{"took":236,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":20,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19034850","_score":30.155735,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a Regulation E error claim with Citi Bank for a {$1400.00} debit card transaction at XXXX from XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was supposed to refund this charge in XXXX, but the refund was never processed. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I called back asking for an update on my request for credit expedition. A representative told me my request was approved and I would receive the provisional credit on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not receive the credit on XX/XX/XXXX as promised. \nWhen I followed up, I was told I would have to wait until XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX business days from the day I made the claim. Today is XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX business day since I filed my dispute, and there is still no provisional credit in my account. \nUnder Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), when a bank extends an error investigation beyond 10 business days, they are required to provisionally credit the consumer 's account by the end of the 10th business day.\n\nThis morning, I contacted Citi Bank and informed them it is the 10th business day and requested the required provisional credit. As of this complaint, no credit has been posted to my account. \nCiti Bank is in violation of Regulation E by failing to provide the mandatory provisional credit within the required timeframe. I am requesting : Immediate provisional credit of {$1400.00} to my account Completion of the error investigation Confirmation that the bank will comply with Regulation E requirements","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-27T14:04:22.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"30253","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19034850","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-27T13:50:07.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am requesting : Immediate <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> of {$1400.00} to my account <em>Completion</em> of the <em>error</em> <em>investigation</em> Confirmation that the bank will comply with Regulation E requirements"]},"sort":[30.155735,"19034850"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15261313","_score":27.627632,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Complaint Against : Navy Federal Credit Union Category : Debit Card Dispute / Regulation E Violation Date of XXXX Merchant : XXXX XXXX Amount Disputed : {$3500.00} I made a purchase from XXXX XXXX using my Navy Federal debit card. The order was marked as delivered, but I never received the merchandise. There is no valid proof of delivery with my signature or consent. I reported this to Navy Federal promptly as a billing error under Regulation E. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal acknowledged my dispute but stated in writing that it can take us up to 4 months to hear back from the merchant and complete the investigation and that a provisional credit may not be issued while we review your claim.\n\nThis handling appears to violate Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which requires : The investigation to be completed within 10 business days, or a provisional credit to be issued while continuing the investigation. \nFor certain cases, an extension of up to 45 days ( and only 90 days for limited exceptions ).\n\nFinancial institutions may not delay 1. Immediate issuance of a provisional credit for the disputed amount in accordance with Regulation E.\n\n2. Completion of the investigation within the legally required timeframe.\n\n3. Written assurance that Navy Federal will comply with Regulation E for all future debit card disputes. resolution solely because the merchant has not responded. \n\nNavy Federals stated up to 4 months timeline is outside the laws limits, and their refusal to issue provisional credit leaves me financially harmed during the delay.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-13T17:25:12.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33025","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15261313","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-08-13T17:07:49.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal acknowledged my dispute but stated in writing that it can take us up to 4 months to hear back from the merchant and complete the <em>investigation</em> and that a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> may not be issued while we review your claim.\n\nThis handling appears to violate Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which requires : The <em>investigation</em> to be completed <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em>, or a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to be issued while continuing the <em>investigation</em>."],"company":["NAVY FEDERAL <em>CREDIT</em> UNION"]},"sort":[27.627632,"15261313"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18663737","_score":27.056915,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I opened a dispute with SoFi Bank, N.A. regarding a SoFi debit card transaction for Service Not Received. \nMerchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Transaction date : XX/XX/XXXX Amount disputed : {$100.00} Claim date : XX/XX/XXXX I paid an application/rental screening fee, but no screening/service was provided and the merchant became unresponsive. SoFi requested documentation on XX/XX/XXXX ( receipt/order confirmation, expected delivery date, and merchant communications ). I provided the requested documentation and proof of merchant non-response. \n\nSoFi has repeatedly stated that the claim remains under investigation and that these disputes can take up to 90+ days to resolve ( e.g., SoFi email dated XX/XX/XXXX ). As of XX/XX/XXXX, SoFi is still actively investigating and has not issued a final written determination resolving the dispute.\n\nBecause the investigation extended past 10 business days, I requested provisional credit. On XX/XX/XXXX, SoFi ( XXXX XXXX Back Office ) responded in writing that : The regulation that requires provisional credits for claims that extend past 10 business days are covered by Regulation E. The above-referenced dispute does not fall under Regulation E, therefore, no provisional credit will be issued, while also stating the dispute may take 90+ days and that results will be provided within 3 business days after completion. \n\nThis response is contradictory and appears to misstate the applicability of federal law. This is a consumer debit-card electronic fund transfer dispute from a deposit account, and I understand SoFi has Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) error-resolution obligations. SoFi is keeping the dispute open and under investigation while refusing provisional credit based on a blanket assertion that the dispute does not fall under Regulation E. I am requesting CFPB assistance to require SoFi to comply with Regulation E error-resolution requirements, including provisional credit where applicable, and to correct any internal policies or template letters that deny Regulation E coverage for consumer debit-card XXXX  disputes.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-12T22:00:40.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"60605","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18663737","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-12T21:29:53.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXX, SoFi ( XXXX XXXX Back Office ) responded in writing that : The regulation that requires <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em> for claims that extend past 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> are covered by Regulation E. The above-referenced dispute does not fall under Regulation E, therefore, no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> will be issued, while also stating the dispute may take 90+ <em>days</em> and that results will be provided <em>within</em> 3 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> after <em>completion</em>."]},"sort":[27.056915,"18663737"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17341664","_score":26.145391,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, at approximately XXXX XXXX I deposited {$1100.00} in cash at the Citibank ATM attached to the Citibank branch located at XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ). \n\nThe ATM accepted all of my cash, displayed the correct deposit amount, and asked me to confirm. I clicked YES. \n\nImmediately after that, the ATM went into a loading screen, froze, never asked if I wanted a receipt, and then ejected my debit card without completing the transaction. \n\nThe deposit never posted to my checking account, and I was left with a {$0.00} balance. \n\nI contacted Citibank and reported the issue, but I have not been provided provisional credit, even though this ATM error caused me serious financial hardship. \n\nUnder Regulation E, Citibank is required to investigate electronic transaction errors and issue provisional credit within 10 business days.\n\nThe ATM cash cassette and transaction logs will clearly show that the machine received my {$1100.00} even though the transaction failed before completion.\n\nI am requesting that Citibank : 1. Immediately issue provisional credit for the missing {$1100.00} 2. Complete the ATM reconciliation and locate the funds 3. Provide written confirmation of the investigation outcome I am without access to the {$1100.00} I deposited, and I need the CFPBs assistance to ensure Citibank complies with federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T04:58:56.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90063","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17341664","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-11-18T04:46:09.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I contacted Citibank and reported the issue, but I have not been provided <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, even though this ATM <em>error</em> caused me serious financial hardship. \n\nUnder Regulation E, Citibank is required to <em>investigate</em> electronic transaction <em>errors</em> and issue <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em>.\n\nThe ATM cash cassette and transaction logs will clearly show that the machine received my {$1100.00} even though the transaction failed before <em>completion</em>.\n\nI am requesting that Citibank : 1."]},"sort":[26.145391,"17341664"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14935190","_score":24.508316,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Cause of wrongful closure of account, bank statements, my remaining funds, why are they still collecting payments ; returns, disputes directed to me and blocking me access to the account and these funds but handling them to there own liking and not notifying, returning the funds to me, and contusing to do so actively even after wrongfully claiming to close my account, but still using my account and stealing my funds directly, falsely stating I don't have a balance owed, but also claiming I do, then ignoring the finding facts of there mishandling and thief ongoing of money instructed to me on a extreme amount of times and of money. I'll provide some of the many times they have stolen and actively use my account that they locked me from. They have with held my checks for over a year and have lied about them. The following are direct email from chime including transactions numbers and deposits etc for in which have not been paid to me via while and after they locked me out or per say account closure my account but continued to collect and illegally keep funds due to me. Please take notice they also refused to answer any of my many pleadings asking about my funds and asking when and how I will recieve them. \n1.Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Credit Not Posted Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$87.00} Hello XXXX XXXX XXXX This letter is to inform you that we have made a final determination regarding the claim referenced above. \nBased on our investigation, we have concluded an error occurred. As we explained in our letter sent to you on XXXX, a provisional credit in the amount of {$87.00} was posted to your account. This provisional credit is now permanent and any applicable fee ( s ) have been reversed. \n2.Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Credit Not Posted Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$73.00} Hello XXXX XXXX XXXX This letter is to inform you we have applied a provisional credit to your account on XXXX in the amount of {$73.00}. This temporary credit is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our investigation. \nWe will complete our investigation as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our investigation to you by email within three business days of completion. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the provisional credit and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs. \nThank you for being a valued Chime member. If you have any additional questions or need further assistance, feel free to contact us at any time. \nSincerely, Chime XXXX XXXX 3.Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$110.00} Hello XXXX XXXX XXXX This letter is to inform you we have applied a provisional credit to your account on XXXX in the amount of {$110.00}. This temporary credit is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our investigation. \nWe will complete our investigation as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our investigation to you by email within three business days of completion. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the provisional credit and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs.\n\nThank you for being a valued Chime member. If you have any additional questions or need further assistance, feel free to contact us at any time. \nSincerely, Chime Disputes Team 4.Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Credit Not Posted Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$73.00} XXXX Type : Credit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$120.00} XXXX ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Incorrect Amount Charged Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$170.00} XXXX ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Credit Not Posted Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$210.00} Hello XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you we made a final determination regarding the claim referenced above.\n\nOur investigation concluded an error occurred.\n\n8.Your dispute claim number is XXXX. \n\nThere are several more than I shared, that they still contune to keep, steal, and use of such a account","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T09:54:55.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"44144","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14935190","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-07-28T09:00:00.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This temporary <em>credit</em> is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our <em>investigation</em>. \nWe will complete our <em>investigation</em> as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our <em>investigation</em> to you by email <em>within</em> three <em>business</em> <em>days</em> of <em>completion</em>. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs. \nThank you for being a valued Chime member."]},"sort":[24.508316,"14935190"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18670092","_score":23.907642,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT URGENT REQUEST FOR INTERVENTION I am submitting this supplemental complaint to urgently request CFPB intervention regarding Chase Banks repeated failure to comply with Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) in connection with unauthorized electronic fund transfers on my account. \n\nSummary of the issue : I reported a series of unauthorized electronic fund transfers related to online gambling merchants ( including XXXX and XXXX ) beginning in XX/XX/year>. These transactions were unauthorized and part of a single fraud incident and pattern. Chase improperly fragmented this incident into multiple claims, repeatedly closed claims without issuing provisional credit, reopened them, and then closed them againsometimes within less than XXXX hourswhile asserting that a thorough investigation had occurred. \n\nAs of today, approximately XXXX days have passed since my original notice of error. Despite this extended investigation period, no provisional credit has ever been issued, and I have been repeatedly toldmost recently by an Executive Office representativethat Chase does not have to provide provisional credit until the XXXX. This position directly contradicts Regulation E.\n\nRegulation E violation : Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ), Chases position that provisional credit may be withheld until a later date ( e.g., the XXXX ) conflates investigation deadlines with provisional credit obligations and is inconsistent with Regulation Es plain language and official commentary. if a financial institution extends its investigation beyond 10 business days, it is required to provide provisional credit within 10 business days for the disputed amount and allow the consumer full use of the funds during the investigation. An institution may not withhold provisional credit for the duration of an extended investigation. Chase has done exactly that. \n\nI am not disputing Chases right to investigate. I am disputing Chases failure to provide provisional credit during an investigation that has been extended far beyond the regulatory window. \n\nAdditional concerning conduct : Claims were closed when Chase asserted there was no claim, then later reopened as claims, then closed again.\n\nOne Chase representative canceled a claim without my consent.\n\nA Chase employee contacted me from what appeared to be a personal phone number.\n\nI hand-delivered a police report, Regulation E affidavit, and written demand letter to a Chase branch manager and VP on XX/XX/year>, yet Chase later represented that claims did not exist or were merely inquiries.\n\nOnce CFPB involvement began, Chase suddenly asserted new timelines and positions that had never been disclosed during the prior 90 days. \n\nThis pattern raises serious concerns about claim manipulation, obstruction, and non-compliance designed to delay relief and exhaust the consumer. \n\nCurrent status and harm : Chase has again refused to issue provisional credit and has stated it will investigate and provide a written response at a later date, despite the investigation already being extended far beyond the permissible window. The continued denial of provisional credit has caused severe financial hardship, including inability to meet basic living expenses. \nWhat I am requesting : 1. CFPB review and intervention regarding Chase Banks compliance with Regulation E provisional credit requirements.\n\n2. That Chase be required to issue immediate provisional credit for the full amount of the unauthorized transactions pending completion of any investigation. I am not requesting permanent credit, penalties, or damages at this timeonly the provisional credit required by law during an extended investigation.\n\n3. That Chase be required to provide a written explanation of its legal basis for withholding provisional credit, including notice of my right to request and receive all documents relied upon in making any determination.\n\n4. That Chase be directed to preserve all internal notes, call recordings, claim history, and communications related to the closure, reopening, and handling of these claims. \n\nI am submitting this supplemental complaint because I am genuinely concerned that Chase will again close or deny the claim before CFPB has the opportunity to review the facts. I have extensive documentation and evidence supporting my position and am requesting CFPB involvement now to prevent further improper handling. \n\nThank you for your urgent attention to this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-13T02:07:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92886","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18670092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-01-13T01:54:11.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Regulation E violation : Under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( 3 ), Chases position that <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> may be withheld until a later date ( e.g., the XXXX ) conflates <em>investigation</em> deadlines with <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> obligations and is inconsistent with Regulation Es plain language and official commentary. if a financial institution extends its <em>investigation</em> beyond 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em>, it is required to provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> for the disputed amount and allow the consumer"]},"sort":[23.907642,"18670092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15192068","_score":21.948652,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"* * Subject : * * Dispute Denial Without Proper Investigation or Supporting Documentation Request for Immediate Action On * * XX/XX/2025 * *, a charge of * * \\ {$290.00} * * was posted to my account. I submitted a formal dispute regarding this unauthorized transaction on * * XX/XX/2025 * *. \n\nThe dispute was denied by Current, and on receiving this decision, I promptly requested the evidence and documentation that Current used to justify the denial. This request was made * * 14 business days ago * *, and I was informed that I would receive a response within * * 57 business days * *. To date, no documentation has been provided.\n\nCurrent 's handling of my dispute appears to be in violation of several provisions under * * Regulation E * * ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ), which implements the * * Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) * *. Specifically : 1. * * Failure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) * * Regulation E requires financial institutions to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receiving a notice of error. Based on the lack of a response and the absence of any provided evidence supporting the denial, it appears that no such reasonable investigation was conducted, or that evidence was not reviewed thoroughly particularly the documentation I submitted from XXXX XXXX. \n\n2. * * Failure to Provide Results of Investigation and Supporting Documentation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ) * * Upon completion of the investigation, the institution must report the results and provide the consumer with a copy of the supporting documentation upon request. I made a timely request, yet no documentation has been provided after 14 business days. This delay is a direct violation of the regulations requirement to make this information available promptly.\n\n3. * * Failure to Adhere to Timely Resolution Requirements ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) * * Regulation E requires that the financial institution resolve the dispute within * * 45 days * *, and if more time is needed, it must provisionally credit the account within 10 business days while continuing the investigation. If this process was not followed, or if no provisional credit was issued when required, this constitutes another violation.\n\n4. * * Improper Denial of Dispute Without Sufficient Justification ( General Compliance Failure ) * * Denying a dispute without providing a clear basis, especially in light of evidence submitted by the consumer, is not only unfair but noncompliant with consumer protection standards outlined under the EFTA and enforced by the CFPB.\n\nGiven these points, I am requesting : * Immediate disclosure of all supporting documentation and evidence used to deny my dispute, as required by law.\n\n* A thorough re-evaluation of the dispute using the documentation I previously submitted.\n\n* A written explanation detailing how Current complied with the requirements under Regulation E in this matter.\n\nFailure to take action or respond adequately may result in escalation to the * * Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) * * and other relevant oversight bodies. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-11T05:11:47.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"43228","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15192068","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","date_received":"2025-08-11T04:59:01.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":[". * * Failure to Adhere to Timely Resolution Requirements ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) * * Regulation E requires that the financial institution resolve the dispute <em>within</em> * * 45 <em>days</em> * *, and if more time is needed, it must <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> the account <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> while continuing the <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[21.948652,"15192068"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17236138","_score":21.247715,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Chime ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. ) regarding their failure to properly handle and investigate a debit card dispute connected to a fraudulent vehicle sale. \n\nI purchased a vehicle from XXXX XXXX through in-house financing on XX/XX/year>. The dealer misrepresented the vehicles condition, claiming it had no prior damage when it actually had significant undisclosed accident or structural damage and the vehicle could not pass a safety and emissions test. I provided proof through an inspection report/ XXXX report and other documentation. \n\nWhen I discovered the deception, I filed a debit card dispute with Chime for my down payment and car note payments made to the dealer, explaining that the sale was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. \n\nChime later sent me a letter stating : Based on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed. \n\nChimes decision violates Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ), which requires : A reasonable, good-faith investigation into any reported error ; Completion of the investigation within 10 business days ( or 45 days if provisional credit is issued ) ; Written explanation and supporting evidence for the final determination. \n\nChime did not : 1. Contact me to obtain additional information or documentation ; 2. Provide a provisional credit during the investigation ; 3. Supply documentation showing how they concluded no error occurred. \n\nTheir failure to investigate or issue credit while a valid fraud dispute was pending constitutes a violation of Regulation E. \nThe dealers conduct that caused the dispute violates multiple federal and Missouri consumer protection laws, including : 1. Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce ; 2. FTC Used Car Rule ( 16 CFR 455 ) requires dealers to disclose known defects and damage history on the Buyers Guide ; 3. Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ( RSMo 407.020 ) makes it unlawful to use deception, fraud, false promises, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise, including motor vehicles ; 4. Missouri Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act ( RSMo 407.825 et seq. ) prohibits false statements or concealment of material facts regarding vehicle history or condition. \nThese misrepresentations voided the contract and rendered the sale fraudulent. The vehicle has been successfully returned to the dealer and theyre now directing me to dispute further proceedings through my bank. They are ignoring my attorney general complaints.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-13T11:19:16.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17236138","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-13T11:06:37.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chimes decision violates Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ), which requires : A reasonable, good-faith <em>investigation</em> into any reported <em>error</em> ; <em>Completion</em> of the <em>investigation</em> <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> ( or 45 <em>days</em> if <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> is issued ) ; Written explanation and supporting evidence for the final determination. \n\nChime did not : 1. Contact me to obtain additional information or documentation ; 2."]},"sort":[21.247715,"17236138"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17293753","_score":21.207216,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint against Chime (XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX. / XXXX Bank, XXXX. ) regarding their failure to properly handle and investigate a debit card dispute connected to a fraudulent vehicle sale. I purchased a vehicle from XXXX XXXX through in-house financing on XX/XX/year>. The dealer misrepresented the vehicles condition, claiming it had no prior damage when it actually had significant undisclosed accident or structural damage and the vehicle could not pass a safety and emissions test. I provided proof through an inspection report/ XXXX report and other documentation. When I discovered the deception, I filed a debit card dispute with Chime for my down payment and car note payments made to the dealer, explaining that the sale was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. Chime later sent me a letter stating : Based on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. Therefore, no funds will be credited to your account and this claim is considered closed. Chimes decision violates Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. XXXX et seq. ), which requires : A reasonable, good-faith investigation into any reported error ; Completion of the investigation within XXXX business days ( or XX/XX/XXXX days if provisional credit is issued ) ; Written explanation and supporting evidence for the final determination. Chime did not : XXXX. Contact me to obtain additional information or documentation ; XXXX. Provide a provisional credit during the investigation ; XXXX. Supply documentation showing how they concluded no error occurred. Their failure to investigate or issue credit while a valid fraud dispute was pending constitutes a violation of Regulation XXXX The dealers conduct that caused the dispute violates multiple federal and Missouri consumer protection laws, including : XXXX. Federal Trade Commission Act ( 15 U.S.C. XXXX ) prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce ; XXXX. FTC Used Car Rule ( XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) requires dealers to disclose known defects and damage history on the Buyers Guide ; XXXX. Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) makes it unlawful to use deception, fraud, false promises, or misrepresentation in connection with the sale of merchandise, including motor vehicles ; XXXX. Missouri Motor Vehicle Franchise Practices Act ( XXXX XXXX et seq. ) prohibits false statements or concealment of material facts regarding vehicle history or condition. These misrepresentations voided the contract and rendered the sale fraudulent. The vehicle has been successfully returned to the dealer and theyre now directing me to dispute further proceedings through my bank. They are ignoring my attorney general complaints.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-18T01:20:28.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"63121","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17293753","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2025-11-18T01:15:18.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX et seq. ), which requires : A reasonable, good-faith <em>investigation</em> into any reported <em>error</em> ; <em>Completion</em> of the <em>investigation</em> <em>within</em> XXXX <em>business</em> <em>days</em> ( or XX/XX/XXXX <em>days</em> if <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> is issued ) ; Written explanation and supporting evidence for the final determination. Chime did not : XXXX. Contact me to obtain additional information or documentation ; XXXX. Provide a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> during the <em>investigation</em> ; XXXX."]},"sort":[21.207216,"17293753"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21480760","_score":18.725895,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"b\"I am filing against Capital One, N.A. for failure to conduct a substantive investigation of a Regulation E billing error notice. My position is not that Capital One failed to respond within the regulatory window. It is that Capital One's response reveals the absence of the investigation the regulation requires.\\n\\nOn XX/XX/2026, I delivered a formal written Reg E billing error notice to Capital One regarding Account ending XXXX. It was received XX/XX/2026 via XXXX tracking XXXX XXXX XXXX. The notice identified a net disputed amount of $XXXX (XXXX unauthorized XXXX XXXX  debits totaling $XXXX, plus XXXX unauthorized XXXX XXXX-network transactions totaling $XXXX, less $XXXX in XXXX-initiated credits). It included the full transaction inventory, legal basis (XXXX XXXX data breach of XX/XX/2026; XXXX  unauthorized charges; XXXX XXXX structural deficiencies), and requested remedies.\\n\\nOn XX/XX/2026, twelve calendar days after receipt, Capital One opened four fragmentary claims, each demanding a separate Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit form within ten business days:\\n\\nClaim XXXX: $XXXX Claim XXXX: $XXXX  Claim XXXX: $XXXX Claim XXXX: $XXXX\\n\\nThese four claims sum to $XXXX. My letter disputed $XXXX. The variance of $XXXX is numerically identical to the $XXXX in XXXX-initiated credits disclosed in my letter. Capital One's scoping extracted that detail but did not arrive at my stated total. The letter was in the file but not read for substance.\\n\\nCapital One also issued one partial provisional credit of $XXXX (XXXX line items, $XXXX to $XXXX). That is approximately 12% of the disputed amount. No reconciliation, claim cross-reference, or  1005.11(d) completion notice accompanied it. It does not satisfy 12 C.F.R.  1005.11(c)(2).\\n\\nThe four-claim split cannot be reconciled to my letter. The demand that I now re-produce on four parallel forms the information the letter already contained is not an investigation step. It is a mechanism by which Capital One's own failure to read the notice becomes an additional consumer burden.\\n\\nI am also concerned this pattern  Reg E notice ignored, phone call required, phone call redirected to additional written submission duplicating the original  is consistent across multiple institutions (XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX). It warrants Bureau attention as a potential industry practice of regulatory posture without substantive review.\\n\\nRelated CFPB IDs: XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. FDIC cases: XXXX, XXXX.\"","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T14:10:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"54304","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21480760","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-22T13:53:45.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["\\n\\nOn XX/XX/2026, twelve calendar <em>days</em> after receipt, Capital One opened four fragmentary claims, each demanding a separate Written Statement of Unauthorized Debit form <em>within</em> ten <em>business</em> <em>days</em>:\\n\\nClaim XXXX: $XXXX Claim XXXX: $XXXX  Claim XXXX: $XXXX Claim XXXX: $XXXX\\n\\nThese four claims sum to $XXXX. My letter disputed $XXXX. The variance of $XXXX is numerically identical to the $XXXX in XXXX-initiated <em>credits</em> disclosed in my letter."]},"sort":[18.725895,"21480760"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21273926","_score":18.370321,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Supplemental/Related Complaint Against Chime Financial , Inc . Continued EFTA Violations, Pattern of Bad-Faith Dispute Handling, and Failure to Respond to Formal Demand Original Complaint ID : XXXX Dear Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , I am writing to supplement and renew my previously filed complaint ( ID # XXXX ) against Chime Financial, Inc. ( Chime ) in connection with unauthorized fraudulent transactions totaling approximately {$400.00} that were made on my account without my knowledge or authorization. This supplemental complaint is necessitated by a continuing pattern of conduct by Chime that I believe constitutes clear and repeated violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005. Since my initial complaint, the situation has materially worsened. I respectfully request that the Bureau treat this correspondence as a related and supplemental complaint to my prior filing, and that it be incorporated into Chimes ongoing regulatory record. \n\nI. Background and Prior Complaint On or about the date of the XX/XX/year>, I discovered approximately {$400.00} in unauthorized charges on my Chime account. I reported the fraud to Chime within approximately one hour of discovering the transactions well within the reporting windows established under the EFTA. I also filed a police report documenting the fraud and provided Chime with a copy. Despite this, Chime denied my initial dispute. I filed a second dispute, which was also denied. Following those denials, I filed a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, and sent formal written Notice of Demand letters to Chime Financial , Inc. via XXXX mail on XX/XX/year>, citing violations of the EFTA and demanding reimbursement. Chime never responded to those demand letters. \n\nII. New and Continuing Violations Since Initial Complaint Since the filing of my initial CFPB complaint, Chimes conduct has continued in a manner that strongly suggests bad faith, automated processing, and willful disregard of federal law. The following events have occurred and form the basis of this supplemental complaint : 1. Chime independently reopened one of my disputes on its own initiative and denied it within 24 hours, providing no written explanation of its findings. A meaningful investigation of a fraud dispute can not be completed in 24 hours. This conduct is facially inconsistent with the reasonable investigation standard required under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ).\n\n2. Chime also independently reopened a second, separate dispute and denied it as well, again without providing a written explanation of findings or the basis for denial.\n\n3. Chime has failed to provide me with written findings explaining the basis of any of its denials. Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ), when a financial institution determines no error occurred, it must promptly deliver a written explanation of its findings and inform the consumer of the right to request the documents it relied upon. \n\n4. Chime failed to respond to XXXX XXXX  mail demand letters sent on XX/XX/year> to its principal address at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX. These letters cited the EFTA by statute, included my police report, and provided a deadline for response. No response was ever received. \n\n5. In total, I have now been denied reimbursement XXXX times across XXXX separate disputes. The pattern of conduct rapid automated denials, failure to explain findings, failure to respond to formal legal demands, and failure to conduct genuine investigations suggests systemic noncompliance rather than isolated error. \n\nIII. Applicable Legal Standards The EFTA and Regulation E impose specific obligations on financial institutions that handle electronic fund transfers on behalf of consumers. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : ( 1 ) investigate the claim within 10 business days ( or issue a provisional credit while conducting a longer investigation of up to 45 days ) ; ( 2 ) conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation of the alleged error ; ( 3 ) provide written notice of its findings upon completion ; and ( 4 ) inform the consumer of their right to request the documents relied upon in the determination. Under 15 U.S.C. 1693g, the burden of proof rests with the financial institution to establish that the transfer was authorized. Chime has not met any of these obligations. It has not conducted reasonable investigations, has not provided written findings, has not offered provisional credit, and has not met its burden of proving authorization.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-15T19:07:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"121XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21273926","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-04-15T18:33:31.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under 15 U.S.C. 1693f and 12 C.F.R. 1005.11, when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution must : ( 1 ) <em>investigate</em> the claim <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> ( or issue a <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> while conducting a longer <em>investigation</em> of up to 45 <em>days</em> ) ; ( 2 ) conduct a reasonable, good-faith <em>investigation</em> of the alleged <em>error</em> ; ( 3 ) provide written notice of its findings upon <em>completion</em> ; and ( 4 ) inform the consumer of their right to request the documents relied"]},"sort":[18.370321,"21273926"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18043367","_score":17.461773,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Demand for Compensation for Storage Unit Loss and Reinstatement of Frozen Funds Dear Capital One Compliance Department, I am writing to formally demand corrective action and compensation for severe financial harm I suffered as a direct result of Capital Ones handling of my accounts, including wrongful account closure, withholding of verified funds, failure to provide required notice, and failure to act upon repeated urgent notifications. These actions resulted in the loss of my storage unit and all personal and business property valued at approximately {$120000.00} {$150000.00}.\n\nThis letter serves as a formal notice, a Regulation E dispute escalation, and a claim for damages, in accordance with federal consumer protection laws. \nI. Factual Background 1. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Capital One to report an unauthorized charge in the amount of {$3600.00}. \nDespite timely notice, my report was denied, and the disputed funds were not provisionally credited as required under 12 CFR 1005.11.\n\n2. On XX/XX/XXXX, my account was placed {$3600.00} negative, resulting from the same disputed transaction. \n3. On XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited a valid settlement check of {$7500.00} into my second Capital One checking account. \nThat same day, Capital One closed the account and froze the funds, citing suspicious activity without any prior warning, written notice, or reasonable explanation. \n4. I contacted Capital One daily, informing the bank that my storage unit was approaching auction due to lack of access to my own funds.\n\nDespite clear urgency and documented hardship, Capital One withheld all access to my deposited funds.\n\n5. On XX/XX/XXXX, Capital One stated that a {$2600.00} check was issued to me. \nI still have not received this check. \nXXXX. The bank informed me that the account was closed because one of my other accounts was negative.\n\nHowever, each checking account is a separate contract, and a negative balance in one can not lawfully justify closing or freezing funds in another without proper notice and contractual basis.\n\n7. Capital One only allowed 10 days to cover the disputed negative balancean unreasonable time frame, especially after I had already notified the bank that I was XXXX, financially vulnerable, and unable to cover the error. \n8. Because my funds remained frozen, I was unable to pay the storage facility, and my unit was auctioned.\n\nI lost all contents, including personal belongings, business equipment, artwork, furniture, electronics, clothing, and irreplaceable items.\n\nII. Legal Violations 1. Violations of Regulation E 12 CFR 1005.11 ( Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ) Regulation E requires : Provisional credit within 10 business days when a consumer reports an unauthorized charge. \nCompletion of an investigation within 45 days. \nWritten notice of findings. \nCapital One : Denied my report prematurely, Failed to provide provisional credit, Failed to issue written findings, And treated the disputed amount as valid despite my timely and repeated notice. \n2. Wrongful Account Closure & Improper Withholding of Funds ( 12 CFR 1005.6, 1005.10, 1005.11 ) The bank closed my account without : Prior notice, Explanation, Opportunity to correct or clarify, Or due process.\n\nFreezing verified settlement funds violated : My right to timely access, Standard banking practice under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC Articles 3 & 4 ), And federal consumer protection guidelines requiring reasonable access to deposited, verified funds.\n\n3. Failure to Provide Required Notice Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) 12 CFR 1002.9 Banks must provide written adverse action notices when : Closing a deposit account, Limiting access to funds, Or terminating a banking relationship.\n\nNo such notice was provided.\n\n4. Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing ( UCC 1-304 ) By withholding funds during a documented emergency and ignoring repeated notifications, the bank acted in a manner : Outside reasonable commercial standards, Creating foreseeable and preventable losses.\n\n5. Negligence Resulting in Documented Financial Loss Capital One had full knowledge that : I am a XXXX adult, I was dependent on these funds for urgent obligations, And my property was at risk. \nThe banks decision to freeze my funds directly caused the loss of my storage unit and its contents. \nIII. Damages Due to Capital Ones actions, I lost property valued at {$120000.00} {$150000.00}, including : Personal belongings Business materials Furniture and electronics Artwork Clothing and essential items Appliances and equipment I also experienced severe hardship, including : Loss of irreplaceable items, Emotional distress, Financial destabilization, Damage to housing stability and well-being.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-01T22:46:31.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90035","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18043367","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2025-12-01T21:04:30.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violations of Regulation E 12 CFR 1005.11 ( Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ) Regulation E requires : <em>Provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> when a consumer reports an unauthorized charge. \n<em>Completion</em> of an <em>investigation</em> <em>within</em> 45 <em>days</em>. \nWritten notice of findings. \nCapital One : Denied my report prematurely, Failed to provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em>, Failed to issue written findings, And treated the disputed amount as valid despite my timely and repeated notice. \n2."]},"sort":[17.461773,"18043367"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21742297","_score":16.141247,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a billing error / disputed transaction notice with Bank of America in the amount of {$4100.00} against the merchant XXXX XXXX. \nBank of America did not forward the dispute notice to the merchant for fourteen ( 14 ) calendar days, until XX/XX/XXXX. The merchant resolved and authorized refund of the disputed amount on XX/XX/XXXX within twenty-four ( 24 ) hours of receiving notice from Bank of America .\n\nDespite the merchant 's authorization on XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America has continued to withhold the disputed funds for an additional thirty-four ( 34 ) days as of the date of this complaint. Total time elapsed since my original dispute filing : forty-nine ( 49 ) days. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America claims representative XXXX XXXX contacted me to inform me that resolution of this matter would require an additional sixty ( 60 ) days extending the dispute to Day 109 or longer, despite the merchant having authorized the refund on Day 15.\n\nFollowing that call, I attempted to reach XXXX XXXX directly and left a voicemail requesting a return call to discuss the extension. As of the filing of this supplemental complaint, no return call has been received. This is consistent with the broader pattern of delayed and inadequate communication that prompted my original CFPB complaint.\n\nI previously filed a complaint with the CFPB on this matter. Complaint ID ( s ) XXXX submitted on XX/XX/XXXX The bank 's response to that complaint did not resolve the issue and the funds remain withheld. The \" 60 additional days '' timeline communicated by the representative on XX/XX/XXXX is not consistent with timely resolution under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which requires investigation completion within ten ( 10 ) business days, extendable to forty-five ( 45 ) calendar days only with provisional credit issued to the consumer 's account.\n\nBank of America has not issued provisional credit to my account. As a result, both my business checking and personal checking remain in a negative status and Bank of America continues to assess overdraft fees on accounts whose negative balance is directly caused by the bank 's continued unlawful withholding of the disputed funds. Under Regulation E 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ), Bank of America has no lawful basis to assess fees on the disputed amount during the resolution period.\n\nThe funds Bank of America continues to withhold are earmarked for time-sensitive XXXX patent filing fees and for registration and operational XXXX  costs at the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Texas ) the singular industry XXXX surface for federally-protected intellectual property addressing well control and wellbore monitoring in oil and gas drilling operations. The conference begins six ( 6 ) days from the date of this complaint.\n\nThe intellectual property at issue addresses prevention of well control failure events in offshore deepwater drilling the same category of operational failure responsible for the XXXX XXXX XXXX disaster ( eleven fatalities, approximately {$65.00} XXXX in damages and remediation ). Industry-wide non-productive time in oil and gas drilling currently exceeds {$15.00} XXXX annually. The technology is intended to materially reduce both the human cost and the economic cost of these failures. \n\nBank of America 's continued withholding of {$4100.00} funds the merchant authorized for release on XX/XX/XXXX is materially preventing federal patent prosecution and commercial XXXX of this intellectual property in advance of the XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX XXXX window. The consequential damages associated with loss of this filing window and XXXX opportunity are reasonably estimated at orders of magnitude greater than the underlying disputed amount. \n\nBeyond the direct account harm, Bank of America 's delay has caused documented business losses. Due to the negative account balance and inability to access disputed funds, I was unable to secure a project opportunity through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, resulting in {$3600.00} in lost profit. As a XXXXbased commercial construction management firm, my ability to mobilize on time-sensitive opportunities depends on liquid operating capital. Bank of America 's failure to resolve this dispute within a reasonable timeframe directly caused this loss, and continued delay places additional opportunities at risk. \n\nBank of America 's failure to resolve this dispute has caused documented damage to my business credit profile. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX day before Bank of America representative XXXX XXXX informed me of an additional 60-day extension XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX issued a \" Delinquency Score Worsened '' alert on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( screenshot attached ). This represents a direct reversal of the positive credit trajectory my business had been on, with prior XXXX XXXX XXXX alerts in XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX showing improvements to XXXX XXXX, Failure Score, and Delinquency Score. As a commercial construction management firm, my XXXX XXXX XXXX rating is a critical qualification factor for project bidding, vendor terms, client onboarding, and XXXX funding eligibility. This damage is ongoing, will not automatically reverse upon resolution of the dispute, and directly limits my ability to operate and generate revenue. \n\nI am requesting CFPB intervention to compel Bank of America to : ( 1 ) Release the disputed amount of {$4100.00} to my account immediately ; ( 2 ) Reverse all overdraft fees assessed on or after XX/XX/XXXX on both my business and personal accounts ; ( 3 ) Provide written explanation for the delay between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX in forwarding my dispute to the merchant ; ( 4 ) Provide written explanation for the bank 's continued withholding from XX/XX/XXXX ( merchant authorization ) to the present.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-30T09:33:53.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"77070","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21742297","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-04-30T08:48:16.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The \" 60 additional <em>days</em> '' timeline communicated by the representative on XX/XX/XXXX is not consistent with timely resolution under Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ), which requires <em>investigation</em> <em>completion</em> <em>within</em> ten ( 10 ) <em>business</em> <em>days</em>, extendable to forty-five ( 45 ) calendar <em>days</em> only with <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> issued to the consumer 's account.\n\nBank of America has not issued <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> to my account."]},"sort":[16.141247,"21742297"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8541460","_score":15.822944,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"THIS IS NOT A DUPLICATE! US BANK FAILED TO RESPOND AND ANSWER MY QUESTION. WAS ADVISED BY CFPB REP TO OPEN ANOTHER CLAIM TO GET A RESPONSE. THANK YOU On a recorded line when I spoke with XXXX, US Bank acknowledged their violation of Regulation E when they offered me the {$100.00} that I declined. US Bank is too big to have issues like this? How many other clients have been effected by their process? The federal government puts these regulations in place to protect consumers and US Bank has yet to take this violation serious!. \n\nGood Morning XXXX, Thank you for your response. Unfortunately from your response US Bank is not taking this violation seriously. You have failed to explain your federal regulation violation of Regulation E. I will show the clear and present violation and then explain my concerns that I would like a response too. Please reference the bank statements attached. Unauthorized fraud transaction occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. I called in on XX/XX/XXXX and initiated a claim. Provisional/ Temp Credit was given on XXXX XXXX 15 days later? Clear Regulation E violation! Minimum fine of XXXX XXXX dollars. I have seen XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX settle and payout bank errors like this in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. US Bank is too big to allow a error like this. Now that this Regulation break occurred because of US Bank my son is finding difficulties paying his bill which clearly shows XXXX. \nXXXX explained the reason of this error is because they have this process automated and completed by a robotic ( BOT ), not even a human being is looking and reviewing my claim. This is a big issue. Per Regulation E you as the financial institution have to perform a adequate investigation on your clients behalf. No one even looked at my claim before it was denied in ERROR. How many other clients have been effected by this XXXX? This is a gap within your banks process and controls. What other secondary controls do you have in place as a bank to catch claims falling out of this automation? You created a automation that to save money as a bank but you put your clients in harms way now. Again I filed my claim on XX/XX/XXXX and you denied it the next business day and failed to even do a simple investigation on my claim and falsely denied my claim due to an internal error in your system. This clearly shows that Regulation E was broken for a second time by not performing an adequate investigation. If someone actually reviewed my claim and saw the charges, none of this would of happened. Your Robotic has a gap and needs to be fixed. I hope it is not still being in use until it is fixed. I dont want any other clients going thru this. \nSome concerns I have is when I opened a US Bank account, US Bank asked my military status. They didnt give me a chance to opt in or out and US Bank labeled me as a Veterans account? I feel you used this information by not responding to my inquiry. I gave US Bank so many chances to fix this while they were still with Regulation, but US Bank horrible customer service never called me back and dragged this out so long.\n\nOne of mine and congresses main concern is US Bank is one of the only banks that fails to protect its clients when there clients have Unauthorized Pending Debit Charges. The clients available balance is effected by the fraud. Why would US Bank not protect their clients and open a claim? I can understand if the available balance wasnt effected. US Bank needs to change this process like XXXX XXXX  XXXX and XXXX. This will be brought up again because US Bank is putting themselves at Regulational risk here. \nOne of my other concerns is please look at your letter that you sent. It is combined with a claim initiation and a claim completion/deniel on it. Is this even a legal letter? I dont believe you can have 2 of the same within the same letter. This is a Regulation E concern of mine. The letter is very confusing and other have had concerns with this in the past as well. \nOne of my other concern is an appropriate response time within your executive response team. I emailed them on XX/XX/XXXX expecting a 24 hr or maybe a 48 hour response? If you acted with a sense of urgency I gave you time to stay within regulation and fix my issue. But again US Bank failed to acted in a appropriate time frame responding over a week later. US Bank showing no remorse in any of their failures and errors. This needs to change because you can actually help your clients better by a more efficient response time. \nYes thank you for admitting in your response every person I spoke to in the call center gave me false information and doesnt understand Regulation E. What kind of training are you giving your associate before they take a call and start assisting clients. This needs to be looked at because this is a huge issue. All on a recorded line XXXX called me and acknowledged the banks violation of Regulation E error. She offered me a meaningless XXXX which I declined. \nPlease address all of my concerns and most of all please see a Federal Regulation was broken here. \nProvisonal/Temp credit was not given in 10 days? Given on day 15 US Bank failed to perform an adequate investigation on this claim. The claim was submitted and denied by a machine that was given false scripts to identify fraud and pay provisional credits.\n\nMy son is finding difficulties due to US Bank ERROR and not meeting Regulation E timeframes which now involves XXXX. \nXXXX Bank XXXX to initiate a claim when my son and wife called on XX/XX/XXXX. Rep denied my son and wife to open a claim. The next day the charges hard posted to the account. \n\nUS Bank has illegal letters that dont meet Regulation E standards. You cant have a claim initiation letter and a completion/deniel letter in the same. This is confusing and causes issues which a judge will agree.\n\nI was told I was put on a list to get a call back from a manager and I submitted a formal complaint on XX/XX/XXXX and no callback or quick response. XXXX and XXXX XXXX  XXXX work with a sense of Urgency and would have had this escalation reviewed and resolved on the same day I reported it on XX/XX/XXXX. To respond 6 days later is completely unacceptable. I guarantee when the OCC reviews this error in their audit, US Bank will be fined. XXXX XXXX will be discussing this claim with XXXX their next visit to the hill. \nI feel like you know that I am a combat veteran and you think you can respond whenever you want and do whatever you want. US Bank is too big to have Regulation E and UDAPP violations. These gaps in your systems need to be identified and addressed immediately. US Bank has errors in their processes and controls. US Bank has no controls or even secondary controls to catch h these errors. No client should even feel like this. And yes I did reach out to everyone you stated because US Bank wouldnt call me back. I reached out to their highest leaders within the bank and still no response. I would never treat anyone like the way I was treated. No matter at what level you are at the bank your job is to assist your clients which US Bank failed to do at all channels of the bank. We will have a judge review all of this and make their decision in arbitration. Regulations were broken not addressed by US Bank.\n\nPlease read in full and please see attachments. \nThank you XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-13T14:47:26.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"85345","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8541460","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2024-03-13T14:38:40.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Provisional</em>/ Temp <em>Credit</em> was given on XXXX XXXX 15 <em>days</em> later? Clear Regulation E violation! Minimum fine of XXXX XXXX dollars. I have seen XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX settle and payout bank <em>errors</em> like this in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. US Bank is too big to allow a <em>error</em> like this. Now that this Regulation break occurred because of US Bank my son is finding difficulties paying his bill which clearly shows XXXX."]},"sort":[15.822944,"8541460"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16980259","_score":15.165442,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, WV XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX Date : XX/XX/2025 Company Information : Comerica Bank ( Issuer of Direct Express Debit Card ) PXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, OH XXXX Phone : XXXX Website : www.usdirectexpress.com Account Information : Direct Express Prepaid Debit Card Account Number : [ Full Number Available Upon Request ending in XXXX ] I am a recipient of XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) benefits, which are automatically deposited monthly onto this U.S. Treasury-administered prepaid debit card. This card serves as my primary and sole means of accessing federal benefits, which I rely on exclusively for essential living expenses, including housing, utilities, and medical needs. \n\nSummary of Complaint : I am filing this complaint against Comerica Bank for systemic failures in customer service, account security, dispute resolution, and fund accessibility under the Direct Express program. These issues have repeatedly prevented timely access to my XXXX benefits, resulting in severe financial hardship, including an unresolved {$79.00} unauthorized transaction on XX/XX/2025, delayed card replacement and activation, and an inexplicable \" daily limit exceeded '' error blocking withdrawals on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX benefit deposit date. Despite immediate reporting and compliance with all instructions, I have endured dozens of hours on hold, disconnected calls, contradictory guidance, and barriers to resolution. These failures violate the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, which mandate prompt investigation of unauthorized transfers ( within 10 business days ), provisional crediting of disputed amounts, and reasonable access to funds. \n\nDetailed Chronology of Events : Unauthorized Transaction and Lost Card ( XX/XX/2025 ) : On the morning of XX/XX/2025, a {$79.00} unauthorized autopay charge was deducted from my account by XXXX by XXXX. I had canceled autopay XXXX weeks prior via phone with XXXX support, deleted my card details from their portal due to ongoing service issues, and received verbal confirmation of cancellation. \nAround the same time approximately, during a purchase at a local tobacco store, the clerk failed to return my card I immediately returned to the store, but the XXXX denied possession of it. I attempted to report the card as lost/stolen and the unauthorized charge to Direct Express customer service at XXXX multiple times that day but received only an automated message citing \" high call volumes '' and advising to call back another day, followed by disconnection. XXXX support confirmed in writing ( attached screenshot ) that they acknowledged the non-authorization, my prior cancellation request, and their ongoing service issues and refused a refund. \n\n\nDelayed Reporting and Replacement ( October 715, 2025 ) : On XX/XX/2025, after XXXX days of failed attempts, I finally reached an agent who canceled the lost card and ordered a replacement, estimated to arrive within 10 days. I reported the {$79.00} unauthorized charge, providing details and offering screenshots of XXXX 's acknowledgment. The agent transferred me to the XXXX XXXX for the required phone-based filing ( online disputes are unavailable ). After approximately XXXX hours on hold, the call disconnected without resolution. Subsequent calls to complete the dispute were either unanswered or disconnected. \n\nThe replacement card arrived on XX/XX/2025, Activation and Verification Delays ( October 1528, 2025 ) : Attempts to activate the new card via the Direct Express mobile app and website ( XXXX ) failed with error messages. On XX/XX/2025, I received a letter from Direct Express claiming a \" missed call '' ( no such calls in my log ) had triggered a security lock, instructing me to call for unlocking. After multiple unsuccessful calls, an agent answered on XX/XX/2025, and requested identity verification via email/text code, which I provided. However, they stated my registered phone number was invalid for verification and directed me to submit government-issued ID and additional documents via secure email portal, promising a response in XXXX business days. I complied immediately. On XX/XX/2025, Direct Express emailed confirmation of verification acceptance and instructed me to call for activation. After several more days of persistent calling, an agent activated the card on XX/XX/2025 but required me to wait XXXX minutes and call back to set a PIN, involving further extended holds. I completed this, assuming full functionality. \n\nCurrent Access Block on Benefit Deposit Date ( XX/XX/2025 ) : My XXXX SSDI benefits ( {$1000.00} ) deposited today XX/XX/2025. This was my first withdrawal attempt since activation. At two separate Mastercard-affiliated bank ATMs, I received a \" Daily limit exceeded '' error. Direct Express imposes no ATM withdrawal limit, and my daily purchase limit is $ XXXX this was my initial access, with an automated balance check ( via XXXX ) confirming over {$600.00} available. I urgently need at least {$100.00} cash for a refundable check-in deposit on a non-refundable ( {$46.00} ) motel reservation for my anniversary celebration tonight ; failure to pay will result in total loss of the room cost ( attached reservation email ). I immediately called customer service but received the \" high call volumes '' automated message, advising to try back in a few days. Prior to today, I have never been informed of any daily limit, nor have I approached one. \n\nThroughout, I have documented all efforts ( attached call logs ) and complied fully : immediate reporting, alternative access methods ( app/website/ATMs ), and document submission. Direct Express has provided partial acknowledgments ( e.g., card cancellation, verification email ) but no substantive resolutions, provisional credits, or dispute completion. Financial and Emotional Impact : These delays have caused acute hardship : inability to pay bills on time ( incurring late fees ), foregone essential expenses, and spoiled personal milestones like my anniversary. As an XXXX recipient, I have no alternative income or funds, exacerbating stress, anxiety, and vulnerability during a time of disability-related limitations. I have lost dozens of hours to unresolved calls, equivalent to foregone productivity despite my SSDI status. Legal Violations : EFTA/Regulation E ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ; 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ) : Failure to investigate the {$79.00} unauthorized electronic fund transfer within 10 business days ; no provisional credit issued ( up to two months ' average deposits ) ; unreasonable barriers to error resolution and fund access.\n\nDelayed card replacement and access violates reasonable availability of benefits under federal program guidelines. \nSystemic customer service failures ( e.g., unavailability, disconnections ) deny timely support required for prepaid account holders. \n\nRequested Relief : Immediate Refund : Full reversal of the {$79.00} unauthorized XXXX charge ( XX/XX/2025 ), plus any associated fees/interest. \nAccount Access Restoration : Immediate removal of the \" daily limit '' hold to enable full ATM withdrawals today ( XX/XX/2025 ). \nProvisional Credit : {$500.00} emergency credit per EFTA guidelines to cover the {$100.00} motel deposit, {$46.00} non-refundable reservation fee, and incidental hardship costs ( e.g., late fees ).\n\nCompensation : {$500.00} for lost time, emotional distress, and spoiled anniversary plans.\n\nSystemic Remedies : Enhanced phone support ( e.g., reduced hold times, callback options ), enable online dispute filing, and agent training on SSDI recipient vulnerabilities to prevent future harm. \n\nAttachments ( as Evidence ) : Call log history with Direct Express, documenting resolution attempts ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, 2025 ). \nXXXX of XX/XX/2025, XXXX by XXXX support conversation, confirming non-authorization, prior cancellation request ( three weeks earlier ), service issues, and refund denial. \nEmails submitting identity verification documents to Direct Express ( October 2328, 2025 ), including confirmation receipt. \nMotel reservation confirmation email, detailing {$46.00} non-refundable fee and {$100.00} refundable check-in deposit requirement. \nXX/XX/2025, ATM receipts from two banks, showing account balance ( > {$600.00} ) and \" Daily limit exceeded '' error. \n\nI am available at ( XXXX ) XXXX for any questions or to provide additional details. I appreciate the CFPB 's prompt intervention to enforce my rights and prevent further harm to vulnerable benefit recipients. Thank you. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-04T02:01:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16980259","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Comerica","date_received":"2025-11-04T01:25:13.000Z","state":"WV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Part 1005 ) : Failure to <em>investigate</em> the {$79.00} unauthorized electronic fund transfer <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> ; no <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> issued ( up to two months ' average deposits ) ; unreasonable barriers to <em>error</em> resolution and fund access.\n\nDelayed card replacement and access violates reasonable availability of benefits under federal program guidelines. \nSystemic customer service failures ( e.g., unavailability, disconnections ) deny timely support required for prepaid account holders."]},"sort":[15.165442,"16980259"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16760794","_score":14.920244,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/year> SoFi Bank, N.A. \nAttn : Dispute Resolution Department XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Re : Notice of Intent to Commence Legal Action for Violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ) and Related Claims Unauthorized Transactions on Debit Account Ending in XXXX ; Claim Filed XX/XX/year> ; Total Disputed Amount : {$830.00} Dear Sir or Madam : This letter constitutes formal notice, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1693m and applicable state law, of my intent to initiate legal proceedings against SoFi Bank, N.A. ( \" SoFi '' or \" you '' ) in the event that you fail to fully resolve the matters described herein within ten ( 10 ) business days of receipt of this notice. My claims arise from your willful and negligent violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( \" EFTA '' ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq., and its implementing Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Part 1005, in connection with your inadequate and perfunctory investigation and denial of my timely fraud dispute regarding multiple unauthorized electronic fund transfers ( \" EFTs '' ) totaling {$830.00} on my XXXX debit card account ending in XXXX ( the \" Account '' ). \nFactual Background On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX within the XXXX reporting period required by 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) I notified you in writing ( attached as Exhibit A ) of XXXX unauthorized EFTs occurring between XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, which I discovered upon reviewing my Account activity while setting up direct deposit. These transactions were not initiated or authorized by me, and I derived no benefit from them. Prior to these incidents, I had made only XXXX legitimate purchases on XX/XX/year> ( at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ), which are not in dispute. I immediately locked the debit card via your online portal to prevent further losses and conducted a thorough search, confirming that my physical card was lost or stolen, likely providing the means for the fraud. \nThe unauthorized transactions are detailed below : Debit DateDescriptionAmountOct XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  These debits reduced my Account balance to {$8.00} as of XX/XX/year>, causing me financial hardship, including overdraft risks and delayed essential payments. I also requested a replacement card, which has not been issued despite my explicit demand. \nViolations of Law Despite my timely notice, you failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Regulation E for resolving alleged errors, including unauthorized EFTs ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ). Specifically : Failure to Provide Provisional Credit : Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ), you were required to provide provisional credit for the full {$830.00} ( plus any fees ) within ten ( 10 ) business days of my notice, pending investigation. You provided no such credit, leaving me liable for fraudulent charges for which I bear zero responsibility ( limited to {$50.00} under 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ), which I have already exceeded in good faith reporting ).\n\nInadequate and Unreasonable Investigation : Your \" investigation '' purportedly concluded in less than four ( 4 ) calendar days ( denial dated XX/XX/year> ), claiming collaboration with \" merchants, other financial institutions, and card processing networks '' ( e.g., XXXX ) to determine \" no unauthorized activity occurred. '' This timeline is implausible for verifying XXXX transactions across multiple merchants ( e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX etc. ), many requiring manual affidavits or records under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( XXXX ). You provided XXXX evidencesuch as merchant responses, transaction logs, IP verifications, or call recordsto support your denial, in violation of your duty to conduct a \" reasonable '' investigation ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ). Identical denial letters for each transaction ( e.g., the XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  charge of {$22.00}, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) further indicate a boilerplate, non-substantive process designed to evade liability. \nFailure to Complete Full Investigation and Provide Documentation : Regulation XXXX requires completion of the investigation within forty-five ( XXXX ) days ( or XXXX ( XXXX ) days if the card was not in my possession, which applies here due to loss/theft ), with written notice of findings and supporting documentation if requested ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( d ) ). Your premature denial without evidence breaches this, and you have not confirmed receipt or provided a resolution timeline as demanded. \n\nThese actions constitute multiple willful violations of EFTA/Regulation E per transaction, exposing you to civil liability under 15 U.S.C. 1693m, including actual damages ( e.g., financial distress, lost time ), statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation, costs, and reasonable attorney 's fees. Additional claims may include breach of contract, negligence, unfair/deceptive practices under state law ( e.g., XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, if applicable ), and violations of XXXX rules XXXX prompt fraud resolution. \n\nYou also failed to mention the number of declined transactions before the balance was low. This establishes whoever used the card did not know the account balance. \n\nDemands for XXXX To avoid litigation, you must, within XXXX ( XXXX ) business days of this notice : Provisionally credit my Account {$830.00}, plus all associated fees, overdraft charges, and interest accrued from XX/XX/year>. \nPermanently reverse all XXXX unauthorized charges upon \" investigation '' confirmation. \nIssue a replacement debit card immediately to the address on file. \nProvide full documentation of your investigation, including merchant verifications, XXXX network records, and any communications. \nConfirm in writing that I bear no further liability and waive all related fees. \n\nFailure to fully comply will result in immediate filing of a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the [ appropriate district or small claims court, seeking all available remedies, including punitive damages for your egregious conduct. I reserve all rights and remedies. \n\nGovern yourselves accordingly. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-22T07:08:19.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"33323","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16760794","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2025-10-22T06:59:02.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Violations of Law Despite my timely notice, you failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Regulation E for resolving alleged <em>errors</em>, including unauthorized EFTs ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ). Specifically : Failure to Provide <em>Provisional</em> <em>Credit</em> : Under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ) ( i ), you were required to provide <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> for the full {$830.00} ( plus any fees ) <em>within</em> ten ( 10 ) <em>business</em> <em>days</em> of my notice, pending <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[14.920244,"16760794"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9408458","_score":13.691214,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I called SoFi and reported XXXX unauthorized charges, XXXX for {$9.00} and {$150.00}. I received a follow-up email from SoFi saying they received my claim and to inform me that they have begun their investigation and within 10 business days from the date of my claim, they would provisionally credit my account and that I would have access to the funds until the investigation is complete. And the results of the investigation would be submitted to me in writing within XXXX business days after the completion of the investigation. Meanwhile I had received a text from SoFi asking me if I had charged my XXXX payment and I told them yes, it was from me. And if they checked my record this was a consistent payment, every month, my vehicle insurance payment. So on XX/XX/XXXX I called SoFi and spoke with a XXXX and told him that I hadn't received my new card yet and when I would be getting my monies credited. He told me that I should be receiving my card today and a credit today too and to call back in 3 days for an answer. I did receive the card that day, however no credit. I called back on XX/XX/XXXX and when I inquired about the credit I was told I had been denied and that I could file an appeal on their decision. So, I was surprised and felt somewhat upset at their decision, especially since I hadn't charged those amounts. I went ahead and filed the appeal. I also followed up with an email to SoFi Support regarding my appeal on dispute # XXXX. I expressed my thoughts regarding their decision. I also requested their documents on the investigation, wanting to see what information they had that determined my denial. I have attached all pertinent documentation, my emails, their emails, etc. \nI had received an email from SoFi on XX/XX/XXXX as per my request for the documentation, however nothing was attached, so I replied to the email telling them there was nothing attached. I received another email with the attachment. Basically, it was documented when I called regarding the XXXX unauthorized charges. I answered their questions. You will see the attached documentation on this. It also had THE TOOLS XXXX, XXXX, TX. for {$150.00} and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, TX. for {$9.00} settled on XX/XX/XXXX UNAUTHORIZED. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Per our investigation, AVS Y. Funds loaded : Funds were loaded onto card by direct deposit, prior to the disputed transaction. Even though the card has been replaced 5 times, XXXX continues to dispute UTs. No error found. XXXX XXXX. I'm curious as to what kind of an error would they be looking for? It was also a pin less entry. Meaning to me that it made it all the easier for someone to charge my card number without my pin #. I proceeded to send them XXXX emails with my rebuttal, and found out days later that the email they had sent me was a \" No Reply Email '', in other words it never got to them. When I discovered this, I forwarded the emails I had sent earlier along with another email where I was questioning their investigation on the original email they sent me. I had even tried to find a phone number on these XXXX companies and was unsuccessful. That was a clue right there. I never heard back from them and apparently, I have found myself always calling them to get information on my matter. It seems like they don't care or have classified me as XXXX of those crazy people who reports unauthorized charges on my account, jumping to conclusions, stereotyping me about my character. The way they had stated that they had issued XXXX cards to me, well I would say does the first card count as me calling in an unauthorized charge, No! It was the first card I should have received as everyone else does. I also gave them further information upon thinking further about my situation thinking there might be a connection. The reason I had called them to begin with was because I had charged {$1.00} for just shipping for some cat food at a really great deal, but I didn't see the charge on my statement and that's when I saw the XXXX charges and had reported that. I've never heard back from them on this information. I thought that piece of information might have been a connection, but apparently, they never got back to me with this. I had even sent them the receipt on the {$1.00} shipping fee. I also pointed out that I live in an apartment community where we have landscapers and maintenance and that these XXXX companies that sell gardening, lawn equipment wouldn't be something I would charge and surely not all the way in Texas when I have stores locally that I could go to. It didn't make any sense to me why they couldn't think that someone stole my money, hacked into my computer, got my information from maybe the so-called charge of {$1.00} to a XXXX. and had even sent them confirmation of the receipt showing the charge, but it wasn't recorded on my statement. After they sent me their investigation documents, they pretty much closed the ticket out on me and did no further investigation. I live on a XXXX check, so every XXXX counts to me. This created a financial hardship for me, their denial of my claim. This put me back on some bills. I don't have much and when over {$150.00} disappears, that's something tome. I guess XXXX doesn't care to much for their customers and somehow have pegged me wrong. I never charged those XXXX amounts and that's the XXXX 's honest truth, but I guess SoFi doesn't care. This needs further investigation and I need to get my money back. Someone got away with fraudulent activity at my expense. I am a senior who is XXXX and can't afford to have this happen to me, especially when I didn't do it!","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-02T09:57:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92801","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9408458","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2024-07-02T08:58:16.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I received a follow-up email from SoFi saying they received my claim and to inform me that they have begun their <em>investigation</em> and <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> from the date of my claim, they would <em>provisionally</em> <em>credit</em> my account and that I would have access to the funds until the <em>investigation</em> is complete. And the results of the <em>investigation</em> would be submitted to me in writing <em>within</em> XXXX <em>business</em> <em>days</em> after the <em>completion</em> of the <em>investigation</em>."]},"sort":[13.691214,"9408458"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3469260","_score":12.437272,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX a locksmith began fraudulently charging my American Express with 20 seperate transactions until XX/XX/XXXX when the activity was discovered. I immediately notified AMEX of the situation and gave them all known facts I had at the time. FACTS : a ). I had never done or had any relationship with the merchant. b ) The card was and remained in my possession. c ) all transactions from this merchant were fraudulent. c ). The Fraud was done under 2 very similar yet slightly different business names ( another indication of fraudulent activity ). \n\nPhone records document the report to AMEX was called in on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX The fraudulent merchant had made both fraudulent charges and then immediately on some fraudulent refunded the amount just fraudulently charged. The logic behind this lies somewhere in the criminals knowledge of avoiding AMEX fraud algorithms is my best explanation. Total fraudulent charges. {$33000.00}. Total Fraudulent Credits : XXXX. When all fraudulent activity was stopped, the criminal had defrauded my account by {$14000.00} of charges remaining on the card. \n\nI heard nothing further from AMEX until receiving a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, which stated that they had determined \" you released your account number to the merchant for the transactions in question '' and based on this blatant lie, they not only denied the claim, they \" reversed our previously issues credits ''. \n\nOver the next 8 ( eight ) months, AMEX ignored the mounting indisputable proof that these were fraud, despite dozens of phone calls. well over 100 hours of my professional time, {$4500.00} in expenses having to hire a private investigator, staff, and legal advisors ; all to force AMEX who did everything within their power to never cover the amount I was criminally defrauded, to finally admit their errors post the remaining fraudulently charged amount back to my account. \n\nI provided AMEX the. \nXXXX Police report, The report of the Private Investigator written report, A copy of DIRECT COMMUNICATION with the Merchant where is fully admits the charges were fraudulent and claimed he would be refunding them. ( he claimed a \" rogue '' employee was responsible but never provided their info to the police or the PI .... then stopped all communications without doing anything. \n\nProof the Criminal had only one legitimate business, Proof the and that the second business was also fraudulent. \nProof that AMEX had issued the fraudulent \" similar '' company a merchant ID account Proof that Amex allowed the same Merchant via \" XXXX  '' to continue to defraud the account negligently, despite the GPS enabled receipts showing all activity occurring in the criminals last known home address. Many receipts had NO signature as required, and those that did needed no Graphology expert to see they bore no resemblance to my signature, which would have been available to AMEX 100 of 1000 of times from legitimate purchases. \n\nThe ONLY written responses from AMEX : XX/XX/XXXX Denial letter based on the lie I had released my account info XX/XX/XXXX. Saying this wasn't fraud and it was being send to dispute dept XX/XX/XXXX. Claiming they needed to speak with me to get more information XX/XX/XXXX. Again claiming ALL the above provided documentation was insufficient and they would close the account without additional information Over the 8 months i called and spent hours trying to reach the \" FRAUD TEAM '' who AMEX doesn't allow to accept incoming calls. ( odd since their letters all demanded I call them for additional information ). They would promise a call back in 48 business hours, but this rarely occurred. When it did, their number and name on CALLER-ID read everytime. \" SPAM ALERT ''. So naturally I potentially didn't answer IF they tried calling when XXXX reports the caller as a SPAMMER. They later acknowledged they were aware of this, but it was never fixed. Almost every time I spoke to the agent highest up the chain that I was \" allowed '' to speak with, they would review the previous \" call records/info from me ''. AMEX agents had documented patently false information on at least 4 different occasions, dates, and Amex employees. \n\nThese falsely documented items were supposedly quotes from myself during the dozens of follow-up phone calls. They included but are not limited to : * I admitted to an agent all the charges were legitimate * I had asked them to close the investigation * That I had given my card info to the merchant legitimately * The merchant had responded in writing and \" proven '' the charges were correct, and I had received a letter Of course none of above ever occurred, Yet AMEX claimed their \" documentation '' of our many discussions were the basis of their denial. I demanded transcripts of these calls since they were the only think AMEX used to make their decision, and was denied One two calls during the 8 months, the agent said that AMEX HAS REVIEWED AND FOUND IN YOUR FAVOR AND EXPECT THE MONEY WITHIN 72 hours. As you guess, that never happened either. \n\nHere are just a few of the case Amex Case numbers covering this 8+ month literal battle with Amex to force them to follow federal law. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Finally in XX/XX/XXXX, after contacting AMEX CEO, and their legal department did the FIRST dispute credit on this matter ever get placed on my account for the FIRST time EVER. Soon followed the undeniable result 8+ months after the initial notification and provided proof. \n\nIn the course of my case alone AMEX violated federal law in the following ways : Violations include but are not limited to : *Failure to provisionally credit my account for each of the fraudulent transactions within the required timeframe. \n* Statements prove that the FIRST time amex placed anything in the proper dispute status appeared on the XX/XX/XXXX statement. EIGHT months after initial report. \n\n*Failure to promptly investigate the 20 reported fraudulent account transactions. \n*Failure to complete its investigation within 10 business days. ( Sect 205.l ( c ) ( l ) ) ofthe date of reported criminal fraud *Failure to report the results of its investigation within 3 business days after completion of its investigation * Failure to provide ANY supporting documentation EVER to this day used to make their decision to deny the clearly fraudulent activity * Systematically, deliberately, and always to provide \" denial reasons '' on my fraud claim Amex thru a minimum of 5 different employees deliberately improperly \" documented '' facts from my phone conversations that never occurred, and then used that to facilitate the denial of the claim * Failure to advise me of the ONE CR-FRAUD CREDIT on XX/XX/XXXX * Amex deprived me of use of almost {$15000.00} for over 8 months, by failing to follow federal law * Failure to provide ANY supporting documentation with any of the denial letters. \n* Despite being require to do so under Federal law * Despite innumerable verbal requests * Despite demands in writing But the greater concern and what has now become very clear to me, is that this is not an aberration or random outlier event. This is a company created, endorsed, and routinely used method to protect profits, flaunt federal law, and leave the victimized consumer RE-VICTIMIZED by American express. I implore CFPB to open and investigate not only my case, but review historical cases of other consumers who may/may not be informed enough to notify this agency. \n\nI will upload the most pertinent documentation, and am happy to supply the large amount of other supporting documentation, including but not limited to statements, call records, Report from Private investigator, transcripts on the direct initial text exchange with the PI and the Merchant where he fully admits these charges are fraud, what few letters/communications between amex, State of GA Secretary showing one of the AMEX merchant accounts was issued to a non-existent company, Receipts that show the geo-location of the transaction and prove I could not have been involved, along with the fake signatures, and much more. ALL of which was ignored deliberately by AMEX as they attempted to re-victimize me by protecting their profits and not their customer.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-12-16T08:04:12.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30144","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3469260","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2019-12-16T05:06:58.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["*Failure to complete its <em>investigation</em> <em>within</em> 10 <em>business</em> <em>days</em>. ( Sect 205.l ( c ) ( l ) ) ofthe date of reported criminal fraud *Failure to report the results of its <em>investigation</em> <em>within</em> 3 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> after <em>completion</em> of its <em>investigation</em> * Failure to provide ANY supporting documentation EVER to this day used to make their decision to deny the clearly fraudulent activity * Systematically, deliberately, and always to provide \" denial reasons '' on my fraud claim Amex thru a minimum of 5 different"],"product":["<em>Credit</em> card or prepaid card"],"sub_product":["General-purpose <em>credit</em> card or charge card"],"sub_issue":["<em>Credit</em> card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"]},"sort":[12.437272,"3469260"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7096800","_score":11.529053,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I had a Chime Credit Builder Account as well as a the normal/basic Chime Checking Account, I regularly had funds deposited XX/XX/XXXX student loans were direct deposited ( {$1900.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX My tax check was direct deposited into my checking account ( {$6400.00} ) and immediately transferred to my credit builder account. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX received email saying : Hi XXXX, We have adjusted your max SpotMe limit to {$5.00}. This means you can set a SpotMe limit between {$0.00} to {$5.00} in the Chime app. \nYour max SpotMe limit is determined based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to your account activity and history. Please note that Chime Member Services is not able to adjust SpotMe limits. \nSincerely, The Chime Team I thought this was odd, especially given the fact i had repeatedly paid any SpotMe overdrafts back almost instantaneously after receiving them XX/XX/XXXX I contacted chime support to file 2 different disputes. The first dispute was over my normal checking account being charged several duplicate charges by XXXX XXXX. The second dispute was for a purchase made using my credit builder account. It was a XXXX order from XXXX XXXX. I was disputing this purchase because upon checking the order once it had been delivered, it was missing a lot of the items we had ordered and the food that we did actually receive was incorrect. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX received email from Chime saying We noticed a change in your direct deposits. Check out some of the ways we can support you. \n\nAlthough very shortly before this email was when my tax check had been deposited into the account. Again thought this email seemed a bit odd but still I didnt give it too much thought XX/XX/XXXX Contacted Chime Support to dispute an XXXX XXXX made using my credit builder. I had purchased a new laptop for school ( {$750.00} ). The laptop was originally supposed to arrive by Sunday XX/XX/XXXX but was not delivered. This delay put me behind in a few of my courses for school. When viewing the order page on XXXX there was a prompt that stated I could request a refund if the item hadnt been delivered by Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX. When it didnt arrive that Tuesday, I contacted XXXX customer service to discuss my options, I couldnt afford to fall further behind in my classes waiting for the laptop when I could just request the refund like the order details page had said and either order one that could arrive sooner or go purchase one in an actual store that way Id have it that same day. Upon contacting XXXX customer service reps on XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX to discuss the possibility of a refund, each time I was directed to contact the carrier over still not receiving the laptop, and the blatantly obvious attempt to avoid having to refund my money. When it became apparent that the reps were either unwilling or unable to provide help further than contact the carrier, I contacted Chime Support to dispute the purchase through my card issuer. ( As of XX/XX/XXXX the laptop still hasnt arrived, when using XXXX tracking it says package may be lost ) XX/XX/XXXX Sent Chime support screenshots via email of the interactions between myself and XXXX customer support along with the orders page that stated that I could request a refund had I not received the laptop by Tuesday XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX received a couple different emails from Chime that read as follows : Hi XXXX, Were sorry to share the news that we have decided to close your Chime Credit Builder Visa Credit Card Account and Chime Credit Builder Secured Account , effective immediately. \nYour account was closed for the following reason ( s ) : Account does not comply with internal policies and/or the member agreement. \nOnce your secured account is closed, a check for any remaining balance will be mailed to you within thirty ( 30 ) days to the address we have on file for you. \n___ _ _______ ___ ___ __ ___________, __ _____ If this is not your current address, please notify us in writing at XXXX within 5 days of receiving this notification to make any necessary updates. \nIf youd like to get in touch with Chime Member Services about this decision, please email XXXX. \nSincerely, The Chime Team And Hi XXXX, Following a recent review of your Chime Checking Account, we regret to inform you that we have made the decision to end our relationship with you at this time. Your Chime Checking Account will be closed on XX/XX/XXXX. \nIf you have a Chime Savings Account, per the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, your Savings Account will also be closed. \nIf you have ACH Debits or recurring debit card payments, please notify the originators immediately to avoid disruption with your future payments. ACH debits and recurring debit card payments may be rejected after XX/XX/XXXX, however we still encourage you to redirect your ongoing direct deposits and bank transfers to avoid any delay in receiving your funds. \nSincerely, The Chime Team I sent an email in response to these expressing that I was confused as to why this would happen and questioned the possibility that there had been a mistake made resulting in the closure of my account. \n\nTheir response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thanks for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I am sorry your Chime account was closed. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nPlease let me know if I can assist you with anything else. \nThanks, XXXX | Chime Member Services I sent another email to inform them I had in fact read through the aforementioned sections and was struggling to find anything that would even remotely pertain to my account closure, They responded with : Hi XXXX, Thank you for contacting Chime Member Services. I hope you and your family are well, and safe upon receipt of my email. \nI apologize for the inconvenience caused to you Chime has determined that your account is not compliant with its internal policies and the member agreement executed at enrollment. So, that's why your account has been closed. If there is any account balance due to you, a check will be mailed to the address on file within 30 days. Also, I regret to inform you that this account can not be re-opened. \nPlease feel free to reply here if any other questions or concerns come up. I want to make sure we get everything taken care of. \nThanks, XXXX XXXX Chime Member Services At this point I proceeded to ask for the specific information that they had used in order to determine that my account was not compliant XX/XX/XXXX received a response to my previous email that was extremely similar to their previous email response : Hi XXXX, This is XXXX XXXX a live representative at Chime Member Services. I understand that you are concerned about your Chime account status. No worries, I will definitely look into it for you. \nPlease be informed that Chime has determined that your account is not compliant with its internal policies and the member agreement executed at enrollment. For security reasons, Chime is unable to disclose any more information about the closure of your account. \nFor full details, please refer to section C9 ( Account Holds, Suspensions, Restrictions, and Closures ) of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you would like to appeal this decision, please contact us at XXXX. Thanks and I appreciate your patience and understanding on this matter. \nSincerely, XXXX | Chime Member Services XX/XX/XXXX Received email from XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding still needing a payment for the product if I decided to continue with my dispute of the transaction. They were requesting more information as to why I had filed the dispute ( basically confirming whether a refund/chargeback would be warranted or not ), as well as passively-aggressively suggesting I contact XXXX Customer Service if ever another issue were to arise with any future orders. I responded informing them I had still not received the laptop so regardless of if it was due to them willingly refunding the money or a chargeback of the money enforced by the bank, I was entitled to my money back. I also informed them that I had initially attempted to resolve the issue with XXXX customer service team for 2 days before deciding to proceed with filing a dispute for the purchase through my bank. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I sent an email to XXXX requesting information on how to appeal the decision to close my account, they sent two different responses that read as follows : Hi XXXX, Welcome to Chime Member Services. I hope this message finds you well, and that you and your loved ones are safe and healthy. \nWe have determined that your account does not comply with the terms of the the Deposit Account Agreement. The account will be close on [ XX/XX/XXXX ]. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. \nFor more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nKind Regards, XXXX XXXX Chime Member Services And Hi XXXX, We have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team XX/XX/XXXX I sent Chime an email expressing the extreme confusion I had regarding the date that the account closure would be effective changing from effective immediately to XX/XX/XXXX. This especially raised concerns due to the fact that since the initial email ( XX/XX/XXXX ) that had stated the closure would be effective immediately, I hadnt been able to access to my account, billing statements, log into the app, etc AT ALL XX/XX/XXXX XXXX sent an email that read as follows : Hello, We received your email about the credit card dispute you filed on Order XXXX \nTo correct this problem, we have asked your card issuer to close the dispute in your favor. \nPlease allow 3 to 5 business days for the refund of XXXX USD to appear on your credit card account. \nWe are sorry for any inconvenience. If you need more information about the dispute or the credit card refund, please contact your card issuer. \nAccount Specialist XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX I emailed Chime informing them XXXX confirmed they would be honoring my dispute and requested further information on how they had planned to handle the matter moving forward XX/XX/XXXX Chime responded with the same generic email : Hi XXXX, Thanks for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I'm sorry to hear about the difficulty you're experiencing. \nWe have determined that your account does not comply with the terms of the Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. \nYou should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nFor more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nPlease feel free to reply here if any other questions or concerns come up. I want to make sure we get everything taken care of. \nXXXX | Chime Member Services XX/XX/XXXX Received Email from Chime in regards to my XXXX  dispute that read as follows : Account Number Ending In : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dispute Type : Credit - Goods/Services Not As Described Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$59.00} Dear XXXX XXXX, Thank you for notifying us of the billing error on your account. \nOur investigation team has reviewed your claim and concluded a billing error did occur. As a result, we have credited your account in the amount of {$59.00} along with any related charges, as applicable. \nWe apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. \nIf youd like to request the documentation we used to make the determination, please email us a XXXX Sincerely, Chime Disputes Team XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime asking if I should be expecting a check with the funds that had been credited to me following the XXXX dispute being substantiated Their response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team I sent an email then informing XXXX that the response he had sent had zero relevancy to, nor did it provide any further or clearer insight into a resolution for the question at hand. I was frustrated at this point due to a good portion of the previous emails I had received from Chime, pertaining to this matter, having stated the exact same information as the last, and having even been formatted almost identically to one another. I had/have not yet received a single email from Chime that directly addressed the questions I had/have been asking with 100 % transparency. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX receive email from Chime in regards to the dispute pertaining to duplicate charges from XXXX XXXX : RE : Account Number : XXXX Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Debit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$210.00} Hello XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you we have applied a provisional credit to your account on XXXX in the amount of {$210.00}. This temporary credit is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our investigation. \nWe will complete our investigation as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our investigation to you by email within three business days of completion. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the provisional credit and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs. \nThank you for being a valued Chime member. If you have any questions, please contact us by phone at XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX or by email at XXXX. \nSincerely, Chime Disputes Team I respond again voicing my concern about the possibility of my account being mistakenly closed Their response was as follows : Hi XXXX, Thank you for keeping in touch! \nI would like to confirm to you that the account was closed on XXXX. Please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nPlease let me know if you have any additional questions! Thank you for your patience and cooperation on this. \nXXXX | Chime Member Services. \n\nI receive a check for the dispute for multiple duplicate charges ( {$210.00} ) in the mail shortly after receiving the email. \n\nStill have yet to receive a check or an answer about the funds from the XXXX dispute that was resolved and credited ( {$59.00} ) XX/XX/XXXX Chime sends email saying : Account Number Ending In : XXXX Claim ID : XXXX  Dispute Type : Debit - Duplicate Charge Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$210.00} Hello XXXX XXXX, This letter is to inform you that we have made a final determination regarding the claim referenced above. \nBased on our investigation, we have concluded no error occurred. On XXXX, a provisional credit was posted to your account on a temporary basis until we completed our investigation. On XXXX, the provisional credit will be reversed and your account will be debited in the amount of {$210.00}. \nPlease ensure that there are sufficient funds in your account to cover the amount that will be debited, as well as any purchases or payments you plan to make. \nYou may request a copy of the documents we used in determining the final outcome of the investigation. If you would like to request copies of the documents, or have further questions, please contact us at XXXX. \nSincerely, Chime Disputes Team XX/XX/XXXX I reach out to XXXX customer support asking the status of the chargeback/refund they agreed to provide XXXX confirms XXXX completion of the refund in an email that reads : Hello, We received your email about order XXXX. We have researched this matter and confirmed that the dispute in question has been resolved between XXXX and your card issuer. \nPlease contact your card issuer for more information about reimbursement for this purchase. In the future, file an A-to-z Guarantee claim to resolve any issues related to XXXX XXXX purchases before contacting your card issuer. For more information, visit the page : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nWe can not help you further with this problem. \n-- - XXXX XXXX Account Specialist XXXX | XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime to inform them XXXX has now confirmed that the dispute has been resolved and receive no reply XX/XX/XXXX I email again asking where the check is for the {$59.00} and now the {$750.00} as well ; still no response At which point I call customer service and they reassure me several times that they will send me tracking information for the checks via email directly after the call ends ; i never received any tracking info or any information in general like promised while speaking to customer service reps on the phone XX/XX/XXXX I email Chime stating I was told Id receive tracking info when I called but had yet to receive even a reply to the three previous emails I had sent and definitely hadnt received any information or tracking information for any check. \n\nChime Dispute Team responds saying : XXXX XXXX, I completely understand the inconvenience you are experiencing. We are working to resolve your case as quickly as possible. Based on the nature of your claim, we will complete the investigation no later than XX/XX/XXXX. We will notify you by email as soon as the investigation is completed. \nAlso, we're pleased to let you know Chime has added a new feature to the app which allows you to check your status dispute in real time. Navigate to your home screen and click on the View Disputes widget located towards the bottom of your screen under your spending/saving account information or click this link. \nThanks, XXXX | The Dispute Team Still providing no solid solutions or answers since I am still unable to access my account at all, so using the new feature isnt something that Id be able to do either. I mentioned XXXX had already confirmed that my card issuer and themselves had resolved the dispute. If it was resolved then wouldnt the investigation then be complete? I respond reminding them of my inability to access my account, to which they reply with the EXACT same email as the last XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I email asking where the money is again XX/XX/XXXX I email again for clarification on what else they would have to investigate if XXXX is saying that they had already resolved and returned this transaction, and express my frustrations with it seeming as if since they closed my account they were not prioritizing the situation as they would if i were technically still a customer I email XXXX again requesting information on how to appeal the decision to close my account for the second time XX/XX/XXXX Chime sends me an email saying : Account Number Ending In : XXXX  Claim ID : XXXX Dispute Type : Credit - Non-Receipt of Goods or Services Date Error Reported : XXXX Claim Amount : {$750.00} Dear XXXX XXXX, Thank you for notifying us of the billing error on your account. \nOur investigation team has reviewed your claim and concluded a billing error did occur. As a result, we have credited your account in the amount of {$750.00} along with any related charges, as applicable. \nWe apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. \nIf youd like to request the documentation we used to make the determination, please email us a XXXX Sincerely, Chime Disputes Team I respond for clarification on how I will receive these funds Their response : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out to Chime Member Services. I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. Rest assured that I am here to assist you with your concern. \nXXXX, I'm happy to inform you that, Your recent dispute of {$750.00} has been approved. \nThank you so much for giving us the opportunity to have you in our Chime family, anything else that you may need, remember that you will find me here for you XXXX! \nThanks, XXXX | Chime Member Services I respond asking again how i will be receiving these funds XX/XX/XXXX Receive email from Chime saying : Hi XXXX, Thank you for keeping in touch. Ive looked into your account details to find some answers. \nWe have determined that your account failed to comply with the terms of your Deposit Account Agreement, and weve closed your account as a result. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nIf you still have funds in this account, please allow 14 days for any outstanding transactions to settle, and then a physical check for the remaining balance will be sent to your mailing address. You should receive your check within 30 days of your account closure date. \nThanks, XXXX | Member Protection Team XX/XX/XXXX I noticed while using the Klover app that it was still linked to both, the normal Chime checking account as well as the credit builder account. And that my credit builder account was showing a balance of {$810.00} so i emailed chime asking if that was accurate and again asking for some sort of insight on how and when Id be receiving these payments ; no response XX/XX/XXXX I email again asking how and when Id be receiving the money ; no response XX/XX/XXXX I email again vocalizing my ever thinning patience with the matter and asking about how and when yet again They respond : Hi XXXX, Thank you for reaching out. We apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused. \nAfter a recent review of your account, weve found that it does not comply with the terms of the Deposit Account Agreement. Your account has been closed by Chime and is not eligible for a refund. For more information, please review the Amendment and Cancellation section of the Chime Deposit Account Agreement. \nWe regret any inconvenience this may have caused. Please let us know if we can assist you further or give us a call at XXXX. \nXXXX | Member Protection Team I email informing them I had received an email from Chime themselves stating that my dispute was approved and it wasnt a refund I was anticipating, it was money from a dispute that they had resolved with the other company and had received the money from already. Money that was rightfully mine. Money i was entitled to. \n\nNo response As of XX/XX/XXXX i have yet to receive a response or a check for the amount I am owed nor do I have any access to my account ( including but not limited to logging in, viewing any documents/bank statements/billing statements, etc )","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-09T16:09:44.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"473XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7096800","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2023-06-09T15:55:39.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not received from closed account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This temporary <em>credit</em> is being provided so that you will have full use of these funds while we complete our <em>investigation</em>. \nWe will complete our <em>investigation</em> as quickly as possible, but no later than XXXX. \nWe will communicate the results of our <em>investigation</em> to you by email <em>within</em> three <em>business</em> <em>days</em> of <em>completion</em>. If we deny your claim, we will reverse the <em>provisional</em> <em>credit</em> and debit the amount from your account. We will notify you if this occurs. \nThank you for being a valued Chime member."]},"sort":[11.529053,"7096800"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14018989","_score":9.969743,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"# COMPREHENSIVE REGULATORY COMPLAINT # # Chase Bank Criminal Enablement Causing Foreclosure Crisis Through Systematic Fraud * * Complainant : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Primary Defendant : * * JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . \n* * Secondary Impact : * * XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) * * Property Address : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX * * Date : * * XX/XX/XXXX -- - # # * * EMERGENCY FORECLOSURE DEMAND * * * * CHASE BANK MUST ACT BY XX/XX/XXXX : * * Chase Bank 's criminal enablement has created a foreclosure emergency requiring immediate intervention : 1. * * RESTORE ALL STOLEN FUNDS * * ( {$22000.00} ) to prevent foreclosure 2. * * COMPENSATE XXXX XXXX * * for all fraud-related defaults and fees 3. * * EMERGENCY CREDIT REPAIR * * to restore mortgage payment capacity 4. * * DIRECT COMMUNICATION * * with XXXX XXXX acknowledging Chase 's fraud enablement 5. * * FORECLOSURE INTERVENTION * * - Chase must contact XXXX XXXX immediately to resolve the crisis their negligence created * * DEADLINE : * * XX/XX/XXXX - or face liability for foreclosure of {$520000.00} home due to Chase 's criminal negligence. \n\n-- - # # EXECUTIVE SUMMARY * * CHASE BANK IS THE PRIMARY CRIMINAL ENABLER * * of a {$22000.00} fraud operation that has cascaded into a foreclosure crisis. Chase 's systematic failures to detect obvious fraud, combined with bad faith claims handling, has created a direct causal chain leading to the threatened loss of my family home.\n\n* * Chase Bank 's Criminal Enterprise Enablement : * * - * * {$14000.00} * * in fake mortgage payments processed without verification - * * {$4800.00} * * in unauthorized ATM withdrawals through compromised phone - * * {$750.00} * * in fraudulent XXXX utility charges processed for months - * * {$1800.00} * * in stolen business funding - * * {$560.00} * * in clawback schemes stealing provisional credits - * * {$910.00} * * total in clawback theft ( {$350.00} + {$560.00} ) * * TOTAL CHASE-ENABLED THEFT : {$22000.00} * * * * Direct Consequence : * * Foreclosure deadline XX/XX/XXXX on {$520000.00} home due to fraud-induced payment disruptions. \n\n-- - # # PRIMARY REGULATORY VIOLATIONS - CHASE BANK # # # * * Bank Secrecy Act Violations ( 31 USC 5311 ) * * * * Systematic Anti-Money Laundering Failures : * * - * * Failed to file SARs * * for obvious $ XXXX organized fraud operation - * * No CTR reporting * * for structured criminal transactions - * * Enabled money laundering * * through fake mortgage payment processing - * * Ignored red flags * * including identical fake payments over 14+ months # # # * * Regulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005 ) * * * * Electronic Fund Transfer Act Violations : * * - * * Delayed fraud investigation * * beyond regulatory deadlines - * * Bad faith provisional credit clawbacks * * totaling {$910.00} - * * Failed to complete investigations * * within required timeframes - * * Systematic denial * * using identical language regardless of evidence # # # * * UDAAP Violations ( 12 USC 5531 ) * * * * Unfair, Deceptive, and Abusive Practices : * * * * UNFAIR : * * - Processing obvious fraud for 14+ months without detection - Clawing back provisional credits through bad faith investigations- Enabling criminal enterprise while denying victim relief * * DECEPTIVE : * * - * * Cookie-cutter denial letters : * * \" Transaction was authorized '' for obvious fraud - * * Form letter responses : * * \" No adjustment will be made '' regardless of evidence quality - * * False investigation claims : * * Using identical language suggests no individual review - * * Misrepresenting transaction legitimacy : * * Calling clear fraud \" authorized '' * * ABUSIVE : * * - Exploiting identity theft victim 's financial distress - Using identical denial language regardless of evidence quality - Enabling criminals while punishing victims # # # * * Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations ( 15 USC 1681 ) * * * * Inaccurate Credit Reporting : * * - Reporting fraud-induced NSF incidents as legitimate defaults - Failing to investigate credit report disputes- Continuing negative reporting during active fraud investigation -- - # # CHASE BANK 'S CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ENABLEMENT # # # * * The {$14000.00} Fake Mortgage Payment Scheme * * * * Systematic Processing of Fraudulent Transactions : * * * * Pattern Analysis : * * - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$2900.00} fake XXXX XXXX payment - * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Multiple {$2500.00} payments - * * XXXX XXXX : * * Continued processing of identical fake amounts - * * Total Fake Mortgage Payments : * * {$14000.00} * * Red Flags Chase Ignored : * * 1. * * Identical amounts * * repeated monthly for 14+ months 2. * * No mortgage account verification * * with actual servicer 3. * * Timing coincides * * with reported identity theft 4. * * Victim 's repeated fraud reports * * ignored 5. * * No payee verification * * for \" XXXX XXXX '' payments 6. * * Utility fraud pattern : * * Multiple unauthorized service signups and cancellations 7. * * Geographic impossibility : * * Utility services at addresses victim never lived 8. * * Service pattern abuse : * * Immediate cancellations by victim of all fraudulent services # # # * * The {$4800.00} ATM Fraud Operation * * * * Phone Cloning Enabled Systematic Theft : * * - * * Method : * * Criminals cloned phone to access banking apps- * * Pattern : * * Back-to-back ATM withdrawals not flagged by Chase - * * Amount : * * {$4800.00} in unauthorized cash withdrawals- * * Chase Failure : * * No velocity checks or geographic verification # # # * * The {$750.00} XXXX  Utility Fraud * * * * Chase Processed Months of Obvious Fraudulent Utility Services : * * * * Detailed XXXX Fraud Timeline : * * - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$110.00} unauthorized service signup - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$25.00} return fee when service canceled - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$130.00} unauthorized service + {$25.00} return fee = {$150.00} - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$130.00} return fee for canceled service - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$130.00} unauthorized service activation - * * XX/XX/XXXX : * * {$130.00} final fraudulent charge - * * Total XXXX Fraud : * * {$750.00} * * Chase 's Criminal Facilitation of Utility Fraud : * * - * * Multiple utility services * * fraudulently signed up using victim 's identity - * * Return fees charged * * when victim canceled unauthorized services - * * Overlapping charges * * for services never requested - * * Chase provided {$560.00} provisional credit then STOLE IT BACK * * - * * No verification * * with XXXX that victim authorized services - * * Obvious fraud pattern * * ignored for months # # # * * The {$910.00} Clawback Theft Operation * * * * Chase 's Systematic Theft of Provisional Credits : * * - * * First Clawback : * * {$350.00} stolen from victim - * * Second Clawback : * * {$560.00} stolen after providing provisional credit - * * Method : * * Provide credits initially, then reverse through bad faith \" investigations '' - * * Result : * * Chase stole {$910.00} from identity theft victim # # # * * Chase 's Cookie-Cutter Denial Letters * * * * Identical Bad Faith Responses Regardless of Evidence : * * - * * Standard Language : * * \" Transaction was processed according to information you provided or was authorized '' - * * Universal Denial : * * \" No adjustment will be made '' - * * Bad Faith Pattern : * * Same denial language used for obvious fraud and legitimate transactions - * * Evidence Ignored : * * Detailed fraud documentation dismissed with form letters- * * Regulatory Violation : * * Failed to conduct individual investigations as required -- - # # CASCADING EFFECT : CHASE FRAUD FORECLOSURE CRISIS # # # * * Direct Causal Chain * * * * Chase 's negligence created a systematic chain of harm : * * 1. * * Chase Enables {$22000.00} Fraud * * Depletes victim 's financial resources 2. * * Genuine Mortgage Payments Intercepted * * Criminals redirect real payments while Chase processes fake ones 3. * * Payment Disruptions to XXXX XXXX * * NSF reversals when fraud-diverted payments fail 4. * * XXXX XXXX Penalties Accumulate * * Late fees and charges due to Chase-enabled fraud 5. * * Credit Destruction * * Chase reports fraud as legitimate, destroying creditworthiness 6. * * Foreclosure Threat * * XX/XX/XXXX deadline due to Chase 's fraud enablement # # # * * Current Foreclosure Crisis - Caused by Chase * * * * XXXX XXXX Account Status ( Loan # XXXX ) : * * - * * Amount Due : * * {$8600.00} ( fraud-related ) - * * Foreclosure Deadline : * * XX/XX/XXXX - * * Root Cause : * * Chase-enabled fraud depleted payment capacity - * * Chase Liability : * * Direct causation from criminal enablement to foreclosure -- - # # SPECIFIC CHASE VIOLATIONS BY REGULATION # # # * * BSA/AML Violations ( 31 USC 5311 , 12 CFR 21.21 ) * * * * REQUIRED : * * File SARs for suspicious activity patterns * * CHASE 'S VIOLATION : * * No SARs filed for $ XXXX organized fraud operation * * Evidence of Suspicious Activity : * * - Identical fraudulent amounts over 14+ months - Payments to non-existent mortgage servicer accounts- Structured transactions designed to avoid detection - Organized criminal operation using victim 's identity * * Penalty Exposure : * * Up to {>= $1,000,000} per violation ( 31 USC 5321 ) # # # * * Regulation E Violations ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) * * * * ERROR RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS : * * - 10 business day investigation deadline - Provisional credit within 1-2 business days - Written findings required * * CHASE 'S VIOLATIONS : * * - Extended investigations beyond regulatory deadlines- Clawed back provisional credits without proper basis - Failed to provide detailed investigation findings- Used identical denial language regardless of evidence - * * Particularly egregious : * * Processed utility fraud despite easy verification methods- * * Failed basic verification : * * Never confirmed victim lived at service addresses- * * Ignored cancellation pattern : * * Victim immediately canceled all fraudulent services # # # * * FCRA Section 623 ( 15 USC 1681s-2 ) * * * * FURNISHER ACCURACY REQUIREMENTS : * * * * CHASE 'S VIOLATIONS : * * - Reported fraud-induced NSF as legitimate defaults - Failed to investigate credit disputes properly - Continued negative reporting during fraud investigation - Refused to correct obviously inaccurate information -- - # # DAMAGES DIRECTLY CAUSED BY CHASE # # # * * Ongoing Financial Reconstruction * * * * Current Status : Certified Public Bookkeeper Analysis in Progress * * * * CRITICAL NOTE : * * A certified bookkeeper is currently conducting a comprehensive three-year financial reconstruction ( XXXX ) due to the extensive damage caused by Chase Bank 's fraud enablement. This process involves : - * * Recreating accurate financial records * * from Chase 's compromised/fraudulent transactions - * * Verifying legitimate vs. fraudulent transactions * * across 36+ months - * * Quantifying additional hidden damages * * not yet discovered - * * Documenting the full scope * * of Chase 's criminal facilitation - * * Estimated completion : * * 30-60 days due to complexity of Chase 's fraud enablement * * ANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL DAMAGES : * * Based on preliminary analysis, the bookkeeper expects to uncover : - Additional fraudulent transactions not yet identified - Hidden fees and charges resulting from fraud - Compounding interest and penalty calculations- Business accounting irregularities caused by payment disruptions- * * Potential total damages may EXCEED current {>= $1,000,000} estimate * * * * BURDEN ON VICTIM : * * Chase 's systematic fraud enablement has forced the victim to : - * * Hire professional accountant * * ( $ XXXX expense ) - * * Dedicate hundreds of hours * * to financial reconstruction - * * Recreate three years of records * * due to Chase 's contaminated data - * * All while facing XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure deadline * * * * SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FORTHCOMING : * * Upon completion of the financial reconstruction, a supplemental complaint will be filed documenting any additional damages discovered during the comprehensive analysis. \n\n# # # * * Chase 's Specific Liability for XXXX XXXX Crisis * * - * * Partial Claim Required : * * {$30000.00} due to fraud-induced defaults - * * Current Delinquency : * * {$8600.00} directly traceable to Chase fraud XXXX * * Late Fees/Penalties : * * Hundreds in fees from fraud-disrupted payments - * * Foreclosure Costs : * * All legal fees and costs from Chase-caused crisis # # # * * Punitive Damages Warranted * * Chase 's conduct demonstrates : - * * Willful blindness * * to obvious criminal activity - * * Bad faith * * in claims handling and investigation - * * Reckless disregard * * for customer safety and regulatory requirements- * * Criminal facilitation * * through systematic failures * * Total Damages : * * $ XXXX with punitive damages appropriate -- - # # EMERGENCY DEMANDS- XX/XX/XXXX DEADLINE # # # * * IMMEDIATE CHASE ACTIONS REQUIRED * * * * 1. EMERGENCY FUND RESTORATION ( By XX/XX/XXXX ) * * - Restore all {$22000.00} in stolen funds immediately - * * NEW ACCOUNT REQUIREMENT : * * Funds must be deposited into a completely new, secure account with no links to previously compromised accounts - * * Preferred client status * * with enhanced fraud protection and dedicated support - Wire transfer to prevent foreclosure deadline - * * Account security guarantee * * with advanced monitoring and alerts * * 2. XXXX XXXX INTERVENTION ( By XX/XX/XXXX ) * * - Direct communication with XXXX XXXX acknowledging Chase 's fraud enablement - Payment of all fraud-related fees, penalties, and charges to XXXX XXXX - Guarantee of mortgage account protection during fraud resolution * * 3. CREDIT REPAIR ( By XX/XX/XXXX ) * * - Emergency deletion of all fraud-related negative marks - Restoration of pre-fraud credit scores- Letter to all credit bureaus acknowledging Chase 's fraud enablement * * 4. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE * * - File required SARs for the $ XXXX criminal operation - Cooperate with law enforcement investigation - Implement enhanced fraud detection for similar cases - * * Establish new secure banking relationship * * with victim using fresh accounts and preferred client protections- * * Enhanced monitoring protocols * * for victim 's new accounts with dedicated fraud prevention team * * 5. VICTIM COMPENSATION * * - Full reimbursement for all cascading damages - Compensation for business losses caused by fraud - Payment of all legal and recovery expenses- * * Coverage of ongoing bookkeeper costs * * for 3-year financial reconstruction - * * Compensation for victim 's time * * spent recreating records due to Chase 's fraud - * * Reserve fund * * for additional damages being discovered in ongoing analysis - * * NEW SECURE BANKING RELATIONSHIP : * * All restitution funds placed in new accounts with no connection to compromised accounts - * * Preferred client designation * * with enhanced fraud protection, dedicated support team, and priority customer service # # # * * CONSEQUENCES OF CHASE INACTION * * * * If Chase fails to act by XX/XX/XXXX : * * - Full liability for foreclosure and loss of {$520000.00} home - Escalation to DOJ for criminal facilitation investigation - Class action exposure for systematic fraud enablement - Maximum regulatory penalties for BSA/AML violations -- - # # SUPPORTING EVIDENCE # # # * * Chase Fraud Documentation * * - Bank statements showing {$22000.00} in fraudulent transactions - * * Fraudulent utility bills and unauthorized service agreements : * * - XXXX service agreements victim never signed - Utility bills for services at addresses victim never lived - Documentation of victim canceling unauthorized services - Evidence of Chase processing payments for fraudulent utility accounts- * * Multiple identical denial letters using cookie-cutter language : * * - \" Transaction was authorized '' claims for obvious fraud - \" No adjustment will be made '' responses regardless of evidence - Same form letter responses for different fraud types- Evidence of provisional credit clawbacks totaling {$910.00} - Pattern analysis of systematic fraud processing over 14+ months - Documentation of Chase 's refusal to conduct individual investigations # # # * * Identity Theft Documentation * * - FTC Report # XXXX - Police Report - XXXX XXXXXXXX Police Department - XXXXXXXX Support Case # XXXX ( account hijacking confirmation ) - Technical evidence of device compromise and phone cloning # # # * * Foreclosure Documentation * * - XXXX XXXX demand letter with XX/XX/XXXX deadline - Payment history showing fraud-induced NSF reversals- Partial claim documentation ( {$30000.00} ) due to fraud # # # * * Business Impact Documentation * * - Financial statements showing business closure - Revenue loss calculations directly tied to fraud - Client loss documentation due to payment disruptions- * * ONGOING : * * Certified bookkeeper conducting 3-year financial reconstruction - * * Preliminary findings : * * Additional damages expected beyond current estimates - * * Professional analysis : * * Comprehensive accounting review of Chase 's fraud impact -- - # # REGULATORY PRECEDENT FOR CHASE LIABILITY # # # * * Similar CFPB Actions Against Chase * * - * * XXXX : * * {$380.00} XXXX penalty for credit card debt collection - * * XXXX : * * {$210.00} XXXX for credit card billing violations- * * XXXX : * * {$65.00} XXXX for unsafe practices during pandemic - * * Pattern : * * Chase repeatedly violates consumer protection laws # # # * * BSA/AML Enforcement Actions * * - * * XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) : * * {$3.00} XXXX for AML failures- * * XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX  ( XXXX ) : * * {$75.00} XXXX for BSA violations- * * XXXX ( XXXX ) : * * {$1.00} XXXX for money laundering facilitation * * Chase 's Exposure : * * $ XXXX organized crime facilitation warrants maximum penalties -- - # # CONCLUSION : CHASE BANK CRIMINAL LIABILITY Chase Bank is not merely negligent- they are * * criminal enablers * * who : 1. * * Facilitated organized crime * * through systematic fraud processing 2. * * Violated federal banking laws * * repeatedly and willfully 3. * * Stole from identity theft victims * * through clawback schemes 4. * * Created foreclosure crisis * * through fraud enablement 5. * * Ignored regulatory requirements * * for suspicious activity reporting * * This case demands : * * - * * Immediate foreclosure intervention * * by XX/XX/XXXX - * * Full victim restitution * * of all fraud and cascading damages - * * Criminal investigation * * of Chase 's role in facilitating organized crime - * * Maximum regulatory penalties * * for systematic violations - * * Industry-wide reforms * * to prevent similar victim abuse - * * Ongoing damage assessment * * as bookkeeper completes 3-year financial reconstruction * * ADDITIONAL DAMAGES EXPECTED : * * The current $ XXXX damage estimate represents only the damages discovered to date. A certified bookkeeper 's ongoing analysis of three years of Chase-contaminated financial records is expected to reveal additional substantial damages, requiring supplemental regulatory action. \n\nChase Bank has crossed the line from negligence to criminal facilitation. Their systematic enablement of a $ XXXX fraud operation while stealing provisional credits from the victim demands the full force of regulatory and criminal action. \n\n* * The XX/XX/XXXX foreclosure deadline makes this an emergency requiring immediate Chase intervention to prevent the loss of my family home due to their criminal enablement. * * -- - # # CONTACT INFORMATION * * Complainant : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Address : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX * * Phone : * * ( XXXX ) XXXX * * Landline : * * ( XXXX ) XXXX * * Email : * * XXXX * * Secondary : * * XXXX * * EMERGENCY FORECLOSURE DEADLINE : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * Chase Account Information : * * Available upon request * * XXXX XXXX Loan : * * # XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  * * Certification : * * I certify under penalty of perjury that the information in this complaint is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief, and that Chase Bank 's criminal enablement has directly caused the foreclosure crisis threatening my family home. \n\n* * Signature : * * XXXX XXXX XXXX * * Date : * * XX/XX/XXXX * * URGENT ACTION REQUIRED BY XX/XX/XXXX * *","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-12T00:00:31.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92307","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14018989","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-11T23:50:40.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS : * * - 10 <em>business</em> day <em>investigation</em> deadline - <em>Provisional</em> <em>credit</em> <em>within</em> 1-2 <em>business</em> <em>days</em> - Written findings required * * CHASE 'S VIOLATIONS : * * - Extended <em>investigations</em> beyond regulatory deadlines- Clawed back <em>provisional</em> <em>credits</em> without proper basis - Failed to provide detailed <em>investigation</em> findings- Used identical denial language regardless of evidence - * * Particularly egregious : * * Processed utility fraud despite easy verification methods- * * Failed basic"]},"sort":[9.969743,"14018989"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":20,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":20}]}},"product":{"doc_count":20,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":18,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":17},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Government benefit card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":20,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":12,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":6},{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Funds not received from closed account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":20,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":20}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":20,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":14},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":5},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":20,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":20}]}},"company":{"doc_count":20,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":5},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Comerica","doc_count":1},{"key":"FinCo Services Inc DBA Current","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":20,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"GA","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"WI","doc_count":1},{"key":"WV","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":20,"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":4},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":20,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":3},{"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":{}}}