Position:\nBank of America wrote in a letter The amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your\ncomplaint is an accumulation of several transactions that were sent to the three previously mentioned\nmerchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the transactions posted correctly\nto your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds.\nWe can only recommend that you contact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nRefuting Bank of Americas arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nBank of Americas position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation\nto protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Bank of Americas view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten\nlaws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight,\nwhen taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Bank of America morally obligated\nto do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Bank of America encounter\nthe suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Bank of\nAmerica.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Bank of America carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had\na duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Bank of America, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some\nof the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything\nother than its own interests.\nIt is Bank of America here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that\nis to say, that Bank of America adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue\ngiven its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Bank of America that claims that the damages which\nI have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed\ndegree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX capacity, experience,\nexpertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Bank of Americas indisputable overriding\npurpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a\nbalance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect\nconsumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set\nup a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, 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\nmay be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith 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 customers from financial harm that might\noccur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might\nbe at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent\nor minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets\nout systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point,\nit says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies\nthat are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised\npayments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples 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\nwhose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity\nof the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal\njustification.\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\nto verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or\ndetected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nBank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wideranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not\nsufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons\nby which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable\nand well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence\nof such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers\nwho have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively\ncontributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Bank of America adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nI would also like to highlight the stark difference in how complaints are handled between Bank of America\nand XXXX XXXX Bank of America's handling of the situation was notably inadequate. They failed to properly\nacknowledge the issues I faced and did not provide the necessary support to recover my funds. In contrast,\nPNC Bank managed the situation with exemplary care. They not only acknowledged everything I had been\nthrough but also took proactive steps to assist me in recovering my funds. This level of customer service\nand attention to detail speaks volumes about XXXX XXXX commitment to their clients and their ability to\neffectively address and resolve issues.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this\nconnection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Bank of Americas business conduct\nwas insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. Bank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice \nthat is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers\nis inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result\nof 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)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these\nthingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide 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.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America\nBank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE\nSubjectXXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to XXXX XXXX XXXX: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nI have now reviewed your response dated XXXX XXXX XXXX Based on my review, I do not believe you have acted fairly, let alone reasonably.\nThe investigatory processes appear to disfavour the victim, and there is a lack of knowledge of good industry practice as well as a lack of\ncare/compassion towards me as the customer.\nYour response is, to say the least, extremely inadequate. It is based on a blatantly incorrect understanding of what I have maintained.\nWhat amazes me is just how difficult it has been to find soundness in it. Your analysis, for instance, does not engage with the actual\nhistory of my account and a significant portion of related data that may contradict your position has been conveniently ignored.\nSeemingly, in arriving at a decision in relation to the issue I raised, no consideration was given to a) Duty of care in relation to the fact\nthat I am the victim of a financial crime and b) The responsibility that your institution hold to protect its clients from such crimes.\nI find your rejection incredibly offensive and perplexing. In all honesty, if you could provide me with any kind of a logical coherent\naccount that could reconcile the evident fact of the multiple warning signals as well as my susceptibility relating to this matter with the\nexistence of a sound anti-fraud program, then I would absolutely appreciate your point of view.\nGiven the variety of similar cases involving various types of scams, you should be acutely aware of this problem for society, but your\nsuperficial (and perhaps convenient) answer to it, simply put, is that blameless victims must be held accountable for their misfortune.\nBecause your argument presumably aims at self-protection rather than the truth, we can have no confidence that your rejection is\nultimately just, fair, or reasonable. It is time to adopt a more realistic, long-term attitude towards unavoidable scenarios of this kind,\nstarting from the justifiable assumption that such injured parties did not in the least contribute to (and thus certainly should not bear\nresponsibility for) their own victimisation.\nMisplaced Accountability:\nScam victims have relatively little freedom of reactivity; under such circumstances, they respond immediately, instinctively, and\ninvariably to the specific demands of the perpetrator. Being able to consciously refrain from reacting in such a way is extremely difficult\nand sometimes impossible. Unwittingly giving off signals that mark us as easy targets, is by no means the same as being grossly\nnegligent, in view of the increasingly sophisticated scams, which continue to be a pervasive problem in society.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimisation period; I was also relatively financially illiterate\nand very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nSince this time, having lost all of my savings to these fraudulent companies, I have learnt an enormous amount about the scope of these\ncriminal endeavours and also about how the financial services sector operates internationally.\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,\nmostly 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\npeople who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping\nthe uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been\nlost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a perpetrator who grooms his victim whilst at the same time assaults him/her and\nprevents them from escaping.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must\ntherefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as\nthe one described herein.\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim:\nScrutiny shows that your claims are defective as an endeavour to thoroughly investigate the accessible facts; let alone as an attempt to\nportray an accurate image respecting the role of banks in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organisations scope of services, and\nvarious other details in connection with the duties that emerge out of our relationship, particularly in the context of the broader historical\ncircumstances. The emphasis that you have placed on the incredibly insufficient diligence checks as well as the inconsequential\nreferences and the unidimensional thinking, not only gives a skewed picture of my fundamental rights as your customer, but also\npresents a poor blueprint for understanding the issue discussed in a well-reasoned and objective manner, and an even poorer guide to\ndictate whether there has been, as suggested, wrongdoing on your part.\nThe amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned merchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds. We can only recommend that you\ncontact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nConcerning the \"authorisation\" argument, it can be cast as an incompatibility between statements such as \"the transaction has been\nauthorised\" and \"the duty of care has been breached\". However, you have not shown that both statements are logically incompatible or\nimprobable with respect to each other. They are not mutually exclusive in the broader context.\nThe view that I have authorised the transaction and therefore fully liable is dangerously reductive--various aspects relating to the breach\nof the duty of care have been marginalised. Clearly there are more facts to be taken into account than at first appears.\nI notice that your account of the subject matter depends crucially on the supposed lack of obligation which is perhaps the most obscure\npoint in your argument. But regardless, your views give us reason to contemplate as well whether your societal role (which arguably\nrenders you capable of preventing plausibly foreseeable damages such as the one set forth herein) should trigger the appropriate moral\nobligations rather than unscrupulous beliefs which are inherently unjust, flagrantly unfair and merely conducive to your own self-interest\nand welfare. Likewise, you unknowingly oppose the emergent notion that I was no luckier in blindly placing faith in your\nestablishments competence than I would have been in not doing so.\nYou have blithely ruled out your obligation herein by undermining reasoning strategies aimed at justice and fairness; remarkably, you\nhave deliberately avoided the uncomfortable yet inevitable conclusion that in this instance you are to be held accountable, by narrowly\nholding that a financial institution's role in society is merely to \"act upon the customer's instruction.\" This sort of reductionist view has\nlong since been exposed as inadequate among world-leading, key financial regulatory authorities.\nIt is intuitively clear that you have not reckoned with the remarkable range of indispensable functions, which your organisation should\nperform for the community in a manner that is both stable and sustainable. It is moreover blatantly apparent, that, instead of being\nattuned more than ever to the importance of apprehending the pernicious influences of your idleness and non-intervention amidst an\ninexorable rise of financial fraud, you are unwarrantably hiding behind specious arguments based on thin assumptions, inadequate\nresearch, poor evidence, and sloppy reasoning. It is a whole lot better and far more effective to do the right thing, rather than the most\nprofitable one thereby compromising the integrity of your enterprise. I suggest that by following adequate protocols aimed at mutual\nbenefits (rather than satisfaction of personal goals), disadvantaged consumers will thrive rather than suffer, with a plethora of positive\nfeedback propagating far and wide as a result.\nI demand an investigation to bring to light additional relevant evidence that I am persuaded will support my view. It is hereby proposed\nthat your motivations may adversely affect reasoning through overreliance on a biased set of processes. As a substitute for sub-optimally\nrelying on a set of gross oversimplifications (which frustratingly and inexorably lead us to draw erroneous conclusions), we should,\ninstead, systematically account for the totality of the evidence howsoever unpalatable by even-handedly relying on complex and\nmultifactorial reasoning. The demand for sound reasoning is essentially a demand for ultimate explanation, and is linked with a complete\nunderstanding of the pronounced role that you played in permitting my injuries herein\nIn light of the above, it is patently clear that your train of thought is fatally flawed and totally unsupported. You have failed to come up\nwith positive evidence to support your claims, that is, to show beyond any reasonable doubt that irrespective of your conduct, my\nvictimization was an inevitable outcome. On the other hand, I have provided substantial evidence to support the claim that you could\nhave done more to safeguard my funds. Not only have you let me down, but you have also failed to admit that you could and should\nhave done better.\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). Your\nresponse has limited the discussion narrowly to highly technical terms, and insufficient attention has been given to your organizational\ndysfunctions from a common-sense point of view. It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various riskbased\nexamination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous\noutcome. It is wildly incorrect to assume that you have exercised your duties by doing the minimum necessary. You have not exercised\nyour duties at all, rather, many of your underlying assumptions have simply gone unquestioned. Instead of being receptive to\nconstructive criticism and improving yourself, you ultimately seek to blame your customers thus absolving yourself of any\nresponsibility.\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 enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus\nviolate 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. To the extent to\nwhich you were inconsistent therewith, you are liable for damages. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration\ninclude, 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 as a customer and other entities\nassociated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability, identification and research\nof high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies\nand procedures.\nIt is incumbent upon financial institutions to carefully assess all information available about their customers, including vulnerability,\nneeds and customer type. There is a wide range of transactions which, although legitimate, should raise a red flag simply because they\nare inconsistent with the customers typical and ordinary activity. What constitutes reasonable grounds to flag transactions varies\naccording to the facts and circumstances of the particular matter being investigated and the effectiveness of the anti-fraud processes.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organisation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If\nyou don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable\nif 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 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\nindividual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm, these recommendations are established as a\ngeneral 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\nare developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through\nauthorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud 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\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\nmarket 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\nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-19T23:38:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9561046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-19T23:25:30.000Z","state":"NJ","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":["duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[13.020031,"9561046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2465993","_score":12.501388,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have contacted Ba nk of America and requested FCRA required docs to report the account to the CRA 's and they have claimed to investigate and are claiming they are reporting accurately and in compliance to FCRA credit reporting laws. THIS IS UNTRUE AND ILLEGAL. The procedures to report ANY account have NOT been abided by or done in accordance to ALL credit reporting laws! See the letter I sent them and they continue to knowingly and willfully reporting ILLEGALLY. I am making official writ notice to you today, even right now and right here in a civilly recognized certified declaration of composed challenge as I, in my rights to do such, compel or even adamantly demand for your requisite check to ensure you are performing complaint reporting, the compliance of what you are reporting and the compliance of how these allegations are being mysteriously reported by whom you transferred this certain injurious or even illegal damning allegations that are to date severely deficient of adequate proof to be fully all : ( 1 ) true, ( 2 ) fully correct, ( 3 ) fully complete, ( 4 ) within federal timeliness, and ( 5 ) to be of my lawful ownership of responsibility ( 6 ) as well as in agreement to every and one even each any and or all of the mandates/ obligations/regulations/and laws of my state as well as any and all pertinent federal laws, whether noted here or not regardless of your willful disregard of or the ignorance thereof. This letter is in part due to possibly even an response to the likely infringing communications I received from a collector representing your agency very recently, beit a phone call/fax/mail or otherwise matters not since the requisite laws were not obliged by.In this horrendous communication, your collector attempted, illegally mind you, to forcibly informed me that I insanely owed YOU an alleged debt ( see enclosed ). Upon reaching out to your collector in reply guardedly mind you, within my legal rights to do so, I questioned the collector regarding your rights to pursue this unproven and infringing accusation, I was stubbornly and overbearingly yet curtly informed that YOUR FIRM 'S policy DID NOT permit any validation of the information regarding this or any alleged debt and it was your firm 's policy to NOT provide detailed account records to ANY debtor.I AM IN MY RIGHTS TO ABSOLUTELY REQUEST THAT YOU PLEASE VERIFY AND VALIDATE PHYSICALLY EVERY AND ONE E VEN EACH ANY AND OR ALL OF THE CLAIMS OF THIS ALLEGED YET UNPROVEN TO BE MY RESPONSIBILITY OR FAULT.DEMONSTRATE READILY AND TIMELY THE PRECISE CONFIRMING FACTS OF THE ALLEGED ACCOUNT INCLUDING EVERY SING LE ONE EVEN EACH ANY AND OR ALL OF ITS ARTICLE ASPECTS.BY FEDERAL LAWS, YOU MUST WILLFULLY AND PROMPTLY DELETE TODAY EVEN RIGHT NOW THIS DEFICIENT REPORTING OR ELSE PRESENT TO ME TRUE DOCUMENTED CERTIFICATE PROOF OF ALL DATA, EVERY NOTATION, DATE, BALANCE, CALCULATION, AUDIT, PERSONAL IDENTIFIER, EACH OF THE REQUISITE 426-CHARACTERS OF THE EXACT AND FULLY COMPLIANT P6 STATEMENT, ANY ALPHA-/ NUMERIC-/ AND OR ALPHANUMERIC SOURCE CODE DECIDING THE LEFTNESS OR RIGHTNESS STATES, AND EVEN EVERY ASPECT OF THE MANDATED 386 PIECES OF CONFIRMATION TO COLLECTION. I have clearly indicated or even demanded to correspond to someone with appropriate authority, should it be a phone call the with a supervisor.YET I HAVE NOT been allowed such communication. I take that, as would anyone in my circumstance I assume, that your collector is trying to make me convinced that a person or adequate authority or even a lowly supervisor is or was unavailable .Worse, without satisfying any of the mandated requirements, it seems as if you are continuing efforts in non-compliance to make me believe I should or must pay the unproven debt or if in defiance I might face being sued by your firm. In past and I am certain should I do such with your firm as well, whenever I informed or do conversationally inform YOUR collector that I was or am in process to start a recording of the totally eradicate of common standards and mis behavioristic, at best descriptions, conversation I was or your collector will hang up or hung up on me. Infringing claims that are not testimonial in its indubitable certificate to be adequately true, accurate, complete, timely and or compliant to every an d one even each any and or all of the requisite and obligatory State ( mine ) and or Federal laws that are applicable, regardless if claimant alleges ignorance or is willful in their derelict of the mandates violated.Per my RIGHTS to do so, I demand that you adequately ATTEST in lawful composition to every single and one even each any and or all of the data, every notation, the dates and balances, calculations and audits, accounting records and assure even the documented identities, the required CRSA enacted Metro-2 426-character format fielded P6 statement ( s ), at least the minimal five ( 5 ) portioned personal identifiers, authentic unabbreviated alpha-/ numeric-/ and or alphanumeric source code ( s ), respective corresponding and specific 386 pieces of confirmation to collect, any and every particular status code and description, as well as every single and one even each any and or all of the facets demanded by my State and or Federal, mentioned or not.Take note that the Ignorance of laws is not lawfully vindication nor exoneration from delusive chicanery, acted in ignorance or otherwise matters not.To return to or retain required compliance, delete every and one even each any and or all of the derogatory remarks today, even now! I tell you the truth, to this I have made myself aware of my rights and what actions I might seek in reactions to being treated as a lame duck and or threatened with scandalously deplorable legal actions by your representative or any others, I know to know ensure I have quickly a need to contact the United States CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU ; I know I am in need to ensure that I speak or make notice to understanding of the laws and my rights representative who will make certain that I am or have always been forwarded to an appropriate leveled authority figure, maybe even just a supervisor who will or each time in the previous made clear as it is or was being pointed out that, indeed, YOUR Firm IS REQUIRED BY THE FDCPA and the Credit Reporting Bureau Settlement agreement to PROVIDE every single one even each any and or all of the FOLLOWING information to any debtor, including myself, that your firm is pursuing, whether rightfully so or in denial of laws. Additionally, my extensive researches into this matter have detailed to me very assertively that literally any good attorney knowledgeable on credit, finance, and or every and one even each any and or all of the consumer rights laws has confirmed to me that most definitely your FIRM is compelled by ethics, morality, and even TORT laws precedent to provide this information or face a lawsuit to deliver to me adequate monetary justice and satisfaction of remedying annulment of every and one even each any and or allof your untruths, inaccuracies, untimely claims, incomplete allegations, and or all other unproven mine or not fully compliant reportings : XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , XXXX XXXX XXXX , PLLC, -- - F. 3d -- - ( 6th Cir. 2014 ), 2014 WL 3440174 ( 6th Cir. Mich. 2014 BANK OF AMERICA IS IN THE WRONG AND HAS TO REMOVE THE ACCOUNT IMMEDIATLY PER FCRA CREDIT REPORTING LAWS!!!!!","date_sent_to_company":"2017-04-26T16:54:54.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33326","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2465993","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2017-04-25T17:14:44.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have contacted Ba nk of America and requested FCRA required docs to report the account to the CRA 's and they have claimed to investigate and are claiming they are reporting accurately and in compliance to FCRA credit reporting laws. THIS IS UNTRUE AND ILLEGAL. The procedures to report ANY account have NOT been abided by or done in accordance to ALL credit reporting laws! See the letter I sent them and they continue to knowingly and willfully reporting ILLEGALLY."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[12.501388,"2465993"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":12.4611435,"_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":["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"],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[12.4611435,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22596398","_score":12.168261,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX Bank of America , N.A .\n\nAttention : Notice of Error and Request for Information XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Property : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear Counsels - XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX .\n\nBank of Americas XX/XX/XXXX letter is a DOE and legally deficient, factually incomplete, and deliberately evasive. Bank of America, can not simultaneously claim that their response is provided under Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, while also arguing that the XX/XX/XXXX correspondence forwarded by XXXX XXXX was not a proper Notice of Error or Request for Information because it was not sent to your designated address. Regulation X does not permit a servicer to invoke its protections when convenient and disclaim its obligations when inconvenient.\n\nYour letter repeatedly states that no errors were identified and no corrections are required. These conclusory assertions are insufficient. You fail to describe the scope of any investigation performed, the systems or custodians searched, the retention policies applied, or the specific documents relied upon for each determination.\n\nA bare conclusion does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X.\n\nError 1 HOA Payment Misapplication Your claim that all payments were applied correctly and that you have no record of any HOA payment misapplication is not credible. Bank of America has no authority to decide whether HOA payment errors occurred in this account. The U.S. government, via XXXX XXXX and other federal agencies, hired a third party who determined who has already conducted an audit and identified errors in the handling of the HOA and on this loan. That finding alone is supersedes Bank of America and it is sufficient to establish that servicing errors took place. Bank of America, with all their law firms, is not a regulatory agency and can not simply override or ignore a government audit by issuing a self-serving statement that it found no error.\n\nMoreover, the Loan History Statement you attached does not address the critical period when the property was under the control of your preservation contractors, ( Who admitted the locks were changed without authorization, and when the property was severely damaged.\n\nBank of America generated an AI letter as the HOA matter does not pertain to Bank of America. Furthermore, Bank of America, does not have access to accounting information nevertheless any ledger, accounting statement, or distribution record showing the actual amounts paid to the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX from the foreclosure sale proceeds, or how those amounts were credited against the loan or judgment and if Bank of America does have HOA information, it will be interesting to know how it was obtained.\n\nIt is now well documented that during this period, major banks, including through their relationship with XXXX XXXX, colluded with homeowners associations to drive foreclosures and extract payments from distressed homeowners. \nBank of America blanket denial, combined with the refusal to produce the actual HOA distribution records from the sale, raises serious questions about whether Bank of America is attempting to conceal the full extent of the payment misapplication and the improper benefit the Association received from the defective foreclosure process.\n\nA bare assertion that all payments were applied correctly without producing the underlying HOA ledgers, sale proceeds distribution records, or any explanation of how the government audit findings were considered does not constitute a reasonable investigation under Regulation X and the sole mentioned of it, means that an audit is merited. Error 2 Property Preservation Damage and Insurance Proceeds Bank of America state that property preservation activities were conducted in accordance with standard servicing practices and that Bank of America have no record of any insurance claims or proceeds. This response is inadequate. Your own preservation contractors caused damage to the property. One of your agents changed the locks and installed a lock-box without authorization, after which appliances and personal property were removed. The XXXX XXXX Police Department documented this incident. Your claim that you have no record of insurance claims does not address the damage caused by your own agents while the property remained legally mine. You have also failed to identify the systems searched or provide any preservation vendor records, invoices, or communications.\n\nError 3 Foreclosure Sale Based on Depressed Valuation You claim the foreclosure sale was conducted in accordance with applicable law and that the valuation was based on the condition of the property at the time of appraisal. You do not address the XX/XX/XXXX court order that specifically noted PROPERTY DAMAGE and directed Bank of America to repair the property within thirty days. You also ignore contemporaneous appraisals showing the damaged property was valued at approximately {$100000.00} less than half the judgment amount. You can not damage the property, ignore a court repair order, sell it in that condition, and then claim the valuation was accurate. You have provided no valuation analysis, property-condition evidence, or preservation records tied to the valuation.\n\nError 4 DOJ Enforcement Action Review and Exclusion from Settlements Bank of America state that the loan was not identified for review under any DOJ enforcement action or settlement. Bank of America response is not only disingenuous, but it also misleading.\n\nIn addition to the 2012 California-specific robo-signing case ( Case No. XXXX ), there were several major nationwide settlements involving Bank of America and its predecessor, XXXX. \nIn XXXX, the Department of Justice entered into its largest residential fair lending settlement in history against XXXX XXXX XXXX ( then owned by Bank of America ) in the Central District of XXXX. The {$330.00} XXXX settlement addressed systemic discrimination against minority borrowers. Plaintiff was excluded from any relief under this settlement despite extensive prior communications with Bank of America. \nIn XXXX, Bank of America, along with other major servicers, entered into the {$25.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement resolving widespread foreclosure and servicing abuses, including robo-signing. Bank of America paid the largest share of this settlement. Plaintiff was again excluded from any borrower relief.\n\nBetween XXXX and XXXX, Bank of America paid approximately {$16.00} XXXX to resolve Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities claims. Plaintiff received no compensation or remediation under any of these agreements, despite the clear overlap between the misconduct addressed in those settlements and the facts of her foreclosure, property damage, confirmation defects, and post-sale accounting issues.\n\nBank of America statement that the loan was not identified for review does not change the fact that Plaintiff was systematically excluded from relief programs designed to address the very categories of harm she suffered.\n\nIncomplete Foreclosure Accounting and Record Destruction Bank of America state that records concerning the distribution of foreclosure proceeds and the VA net-value acquisition calculation are no longer retained in your archival system. You provide only a partial Loan History Statement. You have not demonstrated that you conducted a reasonable search of all servicer files, foreclosure files, legal files, guaranty-claim files, or vendor files. Simply claiming records are purged or may be with the VA does not satisfy your obligations under Regulation X or in active litigation. Bank of America have also failed to provide document retention policy, purge dates, or an affidavit from a records custodian.\n\nCredit Reporting Response You state that the loan is no longer being reported to consumer reporting agencies and that prior reporting was accurate when made. This is insufficient. You have not identified what was actually reported, when it was reported, to which agencies, or what documents you reviewed to conclude the reporting was accurate and how negatively impacted and impacts my credit- despite that U. S. Federal agencies found these errors. A conclusory statement does not constitute a reasonable investigation.\n\nDemand for Supplemental Response Bank of America must supplement its response within ten ( 10 ) business days and provide the following : All documents reviewed or relied upon for each no error determination.\n\nThe complete foreclosure sale accounting, including distribution of proceeds and any VA net-value calculations.\n\nAll property preservation vendor records, invoices, work orders, and communications.\n\nAll HOA ledgers and records showing amounts paid from sale proceeds and how they were credited.\n\nAll insurance claim and proceeds records ( or a sworn explanation if none exist ) .All credit reporting history for this loan.\n\nA request-by-request explanation, tied to a specific Regulation X exception, for every document withheld as over-broad, burdensome, irrelevant, privileged, or outside your possession.\n\nFailure to provide a complete and compliant supplemental response will be treated as continued noncompliance with Regulation X and as evidence of bad faith.\n\nNothing in this letter waives any rights, claims, objections, remedies, or damages. All prior reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Notice of Fiduciary and Ethical Obligations to XXXX XXXX XXXX This addemdum is directed to you in your capacity as counsel for Bank of America , N.A . in connection with the above-referenced loan and property. You are hereby placed on formal notice of your fiduciary duties and ethical obligations as an officer of the court. It appears that AI drafted a letter with matters that do not pertain to Bank of America.\n\nAs an attorney representing a client in matters involving federal statutes, ongoing litigation, and regulatory compliance, you owe duties that extend beyond mere advocacy for your client. These include : Duty of Candor to the Tribunal Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3, and the corresponding rules adopted by the jurisdictions in which you practice, you have an affirmative duty to be candid with courts and to correct false or misleading statements made to any tribunal.\n\nThis duty continues even after a representation has concluded if you later learn that false evidence or statements were presented.\n\nDuty to Avoid Assisting in Fraud or Misrepresentation You may not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third party, nor may you assist a client in conduct that you know is criminal or fraudulent. This includes responses to formal regulatory requests under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ( RESPA ), 12 U.S.C. 2605, and Regulation X.\n\nDuty to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation When responding to a borrowers Notice of Error or Request for Information under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36, counsel has an obligation to ensure that the servicer has conducted a reasonable search and that the response is accurate and complete. A response that relies on conclusory statements while withholding material records does not satisfy this duty. \n\nDuty as an XXXX of the XXXX You are not merely a private advocate. You are an XXXX of the legal system with a special responsibility for the quality of justice. This includes the obligation to refrain from conduct that undermines the integrity of judicial or administrative processes, including the concealment of material information or the making of representations that are inconsistent with known facts in the record. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations. These include contradictory positions regarding the applicability of Regulation X, conclusory no error findings unsupported by identified records, failure to produce critical accounting and distribution documents from the foreclosure sale, and incomplete or evasive responses regarding property preservation, HOA payments, and credit reporting.\n\nYou are further advised that continued reliance on prior responses, blanket assertions that records have been purged, or deflection of responsibility to other entities ( such as the VA ) without a demonstrated reasonable search of all relevant files may constitute a violation of your ethical duties, particularly in light of the government audit findings and the documented internal concerns regarding the foreclosure and title issues.\n\nThis letter serves as formal notice that any further deficient or misleading responses may be used as evidence of bad faith and may be brought to the attention of the appropriate courts, regulatory bodies, and disciplinary authorities.\n\nNothing in this letter constitutes a waiver of any rights, claims, or remedies available to me. All prior objections, demands, and reservations of rights remain in full force and effect.\n\nI expect a complete and compliant supplemental response within the timeframe previously demanded. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Issue in XXXX Letter, Why Its an Error, Regulation/ Legal Problem 1 ) Contradictory position on Regulation X, '' They claim the response is under 1024.35 & 1024.36, but then say your XXXX XX/XX/XXXX letter ( forwarded by XXXX ) was not a proper RESPA request because it wasnt sent to the designated address. '' You can not invoke the protections of Regulation X while simultaneously disclaiming its obligations. This is a classic bad-faith tactic.\n\n2 ) Conclusory no error findings, '' They repeatedly say no errors were identified without describing what investigation was done, which systems were searched, or which documents were reviewed. \", Regulation X requires a reasonable investigation. A bare conclusion is insufficient ( see XXXX XXXX Bank of America ). \n\n3 ) Failure to identify relied-upon documents, They never clearly list what records they actually reviewed for each no error determination., Required under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( e ) and 1024.36 ( d ).\n\n4 ) Global / blanket objections, '' They make a broad statement that some requests are overbroad, burdensome, or not in their possession without tying each objection to specific requests. \", Regulation X requires them to respond to the reasonably identifiable portion and explain each withholding specifically.\n\n5 ) Incomplete foreclosure accounting, '' They only gave a partial Loan History Statement and claimed records of foreclosure proceeds distribution and VA net-value calculation are no longer retained. They did not prove they searched all relevant files ( servicing, legal, foreclosure, vendor ). \", This is not a reasonable search. They also failed to provide retention policy or custodian affidavit.\n\n6 ) VA record deflection, They say VA net-value records may have been maintained by the VA without showing they searched their own guaranty-claim files or vendor files., XXXX ( as servicer ) had obligations to maintain and produce these records.\n\n7 ) Weak valuation response ( Error 3 ), '' They claim the sale was proper and valuation was accurate, but completely ignore the XX/XX/XXXX court order ( PROPERTY DAMAGE ) and the XX/XX/XXXX appraisals showing ~ $ XXXX value. \", They must address the specific evidence you raised.\n\n8 ) Misleading settlement response ( Error 4 ), They say the loan was not identified for any settlement. This is misleading because you were excluded from the XXXX XXXX Fair Lending Settlement and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Settlement despite the nature of your claims., They are downplaying the pattern of exclusion.\n\n9 ) Credit reporting response is conclusory, '' They say the loan is no longer reported and prior reporting was accurate when made without identifying what was reported, when, or to which bureaus. \", This does not constitute a proper investigation or correction under FCRA or RESPA.\n\n10 ) Record destruction without justification, \" They admit BPOs and old escrow statements were purged but provide no retention policy, purge dates, or proof of reasonable search before destruction ( especially after litigation was foreseeable ). \", This can support spoliation arguments.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-27T00:09:47.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"21209","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22596398","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-05-26T23:46:12.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The XX/XX/XXXX response letter issued on behalf of Bank of America contains multiple deficiencies that raise serious concerns about compliance with these obligations."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[12.168261,"22596398"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8572269","_score":10.955648,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"It's recently come to my attention that the various credit reporting agencies American Express, XXXX XXXX XXXX are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. XXXX is also in violation of Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. \n\nPlease carefully examine this complaint as my rights are being violated. \nI'm unable to acquire loans or credit that I desperately need right now to take care of my family. \nThis information is damaging me. \nI'm unable to get a vehicle. \nI'm unable to purchase things that I need for my family, even though that I have a right to credit. \nI'm being denied it. \n\n15 U.S.C. 1681, Congressional Findings and Statement of Purpose, Say the Accuracy and Fairness of Credit Reporting.Congress makes the following findings : There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumer 's right to privacy. \n\n\nThere is no respect for the consumer 's right to privacy. \nBut there is a need to protect my right to privacy. \nReporting my transaction history is illegal. \nAny and all consent to XXXX, XXXX, ( Furnisher of information to credit agencies ) whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, implied or otherwise is revoked. \n\n15 U.S.C. Subsection 1681B says the permissible purposes of Consumer Reports, any consumer agency, consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other, in accordance with written instructions of the consumer according to whom it relates, which means they need my written consent to add anything to my consumer report and I did not give this authorization, which is a violation of the FCRA.\n\nFurthermore, 15 U.S.C. 1681c says requirements relating to information contained in the Consumer Reports, except it's authorized under subsection b, no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information, any other adverse item of information other than convictions of crimes which annotates the report by more than se\n\nven years. Well, I have no convictions of crime and therefore I should have no discrepancies or derogatory marks on my consumer report.\n\nThis is yet another violation. My account is an adverse item they are reporting.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681E, Compliance Procedures, states, Identity and Purposes of Credit Users. Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of Section 1681C of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under Section 1681B. These procedures shall require that prospective users of information identify themselves, certify the purposes for which the information is sought, and certify that the information will be used for no other purpose.\n\nEvery consumer reporting agency shall make a reasonable effort to verify the identity of a new prospective user and the uses certified by such prospective use prior to furnishing such user consumer report.\n\nNo consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report to any person if has reasonable grounds for believing that the Consumer Report will not be used for a purpose listed in Section 1681B of the Title. \nb. The Accuracy of the report whenever a Consumer Reporting Agency prepares a Consumer Report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates, But the information on my report is inaccurate.\n\nand information contained in Consumer Reports, they, XXXX, XXXX, and American Express are violating compliance procedures under this Title.\n\n15 U.S.C. Subsection 1681N, Civil Liability for Willful Noncompliance, states that a. In general, any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of at least {$1000.00}. \nFurthermore, if they can prove they willfully violated Section 1681N, they are liable to You're entitled to at least {$1000.00} per violation and any other damages sustained as a result for failure to follow the law. \n\nAnd as I stated, I have damages because I've been unable to get a loan, I've been unable to get a vehicle, I've been unable to get credit. \nI can only get a secure credit card right now because of all this damaging information on my credit report. \nThese various reporting agencies have a full understanding of the violations that I have stated to them after I complained the first time. \nEach of these companies said in their agreements with consumers that they would follow the law and agreed to do so, but they are well aware that they are breaking the law.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681-O, Civil Liability for Negligent Noncompliance .\n\nIn general, any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer, is liable to be fined {$1000.00}, Is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure. Negligent non-compliance means the law was violated not on purpose but due to a lack of knowledge on the required reporting procedures.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681 S-2 states responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies.\n\nNumber one, prohibition states that reporting information with actual knowledge of errors, a person shall not furnish any information relating to the consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\nThe information on this report is highly inaccurate.\n\nThese agencies have been notified that there's inaccurate information and they have not stopped reporting that information and they have not been able to prove that it is in fact valid.\n\nThese violations of the F.C.R.A. are one of the reasons that I filed this complaint today and because I need your help.\n\nThe violations of the Privacy Act of 1974.\n\nThe term record means any item collection or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency including but not limited to his education, financial transactions and that contains his name or the identifying number, symbol or other identifying particular assigned to the individual.\n\nThis includes consumer reports.\n\nSection B, Conditions of Disclosure states that no agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person or to another agency except pursuant to a written request by or with the prior written consent of the individual whom the record pertains.\n\nI never gave any written consent nor did they send any request for my permission to disclose any of this information. Had they sent it, as theyre required by law to do, I would have denied consent.\n\nSection 3711E of Title 31 states, When trying to collect a claim of the government under a law, the head of an executive, judicial, or legislative agency shall disclose to a consumer reporting agency information from a system of records that a person is responsible for a claim if the head of the agency has established procedures to get satisfactory assurances from each consumer reporting agency that the agency is complying with all laws of the United States related to providing consumer credit information.\n\nAs you can see, they violated the FCRA and the Privacy Act of 1974.\n\nI have tried to opt out using the Opt Out Laws, Part 1016, Privacy of Consumer Financial Information in Regulation P.\n\n12 C.F.R. Subsection 1016.1 Purpose and Scope. Purpose, this part, governs the treatment of non-public personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph B of this section. This part, one, requires a financial institution to provide notice to consumers about its privacy policies and practices. \n\nI have been notified of no such privacy policy or practice. \n\nTwo, describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose non-public personal information about consumers to non-affiliated third parties, and three, provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most non-affiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure.\n\nEvery company owes me a privacy notice before they furnish any of my information on my consumer report and I have been given no such notice.\n\n12 CFR 1016.4 Initial Privacy Notice to Consumers Required. It must be stated ... Providing clear and conspicuous notice that accurately reflects my privacy policies and practices to a customer, an individual who becomes your customer, except as provided of this subsection, and consumer, a consumer before you disclose any non-public personal information about the consumer to any non-affiliated third party. \n12 CFR subsection 1016.7, the form of opt-out notice to consumers, opt-out methods, section A. The form of opt-out notice must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of the consumers that accurately explains the right to opt-out under that section.\n\nThe notice must state that you disclose or reserve the right to disclose non-public personal information about your consumer to a non-affiliated third party, and that the consumer has the right to opt-out of that disclosure and a reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the opt-out right.\n\nTwo. Examples. Reasonable opt-out means you provide a reasonable means to exercise an opt-out right if you designate check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms with an opt-out notice, include a reply form together with the opt-out notice. \nIn the case of financial institutions described in section 1016.3, section 1, section 3 of this part includes the address to which the form should be mailed.\n\nUnreasonable opt-out means that you do not provide a reasonable means of opting out if the only means of opting out is for the consumer to write his or her own letter to exercise that opt-out right, or the only means of opting out as described in any notice subsequent to the initial notice is the use of a check-off box that you provided with the initial notice but did not include with the subsequent notice.\n\nSection G, time to comply with the opt-out.\n\nThey must comply with my consumer 's opt-out direction as soon as reasonably practicable after they received it, but they have not done so.\n\nSection H, the continuing right to opt out. In general, a financial institution may not disclose non-public personal information to a non-affiliated third party unless the consumer is given the opportunity before the time that such information is initially disclosed to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party and c. the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that non-disclosure option. \nThey were supposed to give me an opt-out notice for anything that was added to this report No such notice was ever given to me. \n\n15 USC subsection 6805 states that the enforcement of all the infractions listed above must be directed to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.\n\nThat is why I have contacted you to exercise my right to opt out of anything damaging on this report at any time, and these companies have not complied as soon as reasonably practicable after I sent them a notice.\n\nThey've only given me the unreasonable means to opt out, I had to write them my own letters directing them to stop reporting in accordance with the laws listed above, and they still have not stopped reporting.\n\nPlease help me get access to my credit.\n\nHelp me remove these damaging reports from my credit reports so that I can get credit, so that I can get a vehicle, loans, and general access to my credit so that I can take care of my family and our needs. \nThank you very much.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-18T22:19:12.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"39402","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8572269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2024-03-18T22:12:28.000Z","state":"MS","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Accuracy of the report whenever a Consumer Reporting Agency prepares a Consumer Report, it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates, But the information on my report is inaccurate.\n\nand information contained in Consumer Reports, they, XXXX, XXXX, and American Express are violating compliance procedures under this Title.\n\n15 U.S.C."],"company":["AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY"]},"sort":[10.955648,"8572269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10048659","_score":10.726951,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is to report Bank of America, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX for multiple violations of the Privacy Act of 1974, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Security Exchange Commission and my rights as a Consumer. \nAccording to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 section 602 ( a ) states \" There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. '' XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are consumer reporting agencies, and I am the Consumer. I have the right to make sure my private information isn't shared which is backed by 15 USC 6801 which states \" It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. '' Bank of America is a financial institution by definition under that title. 15 USC 1681 section 604 ( a ) section 2 states that \" In general Subject to subsection ( c ) any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other : In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates. '' Bank of America, the financial institution and the Consumer reporting agencies XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX do not have my consent to furnish this information, and they do not have my written consent. All consent to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, Bank of America whether it be verbal, non-verbal, written, un-written, implied or otherwise is revoked. 15 USC 6802 ( b ) states that \" A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. '' Bank of America never informed me of my right to exercise my nondisclosure option.\n\nNot only that 15 USC 1681C ( a ) ( 5 ) states \" Except as authorized under subsection ( b ), but no consumer reporting agency may also make any consumer report containing any of the following items of information. Any other adverse item of information, other than records of convictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. '' This account is an adverse item they are reporting without my permission, which is against the law. 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 ( A ) ( 1 ) A states \" A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. 15 U.S. Code 1681e states '' Every consumer reporting agency shall maintain reasonable procedures designed to avoid violations of section 1681c of this title and to limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section 1681b of this title. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX are not maintaining reasonable procedures. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX all reported Account XXXX with a Status reported as {$8900.00} Past Due. These items are violations of [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 ] 602, 15 U.S. Code 1681c and the Privacy Act of 1974. \n\nXXXX reported Opened Date of XXXX, XXXX reported Opened Date of XXXX, and XXXX reported Opened Date of XXXX. The reporting of any late date is a violation of Privacy and Adverse reporting. The differing reports between the 3 reporting agencies are violations 15 U.S. Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( b ) Accuracy of report. \n\nXXXX reported a Count of Late Payments as XXXX XXXXXXXX reported 6, and XXXX reported 5. All 3 agencies are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681, 15 U.S. Code 1681e Also, XXXX reported a Credit Limit of {$7500.00}, XXXX reported {$0.00}, and XXXX reported {$7500.00}. All 3 agencies are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681e for Accuracy. \n\nIn XXXX XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX a charge off is reported and remarks from XXXX state Charged off as bad debt. This violates 15 U.S. Code 1681, 15 U.S. Code 1681c, 15 U.S. Code 1681n In the XXXX reports a Charge Off in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is reported and XXXX XXXX late payments are reported. XXXX remarks Charged off account. This violates 15 U.S. Code 1681, 15 U.S. Code 1681c, 15 U.S. Code 1681n In the XXXX report XXXX XXXX, Charge Off is reported and XXXX XXXX late payments are reported. XXXX Remarks Account has been closed due to inactivity. This violates 15 U.S. Code 1681, 15 U.S. Code 1681c, 15 U.S. Code 1681n Bank of America nor any other entity can collect on a discharged debt. This is now considered a certificate of indebtedness per the IRS and income can not be reported. The IRS clearly defines a charge off as Gross or Ordinary income, income does not get reported on the credit report which in fact makes reporting of this account inaccurate. By definition, the IRS clearly says a Cancelled debt or Charge off is Income. The reporting of this account as a debt is inaccurate. I never received a 1099-C from XXXX XXXX for the cancelled debt of {$10000.00} in order to file as ordinary income. XXXX XXXX seems to be committing fraud with the accounting of this account with the IRS without sending out 1099-Cs and any other applicable forms as required by the IRS for debts greater than {$600.00}. This is unacceptable. I want to see full disclosure of any 1099s, any other forms and other XXXX accounting, including all accounting for adherence to 12 CFR 1026.21 which states when a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created in connection with a transaction ( through transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, through rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or through amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of a consumer ), the creditor shall : ( a ) Credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumer 's account ; ( b ) Refund any part of the remaining credit balance, upon the written request of the consumer ; and ( c ) Make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order, or credit to a deposit account of the consumer, any part of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than 6 months, except that no further action is required if the consumer 's current location is not known to the creditor and can not be traced through the consumer 's last known address or telephone number. The involved parties have or should have filed with the IRS, Federal Trade Commission, Security Exchange Commission on my account. I want the account audited and corrected immediately. \n\nAlso 12 CFR 1016.7 states that \" A consumer may exercise the right to opt out at any time. '' I am opting out of any reporting by Bank of America, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX of this account. \nUnder 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements, Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. None of the reports given by Bank Of America showing on the credit report were done with any type of permission from me, the Consumer. I count each of the items as a violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681n - Civil liability for willful noncompliance ( a ) In general Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; or ( B ) in the case of liability of a natural person for obtaining a consumer report under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose, actual damages sustained by the consumer as a result of the failure or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater and I demand {$1000.00} per violation to Bank Of American, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. \n\n( b ) Opt out, ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\nPer 15 U.S. Code 6805 - Enforcement ( a ) In general Subject to subtitle B of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 [ 12 U.S.C. 5511 et seq. ], this subchapter and the regulations prescribed thereunder shall be enforced by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, the Federal functional regulators, the State insurance authorities, and the Federal Trade Commission with respect to financial institutions and other persons subject to their jurisdiction under applicable law. I demand immediate deletion of the account from ALL credit reporting agencies and {$1000.00} per violation committed by Bank of America, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Code of Federal Regulations, and the United States Code. As well as a return of any funds ever paid, Security Interests, and insurance proceeds ever made on the account. \n\nI also want a full audit of the account performed by the IRS and any amount due to me be made. \n\nAll funds due to me are to be deposited according to the Electronic Funds Transfer Act into my account at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX I'm not sure how to include the 4 violating parties in the complaint when the CFPB Complaint fill in for who to complain about only allows 3 entries. There are 3 reporting agencies and 1 financial institution included. Please include all 4 parties in the investigation and calculate the violations of each.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-09-05T22:52:25.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"62526","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10048659","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-09-05T22:19:03.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1681e - Compliance procedures ( b ) Accuracy of report. \n\nXXXX reported a Count of Late Payments as XXXX XXXXXXXX reported 6, and XXXX reported 5. All 3 agencies are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681, 15 U.S. Code 1681e Also, XXXX reported a Credit Limit of {$7500.00}, XXXX reported {$0.00}, and XXXX reported {$7500.00}. All 3 agencies are in violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681e for Accuracy."],"company":["BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION"]},"sort":[10.726951,"10048659"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4575164","_score":8.050119,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am XXXX XXXX representing MYSELF and I am the consumer in fact and not a third party. \n\nI am communicating with you directly as requested regarding concerns/ issues with my credit report. This letter represents my formal request to again dispute the aforementioned accounts as well as inquiries which are illegally being reported on my account. \n\nIt was communicated to me to reach out to each individual agency to expedite the removal. As of the date of this letter, it has been over thirty days with no compliance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) enacted by the United States Congress. By their findings, it is now my legal right to have these accounts and inquiries ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) removed.\n\nI understand the individual in receipt of this letter is most likely not an attorney. Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. \n\nI appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously! \n\nRegards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$180.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$2000.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX with Account # XXXX * for a debt owed of {$1500.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX with Account # XXXX * for a debt owed of {$210.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$220.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off Unapproved Inquiries Please be aware the following inquiries are plaguing my report. I have communicated with the agencies whom I believe to be responsible for this violation. I have not received any correspondence for the following accounts below. Please remove these adverse inquiries immediately. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. \n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( a ) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the purposes of this subchapter.\n\n( b ) The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. \n\n( c ) The term consumer means an individual.\n\n( d ) Consumer Report.\n\n( 1 ) In general.The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for ( A ) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes ; ( B ) employment purposes ; or ( C ) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.\n\n( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ). [ 1 ] ( 3 ) Restriction on sharing of medical information.Except for information or any communication of information disclosed as provided in section 1681b ( g ) ( 3 ) of this title, the exclusions in paragraph ( 2 ) shall not apply with respect to information disclosed to any person related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the information is ( A ) medical information ; ( B ) an individualized list or description based on the payment transactions of the consumer for medical products or services ; or ( C ) an aggregate list of identified consumers based on payment transactions for medical products or services.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n( f ) The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.\n\n( g ) The term file, when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.\n\n( h ) The term employment purposes when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.\n\n( i ) Medical Information.The term medical information ( 1 ) means information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to ( A ) the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual ; ( B ) the provision of health care to an individual ; or ( C ) the payment for the provision of health care to an individual. [ 2 ] ( 2 ) does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumers residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy.\n\n( j ) Definitions Relating to Child Support Obligations.\n\n( 1 ) Overdue support.\n\nThe term overdue support has the meaning given to such term in section 666 ( e ) of title 42.\n\n( 2 ) State or local child support enforcement agency.\n\nThe term State or local child support enforcement agency means a State or local agency which administers a State or local program for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.\n\n( k ) Adverse Action.\n\n( 1 ) Actions included.The term adverse action ( A ) has the same meaning as in section 1691 ( d ) ( 6 ) of this title ; and ( B ) means ( i ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for, in connection with the underwriting of insurance ; ( ii ) a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee ; ( iii ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or any other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of, any license or benefit described in section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( D ) of this title ; and ( iv ) an action taken or determination that is ( I ) made in connection with an application that was made by, or a transaction that was initiated by, any consumer, or in connection with a review of an account under section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( F ) ( ii ) of this title ; and ( II ) adverse to the interests of the","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-26T19:19:22.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"21213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4575164","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-07-26T19:19:16.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$180.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$2000.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX with Account # XXXX * for a debt owed of {$1500.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX with Account # XXXX * for a debt owed of {$210.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX with Account #"]},"sort":[8.050119,"4575164"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7574449","_score":7.2984514,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"on XX/XX/XXXX i went to a used dealership which name is, XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX and financed a used XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX through credit acceptance corporation the car was advertised online for XXXX the annual percentage rate was 22.99 % the finance charge was is XXXX, the amount financed was XXXX and the total of payments which is the amount you will have paid after i supposedly made all payments which is XXXX and the total sale price the total cost of your purchase on credit, including my down payment the total was of XXXX the number of payments is 66 payments for XXXXthere calculation was wrong, they where suppose to put all the fees that was in the contract to the finance charge they added it to the amount finance instead. so the correct finance charge is suppose to XXXX and the amount finance suppose to XXXX my payments are suppose to be less as well the payments aren't correct. the reason how i got the calculation is by the laws they told me this was a car loan they did not tell me that this actually was a consumer credit transaction i had to find out for my self and in a consumer credit transaction the main law that they broke was it was suppose to be cash in hand it was not cash in hand, nor have i received a check or money in my bank account in a credit transaction i was not suppose to put any money down in a credit transaction they told me in order to get this car i would have to put down a down payment of XXXX but i didn't know the differed payment of XXXX which i had to pay as well i didn't know that this is also on the down payment so i payed a total of XXXX which i didn't know. the financed charge is defined .15 U.S. Code 1605 - Determination of finance charge Finance charge defines- ( 1 ) Interest, time price differential, and any amount payable under a point, discount, or other system or additional charges. \n( 2 ) Service or carrying charge.\n\n( 3 ) Loan fee, finders fee, or similar charge.\n\n( 4 ) Fee for an investigation or credit report.\n\n( 5 ) Premium or other charge for any guarantee or insurance protecting the creditor against the obligors default or other credit loss. \n( XXXX ) Borrower-paid mortgage broker fees, including fees paid directly to the broker or the lender ( for delivery to the broker ) whether such fees are paid in cash or financed. \n( b ) Life, accident, or health insurance premiums included in finance charge Charges or premiums for credit life, accident, or health insurance written in connection with any consumer credit transaction shall be included in the finance charges unless ( 1 ) the coverage of the debtor by the insurance is not a factor in the approval by the creditor of the extension of credit, and this fact is clearly disclosed in writing to the person applying for or obtaining the extension of credit. \n\nLike I said and show you did not add my insurance on the financed charge you guys made me pay out of pocket when you where suppose to ask me what insurance company do I want to go with and you where suppose to pay for the premium as it says on the determine the finance charge on top of that my finance charge and amount finance is wrong the right amount is suppose to be XXXX is the finance charge and the amount financed is suppose to be XXXX. \nalso all of these other laws which they had broke 15 U.S. Code 1611 - Criminal liability for willful and knowing violation Whoever willfully and knowingly ( 1 ) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation issued thereunder, ( 2 ) uses any chart or table authorized by the Bureau under section 1606 of this title in such a manner as to consistently understate the annual percentage rate determined under section 1606 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of this title, or ( 3 ) otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter, shall be fined not more than {$5000.00} or imprisoned not more than one year, or both 15 U.S. Code 1615 - Prohibition on use of Rule of 78s in connection with mortgage refinancing and other consumer loans ( a ) PROMPT REFUND OF UNEARNED INTEREST REQUIRED ( 1 ) IN GENERAL If a consumer prepays in full the financed amount under any consumer credit transaction, the creditor shall promptly refund any unearned portion of the interest charge to the consumer. \n( 2 ) EXCEPTION FOR REFUND OF DE MINIMUS [ 1 ] AMOUNT No refund shall be required under paragraph ( 1 ) with respect to the prepayment of any consumer credit transaction if the total amount of the refund would be less than {$1.00}. \n( 3 ) APPLICABILITY TO REFINANCED TRANSACTIONS AND ACCELERATION BY THE CREDITOR This subsection shall apply with respect to any prepayment of a consumer credit transaction described in paragraph ( 1 ) without regard to the manner or the reason for the prepayment, including ( A ) any prepayment made in connection with the refinancing, consolidation, or restructuring of the transaction ; and ( B ) any prepayment made as a result of the acceleration of the obligation to repay the amount due with respect to the transaction.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1635 - Right of rescission as to certain transactions ( a ) DISCLOSURE OF OBLIGORS RIGHT TO RESCIND Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of any consumer credit transaction ( including opening or increasing the credit limit for an open end credit plan ) in which a security interest, including any such interest arising by operation of law, is or will be retained or acquired in any property which is used as the principal dwelling of the person to whom credit is extended, the obligor shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following the consummation of the transaction or the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section together with a statement containing the material disclosures required under this subchapter, whichever is later, by notifying the creditor, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, of his intention to do so. The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section. The creditor shall also provide, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, appropriate forms for the obligor to exercise his right to rescind any transaction subject to this section. \n( b ) RETURN OF MONEY OR PROPERTY FOLLOWING RESCISSION When an obligor exercises his right to rescind under subsection ( a ), he is not liable for any finance or other charge, and any security interest given by the obligor, including any such interest arising by operation of law, becomes void upon such a rescission. Within 20 days after receipt of a notice of rescission, the creditor shall return to the obligor any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise, and shall take any action necessary or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created under the transaction. If the creditor has delivered any property to the obligor, the obligor may retain possession of it. Upon the performance of the creditors obligations under this section, the obligor shall tender the property to the creditor, except that if return of the property in kind would be impracticable or inequitable, the obligor shall tender its reasonable value. Tender shall be made at the location of the property or at the residence of the obligor, at the option of the obligor. If the creditor does not take possession of the property within 20 days after tender by the obligor, ownership of the property vests in the obligor without obligation on his part to pay for it. The procedures prescribed by this subsection shall apply except when otherwise ordered by a court.\n\nBut in the rescission I get to keep the property because you and the dealership broke the law and violated my rights.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1662 - Advertising of down payments and installments No advertisement to aid, promote, or assist directly or indirectly any extension of consumer credit may state ( 1 ) that a specific periodic consumer credit amount or installment amount can be arranged, unless the creditor usually and customarily arranges credit payments or installments for that period and in that amount. \n( XXXX ) that a specified down payment is required in connection with any extension of consumer credit, unless the creditor usually and customarily arranges down payments in that amount. \nThe down payment was illegal and these are the reason why really it was supposed to be in the finance charge.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1640 - Civil liability ( a ) INDIVIDUAL OR CLASS ACTION FOR DAMAGES ; AMOUNT OF AWARD ; FACTORS DETERMINING AMOUNT OF AWARD Except as otherwise provided in this section, any creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this part, including any requirement under section 1635 of this title, subsection ( f ) or ( g ) of section 1641 of this title, or part D or E of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equ\nal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of the failure ; ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) in the case of an individual action twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, ( ii ) in the case of an individual action relating to a consumer lease under part E of this subchapter, 25 per centum of the total amount of monthly payments under the lease, except that the liability under this subparagraph shall not be less than {$200.00} nor greater than {$2000.00}, ( iii ) in the case of an individual action relating to an open end consumer credit plan that is not secured by real property or a dwelling, twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, with a minimum of {$500.00} and a maximum of {$5000.00}, or such higher amount as may be appropriate in the case of an established pattern or practice of such failures ; [ 1 ] or ( iv ) in the case of an individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property or a dwelling, not less than {$400.00} or greater than {$4000.00}.\n\n28 U.S. Code 3002 - Definitions ( 3 ) Debt means ( A ) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a direct loan, or loan insured or guaranteed, by the United States ; or ( B ) an amount that is owing to the United States on account of a fee, duty, lease, rent, service, sale of real or personal property, overpayment, fine, assessment, penalty, restitution, damages, interest, tax, bail bond forfeiture, reimbursement, recovery of a cost incurred by the United States, or other source of indebtedness to the United States, but that is not owing under the terms of a contract originally entered into by only persons other than the United States ; and includes any amount owing to the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual Indian, but excludes any amount to which the United States is entitled under section 3011 ( a ).\n\n( 4 ) Debtor means a person who is liable for a debt or against whom there is a claim for a debt.\n\n( 10 ) Person includes a natural person ( including an individual Indian ), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.\n\n( 15 ) United States means ( A ) a Federal corporation ; ( B ) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States ; or ( C ) an instrumentality of the United States.\n\nSO IF THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION HOW DO I OWE DEBT AND IM NOT A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES I AM A CITIZEN OF GEORGIA THAT IS A VIOLATION 15 U.S. Code 6803 - Disclosure of institution privacy policy ( a ) DISCLOSURE REQUIREDAt the time of establishing a customer relationship with a consumer and not less than annually during the continuation of such relationship, a financial institution shall provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure to such consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, of such financial institutions policies and practices with respect to ( 1 ) disclosing nonpublic personal information to affiliates and nonaffiliated third parties, consistent with section 6802 of this title, including the categories of information that may be disclosed ; ( 2 ) disclosing nonpublic personal information of persons who have ceased to be customers of the financial institution ; and ( 3 ) protecting the nonpublic personal information of consumers.\n\n( b ) REGULATIONS Disclosures required by subsection ( a ) shall be made in accordance with the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title.\n\n( c ) INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDEDThe disclosure required by subsection ( a ) shall include ( 1 ) the policies and practices of the institution with respect to disclosing nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties, other than agents of the institution, consistent with section 6802 of this title, and including ( A ) the categories of persons to whom the information is or may be disclosed, other than the persons to whom the information may be provided pursuant to section 6802 ( e ) of this title ; and ( B ) the policies and practices of the institution with respect to disclosing of nonpublic personal information of persons who have ceased to be customers of the financial institution ; ( 2 ) the categories of nonpublic personal information that are collected by the financial institution ; ( 3 ) the policies that the institution maintains to protect the confidentiality and security of nonpublic personal information in accordance with section 6801 of this title ; and ( 4 ) the disclosures required, if any, under section 1681a ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( iii ) of this title.\n\n( d ) EXEMPTION FOR CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ( 1 ) IN GENERALThe disclosure requirements of subsection ( a ) do not apply to any person, to the extent that the person is ( A ) a certified public accountant ; ( B ) certified or licensed for such purpose by a State ; and ( C ) subject to any provision of law, rule, or regulation issued by a legislative or regulatory body of the State, including rules of professional conduct or ethics, that prohibits disclosure of nonpublic personal information without the knowing and expressed consent of the consumer.\n\n( 2 ) LIMITATION Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt or otherwise exclude any financial institution that is affiliated or becomes affiliated with a certified public accountant described in paragraph ( 1 ) from any provision of this section.\n\n( 3 ) DEFINITIONS For purposes of this subsection, the term State means any State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, or the Northern Mariana Islands.\n\n( e ) MODEL FORMS ( 1 ) IN GENERAL The agencies referred to in section 6804 ( a ) ( 1 ) of this title shall jointly develop a model form which may be used, at the option of the financial institution, for the provision of disclosures under this section.\n\n( 2 ) FORMATA model form developed under paragraph ( 1 ) shall ( A ) be comprehensible to consumers, with a clear format and design ; ( B ) provide for clear and conspicuous disclosures ; ( C ) enable consumers easily to identify the sharing practices of a financial institution and to compare privacy practices among financial institutions ; and ( D ) be succinct, and use an easily readable type font.\n\n( 3 ) TIMING A model form required to be developed by this subsection shall be issued in proposed form for public comment not later than 180 days after October 13, 2006.\n\n( 4 ) SAFE HARBOR Any financial institution that elects to provide the model form developed by the agencies under this subsection shall be deemed to be in compliance with the disclosures required under this section.\n\n( f ) EXCEPTION TO ANNUAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTA financial institution that ( 1 ) provides nonpublic personal information only in accordance with the provisions of subsection ( b ) ( 2 ) or ( e ) of section 6802 of this title or regulations prescribed under section 6804 ( b ) of this title, and ( 2 ) has not changed its policies and practices with regard to disclosing nonpublic personal information from the policies and practices that were disclosed in the most recent disclosure sent to consumers in accordance with this section, shall not be required to provide an annual disclosure under this section until such time as the financial institution fails to comply with any criteria described in paragraph ( 1 ) or ( 2 ) .16 CFR 433.2 - Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\n\n433.2 Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\n\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section 5 of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to : ( a ) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type : 18 U.S. Code 911 - Citizen of the United States Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.\n\nThat is a violation you the car dealer and the creditor have be claiming us the consumer as a citizen of the united states when we are the citizen of what ever state we are at like for example I am the citizen of Georgia so for them willfully knowing all of this and still did an illegal transaction i told them i wanted to rescind my contract which i have the right to rescind my contract as it states in the law i wanted to cancel my contract. i have been stressing emotionally hurt and damaged. i know i am not the only one that's been going through this stressing with these people and i do not want them to keep getting over on people and not following the consumer law.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-19T18:56:46.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"30458","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7574449","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-09-19T17:35:35.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( XXXX ) Borrower-paid mortgage broker fees, including fees paid directly to the broker or the lender ( for delivery to the broker ) whether such fees are paid in cash or financed."]},"sort":[7.2984514,"7574449"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7135443","_score":7.2464705,"_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":["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"]},"sort":[7.2464705,"7135443"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10476462","_score":7.0982985,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"This billing dispute applies to past, present and future certificates of indebtedness issued under the Discover Cardmember Agreement. \n\n{$1600.00} XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) and {$1800.00} ( XXXX XXXX ) error To whom this may concern, I have in my possession, the USPS registered mail tracking numbers ( XXXX ) corresponding return receipt with signature confirming my marketable treasury security/due bill sent ( at the time sent valued at {$1600.00} ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Florida XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, was successfully delivered with a letter of instruction correspondence to XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois XXXX XXXX a proper place of payment. However, it was not honored. \n\nWhether it be refusal or destruction of the instrument, either instance would constitute discharge under Article 3 Sections 3-603 and 3-604 of the UCC. Under the Indenture between Discover Card Execution Note Trust ( DCENT ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX Association, Article 3 Section 306. ( b ) also provides procedure to the same effect. Notwithstanding, on page 1 of the Discover Cardmember Agreement under section Making Payments, subsection Payment Instructions it states You must pay in U.S. dollars. Please do not send cash. Sending cash is not allowed. The term cash is not defined under the Agreement, therefore I as the holder in due course can only assume the term is used in reference to Federal reserve notes which according 12 U.S. Code 411, are issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized, thereby prohibiting me as an individual who is not a federal reserve agent from being able to utilize those particular instruments for any purpose. This raises the question of what form of legal tender am I to apply as payment in order to settle the claim?\n\nBefore addressing the question it is important first to understand how advances are made to Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Banks XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX Effective XX/XX/XXXX, issued by each Reserve Bank, sets forth the terms under which an entity may obtain Advances from, incur Obligations to, or pledge Collateral to a Reserve Bank. Section 3.0 of said XXXX describes how An Advance must be secured by Collateral acceptable to the Bank. Advances can be done via the XXXX XXXX XXXX or by using the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX online application, where Borrowing entities can submit requests for Advances from and submit Collateral Schedules to the Reserve Banks, and communicate with the Reserve Banks about Advances and pledges of Collateral in accordance with Reserve Banks Operating Circular No. 10. Federal Reserve Act, Section 16 ( 2 ) states that such application shall be accompanied with a tender to the local Federal Reserve agent of collateral in amount equal to the sum of the Federal Reserve notes thus applied for and issued pursuant to such application. The collateral security thus offered shall be acquired under section 10A, 10B, 13, or 13A of the Federal Reserve Act, or purchased under the provisions of section 14 of said Act.\n\nGenerally, according to the official interpretation of 12 CFR Part 1002.7 ( d ) ( 4 ), a signature to make the secured property available is needed on a security agreement as a Bank may also require the Borrower to execute a promissory note and/or documents or additional relevant agreements such as the Discover Cardmember agreement at any time including after each statement date with respect to an Advance, and I am of sufficient age and competency to understand the act of indorsing and giving receipt. I have invested into Discover by way of my application which is a promissory note because it is a signed document that is transferrable to 3rd parties and also promises a sum of payment. My deposit account with Discover also qualifies as an investment in the company. As discussed in the Discover prospectus, the credit card statement with attached payment coupon is in fact a class A definitive note issue representing principal charges and finance charges and other fees in an account designated for the master trust. By way of my signature, and not federal reserve notes the use of which I am prohibited, I have given the instrument marketable value where it can and will eventually be traded on the secondary market as Discover Bank is obligated to transfer these receivables to the depositor for subsequent transfer to the master trust on an ongoing basis for permitted investment purposes through what is described as a securitization transaction. Treasury Department XXXX XXXX. XXXX, Revised XX/XX/XXXX, also embodies regulations governing the Indorsement and Payment of Checks Drawn on the Treasurer of the United States for which the Federal Reserve serves as fiscal agent. As for transfers of assets in securitizations, the FDIC has not provided guidance on how to bring transfers to the master trust or the note issuance trust within alternative safe harbors for entities that do not meet the conditions of XXXX CFR XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ). Furthermore, XXXX has previously declined to provide safe harbor protection for remuneration exchanged between wholly-owned entities, including parent entities and their wholly-owned subsidiaries. So while the parties involed intend to treat the transaction as a true sale as articulated in the prospectus, that premise stands in direct contrast to Article XXXX XXXX XXXX under the Indenture where it states ; Election Under Delaware Asset-Backed Securities Facilitation Act. Without limiting any other provisions of this Indenture or any Indenture Supplement, the parties hereto agree that ( a ) the transactions contemplated hereby constitute a securitization transaction. The re-characterization from a secured financing transaction in XXXX agreement to a true sale in the another for accounting purposes, is not only misleading, but it challenges the exemptions relied upon in any Volcher rule considerations as well as safe harbor which any resale of notes must be made in accordance with since the securitization transaction on its face is what would be construed by any governmental agency or instrumentality as the operation of a covered fund under Section 13 of the Bank Holding Company Act of XXXX or an investment company under Section 3 or 17 CFR 270.3a-7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. This suggests Discover Banks involvement in secondary markets rely heavily on the perpetual manipulation of regulatory requirements if not outright securities fraud, e.g. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nAccording to XXXX XXXX XXXX Congress, Session I, XXXX XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ; every provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in an amount in money of the United States measured thereby, is declared to be against public policy ; and no such provision shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation hereafter incurred. Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether or not any such provision is contained therein or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar, in any coin or currency which at the time of payment is legal tender for public and private debts. A due bill check as defined by FINRA Rule 11630 ( e ) under the Uniform Practice code is also a debt instrument that meets the mandate of Federal Reserve Act Section 16 ( 1 ) redeemable in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington , District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank. 18 U.S. Code 8 defines the term obligation or other security of the United States to include all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency , Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps. \n\nAt any rate, as a result of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and from that day forward ( XX/XX/XXXX ), no one has been able to lawfully pay a debt or lawfully own anything. The only thing one can do is tender credit in exchange of debts, with the debt being perpetual. The suspension of the gold standard, and prohibition against paying debts, removed the substance for our common law to operate on, and created a void as far as the law is concerned. This substance was replaced with a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX where debt is XXXX XXXX money. XXXX XXXX was implemented immediately. The day after President XXXX signed the resolution, the treasury offered the public new government securities, minus the traditional payable in gold clause. 192 states that one can not demand a certain form of currency that they want to receive if it is dollar for dollar. In consideration that only XXXX XXXX exists in circulation with which to discharge debt ; and in order to facilitate lawful commercial transactions ; and in order to lawfully engage in commerce understanding the indenture trustee for Discover may only invest funds on deposit in any investor account in Permitted Investments ( See Sources of Funds to Pay the Notes General, and Limited Recourse to XXXX ; Security for the Notes under the prospectus )XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, shall tender with special indorsement, negotiable instruments or securities represented by instruments in registered form which evidence : ( a ) obligations issued or fully guaranteed, as to timely payment, by the United States of America or any instrumentality or agency of the United States of America, when those obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America ; ( d ) investments in money market funds having the Highest Rating ; in adherence to public policy where as a result of my signature, an instrument becomes investment grade qualifying under at least 4 categories of issuers and acceptable securities/collateral for the 31 CFR Part 202 program.\n\nNow turning your attention back to addressing the question of what form of legal tender am I to apply as payment in order to settle the claim as an individual not authorized to use cash? Section : Making Payments subsection : Payment Instructions under the Discover Cardmember Agreement provides that All checks must be drawn on funds on deposit in the U.S.We can accept late payments, partial payments or payments marked payment in full or with any other restrictive endorsement without losing any of our rights under this Agreement. Therefore in order to remain in compliance both contractually and lawfully, XXXX XXXX M, against whom a claim is asserted, in good faith tendered a debt instrument/security with special indorsement to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim for statement cycle XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX pursuant to UCC 3-311 and 8-509 ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and Article III Section 309. Cancellation under the Indenture between Discover Card Execution Note Trust and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/XXXX which states, all Notes surrendered for payment, redemption, transfer, conversion or exchange will be cancelled by the Indenture Trustee, and, if surrendered to any Person other than the Indenture Trustee, be delivered to the Indenture Trustee and, if not already canceled, will be promptly canceled by it. Although Discover is not necessarily obligated to accept the tendered payment, the specific act of tendering the payment absolves the debt pursuant to Article 3 Sections 3-603 and 3-604 under the UCC.\n\nAlso, Discover in their own words under section : Making Payments, subsection : Payment Instructions of the Discover Cardmember Agreement, presumably pursuant to 15 U.S. Code 1666d - Treatment of credit balances, state We credit your payments in accordance with the terms contained on your billing statement. Thus as directed, we then turn to page 2 of the billing statement under section Credit Balances where it very plainly states the following, If your Account has a credit balance, the amount is shown on the front of your billing statement. A credit balance is money that is owed to you.We will send you a refund of any remaining balance of {$1.00} or more after 6 months, or as otherwise required by applicable law, or upon request made to the address in the Contact Us section on page 3 of your billing statement. As such, a request was made and it is my understanding that payments take 1-3 days to post to my account and show as available credit however, Discover did not promptly credit my account, via the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the allocation of principal and interest accrued thereon from my payment coupon. Furthermore, at the top of page 2 under How We Apply Payments ' of the same section, it states very plainly, \" In all cases, we will apply payments and credits as required by applicable law. '' If that is indeed the case, then subsequent to my tender with special indorsement, the definitive security of which I am the holder in due course, after being correctly sent to XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX in XXXX XXXX, Illinois XXXX, the address designated to receive payment with correspondence in an envelope other than the one provided as per the Discover Cardmember Agreement, should have been converted to a book-entry security as collateral to secure funds of the United States . My account has yet to reflect the settlement of this transaction, therefore an investigation is warranted.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-16T18:43:59.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"34983","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10476462","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2024-10-16T17:24:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["or any instrumentality or agency of the United States of America, when those obligations are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America ; ( d ) investments in money market funds having the Highest Rating ; in adherence to public policy where as a result of my signature, an instrument becomes investment grade qualifying under at least 4 categories of issuers and acceptable securities/collateral for the 31 CFR Part 202 program."]},"sort":[7.0982985,"10476462"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10717011","_score":6.908137,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"OUR COMPLAINT\nI XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX United States of\nAmerican I XXXX, have look at my credit report and see that there are\ninaccurate reports on my account child support dont not report to credit reporters and by\nlawful cancellation all contracts and remove theses accounts off my credit profile I will like a\ncontract to show that me a living soul that me and them the other party showed in contact\nwhere we both agreed upon on all disclosure must be showed its a invalid contract please\nremove from my credit report it have hinder me from my future benefits. UCC 1-308 without\nprejudice Please remove these accounts immediately. I Recently viewed my credit report\nand saw that there is incorrect information on my credit report. In accordance with the Fair\nCredit Reporting act. These accounts is inaccurate and dont have no contract with me or\ndid not notify me or put me on notice that was going to report these accounts on my credit\nreport. I have the rights to private I will love equity for all the inaccurate accounts on my\ncredit report.The List of accounts below has violated my federally protected consumer rights\nto privacy and confidentiality under 15 USC 1681. I HAVE NOTICE THESE NAMES AND\nADDRESSES XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not my address DO NOT BELONG TO ME CAN YOU\nPLEASE REMOVE THIS ADDRESS FROM MY INFORMATION ON MY CREDIT REPORT\nIMMEDIATELY. : I have tried time after times delete this\noff my credit report immediately this is not acting in good Faith by law to delete this account immediately yes deleted this account IMMEDIATELY . (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Trans Union have removed and deleted this child support. I would this is my XXXX time contacting \nXXXX to deleted it and they put it back in my credit report its a VIOLATION by law thats\nillegal I will like for these accounts to be deleted and remove this account immediately. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, has\nviolated my rights. 15 U.S.C 6802 (B) The consumer is given the opportunity, before the time\nthat such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX such XXXX party; and (C)the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can\nexercise that nondisclosure option. 15 U.S.C 1681 section 602 A. States I have the right to\nprivacy. 15 U.S.C 1681 Section 604 A Section 2: It also states a consumer reporting agency\ncannot furnish an account without my written instructions. 15 U.S.C 1681c. (a)(5) Section\nStates: no consumer reporting agency may make any consumer report containing any of the\nfollowing items of information Any other adverse item of information, other than records of\nconvictions of crimes which antedates the report by more than seven years. 15 U.S.C 1681\nsection 623 If a consumer notifies a furnisher, at an address specified by the furnisher for\nsuch notices, that specific information is inaccurate, and the information is, in fact,\ninaccurate, the furnisher must thereafter report the correct information to CRAs. Section\n623(a)(1)(B). 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2 (A)(1) A person shall not furnish any information relating to a\nconsumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause\nto believe that the information is inaccurate. Also the credit bureaus failed to do a complete\na full investigation here is my certified cfpb complaint number. I HAVE TRYING CALLING\nAND MORE AND HAVE NOT GOT NOT MAIL TO UPDATE ME ON MY credit profile and I\ndont not want the reporting any thing for me on my credit account I am a living man I can\nconduct my own business and have the right to privacy bay law UCC I SEE THEY ARE FAILED TO COMPLETE A FULL investigation. You have 4 days to delete this from my account immediately its hurt my credit profile from getting a response please to live and depender automobile to travel XXXX XXXX XXXX is my correct name this is a\nviolation. I want this these account CLOSE\n WITH MONETARY RELIEF. They had fail to mail or\nemail me a FRA Letter explaining my rights and show me proof of my wet signature.. Please\nremove ALL HARD INQUIRIES I DUD NOT RECEIVED ANY THING FOR TRANSACTION \n\nTN XXXX XXXX XXXX HAVE VIOLATED MY RIGHTS [TRANSUNION PLEASE DELETE OR UPDATE LATE PAYMENT TO PAID XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX HAVE VIOLATED MY RIGHT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX have VIOLATED MY RIGHTS I WIL LIKE XXXX dollar for every violation its stopped me from gettIng a place to live and I have already sent letters and emails no response back delete these accounts immediately IMMEDIATE AND SEND CHECK BY MAIL. These accounts dose not match on all credit reports please delete 15 US\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681i\n- Procedure in case of disputed accuracy (5) Treatment of inaccurate or unverifiable\ninformation (A) In general If, after any reinvestigation under paragraph (1) of any information\ndisputed by a consumer, an item of the information is found to be inaccurate or incomplete\nor cannot be verified, the consumer reporting agency shall (i) promptly delete that item of\ninformation from the file of the consumer, or modify that item of information, as appropriate,\nbased on the results of the reinvestigation; and (ii) promptly notify the furnisher of that\ninformation that the information has been modified or deleted from the file of the\nconsumer. 15 U.S. Code 1681q - Obtaining information under false pretenses Any person\nwho knowingly and willfully obtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting\nagency under false pretenses shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than XXXX\nyears, or both. 15 U.S. Code 1666b - Timing of payments (a) Time to make payments A\ncreditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer\ncredit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures\ndesigned to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by\nsection 1637(b) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than XXXX days\nbefore the payment due date. (b) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan\nprovides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit\nextended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge\nmay not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle\nof which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which\nthe finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not\nlater than XXXX days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be\nmade in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge. 15 U.S. Code 1638 -\nTransactions other than under an open end credit plan a) Required disclosures by creditor\nFor each consumer credit transaction other than under an open end credit plan, the creditor\nshall disclose each of the following items, to the extent applicable: (1) The identity of the\ncreditor required to make disclosure. (2) (A) The amount financed, using that term, which\nshall be the amount of credit of which the consumer has actual use. This amount shall be\ncomputed as follows, but the computations need not be disclosed and shall not be\ndisclosed with the disclosures conspicuously segregated in accordance with subsection (b)\n(1): (i) take the principal amount of the loan or the cash price less downpayment and trade-\nin; (ii) add any charges which are not part of the finance charge or of the principal amount\nof the loan and which are financed by the consumer, including the cost of any items\nexcluded from the finance charge pursuant to section 1605 of this title; and (iii) subtract any\ncharges which are part of the finance charge but which will be paid by the consumer before\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nor at the time of the consummation of the transaction, or have been withheld from the\nproceeds of the credit. (B) In conjunction with the disclosure of the amount financed, a\ncreditor shall provide a statement of the consumers right to obtain, upon a written request,\na written itemization of the amount financed. The statement shall include spaces for a yes\nand no indication to be initialed by the consumer to indicate whether the consumer wants\na written itemization of the amount financed. Upon receiving an affirmative indication, the\ncreditor shall provide, at the time other disclosures are required to be furnished, a written\nitemization of the amount financed. For the purposes of this subparagraph, itemization of\nthe amount financed means a disclosure of the following items, to the extent applicable: (i)\nthe amount that is or will be paid directly to the consumer; (ii) the amount that is or will be\ncredited to the consumers account to discharge obligations owed to the creditor; (iii) each\namount that is or will be paid to third persons by the creditor on the consumers behalf,\ntogether with an identification of or reference to the third person; and (iv) the total amount\nof any charges described in the preceding subparagraph (A)(iii). XXXX The finance charge,\nnot itemized, using that term. XXXX The finance charge expressed as an annual percentage\nrate, using that term. This shall not be required if the amount financed does not exceed $XXXX and the finance charge does not exceed XXXX, or if the amount financed exceeds $XXXX and the\nfinance charge does not exceed XXXXXXXX XXXX) The sum of the amount financed and the finance\ncharge, which shall be termed the total of payments. XXXX) The number, amount, and due\ndates or period of payments scheduled to repay the total of payments. XXXX XXXX XXXX, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX TO THE UNITED STATES COURT\nOF APPEALS FOR THE XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Argued XXXX XXXX XXXX-Decided XXXX XXXX XXXX Respondents, five Arizona mothers whose children are eligible for state child\nsupport services under Title IV -D of the Social Security Act, filed this 42 U. S. C. 1983 suit\nagainst petitioner, the director of the state child support agency, claiming, among other\nthings, that they properly applied for child support services; that, despite their good faith\nefforts to cooperate, the agency never took adequate steps to obtain child support\npayments for them; that these omissions were largely attributable to staff shortages and\nother structural defects in the State's program; and that these systemic failures violated their\nindividual rights under Title XXXX to have all mandated services delivered in substantial\ncompliance with the title and its implementing regulations. They requested broad relief,\nincluding a declaratory judgment that the Arizona program's operation violates TitlXXXX XXXX XXXX\nprovisions creating rights in them that are enforceable through a 1983 action, and an\ninjunction requiring the director to achieve substantial compliance with Title IV-D\nthroughout all programmatic operations. The District Court granted summary judgment for\npetitioner, but the XXXX XXXX reversed. Without distinguishing among the numerous\nprovisions of the complex XXXX XXXX program or the many rights those provisions might\nhave created, the latter court held that respondents had an enforceable individual right to\nhave the State achieve \"substantial compliance\" with XXXX XXXX. It also disagreed with the\nDistrict Court's conclusion that Congress had foreclosed private XXXX XXXX enforcement\nactions by authorizing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to audit and\ncut off funds to States whose programs do not substantially comply with XXXX XXXX\nrequirements Held: XXXX XXXX does not give individuals a federal right to force a state\nagency to substantially comply with XXXX XXXX XXXX (a) A plaintiff seeking XXXX redress must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely of federal lawXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 493 U. S. 103, 106. XXXX principal factors determine whether a\nstatutory provision creates a privately enforceable right: XXXX whether the plaintiff is an\nintended beneficiary of the statute; (XXXX whether the plaintiff's asserted interests are not so\nvague and amor- XXXX Syllabus phous as to be beyond the competence of the judiciary to\nenforce; and (3) whether the statute imposes a binding obligation on the State. SeeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, 496 U. S. 498, 509. Even if a plaintiff demonstrates such a\nright, however, there is only a rebuttable presumption that it is enforceable under XXXX.\nDismissal is proper if Congress specifically foreclosed a XXXX remedy, XXXX XXXX XXXX,\n468 U. S. 992, 1005, XXXX XXXX XXXX, either expressly, by forbidding recourse to XXXX in the\nstatute itself, or impliedly, by creating a comprehensive enforcement scheme that is\nincompatible with individual XXXX enforcement, XXXX XXXX XXXX, 512 U. S. 107, 133. XXXX XXXX (b) Respondents have not established that XXXX XXXX gives them individually\nenforceable federal rights. In prior cases, the Court has been able to determine whether or\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nnot a statute created such rights because the plaintiffs articulated, and lower courts\nevaluated, welldefined claims. See, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 479 U. S. 418, 430. Here, respondents have not identified with particularity the\nrights they claim, and the XXXX XXXX has not engaged in the requisite methodical inquiry.\nThat court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to\n\"substantial compliance\" with XXXX XXXX in all respects. The statutory \"substantial\ncompliance\" requirement, see, e. g., 42 U. S. C. 609(a)(8) (1994 ed., Supp. II), does not give\nrise to individual rights; it was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial\nparents, but is simply a yardstick for the Secretary to measure the systemwide performance\nof a State's XXXX XXXX program, allowing her to increase the frequency of audits and reduce\nthe State's federal grant upon a finding of substantial noncompliance. The Court of Appeals\nalso erred in taking a blanket approach to determining whether XXXX XXXX creates rights: It is\nreadily apparent that many of the provisions of that multifaceted statutory scheme,\nincluding its \"substantial compliance\" standard and data processing, staffing, and\norganizational requirements, do not fit any of the traditional criteria for identifying statutory\nrights. Although this Court does not foreclose the possibility that some XXXX XXXX provisions\ngive rise to individual rights, the XXXX XXXX did not separate out the particular rights it\nbelieved arise from the statutory scheme, the complaint is less than clear in this regard, and\nit is not certain whether respondents sought any relief more specific than a declaration that\ntheir \"rights\" were being violated and an injunction forcing petitioner to \"substantially\ncomply\" with all of XXXX XXXX provisions. This defect is best addressed by sending the case\nback for the District Court to construe the complaint in the XXXX instance, in order to\ndetermine exactly what rights, considered in their most concrete, specific form, respondents\nare asserting. Only by manageably breaking down the 42 U.S. Code 1983 - Civil action for\ndeprivation of rights Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,\ncustom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to\nbe subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof\nto the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and\nlaws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper\nproceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act\nor omission taken in such officers judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted\nunless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the\npurposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of\nColumbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Credit card Code\n15 U.S. Code 1692k - Civil liability Amount of damages Except as otherwise provided\nby this section, any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter\nwith respect to any person is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of (1) any\nactual damage sustained by such person as a result of such failure; (2) (A) in the case of any\naction by an individual, such additional damages as the court may allow, but not exceeding\n$XXXX; or (B) in the case of a class action, (i) such amount for each named plaintiff as could\nbe recovered under subparagraph (A), and (ii) such amount as the court may allow for all\nother class members, without regard to a minimum individual recovery, not to exceed the\nlesser of $XXXX or XXXX per centum of the net worth of the debt collector; and (3) in the case\nof any successful action to enforce the foregoing liability, the costs of the action, together\nwith a reasonable attorneys fee as determined by the court. On a finding by the court that\nan action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the\ncourt may award to the defendant attorneys fees reasonable in relation to the work\nexpended and costs. (b) Factors considered by court In determining the amount of liability\nin any action under subsection (a), the court shall consider, among other relevant factors\n(1) in any individual action under subsection (a)(2)(A), the frequency and persistence of\nnoncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of such noncompliance, and the extent to\nwhich such noncompliance was intentional; or (2) in any class action under subsection (a)(2)\n(B), the frequency and persistence of noncompliance by the debt collector, the nature of\nsuch noncompliance, the resources of the debt collector, the number of persons adversely\naffected, and the extent to which the debt collectors noncompliance was intentional. (c)\nIntent A debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if\nthe debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not\nintentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of\nprocedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error. (d) Jurisdiction An action to\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nenforce any liability created by this subchapter may be brought in any appropriate United\nStates district court without regard to the amount in controversy, or in any other court of\ncompetent jurisdiction, within one year from the date on which the violation occurs. (e)\nAdvisory opinions of Bureau No provision of this section imposing any liability shall apply to\nany act done or omitted in good faith in conformity with any advisory opinion of the Bureau,\nnotwithstanding that after such act or omission has occurred, such opinion is amended,\nrescinded, or determined by judicial or other authority to be invalid for any reason. 15 U.S.\nCode 1642 - Issuance of credit cards No credit card shall be issued except in response to\na request or application therefor. This prohibition does not apply to the issuance of a credit\ncard in renewal of, or in substitution for, an accepted credit card. 15 U.S.C 1692g Validation\nof debts (a) Notice of debt; contents Within XXXX days after the initial communication with a\nconsumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the\nfollowing information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid\nthe debt, send the consumer a written notice containing (1) the amount of the debt; (2) the\nname of the creditor to whom the debt is owed; (3) a statement that unless the consumer,\nwithin thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion\nthereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector; (4) a statement that if the\nconsumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or\nany portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a\ncopy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will\nbe mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and (5) a statement that, upon the\nconsumers written request within the thirty-day period, the debt collector will provide the\nconsumer with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current\ncreditor. (b) Disputed debts If the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the\nthirty-day period described in subsection (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is\ndisputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the\ndebt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the\ndebt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and\naddress of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and\naddress of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector. Collection\nactivities and communications that do not otherwise violate this subchapter may continue\nduring the XXXX-day period referred to in subsection (a) unless the consumer has notified the\ndebt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the\nconsumer requests the name and address of the original creditor. Any collection activities\nand communication during the XXXX-day period may not overshadow or be inconsistent with\nthe disclosure of the consumers right to dispute the debt or request the name and address\nof the original creditor. (c) Admission of liability The failure of a consumer to dispute the\nvalidity of a debt under this section may not be construed by any court as an admission of\nliability by the consumer. (d) Legal pleadings A communication in the form of a formal\npleading in a civil action shall not be treated as an initial communication for purposes of\nsubsection (a). (e) Notice provisions The sending or delivery of any form or notice which\ndoes not relate to the collection of a debt and is expressly required by XXXX XXXX, title V of\nGramm-Leach-Bliley Act [15 U.S.C. 6801 et seq.], or any provision of Federal or State law\nrelating to notice of data security breach or privacy, or any regulation prescribed under any\nsuch provision of law, shall not be treated as an initial communication in connection with\ndebt collection for purposes of this section. 15 U.S. Code 1681q - Obtaining information\nunder false pretenses U.S. Code Notes prev | next Any person who knowingly and willfully\nobtains information on a consumer from a consumer reporting agency under false\npretenses shall be fined under XXXX XXXX imprisoned for not more than XXXX years, or both. To\nwho it may concern , After viewing a copy of my credit report, I noticed a collection account\nplaced on my credit report from you in XXXX I am requesting that you allow me to validate\nthe alleged debt. I am unaware of any outstanding medical bills that I possess, and I am\nseeking the name and hospital/medical provider to which I owe the debt and a detailed\nbreakdown of the fees that I owe. Additionally, I am allowed under the Heath insurance\nPortability and Accountability Act (HIPAA] to protect my privacy and medical records from\nthird parties. I did not give permission to any of my current or prior medical providers to\nrelease any of my medical information to a third party. I am aware that the HIPAA does\nallows the release of limited information about me but anything more is to only be revealed\nwith the patient's authorization. Therefore, my request is twofold-validation of debt and\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX HIPAA authorization. Please provide breakdown of fees including any collection costs and\nmedical charges. Provide a copy of my signature with the provider of service to release my\nmedical information to you.Cease any credit bureau reporting until the debt has been\nvalidated by me, Please send this information to my address listed above and accept this\nletter, sent certified mail, as my formal debt validation request, which I am allowed under the\nFDCPA. Please note that withholding the information you received from any medical\nprovider in an attempt to be HIPAA compliant can be a violation of the FDCPA because you\nwill be deceiving me after my written request. I request full documentation of what you\nreceived from the provider of service in connection with this alleged debt. Additionally, any\nreporting of this debt to the credit bureaus prior to allowing me to validate it is a violation of\nthe Fair Credit Reporting Act, which can allow me to seek damages from a collection\nagency. I will await your reply with above requested proof. Upon receiving it, I will\ncorrespond back by certified mail.\nI reserved all my rights to amend this Contract the Finance Manager Requested that I give it to the Dealership I have advised the Seller told the buyer that I XXXX XXXX XXXX Private Individual Banker is a Beneficiary Of my trust and this is a Purchase for my trust XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX request that they will accept my TENDER OF PAYMENT for settlement of this account to be (balance to .00) on the books and to file IRS FORMS 1099s to properly balance the United States Treasury Debt I have signed this contract and I have not give my rights to amended this contract on Date:XXXX signed by the Beneficiary XXXX XXXX Private Individual Banker ESTATE /TRUST Exempt Form Levy I reserve all my rights WITHOUT RECOURSE UCC1-308 I will be using my credit for this transaction and not paying in cash and I have send my letter to the Finance Manager by email he requested they I send a tender of payment to retrieve my property I need to have cash or a check and which he have received and told me to send it to bank and it been over XXXX and I have the right to receive my property and use my credit for this transaction and dont have to use cash or and any other payment of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX We the people have the right to use credit or a tender of payment and if its not accepted by the party or Leander or vendor it is discharged by law all debt is obligation to the United States. Your company didnt disclose any truth in lending or cannot show me where I can send it to panties with cash, and I was trying to pay with my internal credit and not actual funds this is my GOD Giving rights and by law show me where it stated in law where I cant use my credit for this transaction or cant use negotiable instruments. I do not consent to your contract for FCRAAs a federal protected consumer, I am now opting out of any and all authorization I the consumer may have given you written unwritten, verbal and nonverbal 15 USC 1602. And I would like conversation for all the violations.\n16 CFR 313.1 - Purpose and scope. \n\tCFR \n\tTable of Popular Names\nprev | next\n XXXX Purpose and scope.\n(a) Purpose. This part governs the treatment of nonpublic personal information about consumers by the financial institutions listed in paragraph (b) of this section. This part: \n(1) Requires a financial institution in specified circumstances to provide notice to customers about its privacy policies and practices; \n(2) Describes the conditions under which a financial institution may disclose nonpublic personal information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties; and \n(3) Provides a method for consumers to prevent a financial institution from disclosing that information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject to the exceptions in XXXX XXXX, and 313.15. \n(b) Scope. This part applies only to nonpublic personal information about individuals who obtain financial products or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes from the institutions listed below. This part does not apply to information about companies or about individuals who obtain financial products or services for business, commercial, or agricultural purposes. This part applies to those financial institutions over which the Federal Trade Commission(Commission) has rulemaking authority pursuant to section 504(a)(1)(C) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. An entity is a financial institution if its business is engaging in an activity that is financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities as described in section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. 1843(k), which incorporates activities enumerated by the Federal Reserve Board in 12 CFR 225.28 and 225.86. The financial institutions subject to the Commission's rulemaking authority are any persons described in 12 U.S.C. 5519 that are predominantly engaged in the sale and servicing of motor vehicles, the leasing and servicing of motor vehicles, or both. They are referred to in this part as You. Excluded from the coverage of this part are motor vehicle dealers described in 12 U.S.C. 5519(b) that directly extend to consumers retail credit or retail leases involving motor vehicles in which the contract governing such extension of retail credit or retail leases is not routinely assigned to an unaffiliated third party finance or leasing source.\n[65 FR 33677, XXXX XXXX XXXX as amended at 86 FR 70025, XXXX XXXX XXXX\n16 CFR 433.2 - Preservation of consumers' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices. \n\tCFR \n\tTable of Popular Names\nprev | next\n XXXX Preservation of consumers' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices.\nIn connection with any sale or lease of goods or services to consumers, in or affecting commerce as commerce is defined in the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice within the meaning of section XXXX of that Act for a seller, directly or indirectly, to:\n(a) Take or receive a consumer credit contract which fails to contain the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:\nNOTICE\nANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER.\nor,\n(b) Accept, as full or partial payment for such sale or lease, the proceeds of any purchase money loan (as purchase money loan is defined herein), unless any consumer credit contract made in connection with such purchase money loan contains the following provision in at least ten point, bold face, type:\nNOTICE\nANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-06T18:03:26.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"68502","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10717011","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-11-06T17:25:23.000Z","state":"NE","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["That court erred in apparently holding that individuals have an enforceable right to\n\"substantial compliance\" with XXXX XXXX in all respects. The statutory \"substantial\ncompliance\" requirement, see, e. g., 42 U. S. C. 609(a)(8) (1994 ed., Supp."]},"sort":[6.908137,"10717011"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4574453","_score":6.339082,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am XXXX XXXX representing MYSELF and I am the consumer in fact and not a third party. \nI am communicating with you directly as requested regarding concerns/ issues with my credit report. This letter represents my formal request to again dispute the aforementioned accounts as well as inquiries which are illegally being reported on my account. \n\n\nIt was communicated to me to reach out to each individual agency to expedite the removal. As of the date of this letter, it has been over thirty days with no compliance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) enacted by the United States Congress. By their findings, it is now my legal right to have these accounts and inquiries ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) removed.\n\nI understand the individual in receipt of this letter is most likely not an attorney. Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. \n\n\nI appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously! \n\n\n\nRegards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : XXXX XXXX with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$6300.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off Unapproved Inquiries Please be aware the following inquiries are plaguing my report. I have communicated with the agencies whom I believe to be responsible for this violation. I have not received any correspondence for the following accounts below. Please remove these adverse inquiries immediately. \n\nXXXX XXXX XX/XX/2020 XXXX-XXXX XX/XX/2020 XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2020 XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2020 XXXX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2020 XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2020 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( a ) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the purposes of this subchapter.\n\n( b ) The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. ( c ) The term consu\nmer means an individual.\n\n( d ) Consumer Report.\n\n( 1 ) In general.The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for ( A ) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes ; ( B ) employment purposes ; or ( C ) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title. ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include\n( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ). [ 1 ] ( 3 ) Restriction on sharing of medical information.Except for information or any communication of information disclosed as provided in section 1681b ( g ) ( 3 ) of this title, the exclusions in paragraph ( 2 ) shall not apply with respect to information disclosed to any person related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the information is ( A ) medical information ; ( B ) an individualized list or description based on the payment transactions of the consumer for medical products or services ; or ( C ) an aggregate list of identified consumers based on payment transactions for medical products or services.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer.\n\n( f ) The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports.\n\n( g ) The term file, when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.\n\n( h ) The term employment purposes when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee.\n\n( i ) Medical Information.The term medical information ( 1 ) means information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to ( A ) the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual ; ( B ) the provision of health care to an individual ; or ( C ) the payment for the provision of health care to an individual. [ 2 ] ( 2 ) does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumers residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy.\n\n( j ) Definitions Relating to Child Support Obligations.\n\n( 1 ) Overdue support.\n\nThe term overdue support has the meaning given to such term in section 666 ( e ) of title 42.\n\n( 2 ) State or local child support enforcement agency.\n\nThe term State or local child support enforcement agency means a State or local agency which administers a State or local program for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.\n\n( k ) Adverse Action.\n\n( 1 ) Actions included.The term adverse action ( A ) has the same meaning as in section 1691 ( d ) ( 6 ) of this title ; and ( B ) means ( i ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for, in connection with the underwriting of insurance ; ( ii ) a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee ; ( iii ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or any other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of, any license or benefit described in section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( D ) of this title ; and ( iv ) an action taken or determination that is ( I ) made in connection with an application that was made by, or a transaction that was initiated by, any consumer, or in connection with a review of an account under section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( F ) ( ii ) of this title ; and ( II ) adverse to the interests of the","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-26T17:55:32.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"20011","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4574453","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2021-07-26T17:55:28.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.\n\n15 U.S."]},"sort":[6.339082,"4574453"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4575107","_score":6.338086,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am XXXX XXXX representing MYSELF and I am the consumer in fact and not a third party. \n\nI am communicating with you directly as requested regarding concerns/ issues with my credit report. This letter represents my formal request to again dispute the aforementioned accounts as well as inquiries which are illegally being reported on my account. \n\nIt was communicated to me to reach out to each individual agency to expedite the removal. As of the date of this letter, it has been over thirty days with no compliance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) enacted by the United States Congress. By their findings, it is now my legal right to have these accounts and inquiries ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) removed. \n\nI understand the individual in receipt of this letter is most likely not an attorney. Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. \n\nI appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously! \n\nRegards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : LVNVFUNDG with Account # XXXX * for a debt owed of {$210.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off Unapproved Inquiries Please be aware the following inquiries are plaguing my report. I have communicated with the agencies whom I believe to be responsible for this violation. I have not received any correspondence for the following accounts below. Please remove these adverse inquiries immediately. \n\nXXXX XXXX US SM BUS ADMIN ODA XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. \n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.\n\n( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy.\n\n( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \n\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( a ) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the purposes of this subchapter.\n\n( b ) The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity.\n\n( c ) The term consumer means an individual.\n\n( d ) Consumer Report.\n\n( 1 ) In general.The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for ( A ) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes ; ( B ) employment purposes ; or ( C ) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.\n\n( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ). [ 1 ] ( 3 ) Restriction on sharing of medical information.Except for information or any communication of information disclosed as provided in section 1681b ( g ) ( 3 ) of this title, the exclusions in paragraph ( 2 ) shall not apply with respect to information disclosed to any person related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the information is ( A ) medical information ; ( B ) an individualized list or description based on the payment transactions of the consumer for medical products or services ; or ( C ) an aggregate list of identified consumers based on payment transactions for medical products or services. \n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. \n\n( f ) The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. \n\n( g ) The term file, when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.\n\n( h ) The term employment purposes when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee. \n\n( i ) Medical Information.The term medical information ( 1 ) means information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to ( A ) the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual ; ( B ) the provision of health care to an individual ; or ( C ) the payment for the provision of health care to an individual. [ 2 ] ( 2 ) does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumers residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy. \n\n( j ) Definitions Relating to Child Support Obligations.\n\n( 1 ) Overdue support.\n\nThe term overdue support has the meaning given to such term in section 666 ( e ) of title 42.\n\n( 2 ) State or local child support enforcement agency.\n\nThe term State or local child support enforcement agency means a State or local agency which administers a State or local program for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.\n\n( k ) Adverse Action.\n\n( 1 ) Actions included.The term adverse action ( A ) has the same meaning as in section 1691 ( d ) ( 6 ) of this title ; and ( B ) means ( i ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for, in connection with the underwriting of insurance ; ( ii ) a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee ; ( iii ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or any other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of, any license or benefit described in section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( D ) of this title ; and ( iv ) an action taken or determination that is ( I ) made in connection with an application that was made by, or a transaction that was initiated by, any consumer, or in connection with a review of an account under section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( F ) ( ii ) of this title ; and ( II ) adverse to the interests of the","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-26T18:48:49.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"21213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4575107","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","date_received":"2021-07-26T18:44:54.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. \n\n\n15 U.S."],"issue":["Attempts to collect debt not owed"]},"sort":[6.338086,"4575107"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4749851","_score":6.325441,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am XXXX XXXX representing MYSELF and I am the consumer in fact and not a third party. I am communicating with you directly as requested regarding concerns/ issues with my credit report. This letter represents my formal request to again dispute the aforementioned accounts as well as inquiries which are illegally being reported on my account. It was communicated to me to reach out to each individual agency to expedite the removal. As of the date of this letter, it has been over thirty days with no compliance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) enacted by the United States Congress. By their findings, it is now my legal right to have these accounts and inquiries ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) removed. I understand the individual in receipt of this letter is most likely not an attorney. Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. I appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously! Regards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICE with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$370.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off Unapproved Inquiries Please be aware the following inquiries are plaguing my report. I have communicated with the agencies whom I believe to be responsible for this violation. I have not received any correspondence for the following accounts below. Please remove these adverse inquiries immediately. XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system. ( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers.\n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. ( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. ( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, TYPE OF ISSUE Debt was result of identity theft and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( a ) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the purposes of this subchapter. ( b ) The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. ( c ) The term consumer means an individual. ( d ) Consumer Report. ( 1 ) In general.The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for ( A ) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes ; ( B ) employment purposes ; or ( C ) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title. ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ). [ 1 ] ( 3 ) Restriction on sharing of medical information.Except for information or any communication of information disclosed as provided in section 1681b ( g ) ( 3 ) of this title, the exclusions in paragraph ( 2 ) shall not apply with respect to information disclosed to any person related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the information is ( A ) medical information ; ( B ) an individualized list or description based on the payment transactions of the consumer for medical products or services ; or ( C ) an aggregate list of identified consumers based on payment transactions for medical products or services. ( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. ( f ) The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. ( g ) The term file, when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored. ( h ) The term employment purposes when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee. ( i ) Medical Information.\n\nThe term medical information ( 1 ) means information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to ( A ) the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual ; ( B ) the provision of health care to an individual ; or ( C ) the payment for the provision of health care to an individual. [ 2 ] ( 2 ) does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumers residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy. ( j ) Definitions Relating to XXXX XXXX Obligations. ( 1 ) Overdue support. The term overdue support has the meaning given to such term in section 666 ( e ) of title 42. ( 2 ) State or local child support enforcement agency. \nThe term State or local child support enforcement agency means a State or local agency which administers a State or local program for establishing and enforcing child support obligations. ( k ) Adverse Action. ( 1 ) Actions included.The term adverse action ( A ) has the same meaning as in section 1691 ( d ) ( 6 ) of this title ; and ( B ) means ( i ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for, in connection with the underwriting of insurance ; ( ii ) a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee ; ( iii ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or any other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of, any license or benefit described in section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( D ) of this title ; and ( iv ) an action taken or determination that is ( I ) made in connection with an application that was made by, or a transaction that was initiated by, any consumer, or in connection with a review of an account under section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( F ) ( ii ) of this title ; and ( II ) adverse to the interests of the","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-23T19:32:14.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"442XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4749851","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Phoenix Financial Services LLC","date_received":"2021-09-23T19:26:04.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. I appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously!"],"issue":["Attempts to collect debt not owed"]},"sort":[6.325441,"4749851"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4575353","_score":6.325441,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern : I am XXXX XXXX representing MYSELF and I am the consumer in fact and not a third party. \n\nI am communicating with you directly as requested regarding concerns/ issues with my credit report. This letter represents my formal request to again dispute the aforementioned accounts as well as inquiries which are illegally being reported on my account. \n\nIt was communicated to me to reach out to each individual agency to expedite the removal. As of the date of this letter, it has been over thirty days with no compliance to the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681 ) enacted by the United States Congress. By their findings, it is now my legal right to have these accounts and inquiries ( FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) removed. \n\nI understand the individual in receipt of this letter is most likely not an attorney. Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. \n\nI appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously! \n\nRegards XXXX XXXX Accounts Requiring Immediate Removal : CAPITAL ONE with Account # XXXX for a debt owed of {$2000.00} that is reporting as a Collection/Charge Off Unapproved Inquiries Please be aware the following inquiries are plaguing my report. I have communicated with the agencies whom I believe to be responsible for this violation. I have not received any correspondence for the following accounts below. Please remove these adverse inquiries immediately. \n\nXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX US SM BUS ADMIN ODA XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX 15 U.S. Code 1681 - Congressional findings and statement of purpose ( a ) Accuracy and fairness of credit reporting The Congress makes the following findings : ( 1 ) The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting. Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking system.\n\n( 2 ) An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, and general reputation of consumers. \n\n( 3 ) Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers. ( 4 ) There is a need to insure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to privacy. ( b ) Reasonable procedures It is the purpose of this subchapter to require that consumer reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter. 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( a ) Definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the purposes of this subchapter. ( b ) The term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or\nagency, or other entity.\n( c ) The term consumer means an individual.\n\n( d ) Consumer Report.\n\n( 1 ) In general.The term consumer report means any written, oral, or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumers credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part for the purpose of serving as a factor in establishing the consumers eligibility for ( A ) credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes ; ( B ) employment purposes ; or ( C ) any other purpose authorized under section 1681b of this title.\n\n( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a com\nmunication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ). [ 1 ] ( 3 ) Restriction on sharing of medical information.Except for information or any communication of information disclosed as provided in section 1681b ( g ) ( 3 ) of this title, the exclusions in paragraph ( 2 ) shall not apply with respect to information disclosed to any person related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if the information is ( A ) medical information ; ( B ) an individualized list or description based on the payment transactions of the consumer for medical products or services ; or ( C ) an aggregate list of identified consumers based on payment transactions for medical products or services.\n\n( e ) The term investigative consumer report means a consumer report or portion thereof in which information on a consumers character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on or with others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information. However, such information shall not include specific factual information on a consumers credit record obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from a consumer reporting agency when such information was obtained directly from a creditor of the consumer or from the consumer. \n\n( f ) The term consumer reporting agency means any person which, for monetary fees, dues, or on a cooperative nonprofit basis, regularly engages in whole or in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit information or other information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer reports. \n\n( g ) The term file, when used in connection with information on any consumer, means all of the information on that consumer recorded and retained by a consumer reporting agency regardless of how the information is stored.\n\n( h ) The term employment purposes when used in connection with a consumer report means a report used for the purpose of evaluating a consumer for employment, promotion, reassignment or retention as an employee. \n\n( i ) Medical Information.The term medical information ( 1 ) means information or data, whether oral or recorded, in any form or medium, created by or derived from a health care provider or the consumer, that relates to ( A ) the past, present, or future physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of an individual ; ( B ) the provision of health care to an individual ; or ( C ) the payment for the provision of health care to an individual. [ 2 ] ( 2 ) does not include the age or gender of a consumer, demographic information about the consumer, including a consumers residence address or e-mail address, or any other information about a consumer that does not relate to the physical, mental, or behavioral health or condition of a consumer, including the existence or value of any insurance policy.\n\n( j ) Definitions Relating to Child Support Obligations.\n\n( 1 ) Overdue support.\n\nThe term overdue support has the meaning given to such term in section 666 ( e ) of title 42.\n\n( 2 ) State or local child support enforcement agency.\n\nThe term State or local child support enforcement agency means a State or local agency which administers a State or local program for establishing and enforcing child support obligations.\n\n( k ) Adverse Action.\n\n( 1 ) Actions included.The term adverse action ( A ) has the same meaning as in section 1691 ( d ) ( 6 ) of this title ; and ( B ) means ( i ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or a reduction or other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of coverage or amount of, any insurance, existing or applied for, in connection with the underwriting of insurance ; ( ii ) a denial of employment or any other decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee ; ( iii ) a denial or cancellation of, an increase in any charge for, or any other adverse or unfavorable change in the terms of, any license or benefit described in section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( D ) of this title ; and ( iv ) an action taken or determination that is ( I ) made in connection with an application that was made by, or a transaction that was initiated by, any consumer, or in connection with a review of an account under section 1681b ( a ) ( 3 ) ( F ) ( ii ) of this title ; and ( II ) adverse to the interests of the","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-26T19:10:43.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Other debt","zip_code":"21213","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4575353","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-07-26T19:06:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Therefore, I have attached the laws and definitions to educate any person of my legal rights in the United States of America. \n\nI appreciate you understanding how this adversely affects me and is in violation of my rights. Thank you for helping me take this federal matter seriously!"],"issue":["Attempts to collect debt not owed"]},"sort":[6.325441,"4575353"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":46,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":46}]}},"product":{"doc_count":46,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":16,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":16}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":11},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":3},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":46,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":12,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":9},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":7}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit inquiries on your report that you don't recognize","doc_count":3},{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":4},{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble using your card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't use card to make purchases","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":46,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":46}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":46,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":33},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":13}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":46,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":46}]}},"company":{"doc_count":46,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":15},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":10},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Harris & Harris, Ltd.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Phoenix Financial Services LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Resurgent Capital Services L.P.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":46,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"MD","doc_count":13},{"key":"NY","doc_count":9},{"key":"FL","doc_count":8},{"key":"DC","doc_count":3},{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"VA","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"MS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":46,"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":25},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":46,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4},{"key":"Older American","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":{"2":[6.3243613,"4575353"]}}}