{"took":281,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":24,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5688216","_score":23.523184,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On the XXXX XXXX of XXXX a dispute was filed for the amount of XXXX and this is the total for several Atm transactions that appear on my statement as if i had received the money when the real thing was that i could not take money out at times because for some reason the card on times it was giving me the error of insufficient funds and or to contact the institution and it lock the account until i called them. Well anyways on the XXXX of XXXX of 2022 the dispute was filed and they asked for the papers to be signed and return which i did and the investigation started, they told me that it could take up to 45 days and that they would give me the provitional credit which they never gave me they said because at the end i did not qualify for the credit that i had to wait until there was a update. ok when the 45 days where almost up i called to check on the dispute and the rep told me that the case was still ongoing and that it was going to take up to 90 days to get a resolution and then well i got really mad because they had never explained that to me they had initially said only up to 45 days now it was up to 90 days this was ridiculous but ok i could not do anything other than to wait for the update or the 90 days whichever, was coming XXXX have been calling them every other week to check on the update and they always said they did not have anything yet to wait for the 90 days, today being the XXXX day XXXX day before the time was up if they did not have an update from the merchant they needed to put that amount back on my account well this is where i find it really absurd and ridiculous that today being the XXXX day XXXX day before they had to put the money on my account they have an update on the account and the update is that there was no error on their part that the merchant provided proof of the funds being given to me wich is not true i did not get anything and i requested for them to provide to me a copy of the proof that the merchant provided to them since i have the right for that document and the supervisor her name is XXXX from the customer service department but she is the supervisor she said that they could not provide me with any of that that the case was closed and they could not do anything about this case anymore so basically this is me loosing my money of course i want the proof because am not going to loose my money that money was not given to me at all and just because of them knowing that the deadline for the 90 days was on XX/XX/XXXX and that if the merchant did not provide nothing yet they were going to have to issue the money to, this is not right if they did this or they came to the conclusion that it was not an error and they where going to denied the claim just because they did not want to give me my money this is wrong and more wrong is them not wanting to give me the copy of the proof that the merchant provide to them i have the right to that information please help me","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-20T20:39:08.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"General-purpose prepaid card","zip_code":"741XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5688216","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CARD Corporation","date_received":"2022-06-20T20:05:34.000Z","state":"OK","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase or transfer"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["the XXXX day XXXX day before the time was up if they did not have an update from the <em>merchant</em> they needed to put that amount back on my account well this is where i find it really absurd and ridiculous that today <em>being</em> the XXXX day XXXX day before they had to put the money on my account they have an update on the account and the update is that there was no <em>error</em> on their <em>part</em> that the <em>merchant</em> <em>provided</em> <em>proof</em> of the <em>funds</em> <em>being</em> given to me wich is not true i did not get anything and i requested for"]},"sort":[23.523184,"5688216"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18978548","_score":23.266592,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Nature of the Dispute : On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I initiated a dispute for {$290.00} regarding \" Merchandise Not Received '' ( MNR ). While I understand an MNR type dispute typically does not qualify for immediate provisional credit under Regulation E, the situation has fundamentally changed : Fact 1 : Funds Were Recovered : On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, the merchant ( NAME / CONTACT INFO REDACTED ) confirmed via text message that the disputed funds were successfully debited from their account and settled via the payment network on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ... Additionally Merchant ( NAME REDACTED ) provided documented proof of the disputed funds being withdrawn from their account .. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I forwarded to SoFi Bank a copy of this documented proof of the withdrawal from the merchants account as well as a transcript of a text conversation that took place between myself and my contact at the merchant ( Name Redacted ) where we discussed these events.. I also at that time provided to SoFi Bank a direct cellular phone number to my contact at the merchant.. \n\nFact 2 : SoFi Was Provided Evidence : On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, merchant ( NAME REDACTED ) confirmed via text message that the Merchant Dispute Advice Form had been completed and returned as instructed on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, with the box checked that reads in part Therefore we agree to accept the dispute and debit to our account .. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, SoFi was provided a transcript of this text conversation as well as photographs of the form.\n\nFact 3 : Funds Are Held by SoFi : The funds successfully left the merchant 's bank and are now held in an unapplied or \" suspense '' account within SoFi 's financial ledger.\n\nFact 4 : Failure to Credit : SoFi has failed to locate and credit these recovered funds to my account, despite repeated escalations and the submission of all merchant documentation.\n\nRegulatory Violation and Demand for Action : My claim is no longer a standard MNR dispute ; it is a banking error/failure to credit recovered funds. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation E ), Section 1005.11, financial institutions are required to correct such an error within one business day of determining that the error has occurred.\n\nWillful violation : Its quite reasonable to believe that SoFi Bank had been aware of this recovered transaction since at least, the day it took place, XXXX XXXX, XXXX notwithstanding the denial of SoFi Bank However, it becomes much, much more difficult to consider if there is perhaps any reasonableness with SoFi Banks position beyond XXXX XXXX, XXXX when SoFi Bank was provided definitive evidence that these funds had been recovered from the merchant.. Therefore, I demanded the immediate, post-haste credit of {$290.00}. XXXX to my SoFi checking account ending in XXXX ( REDACTED ) before the end of the business day, XX/XX/XXXX SoFi Bank, in the face of mounting evidence willfully and knowingly denied my demand SoFi Was Advised There Would Be Repercussions : Because SoFi failed to meet the close-of-business deadline for XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, to credit the {$290.00} recovered from ( REDACTED ) on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I am now following through on the ultimatums delivered earlier in this process as well as on XXXX XXXX, XXXX ... \n\n1. REGULATORY ACTION : This formal complaint being filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) regarding SoFis violation of 12 CFR 1005.11 ( Regulation E ). SoFi Bank has been in possession of recovered funds for 29. days and have refused to credit my account despite definitive proof from the merchant and direct access to their contact information. This is no longer a merchant dispute ; it is a failure of SoFis internal accounting and a breach of federal law. \n\n2. REDIRECTION OF FUNDS : As promised, I have initiated the process to redirect my monthly recurring deposits : Direct Deposit # 1 : {$4400.00} Direct Deposit # 2 : {$2000.00} Total Annual Loss to SoFi : {$76000.00} Be advised that if the upcoming XX/XX/XXXX deposits land in this account, they will be transferred out immediately to a compliant financial institution. No further deposits will be authorized for this account. \n\n3. FINAL STANDING : SoFi management was given every opportunity to resolve a documented bookkeeping error. Your decision to prioritize a {$290.00} internal reconciliation error over a XXXX XXXX annual relationship is a profound failure in customer retention and compliance. \nI no longer require \" updates '' or \" investigations. '' I expect the {$290.00} to be returned to my account as a matter of legal requirement. All future communication regarding this matter should be directed through the CFPB portal.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-24T09:53:05.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"59901","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18978548","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","date_received":"2026-01-24T08:41:50.000Z","state":"MT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additionally <em>Merchant</em> ( NAME REDACTED ) <em>provided</em> documented <em>proof</em> of the disputed <em>funds</em> <em>being</em> withdrawn from their account .. On XXXX XXXX, XXXX, I forwarded to SoFi Bank a copy of this documented <em>proof</em> of the withdrawal from the <em>merchants</em> account as well as a transcript of a text conversation that took place between myself and my contact at the <em>merchant</em> ( Name Redacted ) where we discussed these events.."]},"sort":[23.266592,"18978548"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19072448","_score":20.437656,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am reporting a merchant cash advance company for unfair and deceptive business practices involving wrongful enforcement of a UCC lien and interference with payment processing accounts belonging to a non-obligor business entity. \n\nCompany loan was created : Broadway Advance ( https : //www.broadwayadvance.com/ ) Debt Collecting Company : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX The company filed and is foreclosing on a UCC-1 lien related to a merchant cash advance agreement . In enforcing this lien, the company directed a payment processor ( XXXX  ) to restrict and divert funds from a XXXX  account that is not owned by the debtor entity named in the agreement or the UCC filing. Additionally, this company sent outside emails to people who are neither associated with the business nor the owner 's of the company written into the agreement. \n\nI have documentary proof that the affected XXXX  account belongs to a separate business entity whose revenue was never assigned, pledged, or subject to the companys collateral rights. I also have proof of emails sent to third parties. Despite being notified of this error and provided proof, the company has refused to release the account and continues to condition release on payment with terms outside of the agreemnent. \n\nThe company has stated in writing that it will not release any restricted accounts unless payment is made first, even after notice that the enforcement actions target a non-obligor entity. This conduct appears designed to coerce payment through economic duress rather than lawful enforcement. \n\nI believe this conduct constitutes : -Unfair and deceptive acts or practices -Wrongful interference with third-party business relationships -Knowing enforcement against non-collateral assets Abuse of UCC filings and payment processor controls to force payment This complaint is submitted to document this conduct as part of any broader pattern of merchant cash advance abuse involving improper liens, processor interference, and coercive collection practices.\n\nAll written communications, account records, and proof of wrongful enforcement have been preserved and are available upon request.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-28T17:06:15.000Z","issue":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","sub_product":"Payday loan debt","zip_code":"350XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19072448","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Broadway Advance LLC","date_received":"2026-01-28T17:05:48.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Talked to a third-party about your debt"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have documentary <em>proof</em> that the affected XXXX  account belongs to a separate business entity whose revenue was never assigned, pledged, or subject to the companys collateral rights. I also have <em>proof</em> of emails sent to third parties. Despite <em>being</em> notified of this <em>error</em> and <em>provided</em> <em>proof</em>, the company has refused to release the account and continues to condition release on payment with terms outside of the agreemnent."]},"sort":[20.437656,"19072448"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15304697","_score":20.247404,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I am formally requesting immediate resolution of my refund dispute in accordance with Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ) and applicable state laws. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I was charged {$380.00} by the retailer XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, XXXX confirmed in writing that they accepted my chargeback and processed a full refund for this amount plus a fee a total of {$400.00}. I have attached proof of the merchants confirmation, including the refund reference number. \n\nDespite the merchants confirmed refund more than XXXX  days ago, my Cash App account has not been credited. Your support team originally advised that resolution would take XXXX  days from XX/XX/year> the XXXX time I reported the issue but has now extended the timeframe to XXXX  days without justification. This delay is unreasonable and, under Regulation E, you are required to provisionally credit my account within XXXX business days of receiving notice of the error. I initially reported this on XX/XX/year> & Cashapp closed without cause saying they hadnthat a response from me in XXXX  days but I only filed XXXX  days prior at the time and had not been contacted by Cashapp and submitted this XXXX dispute. I call Cashapp customer service and was hung up on by the representative telling my I have to continue via online chat. Which is a bot repeating the same responses. \n\nI am therefore requesting : Immediate provisional credit of {$380.00} to my Cash App account. A written explanation of the reason for the delay beyond the original XXXX investigation period. Confirmation that this matter is being escalated directly to the Disputes Team for resolution. \n\n\nAttachments : Proof of original {$380.00} transaction Merchant confirmation of refund ( XXXX ) Screenshots of Cash Apps original XXXX and updated XXXX timeframe .various messages from Cashapp saying they are investigating or denying my dispute then again go back to saying they are investigating. They are stealing money from me blantly. The merchant XXXX has provided documented proof they refunded me and accepted chargeback yet Cashapp is denying they have received funds or still investigating.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-16T00:49:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30331","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15304697","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-15T23:57:59.000Z","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":["The <em>merchant</em> XXXX has <em>provided</em> documented <em>proof</em> they refunded me and accepted chargeback yet Cashapp is denying they have received <em>funds</em> or still investigating."]},"sort":[20.247404,"15304697"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21541629","_score":18.878088,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Two unauthorized XXXX XXXX ACH debit transactions, each in the amount of {$1200.00}, were processed on my Chase account in XX/XX/year>. I did not authorize either transaction and received no benefit from them. The transactions are as follows : XXXX XXXX {$1200.00} Transaction date : XX/XX/year> WEB ID XXXX XXXX XXXX {$1200.00} Transaction date : XX/XX/year> WEB ID XXXX I timely reported both transactions to Chase as unauthorized. Chase opened claims for both transactions and initially issued provisional credit for both, confirming that Chase recognized both transactions as disputed and under investigation.\n\nChase later reversed the provisional credit for one transaction, leaving one unauthorized ACH debit unreimbursed on my account. Chase asserted that it relied on a letter from the merchant claiming a refund was issued ; however, only one refund actually posted to my Chase account. No refund corresponding to the second transaction ever posted.\n\nDespite the fact that one unauthorized transaction remained debited, Chase closed both claims and treated the matter as resolved. Chase has not provided a proper written determination explaining why the remaining transaction was deemed authorized or why the provisional credit was reversed, nor has it provided evidence that the funds were returned to my account.\n\nUnder the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), Chase is required to conduct a goodfaith investigation and correct each unauthorized electronic fund transfer. Provisional credit may not be reversed unless the bank determines, based on evidence, that no error occurred. Closing both claims while one unauthorized transaction remains unreimbursed, and shifting responsibility to the merchant, violates Chases obligations under Regulation E.\n\nAfter I reported both unauthorized transactions, Chase repeatedly required me to complete and resubmit the same Disputed Transaction ( s ) Questionnaire dated XX/XX/year> ( Claim No. XXXX ). Chase instructed me to upload, fax, or mail the form and warned that failure to do so could result in denial or delay of provisional credit. I complied and submitted the completed questionnaire identifying the unauthorized ACH debit dated XX/XX/year>. \nDespite my compliance and submission of documentary proof, Chase continued to require repeated submissions of the same information, failed to resolve the dispute, and ultimately reversed provisional credit and closed both claims. This occurred even after Chase customer service representatives acknowledged that an error had occurred and confirmed that provisional credit had initially been applied to both unauthorized transactions.\n\nChase also directed me to contact the merchant directly and relied on a merchant letter claiming a refund, even though one unauthorized transaction was never credited back to my Chase account. Requiring repeated documentation, shifting responsibility to the merchant, and closing claims while an unauthorized electronic fund transfer remains unresolved is inconsistent with Chases duties under the EFTA and Regulation E.\n\nChases failure to properly resolve this matter caused significant financial hardship. The unreimbursed unauthorized ACH debit removed my last paycheck, leaving me without funds for basic living expenses. I explicitly informed Chase of this hardship and the urgent financial impact while the dispute was pending. Despite being notified that the unresolved unauthorized transaction had exhausted my available funds, Chase failed to take corrective action, reversed provisional credit, and closed the claims, ignoring the financial harm caused by its failure to comply with its legal obligations.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-23T20:57:42.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"331XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21541629","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2026-04-23T20:38:52.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chase has not <em>provided</em> a proper written determination explaining why the remaining transaction was deemed authorized or why the provisional credit was reversed, nor has it <em>provided</em> evidence that the <em>funds</em> were returned to my account.\n\nUnder the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. <em>Part</em> 1005 ), Chase is required to conduct a goodfaith investigation and correct each unauthorized electronic fund transfer."]},"sort":[18.878088,"21541629"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18582733","_score":18.013159,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing a complaint against Navy Federal Credit Union for violations of Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), unfair and deceptive acts ( UDAAP ) under Dodd-Frank , and failure to properly resolve an electronic funds transfer dispute. \nSummary of Facts : I filed a dispute on a credit card transaction that involved a refund from a XXXX purchase. \nI have documented proof from the restaurant that the refund was issued back to my Navy Federal credit card, with the amount of including ARN and correspondence. \nNavy Federal denied my dispute of XXXX and told me to contact XXXX myself, which is improper. Under Regulation E, the financial institution is responsible for investigating EFT errors, not the consumer. \nI provided all requested documentation. XXXX has not responded to me or to Navy Federal.\n\nNavy Federal denied my dispute and stated that I must obtain documentation directly from XXXX, even though I submitted merchant documentation showing a refund. \nI was told by a supervisor that when I appealed the denial, my case was allegedly reviewed and denied again within two minutes because it came from the merchant, not XXXX, which does not constitute a proper investigation. \nNavy Federal continues to claim in their secure Message Center that they sent emails to me regarding the dispute, but I have not received any such emails. The only communication I received was the initial denial.\n\nNavy Federal has not provided any written explanation of the investigation, nor what documentation was reviewed, nor the basis for a denial.\n\nNavy Federal failed to ( 1 ) complete a proper investigation, ( 2 ) issue provisional credit, and ( 3 ) provide clear written findings as required by law. \nWhen I questioned their refusal to credit my account and stated that I would escalate to CFPB, the representative became hostile and attempted to end the call without resolution. \nAnother representative later confirmed that XXXX has not responded. Under card network rules, non-response from merchant should result in credit back to the consumer. \nRegulatory Violations : This situation contains multiple violations : Reg E Investigation Violation ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) Navy Federal forced me to investigate with the merchant instead of performing their own investigation. \nFailure to Provide Provisional Credit ( 1005.11 ( d ) ) Navy Federal did not issue provisional credit within 10 business days while they continued to investigate. \nFailure to Provide Written Findings Navy Federal provided no written investigation results or explanation as required under Reg E. \nUDAAP Violations ( XXXX XXXX ) Refusal to investigate, misleading explanations, and rude/retaliatory behavior constitute unfair and deceptive practices. \nRetaliation/Obstruction When I stated I would escalate to CFPB, the representative attempted to terminate the call instead of addressing the dispute. \nConsumer Harm : I am being improperly charged for a transaction that was refunded.\n\nNavy Federal is withholding funds I am entitled to.\n\nTheir failure to follow Reg E has caused financial hardship, stress, and unnecessary work on my part. \nTheir refusal to issue provisional credit or proper chargeback leaves me without access to my own money.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-08T23:10:44.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"328XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18582733","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2026-01-08T22:41:45.000Z","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":["Consumer Harm : I am <em>being</em> improperly charged for a transaction that was refunded.\n\nNavy Federal is withholding <em>funds</em> I am entitled to.\n\nTheir failure to follow Reg E has caused financial hardship, stress, and unnecessary work on my <em>part</em>. \nTheir refusal to issue provisional credit or proper chargeback leaves me without access to my own money."]},"sort":[18.013159,"18582733"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3370294","_score":16.901842,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"There was a fradulent fale stop payment made by XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX. On or around XX/XX/XXXX 2019- XX/XX/XXXX2019 that must be put into investigation and my account re credited for this error. This is the actual receipt of the XXXX ice maker inside the False stop payment XXXX refrigerator. It was manufactured in XXXX of 2019.I showed images of the box it came in with serial number above. \nServices Received By The XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n1 Brand New XXXX XXXX XXXX maker. total assembly with warranty that can be verified. \nPart Inquiring Service on the phone 20 minutes on Hold putting part on will call Part Expedition Service Receiving Part Same Day Service Fee Part Purchasing No Deposit given Part Picking Up Requires Driving to The Supply Location ( Time, Driving Part Correct Part Confirmation Testing New Part Service Part Transporting From Supply house To Customer Service address, Service Fee Old Part uninstall removal Service fee New Part Install Removal Service Fee 2 Service Calls fee Ice maker adjusting and then unadjusting service fee Saturday Service Weekend fee nd I still kept it within the Original quoting Everything was done to the highest grade of competency. I tested the water supply to the ice maker verified water supply and water dispenser. I replaced the old ice maker with a brand new XXXX ice maker that was tested before installing gave him a 25 day warranty on labor and 1 year warranty on the part. He had inconsistencies with the electrical breaker and receptacle. I told him to hive a residential electrician analyses and correct any non grounding and short issues and also to child proof any receptacles around the interior of building but he didnt. He dishonestly files a stop payment with an intent to defraud.You dont stop payment because you dont want to understand. he kept requesting a new Ice maker so he got what he asked for same day. And then he stops payment.Obviously he doesnt know what he is talking about. Or else he would have fixed the issue himself. This is a bank error on Chase bank and this false illegal stop payment requires reversal and fees put back into XXXX XXXX account in the total of {$270.00} requires reversal being removed from XXXX XXXX account hes a defrauder and he abused and co conspired the bank so underhandedly and this checks holder be put on XXXX  so he cant do these defrauding things any longer. Because making Chase bank aware of this with undisputed burden of proof evidence and they dont follow the regulation of Regulation E, FDIC, EFT, will put the bank in illegal circumstances. This matter is to be put into investigation. We require response to the matter with 7 days. \nElectronic Fund Transfer Act In 1979, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), also known as Regulation E, was implemented to protect consumers when they use electronic means and check are also covered to manage their finances. \nCompensation for Violations of the EFTA Electronic funds transaction act. \nIf a financial institution breaks laws established by the EFTA, you may be able to sue for damages in court. Thats if they refuse to credit the money back or correct an error. You can also sue if they fail to prevent a transfer when you reported the lost or stolen card and told them to freeze the account. Youre entitled to the money lost and potentially punitive damages between $ XXXX {$1000.00} as well as court fees and attorneys fees. \nI have rendered the service based on agreement, and I am entitled to that money. The demand letter in this complaint Chase bank can not say they did not receive it. Requesting a demand for payment the fraudulent stop payment within 7 days or you will file in the small claims court. As per FDIC Rules and Regulations : SECTION 1005.11 PROCEDURES FOR RESOLVING ERRORS 5. Discovery of error by institution. The error resolution procedures of this section apply when a notice of error is received from the consumer, and not when the financial institution itself discovers and corrects an error. \n\n11 ( c ) Time Limits and Extent of Investigation Supplement I to Part 1005Official Interpretations SECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 1. Fund transfers covered. The term \" electronic fund transfer '' includes : v. A transfer via ACH where a consumer has provided a check to enable the merchant or other payee to capture the routing, account, and serial numbers to initiate the transfer, whether the check is blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed ; whether the check is presented at POS or is mailed to a merchant or other payee or lockbox and later converted to an EFT ; or whether the check is retained by the consumer, the merchant or other payee, or the payee 's financial institution. \n\n\nSupplement I to Part 1005OfficiaXXXX Interpretations Investigations. \nSECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 11 ( d ) ( 2 ) Debiting Provisional Credit 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. \n2. 1. Notice to consumer. Unless otherwise indicated in this section, the financial institution may provide the required notices to the consumer either orally or in writing. \n3. 2. Written confirmation of oral notice. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice. It may not delay until it has received a written confirmation. \n4. 3. Charges for error resolution. If a billing error occurred, whether as alleged or in a different amount or manner, the financial institution may not impose a charge related to any aspect of the error-resolution process ( including charges for documentation or investigation ). Since the Act grants the consumer error-resolution rights, the institution should avoid any chilling effect on the good-faith assertion of errors that might result if charges are assessed when no billing error has occurred. \n5. 4. Correction without investigation. A financial institution may make, without investigation, a final correction to a consumer 's account in the amount or manner alleged by the consumer to be in error, but must comply with all other applicable requirements of 1005.11. \n6. 5. Correction notice. A financial institution may include the notice of correction on a periodic statement that is mailed or delivered within the 10-business-day or 45-calendar-day time limits and that clearly identifies the correction to the consumer 's account. The institution must determine whether such a mailing will be prompt enough to satisfy the requirements of this section, taking into account the specific facts involved. \n7. 6. Correction of an error. If the financial institution determines an error occurred, within either the 10-day or 45-day period, it must correct the error ( subject to the liability provisions of 1005.6 ( a ) and ( b ) ) including, where applicable, the crediting of interest and the refunding of any fees imposed by the institution. In a combined credit/EFT transaction, for example, the institution must refund any finance charges incurred as a result of the error. The institution need not refund fees that would have been imposed whether or not the error occurred. \n8. 7. Extent of required investigation. A financial institution complies with its duty to investigate, correct, and report its determination regarding an error described in 1005.11 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( vii ) by transmitting the requested information, clarification, or documentation within the time limits set forth in 1005.11 ( c ). If the institution has provisionally credited the consumer 's account in accordance with 1 9. \n10. SECTION 1005.2 DEFINITIONS 11. 11 ( d ) ( 2 ) Debiting Provisional Credit 12. 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur. \n\nDeceptive Trade Practices Act : XXXX XXXX has violated this law : he has violated this law. the price paid is substantial evidence to support that he asked how long was the warranty? because he knows it is brand new period. He still has this stolen property in his possession. I may also recover up to three times damages, he knowingly commited this fraud and implicated the bank in the process. \nCalifornia Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits any unlawful, ... [ A ] ny unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice is deemed ... section 17200 common law fraud or deception.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-09-11T07:49:48.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"90504","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3370294","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-09-11T03:23:25.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Banking errors"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A transfer via ACH where a consumer has <em>provided</em> a check to enable the <em>merchant</em> or other payee to capture the routing, account, and serial numbers to initiate the transfer, whether the check is blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed ; whether the check is presented at POS or is mailed to a <em>merchant</em> or other payee or lockbox and later converted to an EFT ; or whether the check is retained by the consumer, the <em>merchant</em> or other payee, or the payee 's financial institution."]},"sort":[16.901842,"3370294"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17846089","_score":16.464392,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Skip to content ChatGPT Log in You said : Uploaded image Uploaded image Draft a CFPB complaint using the above information. The merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX has filed a civil lawsuit against me, XXXX XXXX, claiming I filed for a dispute on the above two charges, in which I did not despute. Nor did i ever receive the credit or a check mailed out to me for that above account. The card was closed due to identity theft. \n\nI am requesting all statements for the merchant XXXX XXXX XXXX, proof showing whether or not the merchant was reimbursed or if the money was indeed withdrawn from his account. I am requesting for Chase to mail me a check for the total amount of the dispute, as it was a credit I never received. Add anything else that will hold Chase liable for this unauthorized dispute- for them to show proof if claiming that I did indeed request a dispute. Add any laws, violations, and anything else that will help me when this case and get my money back from all charges paid out to XXXX XXXX XXXX from XX/XX/year> to XX/XX/year> XXXX said : Below is a polished, formal CFPB complaint draft you can copy and paste directly into the CFPB portal. \nI avoided identifying any real person from the image ( per rules ), but I can discuss the document contents because they show merchant and account details as part of a dispute notice. \n\nCFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Chase Bank USA, N.A. \nMerchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \n\nSummary of Complaint I am filing this complaint because Chase Bank has recorded two chargeback disputes on my credit card account without my authorization, and these disputes have resulted in a civil lawsuit from the merchant. I never initiated or approved these disputes, nor did I ever receive any credit, refund, or check from Chase for these transactions. The card in question was closed due to identity theft, and the disputes appear to be the result of fraudulent activity or an internal processing error by Chase.\n\nDespite the card being closed for identity theft, Chase processed two chargebacks on my behalf without my knowledge or authorization. The merchant has now filed legal action against me, claiming that I disputed payments that I did not dispute and received credits that I never received.\n\nChase has provided me no documentation proving that I initiated these disputes, nor proof that any credit was actually issued to me.\n\nDisputed Chargeback Notifications Attached ( You may upload the two documents when submitting ) The two dispute notification forms state : 1. Chargeback # 1 Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Adjustment Amount : {$240.00} Reason Code : XXXX / Other Fraud Card Absent Environment Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \n\nI DID NOT initiate this dispute. \n\nXXXX. Chargeback # XXXX Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Adjustment Amount : {$1300.00} Reason Code : XXXX / Other Fraud Card Absent Environment Merchant : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \n\nI DID NOT initiate this dispute. \n\nChase claims these adjustments were made to my account, yet no such credits were ever received. I never saw these funds reflected in my account, nor did I receive any mailed check.\n\nRequest for CFPB Intervention I am asking the CFPB to require Chase to provide : 1. Full documentation of the disputes Proof that I initiated these chargebacks Call logs, authorization forms, or online session logs Any correspondence Chase claims was sent to me Record of who initiated the chargeback internally 2. All account statements for XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> This is necessary to confirm whether any credit was issued, since Chase is claiming it was. \n\nXXXX. Proof of what was sent to the merchant Whether the merchant was debited XXXX Chase reimbursed the merchant Whether Chase reversed the chargeback Whether any credit was ever disbursed to me 4. Immediate refund of the chargeback amounts I request that Chase issue me a check for : {$240.00} + {$1300.00} = {$1600.00} This is credit Chase claims I received but never actually received.\n\n5. A written explanation for how unauthorized disputes were processed If Chase maintains that I initiated the disputes, they must show evidence proving that claim.\n\nLegal Basis/ Violations I believe Chase has violated the following : 1. Regulation Z ( Truth in Lending Act ) 12 CFR 1026 Chase failed to : Provide accurate billing statements Investigate unauthorized activity Provide documentation validating the consumers dispute Notify me of the resolution in a timely and documented manner 2. Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) FCBA prohibits : Charging a consumer for unauthorized credit transactions Mishandling disputes Failing to provide investigation results Posting inaccurate adjustments 3. Identity Theft / Failure to Protect Consumer Accounts My card had been closed for identity theft.\n\nDespite this, Chase : Allowed unauthorized disputes Did not verify whether I filed them Did not notify me of the chargeback activity Did not mail any refund they claim I received 4. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX Chases conduct is : Unfair because it has caused injury ( a lawsuit ) and financial harm Deceptive because Chase claims a refund was issued when it was not Abusive because it exploited my vulnerability after an identity theft incident Harm Suffered I am being sued by the merchant based on transactions Chase mishandled. \n\nI never requested disputes, yet my name is on the chargeback documents. \n\nI never received refunds, yet Chase claims I did. \n\nI incurred emotional distress, legal costs, and time defending a lawsuit I should not be part of.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-08T21:14:57.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"349XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17846089","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-12-08T21:07:59.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The card in question was closed due to identity theft, and the disputes appear to be the result of fraudulent activity or an internal processing <em>error</em> by Chase.\n\nDespite the card <em>being</em> closed for identity theft, Chase processed two chargebacks on my behalf without my knowledge or authorization. The <em>merchant</em> has now filed legal action against me, claiming that I disputed payments that I did not dispute and received credits that I never received."]},"sort":[16.464392,"17846089"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5618584","_score":15.711006,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Hello, On XX/XX/XXXX, the online company, XXXX XXXX, charged my credit card {$140.00} for a subscription renewal, only I had been given the subscription as a gift and it was not subject to the renewal policy. Additionally, this charge was run on my correct card number, but with a XXXX expiration date. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX acknowledged the error and said they would issue me a refund. I had opened a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX, however, as I had not heard back from the company initially. XXXX XXXX asked that I close the dispute, and I agreed to do so. When I called Chase Bank, I specifically asked if I would be able to reopen the dispute should they fail to provide a refund. I was told that it would not be a problem, provided I opened it within 60 days of the original transaction. So, I closed the dispute. XXXX XXXX tried to refund me, but it never showed up in my account. XXXX XXXX then went through their records and contacted their cc platform XXXX. They can not locate the money. I reopened the dispute with Chase Bank on XX/XX/XXXX. I had to do this in writing because they claimed the merchant had accepted the charges. They then closed the dispute on XX/XX/XXXX, sighting that they could do nothing more because XXXX XXXX had accepted the charges on XX/XX/XXXX. This was news to me. No one had said, \" If the merchant accepts the charges you will not be able to further dispute it. '' Additionally, this makes no sense to me as I am sure most merchants accept their funds as soon as possible and do not wait 60 days. I opened a new dispute with Chase - appealing the decision- on XX/XX/XXXX. That was closed today on the grounds that Chase Bank found the charges to be valid- which is odd because even XXXX XXXX says the charges were NOT valid. XXXX XXXX was less than helpful to begin with, but I opened a case with the Washington State Attorney General 's office and that got their attention. They have been very compliant and I believe that they genuinely can not locate the money. Incidentally, the AG 's office found reason to contact Chase Bank regarding this issue and not just XXXX XXXX. I will be appealing the dispute again with Chase Bank on Tuesday- the next business day. \n\nHere are my reasons for addressing this with the CFPB : 1 ) Chase Bank has not explained to me how these charges were run with not only a wrong, but also an EXPIRED expiration date ( XXXX ). They refuse to answer this question. \n2 ) Chase Bank will not provide me or XXXX XXXX  with a reference or transaction number that would allow XXXX XXXX or XXXX  to track the rebill Chase Bank issued on XX/XX/XXXX. \n3 ) No one will explain to me why when the merchant claims the funds, theca company is unable to retrieve them. Or. why when XXXX XXXX has confirmed I am owed a refund, Chase Bank claims the charges are valid. \n4 XXXX XXXX XXXX has provided screenshots of their efforts to locate the {$140.00} charge, but Chase Bank has provided no \" proof '' other than their word, that the merchant accepted the charges on XX/XX/XXXX7, and has them in their possession. \n5 ) Every individual I speak with in dispute resolution gives me different information. On XX/XX/XXXX I spoke with one representative who told me the case was still under investigation and less than an hour later, I was told by another that the dispute had been closed XX/XX/XXXX. \n6 ) I am promised detail letters regarding the findings and resolutions and I receive vague form letters. They refuse to answer my questions when I call. They will not contact XXXX XXXX  ( who is willing to dialogue with them ) or provide a means for XXXX XXXX 's bank to contact them 7 ) While the confirmation ( form ) letter I receive every time I open a dispute says that I will not be responsible for the charges, once I was rebilled, this was not the case. I paid the charges on my last billing cycle to avoid interest because they have not been removed during the investigation. \n\nMy biggest issues are, first and foremost, the incorrect expiration that was allowed in the original charge. If I typo my expiration date during an online purchase, the site will tell me and require me to correct it - how was XXXX XXXX able to do run this with a XXXX date? ( For the record, I do not recall ever giving XXXX XXXX my card information, which would explain why they had the wrong date. ) If the charges had been denied because of this error, then none of this would be an issue. And, secondly, I do not like the lack on transparency and lack of information on the part of Chase Bank. They flat ignore questions I ask repeatedly. I am their customer and they have done everything to avoid being helpful and forthright. \n\nI can provided pages and pages of documentation, email chains, letters, dates, at your request. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-05-28T00:41:21.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"98290","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5618584","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2022-05-27T23:40:21.000Z","state":"WA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Or. why when XXXX XXXX has confirmed I am owed a refund, Chase Bank claims the charges are valid. \n4 XXXX XXXX XXXX has <em>provided</em> screenshots of their efforts to locate the {$140.00} charge, but Chase Bank has <em>provided</em> no \" <em>proof</em> '' other than their word, that the <em>merchant</em> accepted the charges on XX/XX/XXXX7, and has them in their possession. \n5 ) Every individual I speak with in dispute resolution gives me different information."]},"sort":[15.711006,"5618584"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15777629","_score":15.371456,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because Cash App has repeatedly denied my fraud dispute for unauthorized transactions on my XXXX XXXX, in violation of federal law. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, my Cash App Card was used without my authorization for multiple transactions, including a {$100.00} charge at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I immediately reported these transactions as unauthorized. Cash App denied my claim on XX/XX/year>, providing only a generic statement that no error occurred and attaching a PDF that simply restated my account history. No evidence was provided to show I authorized these charges. \n\nCash Apps handling of my case violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) and its implementing regulation, Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R. Part 1005 ), in the following ways : 1. Failure to Provide Proof of Authorization ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 & 1005.11 ( d ) ) Cash App has never provided any verifiable evidence that I authorized these transactions ( such as IP logs, device data, merchant authorization, or employee records ). Instead, they rely only on generic account summaries.\n\n2. Failure to Provide Provisional Credit ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ) No provisional credit was issued within 10 business days, despite my timely report of fraud.\n\n3. Improper Denial & Bad Faith Handling ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ( b ) ( d ) ) Cash App repeatedly closed my disputes and support chats with copy-and-paste responses, refusing to provide employee IDs, investigation notes, or supporting documentation. \nTheir denials lacked transparency and failed to meet the regulatory requirement to provide a written explanation of the evidence relied upon. \nXXXX. Misrepresentation of XXXX XXXX Cash App advertises fraud protection for XXXX XXXX users but then denies legitimate claims without proof. This is misleading and potentially a violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nAs a result, I have suffered financial loss, stress, and emotional distress from being deprived of my funds and repeatedly stonewalled by Cash App. \n\n\n\nResolution I Am Seeking I am requesting that the CFPB require Cash App to : Reimburse me in full for the unauthorized transactions. \nProvide a complete explanation and supporting documentation of their investigation. \nCorrect their dispute-handling practices to comply with Regulation XXXX. \nCompensate me for the damages caused by their mishandling of this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-07T17:17:55.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"28208","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15777629","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-07T16:28:12.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Misrepresentation of XXXX XXXX Cash App advertises fraud protection for XXXX XXXX users but then denies legitimate claims without <em>proof</em>. This is misleading and potentially a violation of the FTC Act ( 15 U.S.C. 45 ).\n\nAs a result, I have suffered financial loss, stress, and emotional distress from <em>being</em> deprived of my <em>funds</em> and repeatedly stonewalled by Cash App."]},"sort":[15.371456,"15777629"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7766065","_score":15.35658,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I authorized XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the merchant ) to charge my XXXX XXXX card {$19000.00}. She did the transaction and it was declined. I checked my email and there was an email from XXXX asking me to confirm the transaction and I confirmed that I approved/recognized it, but it still prompted me to call XXXX. Upon calling XXXX, the representative asked me if I recognized/approved the transaction and I said YES and asked why I had to call, since I replied YES that I recognized/approved it in the email. He did answer but told me that I was now good and could proceed with the merchant re-submitting the charge/transaction. It was re-submitted and APPROVED -- she sent me a receipt from her Square account. I also had an email stating it was approved. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX told me that she still hadn't gotten the money! By XX/XX/XXXX, she said she still hadn't been paid so I called XXXX with her on the phone. XXXX from XXXX investigated and said he saw that on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ACCIDENTALLY opened a dispute for the amount on MY BEHALF, even though I did NOT dispute it!!! He apologized and told me he would CANCEL it and by XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant would be paid the {$19000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant and I called again because the merchant/XXXX XXXX  wanted to be certain XXXX would pay them. Now, I was told by XXXX that they were going to send me a NEW card because my old card was cancelled due to the dispute/fraud ( this is the first time I heard this ). Then the XXXX agent, XXXX, said once my new card came, the charge would go through for the merchant. I asked to have the card sent to me overnight and he agreed to pay for the charge of the overnight fee. The card did come on the XXXX and sure enough, the charge now appeared on my XXXX app as a debit, and there was no longer the credit ( prior prior to this there was a debit for the {$19000.00} and then a credit and then on the XXXX another debit for the {$19000.00}. This is way better if I dictate. to this there was a debit for the {$19000.00} and then a credit and then on the XXXX another debit for the {$19000.00} ). However, days and days pass by, and the merchant, XXXX, still had not received the payment. So I called XXXX again, and they said that the payment had been sent and that her processor for the transaction, Square, had the funds, and it was beyond XXXX 's control. XXXX even sent me a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which stated that they had investigated the claim and that they thanked me for letting them know that the charge was not questionable and that I would have a debit/charge on my upcoming statement, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX. I sent this to the merchant to show her the confirmation from XXXX. Meanwhile, she was dealing with her third-party processor, Square, which told her that they opened a dispute case and it takes 90 days to resolve it. They told her it could take until XX/XX/XXXX before they could resolve the dispute and release the funds to her. she showed them my XXXX account which shows that I was debited for the {$19000.00} and even showed them the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX that showed that I'll confirm that there was no dispute and that they were charging my card for the full amount of the transaction. However, Square told her that that was not enough and they needed more explicit documentation from XXXX that stated I canceled the dispute and any future re-dispute. And they said that once this was completed, and I informed XXXX that it was completed, that she let Square via her Square dashboard, so that they could then verify with XXXX that the dispute was canceled and only then when they release the disputed funds to the merchant, XXXX XXXX. I called XXXX to request this and they told me they do not make detailed, customized specific letters and they said they only send the letter like they sent me from XX/XX/XXXX. I asked for managers and they all said the same thing. They told me that Square could call their merchant accounts department to discuss the case and any questions or concerns that they had.On XX/XX/XXXX, I authorized XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX ( the merchant ) to charge my XXXX XXXX card {$19000.00}. She did the transaction and it was declined. I checked my email and there was an email from XXXX asking me to confirm the transaction and I confirmed that I approved/recognized it, but it still prompted me to call XXXX. Upon calling XXXX, the representative asked me if I recognized/approved the transaction and I said YES and asked why I had to call, since I replied YES that I recognized/approved it in the email. He did answer but told me that I was now good and could proceed with the merchant re-submitting the charge/transaction. It was re-submitted and APPROVED -- she sent me a receipt from her Square account. I also had an email stating it was approved. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX told me that she still hadn't gotten the money! By XX/XX/XXXX, she said she still hadn't been paid so I called XXXX with her on the phone. XXXX from XXXX investigated and said he saw that on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX ACCIDENTALLY opened a dispute for the amount on MY BEHALF, even though I did NOT dispute it!!! He apologized and told me he would CANCEL it and by XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant would be paid the {$19000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, the merchant and I called again because the merchant/XXXX XXXX wanted to be certain XXXX would pay them. Now, I was told by XXXX that they were going to send me a NEW card because my old card was cancelled due to the dispute/fraud ( this is the first time I heard this ). Then the XXXX agent, XXXX, said once my new card came, the charge would go through for the merchant. I asked to have the card sent to me overnight and he agreed to pay for the charge of the overnight fee. The card did come on the XXXX and sure enough, the charge now appeared on my XXXX app as a debit, and there was no longer the credit ( prior prior to this there was a debit for the {$19000.00} and then a credit and then on the XXXX another debit for the {$19000.00}. This is way better if I dictate. to this there was a debit for the {$19000.00} and then a credit and then on the XXXX another debit for the {$19000.00} ). However, days and days pass by, and the merchant, XXXX, still had not received the payment. So I called XXXX again, and they said that the payment had been sent and that her processor for the transaction, Square, had the funds, and it was beyond XXXX 's control. XXXX even sent me a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX which stated that they had investigated the claim and that they thanked me for letting them know that the charge was not questionable and that I would have a debit/charge on my upcoming statement, which closed on XX/XX/XXXX. I sent this to the merchant to show her the confirmation from XXXX. Meanwhile, she was dealing with her third-party processor, Square, which told her that they opened a dispute case and it takes 90 days to resolve it. They told her it could take until XX/XX/XXXX before they could resolve the dispute and release the funds to her. she showed them my XXXX account which shows that I was debited for the {$19000.00} and even showed them the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX from XXXX that showed that I'll confirm that there was no dispute and that they were charging my card for the full amount of the transaction. However, Square told her that that was not enough and they needed more explicit documentation from XXXX that stated I canceled the dispute and any future re-dispute. And they said that once this was completed, and I informed XXXX that it was completed, that she let Square via her Square dashboard, so that they could then verify with XXXX that the dispute was canceled and only then when they release the disputed funds to the merchant, XXXXXXXX XXXX. I called XXXX and requested exactly what XXXX told the merchant, XXXXXXXX XXXX, and they told me that they do not right customized specific detailed letters like they requested. They told me that the letter they gave me on XX/XX/XXXX should've been sufficient enough for Square. However, Square told the merchant that it was not sufficient. XXXX also advised that Square call there Merchant account XXXX number in which they said there's no whole time and they could discuss the matter with XXXX directly. I informed the merchant, XXXX XXXX, to inform Square regarding the XXXX merchant account number that XXXX advise that Square call in order to have clarification about the dispute cancellation. The merchant told me that Square said they can not get through and that they've tried reaching XXXX several times, even though XXXX said that this could not be the case because they are easy to reach when using that merchant account number. The merchant has texted or emailed me virtually every other day since this time, namely, since XX/XX/XXXX, telling me that I need to call XXXX and get them to do this despite me telling her that I've called and XXXX told me the only thing that they could do is advise me to show them the letter from XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX  even accuse me of making them chase their money, as though I was the reason why they were not being paid. XXXX told me that the money was paid to her Square account, and that they had nothing to do with the dispute that Square opened for 90 days. When I spoke to the manager, XXXX, from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, she was confused as to why Square was still holding the funds and again confirmed that she could not provide a customized letter. XXXX also stated that the merchant, XXXX XXXX, received a letter from XXXX around the same time that I received mine, which was dated XX/XX/XXXX, giving her a synopsis of the fact that the dispute had been canceled. When I asked the merchant, if she received a letter from XXXX, she denied ever receiving a letter. Furthermore, XXXX, the manager at XXXX in the customer service department, told me that as of XX/XX/XXXX, my monthly statement would close, and that I would receive a new statement which showed the reversal of the dispute, and would reflect the money that XXXX, namely, the XXXX that I paid on XX/XX/XXXX as well as an additional payment that I made on XX/XX/XXXX to XXXXXXXX XXXX in the amount of {$20000.00}. That transaction was successfully completed because prior to doing the transaction. I called XXXX and demanded that the fraud department get on the phone and listen to me give XXXX pool the authorization to charge the account for the {$20000.00} so that there would be no fraud alert and this transaction was successful. So the merchant had been paid {$8000.00} from my bank account for the first payment, {$19000.00} in the second payment, which she still had not received due to all of the above issues with Square holding the money while it was being disputed, even though there was no longer a Dispute because the dispute was canceled and the merchant also received the {$20000.00} payment on XX/XX/XXXX, but yet accused me of making them have to chase their money, as though it was my fault, and as though I've owned XXXX XXXX and can control what they wouldn't would not do, namely, give her, the letter that Square wanted, the customized letter that they were insisting that they needed in order to release her funds. In the meantime, the merchant, XXXXXXXX XXXX refuse to complete the fourth part of the project until they received the money that they are processing company, Square would not release to them. So they were penalizing me because they're Merchant processing company, Square, was not releasing the funds to them. My backyard looks a mess because my pool is empty and has stagnant rainwater and debris in it. My iron fence is ripped off the hinges, and there is piping for the pool all over the backyard as well as tire tracks Through the grass. They left our yard a complete mess in retaliation for their own merchant processing company, Square, not releasing the {$19000.00} to them while they await proof of cancellation from XXXX XXXX, despite the fact that I gave them the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, and I even gave them the screenshot of my XXXX app which shows I owe {$40000.00} to XXXX as of XX/XX/XXXX. I even sent XXXX pulls a copy of my XXXX statement which clearly shows a reversal of the dispute, and clearly shows the {$19000.00} as being a charge on my account. So on XX/XX/XXXX, when I was on the phone with XXXX, the XXXX XXXX supervisor in the customer service department, she also told me as of XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX dispute window of 30 days would officially close and that would also yield a letter to XXXX XXXX  again. so XXXX ESSENTIALLY said, at that point, the merchant, XXXX XXXX, would actually have a second letter from XXXX XXXX, confirming that the dispute was resolved. However, XXXX XXXX, represented by XXXX XXXX, still says to this day, XX/XX/XXXX, that they have never received any letter from XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX around the XX/XX/XXXX date that I receive mine nor any letter from the XX/XX/XXXX time. That XXXX, the XXXX XXXX customer service supervisor said that they would receive. So at this point, after calling XXXX XXXX on my own for the past five weeks, almost 2 to 3 times per week and also being harassed by XXXXXXXX XXXX  as though I'm lying and that I'm evading a payment, I feel victimized and I feel that I am being discriminated against in the fact that they are acting as though I am, a disloyal customer who has breached the contract by not paying them. and therefore refusing to complete the fourth and final part of our project. Meanwhile, in my opinion, they have breached our contract, because I've provided three consecutive payments in good faith, and they have now for the past 3 to 4 weeks, left our home in disarray and disrespected us by allowing our property to look a mess while they have issues with Square, which is their third-party credit card processor, and is a dispute that they have with Square not me because I diligently paid on time for the second part of the project, again on XX/XX/XXXX, and again, paid for the third part of the project on XX/XX/XXXX with the same XXXX account and that payment cleared. So they already know from two of the three payments clearing, that I am a customer who pays for services rendered and clearly the issue was not with me, but with their Square account but yet they are holding it against me, and my family and penalizing us. at this point, I feel that I should tell them if they don't complete the project in the next five days, that I will have to seek another contractor to complete the project and restore dignity and respect to our home. I feel that I have been victimized by all three parties, namely XXXX XXXX for making the agree. Just tremendous error for opening the dispute/fraud claim, square for holding the funds hostage for 90 days, which is absolutely ridiculous, even though they have sufficient information that I provided to the merchant, XXXXXXXX XXXX  to ensure that the transaction is approved from my end, and that the dispute has been resolved based on the XXXX XXXX letter dated XX/XX/XXXX as well as my XXXX XXXX app that shows the reversal as well as my XXXX XXXX XXXX statement that clearly states in black-and-white that the dispute was reversed and I also feel that XXXX XXXX is just as guilty as XXXX XXXX and Square because they unlawfully stop working on the project despite having clear confirmation that I paid the bill especially since XXXX has been on at least 8 to 10 calls with me and XXXX XXXX, and has heard everything regarding the case, and knows for a fact that I paid it and can even see it from the statement and the XXXX app. \nAll three of these entities are in the wrong, and should be admonished, and I should have financial reparations for the anxiety, anguish, stress, and lost wages. I incurred due to not being productive at work, since I've spent more than XXXX hours, dealing with this, ridiculous, unacceptable, inexplicable situation. I even had to ask XXXX, the customer service manager at XXXX XXXX, to allow me an additional 30 days of no interest from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. Just in case this dispute is not settled by square, because I don't trust making the payment to XXXX XXXX if Square keeps the money and doesn't pay the merchant because then I'll be out of {$19000.00} twice because then I will still have to pay the merchant. XXXX said that she would allow the additional 30 days of interest free time, so that I don't incurred additional fees while I'm waiting for Square to reach their resolution by XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX also gave me a {$250.00} statement credit for my stress is restitution but I told her I need {$250.00} for every hour that I spent dealing with this situation or at least 10 times the amount of money that I paid which is {$19000.00} in reward points which would be XXXX reward points, and she declined. I asked her to escalate it to her supervisor, and her supervisor called me back, and told me that by no means could she do that either. Her name is XXXX. I've never been in a situation, trying to prove that I paid something and disputing a fraudulent dispute, where I have to prove that a disputed payment is a mistake and that I clearly intentionally made the payment!! The whole thing is preposterous. Please help me.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-27T05:51:10.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"75115","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7766065","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2023-10-27T05:32:09.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Just tremendous <em>error</em> for opening the dispute/fraud claim, square for holding the <em>funds</em> hostage for 90 days, which is absolutely ridiculous, even though they have sufficient information that I <em>provided</em> to the <em>merchant</em>, XXXXXXXX XXXX  to ensure that the transaction is approved from my end, and that the dispute has been resolved based on the XXXX XXXX letter dated XX/XX/XXXX as well as my XXXX XXXX app that shows the reversal as well as my XXXX XXXX XXXX statement that clearly states in black-and-white"]},"sort":[15.35658,"7766065"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3517763","_score":13.374736,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"My issue with Bank of America started XX/XX/XXXX. I have had a surplus of fraudulent activity occur with all of my accounts at Bank of America including personal checking accounts, personal saving accounts, custodial accounts, investment account. The perpetrators have done electronic transfers, electronic checks and bill pay. They have set up accounts in names, both individual and companies. They have made payments to companies directly from my accounts. I have taken precautionary measures that have been recommended by Bank of America. These measures have included closing and opening accounts, changing online login and passcodes, adding security questions, adding safepass, getting a new cell phone and number, banking off of XXXX   mobile device and getting a new mobile device, filing a police report and filing a report with the sheriff 's department. I have done all of the above more than 6 of 7 times. I have gone into Banking centers. I have been on calls for anywhere from 2 to 4 hours getting transferred from one department to the next with the explanation of that is not within the scope of their department ( although I had waited 30 minutes to even get someone on the phone for each department ). I have had most of my fraudulent withdrawals returned but what I am writing about is a transaction that occurred from my daughter 's custodial account in XXXX XXXX this transaction was one of many that occurred at the same time from different accounts. the amount of the withdrawal was {$2500.00}. Initially the amount was returned. I was notified that no additional action was needed on my part. The past few months I had to freeze ALL of my accounts. That account was already frozen after the above fraudulent activity occurred mid-XXXX. In having recurrent fraud I went back to scan all of my accounts, even the ones that were frozen and noticed by daughter 's balance was the {$2500.00} less than before. once I started investing I found and was then told that the funds had been taken back because I did not submit the required paperwork that has to be filled out within 60 days of the complaint. as mentioned above I had already been told no additional action was required at that time because they investigated and found the refund was appropriate. After finding out this new bit of information I asked next steps and I was told that it was resubmitted and I would have to wait until they heard back from the merchant, who is XXXX. I tried vehemently to explain that this was an error and to look at all the red flags on my account. They continued to regurgitate the policy so I waited. well I just received their response stating that after their research they state that the merchants received proof of my enrollment or documentation. This is completely false which is why I am admitting a formal complaint. Before receiving this letter I even wrote to corporate and did not receive one phone call, email or letter from corporate. I required a signature whenever the letter was received and someone did sign for it..again I have proof. I believe this may be internal. I have changed my online access so many times and have had instances where I would actually be talking to an agent and someone would be trying to log into my account real time. A few agents were baffled and was able to see that these logins were done from the same XXXX snf computer but could not see an IP address. I just want my daughter 's money back that we are saving for her college tuition and I plan on moving all of my accounts. This has been the only bank I have banked with and am so disappointed. I was hoping we could get these things resolved. I am a platinum member and was used to the bank so continued to try things their way to try to stop this activity. I have so many notes, documentation, names, dates that it is too much to scan and attach. but I can definitely provide all that when needed. I gave the XXXX County Sheriff 's department a sequence of events and they are investigating. A case number can be provided. I have a very descriptive email to the sherriff outlining the sequence of events including account numbers, names they used to open accounts, emails used, phone numbers attached and merchants/corporations they transferred money to. Dates with details listed included XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and it continued into XX/XX/XXXX. I just received an email 2 days ago about another attempt from an account that is frozen. although these accounts have been changed to new accounts. old accounts have been left open and frozen with negative balances so that activities my be tracked. all this being said to explain that it does not take a wise person to figure out that if all this has happened, the money taken from my daughter 's account is also fraudulent. it is not my fault that an agent told me that no further action was needed and bank of America 's excuse is that now they have to make a decision based off of the merchant. I have that letter attached. I can provide a plethora of documentation to support my complaint. I am a physician and the last thing I have time for is tracking my funds and being in constant communication with bank of America about my hard earned money that they just gave away to a criminal. they obviously do not have a secure system. it is definitely a inefficient system and too compartmentalized. I am disappointed.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-02-02T13:01:36.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"30068","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3517763","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2020-02-02T11:48:42.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["After finding out this new bit of information I asked next steps and I was told that it was resubmitted and I would have to wait until they heard back from the <em>merchant</em>, who is XXXX. I tried vehemently to explain that this was an <em>error</em> and to look at all the red flags on my account. They continued to regurgitate the policy so I waited. well I just received their response stating that after their research they state that the <em>merchants</em> received <em>proof</em> of my enrollment or documentation."]},"sort":[13.374736,"3517763"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13849171","_score":12.661737,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have a Platinum American Express Delta Skymiles credit card. Unauthorized charges were processed against the card in error, despite the merchant in question trying to removing the charges. My attempts to have the credit card remove the unauthorized charges were unsuccessful and their lengthy delay is causing me on-going financial harm. On XX/XX/year>, I discovered an unauthorized charge of {$240.00} from XXXX XXXX XXXX on my list of current charges. Because I am enrolled in American Express ' premium rental coverage, this triggered an additional charge of {$19.00}. Charges were dated XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, respectively. Both charges were posted, but the statement had not yet closed. However, these charges had pushed my balance over the limit. I called the company on the same day of my discovery and disputed the charge. I stated that I had already raised the issue with the merchant, and the merchant believed that they had resolved the issue and I had a final receipt showing that another credit card had been charged. I offered to send this proof but was told that it was not necessary. I was told that the charges would be reversed, so that I would have access to this amount as part of my available credit. I was told that I would need to be transferred to a separate department that handled premium rental coverage, so they could reverse the additional charge that was triggered. This department stated that I would need to wait for customer service to reverse the unauthorized charge, and then the {$19.00} charge would automatically be reversed. I was told that if the {$19.00} did not reverse automatically, then I could call back and the department would reverse it manually. However, the process was to wait for the unauthorized charge reversal to trigger the premium rental charge reversal. \n\nAfter waiting several days, the unauthorized charges were still showing on my account. I telephoned the company again. This time I was told that the previous representative had not agreed to have the credit made available and I would have to wait for the dispute process. I challenged this change of position and stated again that I had documentation proving that the American Express card was not the card charged for the rental. My American Express card had been previously listed on my XXXX 's profile but was no longer the card used. I had already addressed this with the rental company directly. XXXX indicated that they were not sure why the card was still being processed on future rentals. I was able to show my rental agreement for a XX/XX/year> rental, and it showed the new XXXX  card as the correct card and the card with final charges. When the XXXX system attempted to process the XX/XX/year> charges against my Amex, I raised this with the rental location directly, including the location manager. The issue was addressed and the charges processed against the correct card ; my XXXX card that was now on file. For this rental, I was given a final receipt with the charges showing on the XXXX card. I explained this interaction with the merchant to the Amex representative and again attempted to send in documentation showing this evidence. I requested a manager on this second call and repeated all of the information for a third time to Amex. I stated that allowing a charge that was clearly not authorized to remain on the account was violating the credit card agreement, as well as breaking their promise to me to remove these unauthorized charges in a timely manner and making the funds available. \n\nI went on to state that I wanted a call back from a US-based supervisor from the companys corporate division. I was told on this call that a request was being submitted to have a supervisor from the corporate division contact me, with an expected return call in one to two business days. Unfortunately, my grandmother passed away XX/XX/year> and I was now in the process of making funeral arrangements. I had very little time to continuing arguing with Amex representatives for something that was easily disputed with merchant provided receipts. I was surprised and very disappointed that when the return call was received on XX/XX/year>, it was neither from the U.S. nor the corporate division. The Amex representative stated that she was a supervisor but not US based or with corporate. I expressed my upset at being given the run around and having to devote so much time to resolving the matter because Amex was not honoring the card agreement or providing basic customer service. The representative stated thats she believed that she could resolve the issue and had me repeat the same information that had already been shared on the previous three calls. I insisted that the current call back was supposed to be from Amexs corporate office in the US and continuing to waste my time was only further extending my account showing over the limit and unauthorized charges remaining. The supervisor then stated that the call could be transferred then to the corporate office. I explained that I stated at the beginning that I only had limited time and she had wasted that time by not complying with another promise from Amex to have someone from the corporate division in the US contact me regarding my complaint of breaching the card agreement. I could not wait to be transferred and start again from the beginning, as I was physically at the cemetery trying to make funeral arrangements. I stated that the original request to have Amex forward the details to their U.S. based corporate division and contact me to honor the card agreement still needed to be honored. As a loyal customer of eight years that never had a late or missed payment, I should not be penalized for poor customer service that was refusing to even receive proof of unauthorized charges and then Amex charges for services not rendered. \n\nTo date, I have still not received any contact to resolve the matter. Not only did the billing cycle for the XXXX billing period close on XX/XX/year> without a resolution, but I allowed for two additional billing cycles and no one from Amex has removed the unauthorized merchant charges, the additional Amex premium rental coverage charge or contacted me regarding the complaint of breaching the card agreement and return call from the corporate division. \n\nWhen the unauthorized charges were first left on my account and pushed my balance over the limit, it caused several automated payments to be declined. One of them being my car insurance that I had to have reinstated. However, moving forward, some of the auto payments continued to be processed and paid and others declined, with no rationale. Because I initially believed that the company would correct the issue, I made the monthly payments. This included all amounts for auto payments that were covered, as well as the interest charges being assessed, despite my not being able to use the card. There was also an increased membership fee of {$350.00} applied to the account further pushing it over the limit. \n\nEach month Amex failed to address breaching the card agreement, I received notifications from credit bureaus that my card was reported over the limit, impacting my XXXX score. Trying to manage the additional strain of the Amex account was overwhelming. As the fourth billing cycle approaches closing, I no longer believe submitting payments will achieve my goal of resolution. I feel that I have no other option but to cease payments and move forward with a formal complaint against American Express. I am utilizing the complaint process through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), as my second line of recourse and hope the matter can be resolved at this stage. To help support expediting the process, I will be forwarding a copy of this complaint to American Express directly.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-02T18:50:51.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30087","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13849171","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-06-02T18:05:22.000Z","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":["I stated that I had already raised the issue with the <em>merchant</em>, and the <em>merchant</em> believed that they had resolved the issue and I had a final receipt showing that another credit card had been charged. I offered to send this <em>proof</em> but was told that it was not necessary. I was told that the charges would be reversed, so that I would have access to this amount as <em>part</em> of my available credit."]},"sort":[12.661737,"13849171"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20372874","_score":12.2205715,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"To Whom It May Concern at the Discover Disputes & Chargebacks Department : I am writing to formally escalate my chargeback dispute, which has been decided incorrectly against me on the most recent review. This letter serves as notice that Discover 's current ruling is factually unsupported, ignores documented merchant fraud, and if not corrected will compel me to pursue all available legal and regulatory remedies. I am requesting that Discover issue a final, permanent credit to my account in the amount of {$1200.00} no later than 48 hours from receipt of this correspondence. \n\nI have been a Discover cardholder in good standing for many years. In return, I am entitled to Discover 's good-faith application of its own chargeback protections protections which exist precisely for situations like this one. Discover has instead, on repeated occasions, allowed a foreign merchant engaged in documented fraud to reverse credits issued in my favor. I will now set forth the complete factual record. \n\n\nI. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF MERCHANT FRAUD A. Pre-Sale Misrepresentation XX/XX/year> Prior to my purchase of the extrusion machine, I specifically inquired of the seller whether they could provide operating instructions, including settings for processing PPA-CF and PPS-CF materials ( speed, tension, temperature zones, etc. ). The seller confirmed in writing on XX/XX/year>, that they would provide these instructions upon completion of the purchase ( See attachment Message History.jpg ). This constituted a material term of the contract of sale. The seller never had these materials and never intended to provide them a fact they later admitted in writing on XX/XX/year>. \n\nB. Import Charges Dispute XX/XX/year> The product listing and order confirmation page on XXXX explicitly stated : \" Import charges included. '' ( See attachment Import Charges Included.jpg ) Despite this, the seller did not pay the import charges upon shipment, and I received a UPS bill for tariffs totaling over {$320.00}. When I raised this discrepancy on XX/XX/year>, the seller refused to honor the published terms ( See attachment Message History.jpg ). Instead, the seller demanded that I pay the full tariff balance first, promising only to reimburse half afterward a direct violation of the \" import charges included '' representation that formed part of the purchase agreement. \n\nC. Fraudulent Exploitation of the Platform Dispute Tool Rather than honoring the platform 's terms, the seller induced me to open a dispute through XXXX 's resolution tool the same tool used for initiating free returns on the false representation that this would resolve the import charge issue ( See attachment Message History.jpg ). The seller issued a {$150.00} partial refund through this channel, which was less than half the $ XXXX tariff owed. Critically, by manipulating me into using and closing this dispute tool, the seller intentionally foreclosed my ability to open a separate return or free-return dispute for the machine itself. XXXX 's policy permits one active dispute per order, and the seller exploited this limitation knowingly and deliberately. \n\nD. Seller 's Admission of Fraud XX/XX/year> On XX/XX/year>, the seller admitted in writing : \" I sincerely apologize for the frustration you have experienced regarding the user manual... Unfortunately, I currently do not have access to the manual. '' This is a direct admission that the seller made a material misrepresentation before the sale promising documentation they did not possess in order to induce my purchase. This constitutes fraudulent inducement under both U.S. and international commercial law. \n\nE. Refusal to Provide a Prepaid Return Label XXXX policy explicitly provides for free returns on eligible orders. Specifically : Chapter V of XXXX 's Return and Refund Policy states that return shipping is free on a buyer 's first five returnable orders per month, with XXXX/the seller covering the shipping cost. \nChapter VI states that buyers are provided a return label by XXXX/the seller, which the buyer prints and affixes to the package. ( See attachment XXXX Return and Refund Policy.jpg ) I had used zero free returns in the applicable month. I was therefore fully entitled to a prepaid return label at no cost to me. \nCritically, on XX/XX/year>, I asked the seller directly : \" Are you going to send me a return label or not? '' The seller responded : \" we do not have this kind of return label if we can, we can do it for you. '' This response is an unambiguous acknowledgment by the seller that providing the return label was their responsibility. The seller did not dispute the obligation they represented that they would fulfill it if they were able to do so. They never did. \nDespite this acknowledgment, and despite multiple subsequent documented requests, the seller failed to provide a return label. The seller instead fabricated excuses claiming that businesses in XXXX are unable to purchase shipping from UPS, DHL, or FedEx ( See attachment Message History.jpg ). When I provided documentary proof disproving this claim, the seller responded with dismissive emojis and ceased communication entirely. \nBecause the seller never provided a return label, I was never in a position to ship the machine back. The seller 's own failure to perform is the sole reason the merchandise remains in my possession. Discover 's ruling that I have not returned the merchandise ignores the fact that the seller 's acknowledged obligation to provide a label and their deliberate failure to honor it is what prevented the return. This is a fact I have communicated to Discover from the onset. \n\n\nII. APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK The following legal authorities are directly applicable to this dispute : A. Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ), 15 U.S.C. 1666 et seq.\n\nThe FCBA provides cardholders the right to dispute billing errors and charges for goods or services that were not delivered as agreed. The seller 's admitted failure to deliver promised documentation a material contract term and delivery of a machine that is non-functional without that documentation constitutes exactly the type of \" goods not as described '' scenario the FCBA was designed to remedy. Under the FCBA, Discover is required to conduct a reasonable investigation before resolving a dispute. Accepting a merchant 's bare assertion that \" merchandise was not returned '' while ignoring the documented reason it was not returned ( seller 's refusal to provide a label ) does not constitute a reasonable investigation. \n\nB. FTC Regulations 16 C.F.R. Part 444 ( Credit Practices Rule ) & Regulation Z Discover 's obligations as a credit card issuer include conducting good-faith investigations into consumer disputes. Discover ruled in my favor four consecutive times correctly then reversed all four rulings on a fifth review with no new evidence from the merchant. Abandoning four prior correct determinations without any evidentiary basis is the antithesis of a good-faith investigation and is inconsistent with Discover 's obligations as a regulated credit card issuer. \n\nC. Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343 The seller 's conduct making false material representations via electronic communication ( the XXXX platform ) to induce a purchase, followed by deliberate manipulation of the platform 's dispute tool to deprive me of my return rights constitutes wire fraud. By failing to investigate these facts and instead crediting the merchant 's unsupported claims, Discover has facilitated the completion of an international wire fraud scheme against its own cardholder. \n\nD. Federal Trade Commission Act 15 U.S.C. 45 ( Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices ) The seller 's conduct constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act, including misrepresentation of import charge coverage, misrepresentation of the availability of product documentation, and deceptive use of the platform dispute mechanism to strip me of my return rights. \n\n\nIII. DISCOVER 'S ARBITRARY AND INDEFENSIBLE REVERSAL OF FOUR PRIOR RULINGS IN MY FAVOR The procedural history of this dispute is itself evidence of Discover 's failure. Discover reviewed this matter on four separate occasions and ruled in my favor each time correctly concluding, based on the documented record, that the merchant 's claim was unsupported. On each of those four occasions, rather than closing the matter, Discover granted the merchant additional time and additional opportunities to respond, despite having already ruled that my position was meritorious. \n\nOn the fifth and final review, with no new evidence submitted by the merchant no documentation, no policy citations, no rebuttal to any factual claim in my record Discover reversed all four prior rulings, deemed the charge valid, and transferred my funds to the seller. This decision is not merely wrong. It is arbitrary, capricious, and legally indefensible. \n\nDiscover 's own prior rulings constitute an acknowledgment that the merchant 's evidence was insufficient. Nothing changed between the fourth ruling and the fifth. The merchant introduced no new facts. The underlying documentation did not change. The only thing that changed is Discover 's conclusion arrived at without any evidentiary basis for doing so. This pattern raises serious questions about whether Discover 's final ruling reflects a good-faith application of the FCBA 's investigation requirements, or something else entirely. \n\nTo be precise about what Discover accepted and what it ignored in reaching its final ruling : The merchant 's sole response across all five reviews was the assertion that merchandise was not returned. Discover never required the merchant to address why it failed to provide a prepaid return label as required by the platform 's own policy ; Discover never reviewed or meaningfully applied the XXXX Return and Refund Policy, publicly available at XXXX, which places the return label obligation squarely on the seller ; Discover never addressed the documented chronology establishing that the seller 's refusal to issue a label is the direct and proximate cause of the merchandise remaining in my possession ; Discover never evaluated the seller 's written admission on XX/XX/year>, that they never possessed the product documentation they promised prior to sale a textbook case of fraudulent inducement ; Discover never addressed the seller 's deliberate manipulation of the XXXX dispute tool to strip me of my separate return rights ; Discover never required the merchant to produce a single document beyond a bare assertion across five rounds of review. \n\nFour correct rulings followed by an unexplained, evidence-free reversal is not a reasonable investigation. It is arbitrary action that harmed the very cardholder Discover is statutorily obligated to protect. The FCBA exists precisely to prevent this outcome, and Discover 's conduct in this matter is a textbook violation of its obligations under that statute. \n\n\nIV. DEMAND FOR RESOLUTION Based on the foregoing, I make the following formal demands : 1. That Discover issue a Immediate and permanent credit to my account in the full disputed amount of {$1200.00} within 48 hours of receipt of this letter.\n\nThat this credit not be subject to further reversal based on the merchant 's unsubstantiated assertions, given that the merchant has now had ample opportunity to present evidence and has failed to do so. \nThat Discover confirm in writing, within 48 hours, the steps being taken to resolve this matter.\n\nV. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE Should Discover fail to issue the permanent credit demanded above within 48 hours of receipt of this letter, I will immediately pursue all of the following remedies : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) : I will file a formal complaint with the CFPB documenting Discover 's failure to conduct a reasonable investigation under the FCBA, which the CFPB supervises and enforces. CFPB complaints become part of the public Consumer Complaint Database. \nFederal Trade Commission ( FTC ) : I will file a complaint with the FTC regarding both the seller 's conduct and Discover 's facilitation of it. \nInternet Crime Complaint Center ( IC3 ) : I will file a complaint with the FBI 's IC3 regarding international wire fraud, citing the seller 's documented misrepresentations and the platform manipulation scheme. \nState Attorney General : I will file a consumer fraud complaint with the Florida Attorney General 's office. \nCivil Litigation : I will initiate legal proceedings against Discover for violations of the Fair Credit Billing Act, which provides for actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney 's fees under 15 U.S.C. 1640.\n\nInterpol and U.S. Department of Justice : Given that the seller 's conduct constitutes international wire fraud involving goods valued above the federal felony threshold, I will submit documentation to both Interpol and the DOJ. \n\n\nI have supported every claim in this letter with documentary evidence, including message records, platform screenshots, policy text, and the seller 's own written admissions. The seller has provided Discover with nothing no policy documentation, no evidence disputing my account, no proof of any kind across five rounds of review. Discover itself reached the correct conclusion four times. The record has not changed. The fifth ruling must be corrected.\n\nI expect to hear from Discover within 48 hours. I prefer resolution without escalation, but I am fully prepared to pursue every available avenue if that is what this situation requires. \n\n\nRespectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX Enclosures : Message History.jpg Message history from XX/XX/year> through XX/XX/year>. \nImport Charges Included.jpg Listing / order page screenshot showing \" Import Charges Included '' Free Returns Order Record.jpg Order record showing \" Free Returns '' designation. \nXXXX Return and Refund Policy.jpg Showing Returns are Free to Buyers and the shipping label is provided by the platform/seller.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-18T15:14:23.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"33441","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20372874","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2026-03-18T15:06:55.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When I <em>provided</em> documentary <em>proof</em> disproving this claim, the seller responded with dismissive emojis and ceased communication entirely. \nBecause the seller never <em>provided</em> a return label, I was never in a position to ship the machine back. The seller 's own failure to perform is the sole reason the merchandise remains in my possession."]},"sort":[12.2205715,"20372874"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2775262","_score":11.820705,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX, I became unemployed due to a lay-off from a prominent entertainment company, in XXXX California. As a result of that lay-off I receive unemployment. The funds are disbursed through BANK OF AMERICA. \n\nUnfortunately, due to the challenging financial situation, I was facing an eviction and forced to hire, a moving company in a limited amount of time. \n\nOn Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX ( day before XXXX ) I contacted and electronically paid, the deposit fee of {$320.00} of my unemployment funds, via my BANK OF AMERICA debit card to \" XXXX XXXX XXXX '' dba \" XXXX XXXX XXXX ''. I scheduled the moving company with \" XXXX '' the dispatcher and effectively  commissioned them to move my things that Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX as I had to  be out of the apartment by Wednesday, XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nXXXX and I spent an hour on the phone going over in great detail the items that was going to be moved from my STUDIO apartment, which included : 10 boxes, kitchen table and 4 stools, desk and chair, double dresser, lamp, large mirror, sofa, 55 '' flat screen tv, large sofa, and two medium sized pictures along with my 3 wheel adult  tricycle. The original quoted price was {$1400.00}. However, after some back and forth negotiation with \" XXXX '' he agreed that they would do it for {$1200.00}. And would arrive early Sunday or Monday the XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn Sunday, XX/XX/XXXX, the movers arrived, which included XXXX, the manager. Before XXXX even went through my studio apartment, he had already started eluding to the fact that it was probably going to cost me more money because of the kitchen table he said. Which was odd and sent up an immediate red flag, because the kitchen table is small.. but I told him no problem because I had sold the sofa and it would no longer be included in the move, nor would the 55 '' tv. Two very  big, significantly sized items, which should have lowered the price because they were no longer included. \n\nHowever, XXXX, the moving manger, kept trying to tell me that the few things that were left, as well as already COMPLETLEY packed and ready to go, would still cost me more money to place in the truck because of size restrictions. Which made absolutely no sense to me, because again, the sofa is no longer included? '' XXXX said, \" I just want to warn you that its going to cost you more money. '' THEY HAD NOT PUT A SINGLE THING IN THE TRUCK at this point. I explained to him that I did n't have more money and that if my removing items was n't going to cut the cost but instead ADD money and thereby increase the fees of the estimate, for which a new estimate was never provided. All this BEFORE they even moved one single item onto the truck. \n\nThe thing is, this move would make the 4th time Ive hired professional movers to move me. Which has given me experience with hiring movers, what to expect and how its suppose to work. With that said, I knew immediately that they were using deceptive predatory methods to get more money from me. And the fact that I had to hire them on short notice, added fuel to their fire. Needless to say, I cancelled the service with them and asked to have my deposit returned. But they wouldnt. \nBecause of the dire situation, I contacted BANK OF AMERICA and explained the situation and expressed the urgency and dire need for me to have funds returned to me immediately. However, BANK OF AMERICA took three whole days to return my funds to me temporarily pending investigation. As a result, I had to take out two payday loans, totally {$600.00}. To hire ANOTHER moving company, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which cost me an additional {$1200.00}. \n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, I received a notice dated : XX/XX/XXXX from  BANK OF AMERICAs Dispute Resolution Department stating : Weve completed our review of the above listed claim and determined no error occurred. Based on the information you provided and our subsequent research, were unable to permanently credit your account for all or part of the claim and now consider this disputed transaction closed. As a result, well reverse the temporary credit for {$320.00} that we previously applied to your account on XX/XX/XXXX. Additionally, any credit that was applied to your account for the reimbursement of fees related to this claim will be reversed. Included with this letter the response that was sent to them by the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX, stating that the customer needed to be packed, that an revised estimate was explained and I became irate and violent and the that their drivers were forced to leave. That, Their customer service department attempted to calm the issue down however, the customer just became more demanding insisting the additional services be completed for no additional charge. Customer refused the revised estimate for service, send the drivers away. XXXX advised if the service request as cancelled at this time, the deposit was not refundable due to the refund timeframe had expired. \n\nNone of what they wrote was true!! This is a complete slap in the face for me. Not only am I already suffering financial hardships from being laid off, evicted and forced to move back across the country, but MY banking institution has decided that based on the lies that was presented to them by the company that tried to scam me in the first place. Further, on one document, attached, you will see that BANK OF AMERICA advised XXXX XXXX company \" NOT TO ISSUE THE CREDIT '' because my account had already been credited. \n\n\nAll that withstanding, services were not rendered. I did not receive a written revised estimate. And they did not include one with their lie of explanation. Further, I tried to get them to return my funds to me but they would not, so I contacted my bank, which has proven to be unsuccessful. Further, after notice, I contacted my bank again, upset about the results and not only was I not provided any last names of all SIX people I  spoke with : XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, but they had the audacity to tell me there was no need to contact them any further that I would need to file a claim in small claims court to get the money back from the merchant. \n\nPlease help me. I am already suffering enough. I can not afford to allow these people to just take my money and they have been scamming from the start. I have all documented proof.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-01-09T07:45:01.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"21117","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2775262","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2018-01-09T00:36:46.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I have all documented <em>proof</em>."]},"sort":[11.820705,"2775262"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16063745","_score":11.349937,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Description of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to deliver the promised goods/services, and I immediately attempted to resolve the issue directly. After realizing I had been scammed, I contacted Cash App support through the app on Thursday, XX/XX/year> to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App failed to provide a reasonable investigation or refund as required under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ). Instead, I was informed that the dispute was closed in favor of the merchant with no clear explanation or supporting documentation. I appealed this decision on Thursday, XX/XX/year>, but again Cash App refused to reverse the charge. \n\nThis represents an unauthorized/fraudulent transaction. I complied with all procedures, provided supporting evidence ( screenshots of the agreement and communications ), and reported the issue within the required time frame. Cash App did not provide me with : Written notice of the investigation results, Documentation relied upon in denying my claim, or A provisional credit as required by law. \n\n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen the dispute, XXXX. Provide full documentation of the investigation, and XXXX. Refund the {$40.00} consistent with Regulation XXXX requirements. \n\n\nXXXX. False promise of goods/services I sent {$40.00} on XX/XX/year> for a promised item/service. The other party never delivered anything. That is textbook fraud. \n\n\nXXXX. Misrepresentation The recipient knowingly misled me to obtain funds without intent to fulfill their obligation. \n\n\nXXXX. Unauthorized retention of funds Once I revoked consent by reporting the issue, the transaction should have been treated as unauthorized/fraudulent. \n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of deception I provided screenshots of communications proving the other party engaged in deceptive conduct. \n\n\nXXXX. No merchant accountability Unlike a legitimate business, the recipient can not prove delivery, receipt, or service rendered. \n\n\n\n\n-- - Why I Am Lawfully Entitled to a Refund XXXX. Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR XXXX ) Cash App must investigate errors, provide written notice of results, and issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days. \n\n\nXXXX. Constructive denial By closing my case without proof, Cash App failed to meet its legal burden. That constitutes a violation of my consumer protection rights. \n\n\nXXXX. Burden of proof is on XXXX XXXX XXXX must show the transaction was valid and authorized. No such evidence was provided. \n\n\nXXXX. CFPB guidance Peer-to-peer payment apps like Cash App must treat fraud claims with the same protections as debit card transactions. \n\n\nXXXX. Entitlement I complied with all reporting timelines and provided evidence. By law, I am owed a refund of {$40.00} plus any fees. \n\n\nXXXX. No proof of delivery The recipient provided no shipping, receipt, or service documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Violation of Cash Apps own policies Their User Agreement prohibits fraudulent use and obligates them to reverse fraudulent transactions. \n\n\nXXXX. Deceptive inducement The transaction was induced by false promises, meeting the FTCs definition of unfair/deceptive practices. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure of consideration No goods/services were provided in exchange for payment. \n\n\nXXXX. Unjust enrichment Recipient benefited financially without legal or contractual basis. \n\n\nXXXX. Unauthorized electronic fund transfer XXXX XXXX XXXX, a transfer obtained through fraud is treated as unauthorized. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to mitigate harm Once I reported the fraud, Cash App had a duty to stop further harm by reversing funds. \n\n\nXXXX. Denial without evidence Cash App closed the dispute without presenting supporting documentation, violating XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ). \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to provide provisional credit No temporary credit was issued within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. No clear investigation process I was not informed of the investigation scope or method, violating transparency requirements. \n\n\nXXXX. Consumer detriment The decision placed all risk of fraud on me, contrary to federal protections. \n\n\nXXXX. Asymmetric information Cash App has records and technical data to verify fraud, yet withheld them from me. \n\n\nXXXX. Denial of due process I was not given the opportunity to review or challenge evidence against my claim. \n\n\nXXXX. Bad faith handling The speed and lack of detail in denial indicate no good-faith investigation. \n\n\nXXXX. Pattern of complaints CFPB and BBB databases show numerous similar complaints against Cash App, proving systemic failures. \n\n\nXXXX. Violation of fair banking practices Unlike banks, Cash App can not escape XXXX XXXX obligations as a money transmitter. \n\n\nXXXX. Failure to protect users Cash App markets safety/security but refused to stand behind their own protections. \n\n\nXXXX. Public interest XXXX Cash App to deny fraud claims without evidence enables further scams. \n\n\nXXXX. Contractual breach As a consumer, I relied on Cash Apps representations of fraud protection. \n\n\nXXXX. XXXX oversight requirement As a licensed money transmitter under state/federal law, Cash App must comply with consumer protection statutes and refund fraudulent charges. \n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. This violates my rights under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX Part XXXX ) because : XXXX. Cash App did not provide a reasonable investigation or supporting documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Cash App failed to issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. The burden of proof lies with the financial institution, yet Cash App closed the claim without evidence. \n\n\nXXXX. I complied with all requirements by reporting promptly and submitting evidence of fraud. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis violates my rights under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ) because : XXXX. Cash App did not provide a reasonable investigation or supporting documentation. \n\n\nXXXX. Cash App failed to issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days as required by law. \n\n\nXXXX. The burden of proof lies with the financial institution, yet Cash App closed the claim without evidence. \n\n\nXXXX. My account was suspended without due process, clear reasoning, or response to my appeals. \n\n\n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen the dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation, and XXXX. Restore or clearly justify my account suspension consistent with consumer protection standards. \n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis is not an isolated incident. For several years, I have experienced repeated issues with Cash App involving : Disputes being denied without explanation, Lack of documentation or transparency in investigations, Failure to issue provisional credits as required by Regulation XXXX, and Account restrictions or suspensions imposed without clear reasoning or timely responses to appeals. \n\n\nThis long-standing pattern shows Cash App/Block XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX comply with federal consumer protection laws and is denying users the protections guaranteed under XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ( Regulation XXXX ). \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation, XXXX. Address the wrongful suspension of my account, and XXXX. Correct ongoing compliance failures that have harmed me and many other consumers over the years. \n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. In addition, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my appeals regarding reinstatement. \n\nThis situation is aggravated by the fact that my identity and Cash App account have been compromised and used without my full authorization. I have reason to believe my account has been accessed or manipulated fraudulently, which qualifies as an unauthorized electronic funds transfer under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ). \n\nThis is not an isolated issue. For years, I have experienced repeated problems with Cash App involving : Unauthorized transactions or account activity, Disputes being denied without clear evidence, Failure to issue provisional credits within the legal timeframe, and Account suspensions without explanation or response to appeals. \n\n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to provide basic consumer protections and is denying me the right to secure access to my own account. \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide documentation of the investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Address the fact that my identity/account has been compromised and take corrective action. \n\n\n\n\nOn Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is that this has been going on for years. I have faced repeated problems with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes being denied without any evidence or transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits as required under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions that leave me locked out without explanation or resolution. \n\n\nI have spent countless hours trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own stated policies. Each time I report fraud, I get vague form letters, no documentation, and no accountability. It feels like Cash App is deliberately ignoring its legal obligations and leaving consumers like me powerless. \n\nThis is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. Cash App markets itself as safe and secure, but in reality, they are shifting all the risk of fraud and identity compromise onto their users while refusing to comply with basic consumer protection laws. \n\nI am requesting that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures that are harming consumers. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without evidence or transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or resolution. \n\n\nI have invested significant time and effort trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own policies. Each time I report fraud, I get vague responses, no documentation, and no accountability. It is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly explain the suspension, and XXXX. Correct ongoing systemic failures that continue to harm consumers. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is the complete failure of Cash Apps customer support and appeals process. Every interaction has been generic, unhelpful, and dismissive. Support staff refuse to provide documentation, do not explain their decisions, and ignore repeated follow-ups. The appeals process feels like a closed loop designed to wear customers down instead of providing real resolutions. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX XXXX  Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or cooperation. \n\n\nI have invested significant time and effort trying to get Cash App to follow the law and their own stated policies. Each time, I am stonewalled by a support process that feels engineered to deny responsibility. It is extremely frustrating and unacceptable. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly justify the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures. \n\n\n\n\nDescription of What Happened On Thursday, XX/XX/year>, I sent {$40.00} via Cash App. The recipient failed to provide the promised goods/services. I immediately contacted Cash App support that same day to dispute the transaction. \n\nCash App denied my dispute without providing documentation or proof. I appealed the decision, but again the dispute was closed with no explanation. To make matters worse, Cash App suspended my account without citing which XXXX XXXX XXXX I allegedly violated and has not responded to my repeated appeals. \n\nWhat frustrates me most is the complete failure of Cash Apps customer support and appeals process. Every interaction has been generic, unhelpful, and dismissive. Support staff refuse to provide documentation, do not explain their decisions, and ignore repeated follow-ups. The appeals process feels like a closed loop designed to wear customers down instead of providing real resolutions. \n\nThis has been an ongoing problem for years. I have faced repeated issues with Cash App, including : Unauthorized account activity and compromised security, Disputes denied without transparency, Failure to issue provisional credits under Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR Part XXXX ), and Account suspensions imposed without explanation or cooperation. \n\n\nIn addition, I am a high-profile candidate for public office. This means I must carefully manage financial activity and strictly adhere to XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) regulations. Cash Apps suspension of my account and failure to provide documentation not only frustrate me personally, but also jeopardize my ability to demonstrate compliance with campaign finance law. \n\nI expect communication, cooperation, and compliance from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Specifically, I am requesting that they : XXXX. Reopen this dispute and refund the {$40.00}, XXXX. Provide full documentation of their investigation and account activity, XXXX. Restore my account access or clearly justify the suspension, and XXXX. Correct their ongoing systemic failures. \n\n\n\nFor the sake of transparency, I want this matter and my complaint to be published publicly so that regulators, voters, and the public can see both the seriousness of Cash Apps failures and my persistence in holding them accountable.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-19T11:53:36.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Check cashing service","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16063745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-19T11:27:13.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["No <em>merchant</em> accountability Unlike a legitimate business, the recipient can not prove delivery, receipt, or service rendered. \n\n\n\n\n-- - Why I Am Lawfully Entitled to a Refund XXXX. Regulation XXXX ( XXXX CFR XXXX ) Cash App must investigate <em>errors</em>, provide written notice of results, and issue a provisional credit within XXXX business days. \n\n\nXXXX. Constructive denial By closing my case without <em>proof</em>, Cash App failed to meet its legal burden."]},"sort":[11.349937,"16063745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5661757","_score":10.039849,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This complaint is a complaint in accordance with the Securities Exchange Commission ( SEC ), Federal Trade Commission and other Financial Service Industry and Regulations. \n\nWhen anyone is conducting any business in dealing with exchanging and transferring funds across United States Terrorities and Foregin Terrorities they are supposed to be licensed in currency trading and should be able to produce such license to anyone upon request at a moment notice. They too should have Errors and Ommission Insurance in place as well as other Property and Casualty Insurance such as Professional Liablity Insurance in place.\n\nIn nature to this detail complaint I am submitting before the Security Exchange Commission ( SEC ), Federal Trade Commission and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau I am submitting this complaint in good faith that everything in it and everything apart of it is legal, accurate, true and correct and should immeidate warrant an order filed and served upon Coinbase.com to produce their records requested and to order to Cease and Desist Operation until validation of paperwork, licenses and return of unauthorized funds are returned back to my XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. account which Coinbase.com pulled without my authorization or consent to withdraw after serveral notices were attempted to cease and cancel any tranaction that they were responsible and liable for generating after my attempt to notify Coinbase.com of illegal events and activities that were going on using their platform. \n\nIn nature to my complaint to Coinbase.com I too advised Coinbase.com to immediately contact the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) at https : //complaint.ic3.gov/default.aspx #. If Coinbase.com failed to do so that should tell everyone that they did not want to and they fully was aware of the illegal event and activities. The date and time and the IP address that registered in the system does not lie now Coinbase.com must come forward and show up and show that both IP addresses in question are my IP addresses and must show that I never made any attempt to contact Coinbase.com or XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX in nature to the fraudlent event or activities. \n\nI turned over to Coinbase.com the perso name that represented Coinbase.com and assisted me in setting up such Coinbase 's account. \n\nNow further read the detail Notice of Intent to file a law suit against Coinbase.com if this matter is not rectified and settled within the timeframe this complaint is filed before the government agencies listed in the complaint. \n\n_____________________________________________________ XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Coinbase.com Attn : Legal Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX Re : Notice Intent to Sue Letter Dear Coinbase.com Owner : This notice is a written communication before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission on the illegal events and activities that has been discussed and brought before everyone in regarding the fraudulent activities that has taken place over your site or server. \n\nI have written to you already on numerous times in regard to immediately returning my {$10000.00} that was sent to your site after my notification to you not to pull from my Bank Account with XXXX XXXX  XXXX, XXXX. after suspecting criminal activity. \n\nIt has now been noted and brought to your attention in all the right and proper ways and I too validated on the records in your statement that such transaction was unauthorized or not authorized. \n\nBy your record you have a suspicious IP address that you know that is not my IP address and at that moment you should have immediately shut down the account and any transfer activities as I timely notified you of this in a timely manner. \n\nWhile filing this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint. I have requested that you produce and provide the following since you mentioned subpoena or getting a subpoena to get you to return whatever paperwork, records or funds from this event or matter. I have requested from you to turn over all legit financial service records such as licenses to operate in any money service business as well as your errors and omission insurance records. I am also requesting your corporate attorneys name address and phone number so that legal paperwork can be served to such agent of record address since you wish and failed to honor your own disclosure statement or record for the definition of fraud is clearly evident here. \n\nFor your statement of the record does not match up with XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX your employees statements or records. For how such person can know so much about your business and for you to say on the record that I purchased some cryptocurrency when I have never purchased or invested in cryptocurrency. This along is FRAUD and should be immediately looked at and into by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and a Circuit Court for XXXX XXXX in the State of Illinois. \n\nI have too requested that you immediately notify the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) and file a IC3 complaint by now you should have filed such complaint and too should have such paperwork under Title 18, of the United States Code, Section 1001. You too should surrender such paperwork and surrender all the paperwork that you should have brought under your response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Complaint as well as the attached Certification of Record that were sent to you by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. \n\nI am open and willing to consent to a JURY TRIAL since you mention subpoena to get information that I should not need a subpoena at this moment until you openly agree to a JURY TRIAL. \n\nThis complaint is not the same as the complaint before, but it is a legit record showing my legal rights to attempt to reach you and to notify you through another government agency to attempt to get this matter resolved before having to take you into any court to enforce return of my funds in the amount of {$10000.00} that you are not entitled to. \n\nYou disclosure talks about money laundering which you and your business is assisting in money laundering for there is not evidence showing that your business is not set up and established to prevent money laundering for if such is not correct then you too should know to whom these funds were transferred from my account to whoever account and where such funds were transferred through and from your system, you will have the full name of the person, address, phone number, and email address, etc. just like you have my name on file and in your system. \n\nCoinbase came to the Consumer financial Protection Bureau with a scam response and did not provide anything from the PROPER RECORDS that I uploaded on Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus site. ( See complaint file that is not the same but if such is the same then where are the records that you should be producing with your answer or response? ) Coinbase have came here and made two key comments to justify the immediate return of my {$10000.00} back to my XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX. Account. \n\nI asked Coinbase.com to produce their legal counsel of records and physical address to be professionally and legally served. As of this date Coinbase.com has not produce or provided anything but a bogus statement to mislead others. \n\nIf I file a report or complaint of a Fraud or Scam, then the respondent should be responding back with certified proof evidence that such is not FRAUD or a Scam. \n\nCareful review the terms and definitions below on what is FRAUD and also understanding by the key definition below what is the definition of money laundering : wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. \n\" he was convicted of fraud '' Similar : Fraudulence, sharp practice, cheating, swindling, trickery, artifice, deceit, deception, double-dealing, duplicity, treachery, chicanery, skulduggery, imposture, embezzlement, monkey business, funny business Crookedness, hanky-panky, shenanigans, flimflam, jiggery-pokery, monkeyshines, management, knavery, trick, cheat, hoax, subterfuge, stratagem, wile, ruse, swindle, racket, scam, con, con trick, rip-off, leg-pull, sting, gyp, kite, diddle, fiddle, swizzle, bunco, boondoggle, hustle, grift, rort a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities. \n\" mediums exposed as tricksters and frauds '' Similar : Impostor, fake, sham, pretender, hoodwinker, masquerader, charlatan, quack, mountebank, swindler, fraudster, racketeer, cheat Money Laundering is as follows : XXXX the concealment of the origins of illegally obtained money, typically by means of transfers involving foreign banks or legitimate businesses. \n\" he was convicted of money laundering and tax evasion '' In accordance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation : The Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 ( Public Law 99-570 ) is a United States Act of Congress that made money laundering, a federal crime. It was passed in 1986. It consists of two sections, 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 18 U.S.C. 1957. It for the first time in the United States criminalized money laundering. Section 1956 prohibits individuals from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes, known as \" specified unlawful activities '' ( SUAs ). Additionally, the law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds. There is no minimum threshold of money, nor is there the requirement that the transaction succeed in actually disguising the money. Moreover, a \" financial transaction '' has been broadly defined, and need not involve a financial institution, or even a business. Merely passing money from one person to another, so long as it is done with the intent to disguise the source, ownership, location or control of the money, has been deemed a financial transaction under the law. Section 1957 prohibits spending in excess of {$10000.00} derived from an SUA, regardless of whether the individual wishes to disguise it. This carries a lesser penalty than money laundering, and unlike the money laundering statute, requires that the money pass through a financial institution. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Now, I need a consent to a JURY TRIAL document turned over to me so that we can get this matter or issue before a JURY TRIAL for that {$10000.00} that you unauthorized pulled from my XXXX  XXXX XXXX, XXXX. is still my funds in which you have failed to honor the respect of the banking industry or financial service industry to return such funds back to the rightful owner which is me ( XXXX XXXX ). \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Fraud Victim Enclosures : Records Certification Notice CC : Federal Trade Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX Securities Exchange Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, IL XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX _______________________________________________________ This is not a duplicate complaint but a complaint to validate our records of facts that this financial service merchant does not follow or abbey by his or her own business policies. \n\nWe need all the official records as noted in the complaint that is sent to the Merchant called Coinbase.com fully read the information below : If we suspect the transaction involves ( or has a high risk of involvement in ) money laundering, terrorist financing, fraud, or any other type of financial crime ; in response to a subpoena, court order, or other government order ; if we reasonably suspect that the transaction is erroneous ; or if Coinbase suspects the transaction relates to Prohibited Use or a Prohibited Business as set forth below. In such instances, Coinbase will reverse the transaction and we are under no obligation to allow you to reinstate a purchase or sale order at the same price or on the same terms as the canceled transaction. To Whom This May Concern : Coinbase has not produced anything to validate its statements or claims but wishes to continue to filibuster this public complaint before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Coinbase still has not produced such a legal license or certification as I have a right to see and have for my records. Coinbase makes such claim that I purchase some cryptocurrencies produce the receipt of purchase where I made such purchase. Coinbase refused and danced around to the issues of the IP Address in question and in issues. Coinbase refused to submit any documentation of proof showing that such representative did not or does not work with Coinbase.com. If such a person does not work with Coinbase.com or has never been affiliated with Coinbase.com then this is an official and legal matter of FRAUD. When Coinbase.com has to come into a court of law to prove. If such is FRAUD then Coinbase.com is responsible for the funds that they had pulled from my checking account after telling them not to pull from my checking account. Coinbase should have a better system set up and established to prevent any unauthorized transaction from anyone 's account. Whatever method you have set in place you should know where the funds are going, and to which account such funds are going after having them fully verify themselves as a sender or a receiver. How can you have a business that is set up in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) 's rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and applicable laws to prevent money laundering and you can explain to any law enforcement or any official or legal government agency where such funds are going and into who account such funds are going into. You are assisting in the illegal event and illegal activities because somewhere and somehow you received a payment in some form or another and I am not the person or party that you are going to think that I am just going to allow you to get away with this scam. This is a SCAM and Coinbase.com is a SCAM supporting business. When you noticed such an alert triggered Coinbase.com should have shut it down and locked the consumer account and pick up the phone and directly made such communication contact with the consumer. Coinbase.com needs to be shown to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that such were performed. If Coinbase.com can not show measures or attempts to prevent FRAUD or illegal sign-in detection then Coinbase.com is fully liable for these funds that are mysteriously missing or transmitted out of this account without my knowledge, approval, or consent. It is just that simple. Now since Coinbase.com mentioned court and legal actions such as a subpoena. But still does not open and legally consent to a jury trial if legal court action is to result from this. I want paperwork officially and legally sign in advance that you are consenting to a JURY TRAIL to prove your case that this is not FRAUD. I need a physical address and not some po box for you should know that no legal service can not be perfected upon a po box . If you're required to be my physical address from your service, then I too should be entitled to get your physical address for proper service. We don't want any issues or hang up in not something being done in accordance with a Sheriff Department legal service when such paperwork served must be under a sworn affidavit by someone able to serve such legal documents. What you have done is not my issue or mistake it is your issue or mistake for I don't purchase cryptocurrency and I am not interested in purchasing such and never have been interested in purchasing such. So let 's please get that corrected for the records. Once you claim and said that I participated in cryptocurrency you made an untruthful statement which is FRAUD. You have the paperwork from the Federal Bureau of Investigation telling you exactly what to do and it is very strange that even to this date, you have not attempted to do anything. As well, as I have to file an IC3 Report then so should you for everything to equally match up in the Federal Bureau of Investigation 's database. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should know that I am correct and XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. has proof that you carried out an unauthorized transaction and even it is printed in your communication of record that such as unauthorized but now you wish to try to claim that such was authorized and authorized by me which validate FRAUD. I encourage you to come clean and come correct for I have done everything that I was supposed to do from all legal aspects and to make people aware that this cryptocurrency claims, or business is an undercover scam and such should not exist or should have never been approved by whoever approved such. But you want to come into the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and make such a claim that I am a cryptocurrency consumer when I am not. In closing, we need official and legal records from you showing that such date and time when such business was established and the legal corporation paperwork outlining what this kind of business is supposed to do for the people for which you are doing business. There is paperwork that should be to support my request. I need everything legal, accurate, and correct for law purposes and court purposes for we don't need any further issues or delays. You too should have Errors and Omissions Insurance in your records and a policy that covers and protect such occurrences as this one. Please produce such a policy agency that covers such and the policy number for the record. When you have two parties submitting conflicting statements, you have FRAUD, and such should be immediately reported to your law enforcement agency when this is a result of CYBER CRIMES or FINANCIAL SERVICE CRIMES. Now if I can do my part then COINBASE.COM should be able to do their part. I rest here and continue to wait for PROPER RECORDS that you should be producing to cause you to handle any funds of mine and to send out any funds of mine under my legal authorization and consent. PLEASE IMMEDIATELY TURN OVER YOUR RECORDS OF CERTIFICATION FOR THE RECORDS. COINBASE.COM has not produced anything to support its statements. XXXX XXXX Fraud Victim Securities Exchange Commission ( SEC ) Regulation Best Interest. \nUnder basic contract law, fraud in the formation of a contract renders the contract voidable by the innocent party at any time. Following this contract law principle, a merchant, buyer, or seller could declare a policy null and void if the person generating the transaction such under the terms and condition of coinbase.com in which such person lied in the act of performance or performing such illegal event or activities in his or her application for the process of generating any investment tool or engine, no matter when the merchant, business or agent discovered the lie. \n\nIn this case before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and the Financial Securities Exchange Commission where Coinbase.com should have proof of certification of operating a money trading business or platform as well as should have proof of certification of licenses in place and such should be ready and made available to everyone via the internet to valid their business in trading and such cryptocurrency. [ By the way, I dont know what cryptocurrency is and know nothing about it, so why would I purchase such? ] You need to return my funds in amount of {$10000.00} for such transaction or act performed by such business personnel is fraudulent. \n\nA person by the name XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX represented herself as a Coinbase.com employee or staff and is very knowledgeable with Coinbase.coms platform. If such is not true then the first paragraph in this notice before Coinbase.com, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, The Federal Trade Commission and the Security Exchange Commission is true that this activity that was transmitted and transpired on Coinbase.coms platform is FRAUD. \n\nIn the online records before the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau coinbase.com has admitted that such event or activity was not authorized therefore placing the word as UNAUTHORIZED meaning that Coinbase.com nor such employee of Coinbase.com did not have the authorization and consent to funnel with and tamper with the account that is set up in my name under Coinbase.com and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. and therefore, the funds should have been immediately returned for if you clearly read the disclosure printed up and generated by Coinbase.com as their defense, it does not match up and does not validate or justify why such funds have not been returned back to my XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX. account. \n\nAs we submit this to everyone as well as Coinbase.com the definition of FRAUD is clearly stated and explained below. \n\nCoinbase.com knows where the funds are and knows where the funds went and knows how to timely and effectively recover the funds and knows how to report an illegal or criminal activity or event to the local law enforcement authorities. \n\nBy now Coinbase.com should have a police report and too should have an IC3 report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to show proof that such is not money laundering or FRAUD or a scam. \n\nI have attached a record for record certification where coinbase.com should be open and willing to produce certified records to support its business operation online as well as produce license, and E & O Omission Insurance Policy that his business should have under the property and casualty insurance to protect itself and his employees from liability. \nIn a pervious noted comment by coinbase.com representative, coinbase.com mention subpoena in order for anyone to get a subpoena they need to have a civil action performed against a party such as coinbase.com. Since such was mentioned and noted then coinbase.com should be open and willing to sign a consent form for a jury trial and not for such illegal or criminal event or activities that has transpired on coinbase.coms platform should not be heard by a magistrate judge or a circuit court judge, but a jury panel in which coinbase.com should be able to enter such business defense before a jury. \n\nI am consenting to a jury trial in this complaint in which the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should be serving upon Coinbase.com for an answer, and response in nature to crediting back my account and transferring my funds back to XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. \n\nEverything that has been mentioned here will be used and mentioned in any court of law and before a jury. [ END ]","date_sent_to_company":"2022-06-12T05:40:58.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"60657","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5661757","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-06-12T04:58:07.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As of this date Coinbase.com has not produce or <em>provided</em> anything but a bogus statement to mislead others. \n\nIf I file a report or complaint of a Fraud or Scam, then the respondent should be responding back with certified <em>proof</em> evidence that such is not FRAUD or a Scam."],"sub_issue":["<em>Funds</em> not handled or disbursed as instructed"]},"sort":[10.039849,"5661757"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7361489","_score":9.910097,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint because I still have not received funds back that were disputed with BOTH PNC Bank and XXXX which totalled {$26000.00}. I have notified both companies in a timely fashion, have initiated disputes through proper channels with both companies ( to the effect that they would allow it, please refer to the information below about XXXX preventing me from completing disputes in a reasonable manner ), and finally have submitted my disputes to both companies in writing ( these letters I have enclosed with this complaint ). While PNC Bank has corrected the unauthorized debit card transactions, they have failed to correct the XXXX transactions. Perhaps because they are expecting XXXX to act, which to this date, they have failed to even respond to my complaints. \n\nThese XXXX transfers from my PNC Bank account I did not authorize from the beginning of XX/XX/XXXX until the end of XX/XX/XXXX, with a total of {$26000.00}. A detailed record of these transactions directly from PNC Bank statements is enclosed. \n\nMy account information was never voluntarily shared with anyone and the use of my device was not voluntarily given to anyone. These transactions are in error because they were not authorized transactions. \n\nTo the best of my knowledge, the fraudulent activity was made possible by and began after completing a device swap of my cell phone with an identical phone under my phone warranty program. At one point, these devices had all account details stored and I suspect some fraudulent interception transpired. I cant say for sure, and I have no way to prove who I think did it - but the bottom line is that these transactions were not done by me or authorized by me. \n\nIn XXXX of XXXX I was forced to close my two retail stores at the onset of COVID by the town in which my original store had thrived for XXXX years. XXXX month later, despite the fact that I complied with their directive to close up shop, the town punished me with a one-year revocation of my business license for staying open. Another month passed and out of nowhere, my commercial landlord conducted an unlawful eviction of my business from the property. To this day we are still in litigation. Like many people, I lost my source of income, but in my particular case that was just the beginning of the end for me, my family, my legacy, and even just the basic dignity of human expression and American freedom. Its beyond words how it feels to go from $ XXXX in sales per month to being forcibly stripped of your lifes work and in less than a year find yourself homeless. Part of coping with all of that is I got to a point where I became accustomed to having nothing and fell out of the habit of staying on top of stuff. \n\nSo when I received a large settlement from when I was hit by a car, I just deposited it all into my PNC account and didnt think much of it nor monitor it in any way that would alert me to the initial fraud that affected my bank account. I brought it to PNC Banks attention immediately when I did notice it, and I was given the impression by PNC Bank that they quickly investigated the matter and returned the stolen funds. I thought that put an end to the misuse of my money through my account. \n\nBecause a new card was issued by PNC, my old one was canceled, I was assured by PNC Bank that they had thoroughly addressed the problem, and reopening my business was still months away ; it seemed like it was safe to just let my settlement money sit and continue living frugally. Within weeks, however, my PNC bank account was suddenly emptied of more than {$35000.00}, evidently through XXXX transfers transpiring after I thought the situation was resolved. \n\nBefore reaching out to XXXX or PNC Bank, I sought out a solution with the merchants that processed the unreasonable volume of transactions but they would not refund the money. I then notified XXXX support directly and tried to initiate disputes but XXXX support refused to process the disputes unless I completed several steps ( XXXX ) for each transaction ( XXXX ) individually- which was cumbersome and unreasonable ( XXXX total actions, XXXX per transaction = XXXX hours ). \n\nI repeatedly asked for alternative ways to report the fraud through the XXXX system, a phone call, or even the postal service and I was unequivocally told by XXXX support that their dispute process of each transaction, one at a time in the app was the only way to notify them of the fraud and dispute the transactions. Obviously, this wasnt true. \n\nI believe the additional transactions related to XXXX have been improperly denied by PNCBank. Neither company has provided a provisional credit nor communicated to me that I needed to submit anything in writing regarding these XXXX transactions. \n\nFrom what I understand, PNC Bank and XXXX got together and have decided that the transactions were valid based on prior account activity. The possibility of similar prior transactions with the same or similar merchants does not constitute proof that these transactions were authorized - especially when said prior activity consists entirely of transactions PNC had already concluded were fraudulent in the original partial investigation of the first set of unauthorized transactions. If you look at my account history before the settlement, my spending habits were not at all reflective of what transpired during the period these transactions took place. Upon request, I can also provide the 5 years of business and personal accounts I maintained before I lost everything to COVID which will further prove my point. \n\nThere appears to be a range of various violations by PNC Bank and XXXX of the The Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E after I had given both XXXX and PNC Bank timely notice of the fraud. PNC Bank seems to have taken XXXX stance about these transactions, while XXXX appears to have closed my XXXX account as some type of retaliation for getting PNC Bank involved. For these reasons, I am submitting my complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-08T02:51:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"80033","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7361489","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2023-08-08T02:39:51.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Its beyond words how it feels to go from $ XXXX in sales per month to <em>being</em> forcibly stripped of your lifes work and in less than a year find yourself homeless. <em>Part</em> of coping with all of that is I got to a point where I became accustomed to having nothing and fell out of the habit of staying on top of stuff."]},"sort":[9.910097,"7361489"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6738682","_score":8.683428,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Third in a series of related complaints against Wells Fargo # 1 filed with CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX Complaint # XXXX # 2 filed with CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX Complaint # XXXX # 3 filed with CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX Complaint # to be assigned. \nThe following is an absolutely true, verifiable report of Wells Fargo 's repeated, intentional, deceptive, criminal efforts to manipulate factual history by altering, manipulating, and inventing banking records, after the reported events had already occurred ( after-the-fact ), in an effort to.improperly and illegally profit from their banking clients, to create vicious circumstances to justify these deceptions as accurate, and to hide these deceptions from overseeing agencies, such as the CFP Relevant Historical Events between myself and Wells Fargo : In addition to the millions of false bank accounts and credit card accounts that WF created without the knowledge of their clients/account holders, for which WF received record fines and was required to pay penalties to these individuals and to the federal government - WF has engaged in other forms of deception and manipulation of banking records to profit from their clients.\n\nI would argue that much of WF entire business model is designed to profit from the falsification of its banking records and theft of the assets entrusted to them by consumers. \nI have already received two payments in compensation for Wells Fargo violations, nearly {$5000.00} in {$2000.00} and nearly {$400.00} in XXXX. \nThese payments were for two independent causes, though the basis for the payments overlaps. \nWells Fargo violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by creating 'mini-branches ' that were structurally deficient. They did not provide any option for seating of individuals with physical  disabilities that made prolonged standing impossible, or difficult, and painful. \nThe factual circumstances of the second violation is directly relevant to my current complaint. It provides undeniable proof that these current violations were absolutely intentional.and part of a systematic program to defraud and steal from its depositers by the manipulation of banking records and creation of entirely fictitious banking records, in an attempt to change established, factual events, after-the-fact. \nBeginning in XXXX, Approximately XXXX, Wells Fargo engaged in a series of intentionally fraudulent actions with my WF checking account. \nAs I would make deposits to my account and later, make purchases that drew from these fund, Wells Fargo began to change the order of historical events, to create a fiction. Well after deposits were made and transactions comp! eyed - all of which utilized only available funds- never in excess of available funds- WF would later change the banking record - reversing the order of transactions ( debits ) and deposits ( credits ). \nIn doing so, Wells Fargo created artificial Overdrafts in which funds were drawn in excess of available balance- before those funds were provided. \nAt the tine, I reported these events to several agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. You should have a record of these complaints. Fortunately, as I have in the current circumstances, I had \" screenshots '' - a digital photo of the current presenting screen on a computer - capturing a record or communication at a given time. In effect, it is a photograph of a transaction as it was reported at that time. \nMy screenshots proved that on least ten separate occasions, Wells Fargo reversed the order of my deposits and transactions to create a negative balance and charge me excessive overdraft fees. My screenshots clearly showed the transactions as they occurred and later, they showed the same banking records, intentionally manipulated by Wells Fargo. \nThese criminal acts are a matter of historical record and Wells Fargo was subject to and found guilty of these same actions to innumerable account holders in many states across the USA. \nI just happened to be one if those victims.\n\nYou would think that after record fines, WF would have learned their lesson but as I've communicated in prior communications with the CFPB, this behavior is integral to WF 's business model and only when penalties are greater than profits and executives are given prison time, will this criminal behavior cease.\n\nCurrent Events between myself and Wells Fargo : This is the third of individual but entirely connected complaints by myself against WF with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. \nSince these complaints each require individual cause to be considered XXXX complaints, they can be distinguished as follows : These events concern my Wells Fargo Social Security XXXX, direct deposit account and associated Visa debit/checking account. \n1. Complaint 1 - WF processed two transactions that I made with XXXX. Both transactions did not clear XXXX 's system, meaning on neither transaction was I able to complete the purchase I was making. I communicated with XXXX about this trouble with their online system, they acknowledged the problem and I made alternate arrangements. \nDespite these transactions not going through XXXX, WF put them both through as pending transactions. \nPrior to this, I had made a deposit of over {$1000.00}. I then transferred {$690.00} for a transaction to XXXX. There were several XXXX dollars remaining in my account On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted the two transactions with XXXX. The online website for XXXX reported that the transaction failed. I attempted the transaction again. It also failed. \nNonetheless - WF put both transactions through my account - despite XXXX 's system - clearly rejecting both transactions.While these two charges were pending, I waited for them to 'drop ' from my account when WF had realized its error. Although it is quite likely that as XXXX 's system rejected the transaction, WF 's system should have responded in kind - unless their system was negligently faulty or there was intention by WF from the start, to falsify my transaction records.\n\nWhile these two charges were still pending, WF charged me {$35.00} for an overdraft fee. \nAs stated, after my {$1000.00} deposit and {$690.00} transaction to XXXX, there were my balance was positive. However, WF used these still pending transactions- improperly or mistakenly debited from my account- and created a negative balance, which they used to justify my overdraft fee. \nAs far as I know, pending transactions can not be used as the basis of an overdraft fee until it clears the account. This is especially true for transactions that were never approved by the merchant ( XXXX ). \nI reported this impropriety to WF. \nTheir email response on XXXX, was that I had one day grace period to pay the overdraft, which had resulted in a negative balance Following this, WF then dropped the pending XXXX transactions, made without XXXX 's consent, from my record. However, they retained the {$35.00} overdraft fee. \nI emailed and stated that they couldn't charge me an overdraft fee for a negative balance created by improperly processed, pending transactions, since withdrawn from my account. \nTheir response by email, was the first ( in this current event ), unquestionably, intentionally, falsified banking record. It stated that it was mot the pending XXXX charges that created a negative balance and resulted in this overdraft fee. \nI emailed WF and called them a liar. I provided screenshots to prove there were sufficient funds in my account before and after the XXXX transaction. \n*** First complaint filed with the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Complaint # XXXX I accused WF of intentionally and fraudulently manipulating my banking record to create a false overdraft circumstance from pending and withdrawn charges. \nI then received another email from WF - once again willfully, criminally, manipulating the existing bank records. Since I had provided screenshots that proved I had sufficient funds to cover the XXXX transaction, and the negative balance was the result if debiting my account for the improperly processed and pending XXXX charges - that had since been withdrawn from my record. \nThe next part is almost too incredible to believe if it were not for the absolute evidence and their established history of this exact form of deception. \nWF - days after the pending XXXX transactions had dropped from my bank record. After they claimed it was my XXXX transaction that caused the overdraft, after I emailed WF and stated : a. pending and withdrawn charges can not be the basis for an overdraft fee I attached : b.screenshot proof that the XXXX transaction could not have resulted in a negative balance and caused an overdraft fee because there were sufficient funds before and after the transaction. \nWells Fargo responded with further deception and newly fictitious bank records. \n\nWF NOW took the further step of justifying the overdraft and more importantly, hiding their previously manipulate banking records - BY REINSTITUTING THOSE SAME TWO XXXX CHARGES - that had been pending and DAYS AFTER THEY HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN. \nONCE AGAIN- they created a fictitious banking record, after the fact. \nThis time, it attempted to establish that the original two XXXX charges were not only valid charges made by XXXX on XXXX - despite neither transaction being successful and despite XXXX apologizing for my inability to make these transactions, WF NOW CLAIMED - that both XXXX transactions were valid - AND WERE NEVER PENDING - that both transactions actually cleared my account back on XX/XX/XXXX. \nWith this new rationale, my overdraft charge was no longer the result of a XXXX transaction for which I had proved there were available funds- and it was not the result of PENDING and WITHDRAWN XXXX charges. \nNOW - The overdraft was valid because it was the result of valid XXXX charges that cleared when they were first made on XXXX and created a negative balance. \n*** Second complaint with the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX Complaint # XXXX ... on the basis that they had reconstituted false previously withdrawn charges AND were using that as the basis for my overdraft fee. \nFollowing this, over the next few days, these are the latest events. I told XXXX that WF had twins figured the charges. \nXXXX again acknowledged that WF had processed charges days after the fact, charges that they never approved. They told me they would try and get the charges reversed. In the interim, I heard from WF by email stating that they needed mire time to resolve the matter. \n\nMeanwhile, WF then, once again, reversed itself, creating new fictitious banking history, by \" provisionally '' dropping those two XXXX charges from my account. \nHowever, they refused to remove the original overdraft charge. \nI then received several communications from XXXX and requested that they involve their legal department and conduct their own investigation. Unfortunately, XXXX, was unwilling to deal with WF ( I can't really blame them ). \nXXXX decided to just pay me for those two charges that WF had re-instituted. However, they paid me thus money before WF had again removed these charges from my account.\n\nThus - I now have two payments from XXXX for transactions that never occurred the direct result of Wells Fargo is manipulation and creation of banking records, after the fact. \nToday, XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter from Wells Fargo. \nThey claimed they had resolved the matter and stated I needed to contact them by XX/XX/XXXX and notify them if I wasn't satisfied, they would consider the matter settled and closed. \nThey claimed they had resolved the situation- though no such resolution exists and even if it did, this has become much, much more than a banking error. \n1. I have received payments from XXXX for services that I never purchased, as a result of WF 's deceptions. I have no idea what the legal status of those funds is.\n\n2. The original overdraft fee was never removed from my account.\n\nWhat nerve, what gall WF has. So sure of its ability to abuse and defraud its consumers. \nOn XXXX called the number provided. They didn't even provide a contact person, just the requirement that I call XXXX. \nI made my call on XX/XX/XXXX between XXXX XXXX PT. I asked for a Supervisor. I asked for his employee identification number. \nHe flatly refused. All I could get him to state was that his name was XXXX and he was in N. Carolina. He was rude and borderline abusive. He kept interrupting me. \nI said, \" Fine. Whether you take note or not, I can honestly say that I called you at WF on this date and time, provided the WF claim # XXXX and stated that the matter was very much not resolved and that I would be making a third complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. \nI, a XXXX  XXXX individual having previously had funds, stolen from me through Wells Fargo 's intentional deception and manipulation of my banking records- for which I received two separate financial settlements from Wells Fargo. \nOnce again, Wells Fargo is making my already impaired life that much more difficult and is stealing what very, very limited funds. In fact, this WF account is not only a direct deposit for social security XXXX ( XXXX ) payments but also for supplemental security income ( SSI ) payments. \nRestitution is not restoring my account to its prep manipulated state. Restitution is a heavy federal fine and a substantial payment to myself for the misery and hardships they have caused me - not once but twice. \nUnless you hold WF accountable and require that they compensate me for these abuses, you are telling them in no uncertain terms that there are no repercussions for defrauding their customers and in my circumstances, REPEATED defrauding me, an individual more susceptible to harm than most, on Permanent XXXX with an income that requires additional federal assistance. \nYou are telling WF that there are no negative consequences to manipulating and fabricating a federal direct deposit account. You are telling Wells Fargo that it is perfectly acceptable ton create fictitious transactions that require major, International corporations like XXXX, that they have the power to create fictitious charges for their services that require them to pay for services that were never provided, just to get WF off their back. \nHas this become the new norm? Wasn't the Consumer Financial Protection Bureauestablished to prevent these abuses- and when they do occur, to punish them through the only real, tangible form available, through financial penalties and required punitive compensation. \nAfter decades of these continued abuses, the executives who design these criminals approaches, now integral to their business models, are being financially compensated in amounts greater than ever before. \nOur refusal.to hold these corporations financially liable and the executives who earn more and more with no personal, legal liabilities. This refusal to dissuade, discourage, penalize, and prevent these ongoing criminal frauds, only worsens what many have identified as the greatest crisis currently tearing apart America. \nIt is the source of our ever-increasing social and political polarization. It is the ever widening canyon of class and economic status between the increasingly powerless, increasingly poor majority and the very select few, wth the privilege of legal immunity, political and social influence, and wealth is that is no longer measured individually in the millions but in the billions. \nWhere then, is the distinction between the willful criminal activity of the banks- and the willful refusal of government regulatory agencies, those individuals appointed or elected to protect us but fail to intervene, to punish, or prevent. \nWhy is this? What does it mean that banks are too large to fail? It means the fallout of such a failure would result in financial instabilities to all, including those in power, to a greater extent than the criminal activities and stolen assets that these banks freely engage in without any concern for personal consequence and minimal concern for corporate consequence.\n\nHow can this situation be resolved? I would like to see WF executives held criminally liable for these financial crimes. Why is their immunity assumed. Why is it that stock brokers and business managers and accountants are now receiving jail time for their financial crimes but bank executives have not?\n\nIf the US can prepare criminal charges against a former US President, why are bank executives held accountable? As a rational, realistic individual, I have little faith that any of the WF executives responsible for defrauding me will ever hear about it, let alone be punished for it.\n\nSo how else can I be compensated for fifteen years of financial abuse, theft, and complete disrespect? I can be paid compensation - money - something that will very tangibly improve my life and provide opportunities otherwise unavailable to meXXXX XXXX They paid me compensation before- they should do so again - but more. I am notunreasonable. I have a good understanding of my value and the time and energy they have robbed from me, a permanently XXXX man, whose time and energy is already limited. I am asking for a payment of {$25000.00}, a truly trivial amount to Wells Fargo but a realistic amount that will provide very real opportunities to improve my life.XXXX I had a legal education though I never was an attorney. If I went to an attorney for assistance, realistically, I think if an attorney was willing to represent me in this matter, it would be on a contingency basis. In that circumstance, the attorney would insist on a much, much greater amount of compensation. \nIt's also possible that an attorney or law firm would seek out similar cases to my own and form a class action suit. If other individuals have half the evidence I do, it could be a record award. \nAnd If I am not successful obtaining compensation for my hardship, it would be almost as good if Wells Fargo was required to pay fines - great, huge fines, in excess of their previous fines. \nI think it's realistic, given that repeating the same crimes has no excuse or mitigating factors. It practically requires near-crippling fines, certainly enough to reduce the available funds for executive bonuses.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-23T23:17:39.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"94117","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6738682","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-03-23T21:29:55.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["eyed - all of which utilized only available <em>funds</em>- never in excess of available <em>funds</em>- WF would later change the banking record - reversing the order of transactions ( debits ) and deposits ( credits ). \nIn doing so, Wells Fargo created artificial Overdrafts in which <em>funds</em> were drawn in excess of available balance- before those <em>funds</em> were <em>provided</em>. \nAt the tine, I reported these events to several agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau."],"issue":["Problem caused by your <em>funds</em> <em>being</em> low"],"sub_issue":["Non-sufficient <em>funds</em> and associated fees"]},"sort":[8.683428,"6738682"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":7.567875,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Being</em> permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your <em>part</em> in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice."]},"sort":[7.567875,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10981005","_score":6.85608,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA respecting my\ncomplaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a\ndeeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof RIA to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service\nto look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional\nrelationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides\ntheir conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to\nadapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a\nreal problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of\nCFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i)\nwhether RIA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material\nelements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my\nfinancial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of RIAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them,\nthey owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether RIA\npromoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question\n(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties\nto myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether\nRIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA has within its power the ability to, and should,\ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, RIA must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers\nin this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nRIAs Position:\nPlease find attached all relevant evidence below.\nRIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on\ntheir website:\nWe work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:\n Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.\n Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone\nbanking.\n Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.\n Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.\n Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.\nRefuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nRIAs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect\ninnocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are\ndoomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do\nsomething is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of\ntotally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree\nrequired by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to\nmy fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its\ndisposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to\ndetermine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to\nintervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key\nquestions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than\nits own interests.\nIt is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,\nthat RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive\nexperience compared to mine. It is RIA that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection\nto this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has\nnot been, commensurate with RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To\nreemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a\nblind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and\ncapitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nRIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being\nperpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nRIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nrequiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by RIA in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why\nthey cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful\nreflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to\ndisregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts,\nthereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that RIAs business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. RIAs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to\ncompletely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite\nevidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: RIA\nXXXX XXXX, California , United States\nVia Email\n[Without Prejudice]\nAttn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nRe: Demand Letter  Fraud\nI hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that\nyou become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,\nmarketing, distributing, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of\nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of the\nclient losses to gains.\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\nOVERVIEW\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced\nsupervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced\ntransaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed\nfinancial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,\nfinancial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some\nlegitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower\npayments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed\nby vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to\nmaintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an\nirresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and insist that\nyou reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and\nsensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as\npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards\nand rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good\nindustry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either\nupon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations\nconducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it. The\noverall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced\nand naive, in pursuance of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud\nthat was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding\nfrom the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an\ninformed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A\ncomplication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble\nanalyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial\nproducts are often abstract and complex, there is no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of\ninvestors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies,\nknow-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that\nfinancial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the\nunderstanding of its customers.\nAccording to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and\nunfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or\npractice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers\ndetriment.\nThe federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or\ncapacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends\npublic policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive\nconsumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme\nand are therefore, by their very nature, jointly immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and\nsubstantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for\ninvestment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the\ninvestments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged, thus causing significant economic\ndamage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the fraudulent\ntransaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices which\nwould have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed, and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to\ntheir crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include,\nbut are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and\nmalicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating\nfrom various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts in multiple countries and used them through their\naccomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of\nillegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names,\ncredentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name,\nofficially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being\nconducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and on top of that the call center,\nmarketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden\nentities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum\nof financial maneuvers is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a\nlicense and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require\nregistration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g.,\naccording to Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data\n(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that\neach client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply\nconcocted. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using\nit to purchase various luxurious, non-essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields (unrealistic ones).\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing\nthe percentage of total client losses at the company.\n12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.\n15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my\nsavings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square\nand honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order to maliciously take advantage of\nmy trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances\nsurrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.\nMany suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the\nunusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your\norganization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting\npatterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently\nperformed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic\nquestions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,\nmethodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated\nwith fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.\nIn light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,\nit has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought\nby your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executes a customer order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given,\nshutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as\nan honest and reasonable individual would undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the\npayment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be\nliable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there\nare suspicions, these suspicions be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of\nvarious signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on therefore should have\nsuspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)\nwas/were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the\nmisappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable staff\nmember would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.\n(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you\nhave facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the\nawareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their\nvictims.\nYour services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were\neither unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you\nconducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and\nsubsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and\nregulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you\nundeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or\nindirectly, those particular transactions.\nYou also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in\nenriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial\nlosses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did\nnot have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have\nirreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as\ntheir loved\nones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably\nharm the general public, and our society deserves better.\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be\ntreated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact\nthat a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further\nstatutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant\nregulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a financial institution to a regulator are distinct from\nthose beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.\nAs a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to\nmonitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of\nimplementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities\nhas been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures\nand internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You\nshould have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which\ncould suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role\nin preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.\nFRAUD\nActual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or\nbelief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for\ndamages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-30T09:15:06.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10981005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ria Envia, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-30T08:54:09.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the <em>funds</em> <em>being</em> transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the <em>funds</em> <em>being</em> transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose."]},"sort":[6.85608,"10981005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9561046","_score":6.622349,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Bank of America to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Bank of America.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Bank of America\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by\ntaking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent\ncriminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof Bank of America to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They\nsell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains\na traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Bank of America, I found their communication ineffective, which\nfurther hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or abouXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fell victim to a multi-layered scam\noperation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule,\nlaw, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct,\nthat may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of\nAmericas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power\nthe ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn\na blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other\nwords, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense\nin which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the\nevidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nBank of Americas Position:\nBank of America wrote in a letter The amounts totaling of XXXX  in question that you listed in your\ncomplaint is an accumulation of several transactions that were sent to the three previously mentioned\nmerchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the transactions posted correctly\nto your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds.\nWe can only recommend that you contact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nRefuting Bank of Americas arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nBank of Americas position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation\nto protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Bank of Americas view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten\nlaws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight,\nwhen taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Bank of America morally obligated\nto do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Bank of America encounter\nthe suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Bank of\nAmerica.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Bank of America carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had\na duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Bank of America, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some\nof the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything\nother than its own interests.\nIt is Bank of America here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that\nis to say, that Bank of America adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue\ngiven its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Bank of America that claims that the damages which\nI have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed\ndegree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX  capacity, experience,\nexpertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Bank of Americas indisputable overriding\npurpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a\nbalance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect\nconsumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set\nup a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud\nmay be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might\noccur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might\nbe at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent\nor minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets\nout systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point,\nit says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies\nthat are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised\npayments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions\nwhose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity\nof the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal\njustification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer\nto verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or\ndetected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nBank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wideranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not\nsufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons\nby which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable\nand well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence\nof such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers\nwho have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively\ncontributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  Bank of America adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nI would also like to highlight the stark difference in how complaints are handled between Bank of America\nand XXXX XXXX Bank of America's handling of the situation was notably inadequate. They failed to properly\nacknowledge the issues I faced and did not provide the necessary support to recover my funds. In contrast,\nPNC Bank managed the situation with exemplary care. They not only acknowledged everything I had been\nthrough but also took proactive steps to assist me in recovering my funds. This level of customer service\nand attention to detail speaks volumes about XXXX XXXX commitment to their clients and their ability to\neffectively address and resolve issues.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this\nconnection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Bank of Americas business conduct\nwas insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. Bank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice \nthat is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers\nis inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result\nof the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these\nthingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank of America\nBank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE\nSubjectXXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to XXXX XXXX XXXX: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nI have now reviewed your response dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  Based on my review, I do not believe you have acted fairly, let alone reasonably.\nThe investigatory processes appear to disfavour the victim, and there is a lack of knowledge of good industry practice as well as a lack of\ncare/compassion towards me as the customer.\nYour response is, to say the least, extremely inadequate. It is based on a blatantly incorrect understanding of what I have maintained.\nWhat amazes me is just how difficult it has been to find soundness in it. Your analysis, for instance, does not engage with the actual\nhistory of my account and a significant portion of related data that may contradict your position has been conveniently ignored.\nSeemingly, in arriving at a decision in relation to the issue I raised, no consideration was given to a) Duty of care in relation to the fact\nthat I am the victim of a financial crime and b) The responsibility that your institution hold to protect its clients from such crimes.\nI find your rejection incredibly offensive and perplexing. In all honesty, if you could provide me with any kind of a logical coherent\naccount that could reconcile the evident fact of the multiple warning signals as well as my susceptibility relating to this matter with the\nexistence of a sound anti-fraud program, then I would absolutely appreciate your point of view.\nGiven the variety of similar cases involving various types of scams, you should be acutely aware of this problem for society, but your\nsuperficial (and perhaps convenient) answer to it, simply put, is that blameless victims must be held accountable for their misfortune.\nBecause your argument presumably aims at self-protection rather than the truth, we can have no confidence that your rejection is\nultimately just, fair, or reasonable. It is time to adopt a more realistic, long-term attitude towards unavoidable scenarios of this kind,\nstarting from the justifiable assumption that such injured parties did not in the least contribute to (and thus certainly should not bear\nresponsibility for) their own victimisation.\nMisplaced Accountability:\nScam victims have relatively little freedom of reactivity; under such circumstances, they respond immediately, instinctively, and\ninvariably to the specific demands of the perpetrator. Being able to consciously refrain from reacting in such a way is extremely difficult\nand sometimes impossible. Unwittingly giving off signals that mark us as easy targets, is by no means the same as being grossly\nnegligent, in view of the increasingly sophisticated scams, which continue to be a pervasive problem in society.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimisation period; I was also relatively financially illiterate\nand very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nSince this time, having lost all of my savings to these fraudulent companies, I have learnt an enormous amount about the scope of these\ncriminal endeavours and also about how the financial services sector operates internationally.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast,\nmostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are\npeople who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping\nthe uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been\nlost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a perpetrator who grooms his victim whilst at the same time assaults him/her and\nprevents them from escaping.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must\ntherefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as\nthe one described herein.\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim:\nScrutiny shows that your claims are defective as an endeavour to thoroughly investigate the accessible facts; let alone as an attempt to\nportray an accurate image respecting the role of banks in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organisations scope of services, and\nvarious other details in connection with the duties that emerge out of our relationship, particularly in the context of the broader historical\ncircumstances. The emphasis that you have placed on the incredibly insufficient diligence checks as well as the inconsequential\nreferences and the unidimensional thinking, not only gives a skewed picture of my fundamental rights as your customer, but also\npresents a poor blueprint for understanding the issue discussed in a well-reasoned and objective manner, and an even poorer guide to\ndictate whether there has been, as suggested, wrongdoing on your part.\nThe amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned merchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds. We can only recommend that you\ncontact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nConcerning the \"authorisation\" argument, it can be cast as an incompatibility between statements such as \"the transaction has been\nauthorised\" and \"the duty of care has been breached\". However, you have not shown that both statements are logically incompatible or\nimprobable with respect to each other. They are not mutually exclusive in the broader context.\nThe view that I have authorised the transaction and therefore fully liable is dangerously reductive--various aspects relating to the breach\nof the duty of care have been marginalised. Clearly there are more facts to be taken into account than at first appears.\nI notice that your account of the subject matter depends crucially on the supposed lack of obligation which is perhaps the most obscure\npoint in your argument. But regardless, your views give us reason to contemplate as well whether your societal role (which arguably\nrenders you capable of preventing plausibly foreseeable damages such as the one set forth herein) should trigger the appropriate moral\nobligations rather than unscrupulous beliefs which are inherently unjust, flagrantly unfair and merely conducive to your own self-interest\nand welfare. Likewise, you unknowingly oppose the emergent notion that I was no luckier in blindly placing faith in your\nestablishments competence than I would have been in not doing so.\nYou have blithely ruled out your obligation herein by undermining reasoning strategies aimed at justice and fairness; remarkably, you\nhave deliberately avoided the uncomfortable yet inevitable conclusion that in this instance you are to be held accountable, by narrowly\nholding that a financial institution's role in society is merely to \"act upon the customer's instruction.\" This sort of reductionist view has\nlong since been exposed as inadequate among world-leading, key financial regulatory authorities.\nIt is intuitively clear that you have not reckoned with the remarkable range of indispensable functions, which your organisation should\nperform for the community in a manner that is both stable and sustainable. It is moreover blatantly apparent, that, instead of being\nattuned more than ever to the importance of apprehending the pernicious influences of your idleness and non-intervention amidst an\ninexorable rise of financial fraud, you are unwarrantably hiding behind specious arguments based on thin assumptions, inadequate\nresearch, poor evidence, and sloppy reasoning. It is a whole lot better and far more effective to do the right thing, rather than the most\nprofitable one thereby compromising the integrity of your enterprise. I suggest that by following adequate protocols aimed at mutual\nbenefits (rather than satisfaction of personal goals), disadvantaged consumers will thrive rather than suffer, with a plethora of positive\nfeedback propagating far and wide as a result.\nI demand an investigation to bring to light additional relevant evidence that I am persuaded will support my view. It is hereby proposed\nthat your motivations may adversely affect reasoning through overreliance on a biased set of processes. As a substitute for sub-optimally\nrelying on a set of gross oversimplifications (which frustratingly and inexorably lead us to draw erroneous conclusions), we should,\ninstead, systematically account for the totality of the evidence  howsoever unpalatable  by even-handedly relying on complex and\nmultifactorial reasoning. The demand for sound reasoning is essentially a demand for ultimate explanation, and is linked with a complete\nunderstanding of the pronounced role that you played in permitting my injuries herein\nIn light of the above, it is patently clear that your train of thought is fatally flawed and totally unsupported. You have failed to come up\nwith positive evidence to support your claims, that is, to show beyond any reasonable doubt that irrespective of your conduct, my\nvictimization was an inevitable outcome. On the other hand, I have provided substantial evidence to support the claim that you could\nhave done more to safeguard my funds. Not only have you let me down, but you have also failed to admit that you could and should\nhave done better.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). Your\nresponse has limited the discussion narrowly to highly technical terms, and insufficient attention has been given to your organizational\ndysfunctions from a common-sense point of view. It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various riskbased\nexamination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous\noutcome. It is wildly incorrect to assume that you have exercised your duties by doing the minimum necessary. You have not exercised\nyour duties at all, rather, many of your underlying assumptions have simply gone unquestioned. Instead of being receptive to\nconstructive criticism and improving yourself, you ultimately seek to blame your customers thus absolving yourself of any\nresponsibility.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus\nviolate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. To the extent to\nwhich you were inconsistent therewith, you are liable for damages. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities\nassociated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability, identification and research\nof high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies\nand procedures.\nIt is incumbent upon financial institutions to carefully assess all information available about their customers, including vulnerability,\nneeds and customer type. There is a wide range of transactions which, although legitimate, should raise a red flag simply because they\nare inconsistent with the customers typical and ordinary activity. What constitutes reasonable grounds to flag transactions varies\naccording to the facts and circumstances of the particular matter being investigated and the effectiveness of the anti-fraud processes.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organisation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If\nyou don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable\nif the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or\nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the\nindividual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm, these recommendations are established as a\ngeneral principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for\nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems\nare developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through\nauthorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that\nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount,\ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal\nmarket parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial\nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-19T23:38:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9561046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-19T23:25:30.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned <em>merchants</em> that were confirmed valid and not made in <em>error</em>. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the <em>funds</em>."]},"sort":[6.622349,"9561046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9649035","_score":6.381675,"_source":{"product":"Prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"Lets begin this with the most important thing...\n\nYOU HAVE GONE INTO YOUR SYSTEM AND CHANGED LEGAL DOCUMENTS SOMEWHERE BETWEEN XX/XX/XXXX AND XX/XX/XXXX. YOU HAVE REMOVED THE DOUBLE DEBITS, YOU HAVE ADDED DESCRIPTIONS, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE WRONG THEY HAVE BEEN ADDED AND NOT SEEN PRIOR TO XXXX XXXX. THE BANK DEPOSITS AND CREDITS HAVE ALL BEEN CHANGED BY YOU WHY IS THAT? I WAS SENT THIS PAPERWORK XX/XX/XXXX VIA EMAIL BY XX/XX/XXXX IT HAS ALL BEEN CHANGED COMPARE THE TWO. IS THIS LEGAL ARE YOU ALLOWED TO REMOVE AND REWRITE A DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN SENT OUT PRIOR. I TOLD YOU WHY I LIKED HAVING THIS SENT AND THE GUY ON THE OTHER END NOT KNOWING WHY BECAUSE HE SENT ME REAL TRUE DOCUMENTS AND NOT THE NEW AND IMPROVED YOU ARE NOW TRYING TO PASS OFF. YOU HAVE CHANGED REMOVED REWRITTEN MY BANK TRANSACTIONS. YOU HAVE ADDED THINGS LIKE STORE RETURN. DO YOU SEE THE VET YOU ADDED AS A STORE RETURN?? UM ITS MY VET WHAT XXXX XXXX  CAN I RETURN TO THEM? YOU SCREWED UP AND PICKED RANDOM TRANSACTIONS AND MADE UP WHAT HAPPENED WITH THEM. XXXX IS ANOTHER XXXX  IS NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN RETURN? YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE MAKING CHANGES THAT STICK OUT LIKE YOURS DO. A VET RETURN AND A XXXX XXXX. \n\nI DONT BELIEVE YOU CAN GO IN AND REMOVE DEBITS FROM MY ACCOUNT CAN YOU? CAN YOU MAKE UP STATEMENTS AND TRANSACTIONS LIKE YOU HAVE? I THINK THESE NOW BECOME FALSE RECORDS. RIGHT? I AM GOING TO CHECK HERE AND SHOW THE CFPB, THIS IS WAS SENT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I THINK THE OCC AND THE FTC THIS IS LIKE FORGERY MAYBE ITS YOU WHO TOOK MY MONEY YOU DID HAVE SOME INHOUSE PEOPLE STEALING DURING COVID. AND YOUVE HAD TO COVER AN ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND MAKE CHANGES THAT BEHOOVE YOU. AGAIN I THINK THIS IS AGAINST THE LAW. I TOO WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE XXXX AND CHECKING WITH THEM. FORGERY XXXX  ITS MUST FALL UNDER SOMETHING BECASE YOU JUST CANT ERASE HISTORY RIGHT??? AND THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. SHOCKED IS WHAT I AM. I TOO WILL BE CHECKING IN WITH AN ATTORNEY. YOU HAVE REMOVED AND ADDED TO SUIT YOU. GOOD THING I SAVE EVERYTHING BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE CANT BE LEGAL AT ALL. AND ITS ATTACHED TO THIS COMPLIANT Looking at the letters you have attached to your reply here. You are correct, the last time I wrote to complain about Bank of America was XX/XX/XXXX2 when I complained right here on the CFPB : I have my own copy and did not need you to send me anything.\n\nYou are very confused as far as the claims go You have turned my old XXXX XXXX claims into brand new ones. Nothing is new, nothing has been added or changed since my police report. And if any changes were made, t hey were done by you, not me. \n\nI spoke to XXXX XXXX supervisor in XXXX and she told me that none of my original bank statements were available anymore I was connected to and emailed a copy of debits and credits .It is XXXX pages.. I would like an explanation as to why there are double debits for nearly every transaction? I would like my account to be refunded for the double debits. \n\nXXXX XXXX Attachments Mon, XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX to me Thank you for contacting prepaid customer service. The statement ( s ) you have requested are attached. As a reminder, you can view past statements online at any time by visiting the website printed on the back of your card.\n\nPlease do not reply to this message, you will not receive a response. If you need further assistance, please contact Prepaid Card Customer Service at the number on the back of the card.\n\nThank you, Bank of America Customer Service I have not been able to view statements online for years now. Your system says I am puting in the wrong SS # Just tried it again. No luck! \n\nYou are misinformed by thinking that the money I got back was on returns??? XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Dentist, my vet??? Come on really??? those are not returns!! That is called double debit or fraud. Probably hard for you to tell the difference when youre looking at a map to base your decision on a claim. Looking at a map, viewing shopping habits seems a bit outdated. dont you think? And if you dont live in XXXX  you could not base a decision on a claim by viewing a map.. Take a look at the photo of a typical day. Why dont you see where the closest BofA is to my home??? You could see I could walk a block and be at an ATM. XXXX seems a bit far. As does anywhere else. I know that my IP address was not the IP address used for the online shopping portion of the fraud. I was told that already. I was also told that I am happy you brought up refunds. I don't show a single store refund for my XXXX and XXXX returns. Where is the credit for my store returns? I have continued to ask where they are. \n\nI believe you feel youre delivering the info requested by me, But, youre not! Let me explain what I need from you another way. You have issued claims numbers to me. The claims decisions that arrived to me XX/XX/XXXX. Now when were those claims opened?? In XXXX This is where the problem is and the time of 3.5 years has gone by..\n\nLooking at the decision letters you sent from XX/XX/XXXX we have Claim # XXXX {$2500.00} Claim # XXXX {$6600.00} Claim # XXXX {$1700.00} These are not new claims. Your decision was to deny all of them. I asked what you based your decision on. But more importantly I asked you to send me the transactions under each of the claims numbers. I wanted the transactions under each one of the claims which I would assume would total the dollar amount. I was sent 20 pages of transactions totaling over XXXX. Not correct. I have never had that much fraud on this account. This was sent as your proof of what??? How you went sideways with this and made a mess???? 20 pages where 90 % are true legit transactions shows me nothing. Please send what I have requested and that is once again the transactions under each of the claims numbers above that match the dollar amount of the claim. Since XXXX XXXX XXXX which is when the above were opened to present the dollar amount has changed. Having these transactions and the dollar amounts will give me a more clear picture of what's transpired. I can also check off the list the places that have sent me my money back. And they werent store returns as your letter to the CFPB states. \n\n\nMy email to XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX we had made it down to close to XXXX so things were moving in the right direction. XXXX XXXX put a gentleman in charge, XXXX XXXX XXXX ; he was like XXXX XXXX but at a very high level He then in turn got XXXX XXXX involved and those two were supposed to be with me until this issue was solved. They had my police report, the list of transactions, the name of the private owner of the ATM. They, like the others in the prepaid claims, knew that video and photos were available. All anyone had to do was request it. And nobody did. WHY???? \n\n\nXX/XX/XXXX you were sent a police report which discussed my computer hacking my personal bank account that was wiped clean, another credit card being used as well as my concerns about my identity. The difference between Bank of America and my other creditor is that the other who I have been with for over 30 years could clearly see the fraud. Now they would know my shopping activity and habits. You, not at all. I was spending to save my business, not a typical shop day out with the girls. You are blind to the fraudt! Keep in mind you thought it was possible for me to be at a XXXX dentist. An ATM in XXXX and a shopping spree at XXXX XXXX within the same 30 minutes. Does this make sense????? Does it fit your map theory?\n\nNow I am told that youve not taken into consideration my police report?? You need to factor that in. It is huge!! XXXX in XXXX XXXX  saw it three weeks ago.I asked him about it and he said it is sitting in front of those who make big decisions Go and check the call. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. They all had it. How did you lose it? Seems to me to be just as important and if not more important than the statements that have been tampered with. Is this how your bank operates? They dont like something that is not in their favor and its deleted or changed??\n\nAt the start your 24 hour turn around denied claims were being run through an auto feeder that has since been ruled by a judge that it cant be done.\n\nYou say in your response to the CFPB that you have reevaluated my claims. No you have not because that would take more than pulling out your map and deciding how close I lived to the transaction when you decide its mine. It would also take the merchants knowing that there are some fraud concerns and you failed to do that with any of the merchants back when this began and now like I have said the hands of time are not on my side. How did you expect for merchants to hang on to this for 4 years? Just because you arrive late to the party doesnt mean it starts over. I have said this in many faxes and emails to XXXX XXXX. The merchants no longer have to do a thing when the time limit has passed. This is up to you making this right. so please quit making up stories.\n\nIt took you 3.5 years to get back to me on the above claims that is excessive. When I heard from you it was XX/XX/XXXX. And that is why this has remained open. Let me share what I have NEVER DONE. I have never called and to give mass amounts of fraudulent transactions like your letter claims I have. That would never happen in this lifetime. I called and gave you my opening three. Sitting 4-6 hours on hold was not my cup of tea. I would fax, email, USPS and every blue moon call and speak to someone but this was never to opeb up disputes. I have never phoned you and added 65 transactions on top of multiple others! You had my police report and it was laid out beautifully as to what needed to be disputed. You should have been going down my police report transaction to transaction. There was a total of about XXXX at its very highest!!! Where or how you are coming up with XXXX, XXXX is absurd and nothing I have given to you. \n\nYou opened multiple new claims between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transactions were authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card as indicated in our previous correspondence I did not open up multiple new claims between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. Those claims are the old fraudulent transactions youve failed to take care of. There was nothing new about them!!! And you need to get together with your XXXX division, the prepaid claims, XXXX  which is your payor and the executive team. I was sent a list of transactions by your prepaid claims division. They asked me to highlight the fraud I did. This was nothing new, these were the same transactions I have continued to say are not mine since XXXX. \n\nDuring our investigation the transactions were within your geographical location, including online purchases, there were no failed PIN attempts, the spending pattern was consistent with disputed and non-disputed transactions There goes your map theory, a theory that is clearly broken and should not be used to determine anything!!! Do you live in XXXX? Because if you dont you cant say that anything is close to me! It could take 45 minutes to go a mile!\n\nThose of you doing the map theory are also experts on my spending habits?? If that is true they should see that I dont spend {$700.00} on\nshopping sprees nor do I frequent XXXX XXXX XXXX yet they claim those are my transactions!! XXXX is not mine and there is nothing to return to XXXX. All XXXX transactions needed to be sent back so could you get on that? XXXX that too not mine I have a store I sell on many platforms I do not use XXXX or XXXX and those all need to be refunded back to my XXXX card. \n\nI am so tired of you accusing me of giving my card to someone else!! Do share what card that would be. I have only my original card and the two others you speak of never come here .They have never been in my possession, they were not activated or used by me!!!! You have only sent me XXXX card.\n\nthere is a history of cancelled/returned items which resulted in a credit from the merchant on disputed transactions, WRONG Again this is where you are very wrong!!! But now that youve brought up cancelled and returned items where are my returned items?? I should have XXXX XXXX XXXX. I don't see them anywhere. I would like to know how you have more XXXX transactions than I do with XXXX??? n tell you XXXX not a return XXXX, not a return XXXX XXXX, they were waiting to hear from you!!! ATM in XXXX? Privetly owned I gave you the name of the place that owns the ATM. I also said you have 90 days to grab those photos that they had., XXXX, XXXX based stores, XXXX XXXX based companies not mine!!! XXXX not mine, Do I once again need to send the transactions that still need to be sent back to my XXXX card. I actually dont do that because I have my original card. XXXX they forgot to deliver so a refund is needed. etc??? You have also failed to issue credits for my store returns. \n\n\" In addition, for claim XXXX that included ATM transactions there was no ATM footage available due to the age of the transactions '' WRONG there was i spoke to the owner of the ATM had footage was available you had 90 days to request it!! You never did. I have an email from the ATM owner and they say they never heard from you. Nobody but me has been in touch. Nice try though And XXXX XXXX they too had video waiting for you and why is the card being used white? I thought they were dark blue? Oh because the gang banger in the video made a card and pounded out numbers on it and is using it!! You see I developed relationships with the merchants I wanted to see when they heard from you and guess what? They never did. You never asked for the videos the photos or you too would have known the card being used in both cases was white. now if memory serves me yours are blue. But you didn't do anything about this because you had it already in your head these were mine. ANd they werent then and they arent today. \n\n\" Since our previous correspondence, your claim XXXX was resolved in your favor and permanent credit was issued to your account on XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$100.00}. Please see the enclosed transaction history that reflects these credits. The above claims included the transactions that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, and totaled {$8300.00}. Please see the attached document that shows the transactions included in each above claim. On XX/XX/XXXX, the claim XXXX was initiated for transactions totaling {$2500.00}, that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. '' XXXX XXXX police report has the transactions and yours don't add up. I need your help with this. The fraud began around XXXX in XXXX Now its down to XXXX. Yes I have gotten the rest back and it wasn't for store refunds or returns!!! What did you all get back for me? Nothing!!! And being that your departments do not talk, nobody knows from department to department what is being asked of the customer. \n\nStill need store credits for returns on XXXX and XXXX. \nStill need all of XXXX to be returned there should be as many credits as there are XXXX transactions. Same with XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( as you can see these XXXX are the XXXX XXXX  is same day different transactions ) I have never used a XXXX. Or an XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX all of them XXXX all of them XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I paid XXXX once and left group XXXX was then billed 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  notice two transactions back to back my card used for the next XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX back to back transactions 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 is covered in XXXX XXXX amount for fraud still owed to me XXXX XXXX  Again not new items the same as has been on the police report since XXXX. \n\nYour letter states you've seen no pin errors and no checking of balances. I have had pin not been able to use or get into my account for years. I highlighted on your paperwork the balance checks. You must have missed removing this one when you removed the others. I have my original statements coming back from my records storage facility. The entire file will be back in 5 days. I urge you to look for both the many pin errors and balance checking So how can you say that never happened is wrong!!! \n\n\" On XX/XX/XXXX, the claim was reviewed and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transactions were authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card. During our investigation, prior linked claims indicated that you had possession of the card, no failed PIN attempts, spending pattern is consistent with disputed and non-disputed transactions, there is a history of cancelled/returned items which resulted in a credit from the merchant on disputed transactions, and there was no evidence of aggressive or high velocity of transactions. Thank you for speaking to us in regard to the transactions included in your claims, as discussed, we received your list of transactions that you believe are unauthorized and should be included in your claims. '' There have been no new claims since my police report XX/XX/XXXX so stop with this craziness. \n\nTherefore, the below claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were initiated NO NEW CLAIMS SINCE XXXXnot sure what you are talking about ..Go doctor up some more documents. XXXX go back to XXXX look at the list it is the very same list today go back to my police report and review the transactions on the police report the transactions that posted to your account between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$12000.00} Wrong!!! Again you are lost. Clueless I have no clue what you are speaking about my police report speaks for itself as does my emails to your CEO. With confirmation of him opening the emails sent and no where has this every been XXXX. Nice try though! \n\n\" Please see the attached document that shows the transactions included in each claim.\n\nIn addition, there was no history of balance inquiries or declined attempts due to insufficient funds or cards being closed, which indicates knowledge of the account and balance '' There were balance checks. Go look at my statements. I can see them and you cant???? Go back and look. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were initiated for transactions totaling {$5100.00}, {$1800.00}, {$330.00}, {$100.00}, and {$220.00}. On XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, the claims were reviewed and denied because we identified multiple factors that indicate that the transaction was authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card or account WHAT ARE YOU DOING THESE ARE NOT CLAIMS FROM XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX THESE ARE THE SAME CLAIMS FROM XXXX YOU KEEP GIVING THEM NEW NUMBERS During our investigation we found no evidence of inconsistent aggressive spending or high velocity of transactions, no attempts to use the card after it was closed, and no failed PIN attempts. Its on the paperwork you have attached to your repsonse.\n\nThere were many failed pin attempts I have not been able to get into my online edd account with you for years. It says I am imputing the wrong SS # and wrong card number. This is concerning dont you think?\n\nIn addition, we found no history of balance inquiries, no declined attempts due to insufficient funds or card being closed and there was a pattern of transactions following the card funding where the transactions would stop once the balance was used and start again after new funds were loaded, which indicates knowledge of the account and balance. Weve also included these case documents, which you may find helpful : Previous correspondence dated XX/XX/XXXX Claim correspondence Transaction history, with the Transaction Category Description section Transactions for each claim Heres our response Between the dates of XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, we have sent correspondence to you regarding your claims and our decision for those claims. In addition, we have contacted you by phone multiple times Youve contacted me multiple times?? You are joking right?? The only time my phone has rung and its been you on the other end has been after XX/XX/XXXX prior to that I phoned you and would wait 5 to 6 hours hang up and become frustrated. Which is why I stopped and began to fax, email and USPS.\n\nin regard to your concerns. We did not identify a lengthy period of time in which we did not provide correspondence to you regarding your claims. \n\nHow about from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? Seems like a very longtime to me. \n\n\" Provisional credit was issued for claim XXXX in the amount of {$100.00}. Provisional credit was not issued for the below claims because under Regulation E, we must provide you with a resolution or grant provisional credit to the account within 10 days of filing the claim. We have confirmed that we completed your claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX within that timeframe and your claims XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX were not eligible because the transactions were over 130 days ''. \n\nXXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX What are the above claim numbers?? Ive not given you anything new, everything in your system has been there since XXXX \" Our XXXX Liability policy will not hold account holders liable for any portion of thedisputed transactions if those transactions are confirmed to be fraudulent. As we found no fraud has occurred for your claims, the XXXX Liability policy would not apply. All evidence available was reviewed when making the decision of your claims. We received information from you between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. We reviewed the documents you provided as evidence to support your claims, including written statements, requests for the evidence we relied on, requests for the transactions included in each claim and copies of claims letters. The police report and list of transactions sent in XX/XX/XXXX mentioned in your correspondence, were not included with your claims and we have no record of receiving them. '' XXXX saw the police report a few weeks ago or so he said when we were talking on the phone go take a listen to that phone call.. Go ask XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX in fact XXXX XXXX connected XXXX XXXX with me and then XXXX XXXX they know all about the police report. The police report and the list of transactions is a huge part of this as stated many times before.\n\n\" If you would like to provide these documents, please fax them to XXXX or mail them to : Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  We strive to resolve each inquiry to our customers satisfaction and each response is based on the facts presented. '' The facts were presented, the police report sent so go find your CEO, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX or XXXX in XXXX XXXX. If you need the police report again it does cost me XXXX I would have to pay which means I float you at this time. It was there three weeks ago its got to be there now.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-29T19:06:44.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","sub_product":"Government benefit card","zip_code":"90034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9649035","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-29T18:04:53.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In addition, we found no history of balance inquiries, no declined attempts due to insufficient <em>funds</em> or card <em>being</em> closed and there was a pattern of transactions following the card funding where the transactions would stop once the balance was used and start again after new <em>funds</em> were loaded, which indicates knowledge of the account and balance."]},"sort":[6.381675,"9649035"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":5.642918,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial Corporation.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Truist Financial Corporation respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Truist Financial Corporation to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Truist Financial Corporation, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct from management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\n\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Truist Financial account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Truist Financial Corporation did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Truist Financial Corporations custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Truist Financial Corporation promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Truist Financial Corporation was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Truist Financial Corporation owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Truist Financial Corporation did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Truist Financial Corporations conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Truist Financial Corporation has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Truist Financial Corporation must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.\n \nTruist Financial Corporations Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: Based on our investigation, Truist denies your claim for reimbursement because our investigation reveals the activity/transaction(s) was authorized.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: You have advised that you were a victim of fraud... The information was keyed according to the Outgoing Wire Transfer Request Agreement, which you confirmed and signed.\nRefuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nTruist Financial Corporations position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Truist Financial Corporations view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely on) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Truist Financial Corporation morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Truist Financial Corporation encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Truist Financial Corporation.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Truist Financial Corporation carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Truist Financial Corporation, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is Truist Financial Corporation here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Truist Financial Corporation adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Truist Financial Corporation that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Truist Financial Corporations capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, Truist Financial Corporations indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions\n  \nand capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Truist Financial Corporation has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nTruist Financial Corporation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple chequebooks;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation\n  \nto the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nTruist Financial Corporation is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability  Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Truist Financial Corporation in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Truist Financial Corporations business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Truist Financial Corporations non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable\n \nconsumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX  XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 9\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTruist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC\nRe: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care has been breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence and/or have not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages that I have suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall serve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you have engaged in, is a pattern or a practice of wrongful and negligent conduct which has enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX  (the Company), with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains.\n Money was transferred from my account via bank wire, credit card, debit card and through intermediaries named \"XXXX XXXX in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1\n    \nPage 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation, whether by raising chargeback and recall in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXXusd!\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm, and insist that you reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it. The overall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced and naive, in pursuit of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered the fraud that was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as\n 2\n\nPage 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nwithholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial products are often abstract and complex, theres no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of investors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies, know-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of their customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme and therefore by their nature are jointly  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for investment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the investments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged thus causing significant economic damage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions; and the fraudulent transactions the Company perpetrated were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated which would have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to their crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include, but are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and malicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts and crypto currency wallets in multiple countries and used them through their accomplices from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated through\n 3\n\nPage 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nlegitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent\nnames, credentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name, officially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being conducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and furthermore, the call center, marketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden entities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum of financial maneuvers, is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a license and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require registration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data (e.g.: the manufacture of false charts). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the existence of the trades was fabricated. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using it to purchase various luxurious, non- essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields.\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer).\n11. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data\nrepresenting the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my\nhealth.\n4\n\nPage 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nArmed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me, until I transferred all my savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square and honorable business dealings along with honesty, to maliciously take advantage of my trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to conclude that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation of a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the XXXX XXXX  well established in the case of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe XXXX XXXX  requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing the instructions of a client. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the funds of the client.\"\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution is able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it has become glaringly obvious to me that at best, no adequate\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    5\n\nPage 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX\ninformation and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable individual would make,\" it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment instruction is made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank is liable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on and suspended transactions until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transactions were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I am a fraud victim. (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [3].\nA financial institution would never be as reckless with its own assets as has been the case with my assets, and if you had treated my assets as though they were your own, this would not have been made possible. The debits made from my account should be reversed as a result of your failure to take proactive measures to protect it, just as you would do if your own assets were in a similar state of peril. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about an individual that adversely affects their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be liable to more than one regulatoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  More often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly, to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence. A plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T18:39:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29681","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6296648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-08T23:55:35.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Compliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst <em>being</em> investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as <em>proof</em>."]},"sort":[5.642918,"6296648"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":24,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":24}]}},"product":{"doc_count":24,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":5},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":2},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":6,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":3},{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":5,"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":5}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2},{"key":"General-purpose prepaid card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payday loan debt","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":24,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":7,"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":7}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Banking errors","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":2},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase or transfer","doc_count":2,"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":"Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem caused by your funds being low","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Non-sufficient funds and associated fees","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Threatened to contact someone or share information improperly","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Talked to a third-party about your debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":24,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":24}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":24,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":19},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":3},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":24,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":24}]}},"company":{"doc_count":24,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":5},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":4},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Broadway Advance LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CARD Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":24,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"GA","doc_count":3},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OK","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":24,"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":7},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":24,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2}]}}},"_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":{}}}