{"took":356,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":39,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13443649","_score":20.356174,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I was contacted by a phone that showed JP Morgan CHASE 's number ( XXXX ), who had alerted me of two fraudulent payments made from my debit card. They asked whether I had wired {$25000.00} to someone at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. When I said no, they said my account was under suspicion of being defrauded by upper management at CHASE. They told me it was necessary for me to go to the bank, withdraw funds right away and assist in the investigation. \n\nThe method worked in the following manner : They would call me from a CHASE number, asked me to withdraw cash, go right back to a drive-through bank teller at CHASE, and insert the cash right back into a digital card. The digital card they provided me had my name, the CHASE debit card design. They confirmed that once I would transfer the totality, I would get access to my funds once again. \n\nThis went on for a stretch of time and ended on XX/XX/year>. During that stretch of time, I had grown suspicious, had contacted CHASE fraud department, and the number somehow got routed back to the perpetrator. Furthermore, I asked to verify various security protocols- my social security #, my privacy questions, DOB, they had all the information at hand. The perpetrators could transfer funds in and out of my account in real time. When I would withdraw the actual cash, they were able to 'freeze ' the cash debits I would do in real time and not have it reflected in my account. For example, I would withdraw {$25000.00} but it wouldn't show on my phone application. This was another method they confirmed that they were actually CHASE and that they were the ones doing this investigation. By the time I caught on to it, I contacted CHASE, and they said there was nothing I could do. I took screen shots of all that took place, the debit cards, the phone numbers, and even recorded one of the conversations. \n\nI lost a total of over {$190000.00}.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-10T22:33:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"92708","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13443649","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-05-10T22:12:21.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They asked <em>whether</em> I had wired {$25000.00} to someone at XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. When I said no, they said my account was under suspicion of being defrauded by upper management at CHASE. They told me it was <em>necessary</em> for me to go to the bank, withdraw <em>funds</em> right away and assist in the <em>investigation</em>."],"sub_issue":["<em>Funds</em> not handled or disbursed as instructed"]},"sort":[20.356174,"13443649"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14390729","_score":19.567898,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On the XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, I requested {$50.00} to be transferred to my savings account through the rewards program which was the reason I accept and applied for the credit card. I noticed the funds were not available Monday XX/XX/XXXX so I called Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) to which they replied : NFCU is aware of this issue and everyone who applied for the reward refund had a XXXX digit number which is the banks routing number applied to the end of the account number which is why everyone who applied this did not receive their money. This was an internal issue and the first time it occured for my accounts. I asked when would the amount be deposited and they told me with total confidence that day Monday the XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  but very likely much sooner than that. I repeated this back verbatim and it was confirmed that day, XXXX XXXX. XXXX days later Wednesday XXXX of XXXX I called to ask where the money was and a supervisor told me that the previous representative was wrong and that the funds would be deposited XXXX XX/XX/year>. \n\nToday XXXX, still no funds. I called again to ask whether the money was on its way and they replied they have no idea when but management knows of the issue. \n\nThere is no plan in place for redemption besides waiting longer and currently no penalty process if the funds never arrive. This is a breach of advertisement and policy and definitely not the fault of the owners that signed into agreement with NFCU and XXXX XXXX. \n\nEven if the reward is paid, NFCU and XXXX XXXX, possibly other third parties, are liable for breach of contract and false advertising within a reasonable amount of time. I was informed that the issue has been fixed but have no way to check this. If it is fixed for others but not me then this is a personal breach but I fear every member is being told the funds are not available which merits further investigation into whether the bank even has the necessary cash funds on hand to distribute to their clients meaning the bank doesn't have sufficient balance to pay the rewards which may be in breach of federal guidelines. \n\nUpon request for more information into who if any XXXX party can be held liable, NFCU is denying access to any and all information surrounding the source of their mistake. \n\nWhile typing this message I asked my spouse to try her rewards for transfer and she is unable to access the system as it appears to be completely down where she can not accept her rewards cash offer. This could likely mean they are intentionally stalling their payment process and the issue is clearly not fixed. \n\nIt concerns me the lack of transparency from NFCU and utterly no care or effort to rectify this process of paying their clients as agreed upon in their contract and advertising. No attempt to was ever attempted to inform clients of this mistake.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-01T17:02:56.000Z","issue":"Other features, terms, or problems","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"32779","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14390729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-07-01T16:30:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem with rewards from credit card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["If it is fixed for others but not me then this is a personal breach but I fear every member is being told the <em>funds</em> are not available which merits further <em>investigation</em> into <em>whether</em> the bank <em>even</em> has the <em>necessary</em> <em>cash</em> <em>funds</em> on hand to distribute to their clients meaning the bank doesn't have sufficient balance to pay the rewards which may be in breach of federal guidelines."]},"sort":[19.567898,"14390729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19906780","_score":18.772882,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"Pattern of Issues Across both incidents, Capital One has : - Provided incorrect and conflicting information - Forced me into unnecessary processes - Denied a claim even after confirming the check was uncashed - Failed to follow through on actions they claimed were completed - Failed to escalate my calls - Failed to provide accurate timelines - Failed to provide provisional credit even when appropriate - Caused significant delays in accessing my own money I am filing this complaint because Capital One has repeatedly mishandled my account, provided conflicting information, and caused significant delays in accessing my own funds. I recently opened this account, and within a short time I experienced two separate incidents involving check deposits and billpay checks that were handled incorrectly. \n\nIncident 1 Mishandled Mobile Deposit of My Apartment Refund Check I opened this account specifically to deposit my apartment refund check and access the funds quickly. Capital One advertises nextday availability for mobile deposits, but after depositing the check I was told I would not receive any provisional credit because my account was new. I accepted that, but then Capital One required me to complete multiple identity verification steps and provide contact information for the payee ( my former apartment complex ). Capital One contacted the payee and obtained confirmation and reference information verifying the check was legitimate and would clear. \n\nI was told that because the check was verified, the funds would be processed. During this call I was disconnected, and although the representative had taken my number in case of disconnection, I never received a call back. When I called again, I was told that despite all the verification steps and confirmation from the payee, I still had to wait the full hold period and would not receive any provisional credit. I do not understand why Capital One required all of these steps if they had no intention of honoring the verification or adjusting the hold. \n\nIncident 2 Mishandled XXXX XXXX, Unnecessary Investigation, Denied Claim, and Conflicting Information I used Capital Ones XXXX  service for the first time. Instead of sending the payment electronically, Capital One printed a physical check and mailed it to my home address instead of the utility company. I immediately called to ask how to access the funds quickly. I asked whether I could endorse the check to myself, cash it, or redeposit it. I was told none of those options were possible and that the only option was to open an investigation that would take 1014 business days. I repeatedly explained that I had the physical check in my possession and it was not lost or stolen, but I was told the investigation was absolutely necessary.\n\nAfter the investigation concluded, Capital One confirmed the check had not been cashed which I already knew because I had it. Despite this, my claim was denied, and I received a letter stating the inquiry was closed. I was told I could place a stoppayment if I wanted the funds returned, even though this option was never offered to me before the investigation. A representative even admitted that the stoppayment option would have been quicker.\n\nI was then told the stoppayment had been initiated. Two days later, I called back and learned it had not been initiated at all. Only then was the request actually submitted. I was told the stoppayment would take 13 business days. When I called again, I was told there is no timeframe for when the stoppayment request will be accepted, and once it is accepted it will take 35 business days. I was also told conflicting information about whether the claims department or customer service department was responsible for issuing provisional credit. I have been denied escalation multiple times","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-02T20:58:09.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"95380","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19906780","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-03-02T20:28:36.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem making or receiving payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I was told none of those options were possible and that the only option was to open an <em>investigation</em> that would take 1014 business days. I repeatedly explained that I had the physical check in my possession and it was not lost or stolen, but I was told the <em>investigation</em> was absolutely <em>necessary</em>.\n\nAfter the <em>investigation</em> concluded, Capital One confirmed the check had not been <em>cashed</em> which I already knew because I had it."]},"sort":[18.772882,"19906780"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3290833","_score":16.690336,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2019, XXXX XXXX drove from XXXX, MN to a Chase Bank branch office in XXXX XXXX, WI. XXXX XXXX presented a Chase Bank employee with a letter and documents \" showing '' that he was a majority owner in the company XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX, an Illinois limited liability company ( \" XXXX '' ). The document that Mr. XXXX presented was on XXXX letterhead, created by Mr. XXXX himself. The Chase Bank employee looked up XXXX on the Illinois Secretary of State website and noted to Mr. XXXX that he was NOT ( 1 ) a Manager listed on the state 's website, nor ( 2 ) a signatory on the account. Mr. XXXX persuaded the Chase Bank employee that the Illinois Secretary of State website was incorrect and that the documents that Mr. XXXX had provided should show that he should be added as a signatory. \n\nTwo days later, on XX/XX/2019, the XXXX XXXX Chase Bank added Mr. XXXX as a signatory. In those two days, Chase Bank never contacted the sole signatory on the account to verify whether Mr. XXXX should be added as a signatory. In those two days, Chase Bank never contacted the Manager listed on the Illinois Secretary of State website to verify if Mr. XXXX should be added as a signatory. In those two days, Chase Bank never contacted the Chase Bank branch office where the business account was opened and maintained to verify whether Mr. XXXX should be added as a signatory. Instead, Chase Bank added Mr. XXXX as a signatory, and then proceeded to request {$10000.00} in cash and the remaining funds in the account ( approximately {$22000.00} ) to be provided to him in a cashiers check. Chase Bank complied, and provided {$10000.00} cash to Mr. XXXX and provided the remaining amount in a cashier 's check. \n\nXXXX learned of the fraud on Thursday, XX/XX/2019 and immediately contacted Chase Bank to report it. Chase Bank stated that someone would be in touch, providing the name \" XXXX '', but that as an initial matter \" Mr. XXXX provided Chase Bank with all the necessary documentation to become a signatory on the account. '' No one at Chase Bank responded all day on Friday. At COB Friday, XXXX contacted Chase Bank and spoke with \" XXXX '' who said that the matter was escalated to XXXX, and he would likely call on Monday. \n\nWhen XXXX did not call the morning of XX/XX/2019, XXXX called him directly and left several messages. When XXXX finally connected with XXXX later that afternoon, XXXX informed XXXX that it had not performed any investigation, but would be in touch. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019, XXXX called XXXX to state that the investigation was still ongoing, but that XXXX 's accounts were now frozen. XXXX reminded Chase Bank that XXXX was the victim as BUT FOR the Chase Bank employee 's failure to abide by internal banking policies and procedures, XXXX would still have its business funds and would not be impeded from performing its business. Although Mr. XXXX MAY HAVE provided necessary documentation, NONE of Mr. XXXX 's documentation or stories were verified by anyone at XXXX or a signatory on the account. \n\nOn XX/XX/2019, Chase Bank responded to XXXX that \" Mr. XXXX provided all the necessary documentation to become a signatory on the account '' even though he was never a signatory on the account and never a manager or controller of the company at any time. XXXX XXXX was a stranger to the XXXX business account, yet Chase Bank added him as a signatory and assisted him with fraudulently withdrawing all {$32000.00} in its business account. \n\nXXXX is stunned that Chase Bank would take this position when it is absolutely implicated in this fraud, has insurance to cover it's role in perpetrating this fraud, denies any liability in the act, and has significantly impeded XXXX 's ability to do business by not reinstating those funds. \n\nToday, XXXX filed a complaint with the local law enforcement and the FBI. XXXX maintains Chase 's failure to adhere to its internal banking policies and procedures to prevent this fraud.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-07-02T12:04:45.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"60035","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3290833","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2019-06-28T21:55:19.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX as a signatory, and then proceeded to request {$10000.00} in <em>cash</em> and the remaining <em>funds</em> in the account ( approximately {$22000.00} ) to be provided to him in a cashiers check. Chase Bank complied, and provided {$10000.00} <em>cash</em> to Mr. XXXX and provided the remaining amount in a cashier 's check. \n\nXXXX learned of the fraud on Thursday, XX/XX/2019 and immediately contacted Chase Bank to report it."]},"sort":[16.690336,"3290833"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3147762","_score":15.974139,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"1. On XX/XX/18 a person to whom I had issued a {$670.00} check tried to deposit it at XXXX XXXX XXXX using his mobile app. My bank, which is Bank of America, withdrew the funds from my account for transmission to XXXX XXXX XXXX, but XXXX XXXX claims that there is no record of the funds being received for deposit. \n2. When it appeared that the 1st deposit had not gone through, the payee I issued the check to tried to deposit it electronically. B of A declined the 2nd withdrawal attempt and sent a legal copy of the check to him saying, \" Return to maker. '' 3. On XX/XX/18 I went to Bank of America with the person I had written the check to. We showed them the legal copy of the check, on which B of A had typed the following : \" You can use it the same way you would use the original check. '' The computer system wouldn't allow us to cash or deposit it back to my account, because it identified the legal check as a duplicate. I had to withdraw {$670.00} to pay the person in cash, while the bank officer filed a research request to figure out how to return the {$670.00} check to my account. A day later a letter dated XX/XX/18 was mailed to me with this response : \" For your not my item inquiry, we have completed our research and have determined no adjustment is necessary. '' It appears that only a superficial inquiry was done, with a \" one size fits all '' response that in no way addressed the problem. \n4. Over the next 2 months I made 6 research inquiries through the B of A Call Center and also visited my local B of A Financial Center Manager numerous times. Each time the bank denied my request to return the check funds, using generic responses, no explanation of the reasons, and minimal effort to help me get my funds returned. At one point I was told by a call center employee that I would have to go to XXXX XXXX XXXX to resolve the problem instead. \n5. Because XXXX XXXX XXXX by law is not allowed to share confidential account information with me, the only way I could verify their record of transactions was to file a report with the local police department, which I did on XX/XX/18. A police officer met with the XXXX XXXX XXXX  supervisor and with the individual that I wrote the check to. His conclusion was that any claims against XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the person I issued the check to were \" unfounded. '' However, the complete police report is only available to those working in an \" official '' capacity. I was provided only a brief summary of the full report. The police officer did phone me with an oral explanation of his findings, saying that he had verified the bank records and could find no evidence to support B of A 's claim that XXXX XXXX XXXX was responsible for the missing check funds. I took the report to the financial center manager at my local B of A and she passed the police report info on to a person in B of A who researches customer complaints, but I was never informed as to whether they ever requested the full police report and what their conclusions from that investigation were. \n6. Even though the check in question has never been cashed or deposited and a police report has concluded that XXXX XXXX XXXX should not be held accountable for returning the lost check funds, Bank of America still has continued to take no action to return the {$670.00} to my account.","date_sent_to_company":"2019-02-10T08:47:47.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"284XX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3147762","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2019-02-10T02:39:53.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Even</em> though the check in question has never been <em>cashed</em> or deposited and a police report has concluded that XXXX XXXX XXXX should not be held accountable for returning the lost check <em>funds</em>, Bank of America still has continued to take no action to return the {$670.00} to my account."]},"sort":[15.974139,"3147762"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17658571","_score":14.939955,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) issued a joint-payee refinance payoff check made payable to XXXX XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX . \n\nI mailed the check in good faith to XXXX XXXX published lockbox address. Soon after, XXXX XXXX continued to send me payment notices, indicating they had not received the payoff. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, I called NFCU and reported that something appeared to be wrong. I was told that the check had been cashed and that everything was fine. No one verified the endorsements, no one confirmed the depositing bank, and no investigation was opened. I was told to wait. \n\nOn XX/XX/year>, after more payment notices from XXXX XXXX, I called again. I was told that NFCU could not do anything for 90 days, and I was sent an image of the processed check. The endorsement side only shows my signaturenot XXXX Capitals, even though the check required both endorsements by law. This is a major red flag under XXXX XXXX, because XXXX XXXX accepted a joint-payee check without all the necessary endorsements. \n\nDuring this call, I made it clear that XXXX XXXX never received the payoff, the check image shows no endorsement from XXXX XXXX, and the depositing bank was XXXX XXXX, not XXXX XXXX. \n\nI also submitted a fraud investigation request form through NFCUs instructions, but nothing happened afterwardno updates, no confirmation of an investigation, no timeline, no explanation.\n\nDespite being fully notified, NFCU did not open or confirm any formal investigation into the misdirected funds, did not trace the item through the Federal Reserves clearing channel, and did not request an endorsement record.\n\nInstead, on or around XX/XX/year>, NFCU sent me a message stating that my loan would be cancelled, even though I NEVER requested a cancellation. They provided : No reason for the cancellation, No explanation of what happened to the missing payoff funds, No information on whether the two payments already withdrawn from my account would be refunded, And no confirmation that XXXX XXXX had been paid.\n\nAt the same time, NFCU continued deducting payments from my account for the refinance loan, even though the payoff check was missing and my original lienholder had not been paid.\n\nThis situation now involves three banks, and NFCU has failed to take responsibility as the issuing institution.\n\nLegal duties NFCU has violated : UCC 4-202 ( XXXX XXXX ) : NFCU failed to act with ordinary care when notified of a misapplied or improperly negotiated check.\n\nRegulation CC ( 12 CFR 229.35 ) : NFCU failed to promptly investigate and communicate with the depositary bank ( XXXX XXXX ) after being notified of improper endorsement.\n\nUCC 3-420 ( Conversion ) : The check appears to have been improperly deposited at XXXX XXXX without the required endorsement from XXXX XXXX . NFCU failed to challenge or investigate this.\n\nElectronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693e ) : NFCU continued withdrawing payments from my account even though the loan payoff is unresolved, and the investigation was never opened or completed. \n\nAs of today, XXXX XXXX has still not been paid ; XXXX XXXX improperly accepted a joint-payee check ; and XXXX XXXX has provided no investigation results or explanation for the unauthorized loan cancellation.\n\nI am a federal employee, and this unresolved issue poses a serious risk to my financial standing, deployment eligibility, and credit. XXXX XXXX continues to send billing notices, and my credit is now at risk of negative reporting entirely due to NFCUs inaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-02T17:15:07.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"352XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17658571","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-12-02T16:55:30.000Z","state":"AL","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Problem related to refinancing"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Instead, on or around XX/XX/year>, NFCU sent me a message stating that my loan would be cancelled, <em>even</em> though I NEVER requested a cancellation. They provided : No reason for the cancellation, No explanation of what happened to the missing payoff <em>funds</em>, No information on <em>whether</em> the two payments already withdrawn from my account would be refunded, And no confirmation that XXXX XXXX had been paid."]},"sort":[14.939955,"17658571"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6433461","_score":12.195649,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2022, I logged into my online account with PNC Bank and found a {$1500.00} withdrawal not initiated by me or my wife. I immediately called PNC Customer Service to alert them of this issue, as I strongly suspected that not only was the transaction fraudulent, but likewise reflected the strong possibility that I was a victim of identity theft. \n\nA scanned image of the withdrawal slip linked to this transaction, which shows my Social Security Number and account number handwritten on the slip, was captured by PNC and appended to my online account details. It clearly confirms that the transfer of funds occurred at a PNC branch - a suspicion I shared with the PNC agent.\n\nLater that same day, I received an automated email from PNC asking me to complete a customer satisfaction survey concerning my last \" visit '' to a PNC branch. The message even identifies the location of the branch and first name of the teller who serviced their \" client. '' The date of the visit ( XXXX ) referenced in the email likewise coincided with the day the fraudulent transaction was completed. \n\nI shared all of this information with the PNC associate who spoke with me, as well as the PNC Fraud Group via email, as it obviously opened up several avenues of investigation. But I received no response. Finally, after follow-up calls to PNC 's Customer Care unit the week after the incident, someone from their Office of the Customer finally got back to me.\n\nI was told the transaction was linked to one of the branch 's regular customers, who was on location to withdraw funds from his/her account. In short, the teller used the person 's Social Security Number to access their records in the PNC system, and inadvertently transposed two of the SSN digits. It seems the incorrect SSN turned out to match mine exactly, so my account came up and the withdrawal was completed against my balance.\n\nThis made no sense to me. So the teller didn't notice that the name/address on my account was not that of the person seeking the withdrawal? And no form of physical ID was requested, or protocols in place for such a large cash transaction? If the teller entered the SSN incorrectly - my SSN, as written on the slip - how is it possible that my account matched it and was accessed in the PNC system? And no consideration was given to the possibility of client/teller collusion? I remain quite suspicious. At a minimum, it points to gross negligence on PNC 's part. And it still doesn't resolve my concerns over the possibility of identity theft, as my SSN and account number were clearly printed on the withdrawal slip.\n\nTo make matters more concerning, per the advice from one of the credit reporting agencies- one of several parties I contacted to initiate fraud alerts and other security protocols, I reached out to local Law Enforcement to file a police report. Much to my dismay, follow-up attempts by LE to contact PNC 's Fraud Unit were proving to be unsuccessful. \n\nSince my discovery on XXXX, I've insisted on receiving more details in writing from PNC related to their investigation of this incident. When I finally had the opportunity to speak to PNC 's VP/Security Manager, this person admitted she was unaware of the documented evidence in the case, namely, the actual withdrawal slip and the survey I received via email a day after the incident. Nor did this individual know the location of the branch and the name of the teller involved- despite the fact that these docs were attached to my prior correspondence that the VP was copied on.\n\nSince 10/7, I've insisted on receiving a copy of the investigator 's report. What I was sent instead was communications from a Customer Care Manager restating the \" inverted SSN digits '' explanation. And an email from the EVP of Customer Experience, which offered further details that were incoherent at best - and even contradicted what the Manager had stated in his letter.\n\nIn aggregate, this experience and lack of transparency, as evidenced by PNC 's refusal to provide me with a copy of the field investigator 's report, has undermined my confidence in any investigative work PNC may have completed to-date. And it calls into question whether anything of real consequence has been pursued to address this gross negligence and/or potential identity theft in the hope that I would eventually just go away, since the {$1500.00} was returned to my account. It also makes one wonder if PNC is purposely suppressing details of their findings for fear of consequences of some kind - all at my expense.\n\nAs a start, my primary interest over the near term is to receive a copy of the investigation report findings- redacted if necessary. Assuming such a record even exists. If not, a written summary of what transpired - something far more lucid than the emails/letter I've received, which includes a statement of how things were resolved, would suffice. Restitution for jeopardizing the security of my personal information could then best be determined from there. Certainly, more than the one year 's worth of credit monitoring PNC offered seems warranted in this case.\n\nGiven my experience and what has transpired since this incident came to light, I'm likewise concerned for other PNC customers who, when using PNC banking services, may encounter issues similar to mine, and their potentially damaging consequences. That is why I've felt compelled to reach out to you to intervene, investigate and remediate this matter.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-12T15:55:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"229XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6433461","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2023-01-12T15:34:51.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a start, my primary interest over the near term is to receive a copy of the <em>investigation</em> report findings- redacted if <em>necessary</em>. Assuming such a record <em>even</em> exists. If not, a written summary of what transpired - something far more lucid than the emails/letter I've received, which includes a statement of how things were resolved, would suffice. Restitution for jeopardizing the security of my personal information could then best be determined from there."],"sub_issue":["<em>Funds</em> not handled or disbursed as instructed"]},"sort":[12.195649,"6433461"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7135443","_score":11.61691,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX\nThis is my complaint against CHASE BANK. \nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI would like to draw your attention to XX/XX/XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to CHASE BANK, in which I clearly stated\nhow this scam has affected me personally, psychologically andfinancially. \nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't\nshow their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace\nof mind.\nMy complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper\ninvestigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what\nI believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I \ncomprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, CHASE BANK never acknowledged my complaint,\ntherefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, \nand XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, \nthe following (i) whether CHASE BANK did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements \nof the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of \nCHASE BANKs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to me and if so, whether that \nduty was breached; (iii) whether CHASE BANK promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the \ntransaction(s) in question (iv) whether CHASE BANK was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether CHASE \nBANK owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CHASE BANK did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether \nCHASE BANKs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether CHASE BANK has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me \nfor the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors \nmaking an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the \ncustomer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. \nIn this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that \ntheir customer is being scammed. In other words, CHASE BANK must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted \nto a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing \nwith a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care \nof the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most \npeople behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although \nreasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CHASE BANK did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the \nmost obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person \nshould be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all CHASE BANK has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not \nhaving the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, \nhas maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich \nexperience.\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a phone call in the morning at about XXXX XXXX. The caller identified himself as XXXX XXXX, ID ss(or XXXX) XXXX \nfrom XXXX. He stated that he was confirming a purchase that was made on my XXXX account of a gold XXXX that was to be delivered \nto an address in XXXX New York the next day on the XXXX. I told him that I had not made such a purchase and it needed to be cancelled. \nHe said he would cancel it, but he needed to transfer me to their fraud division and asked me to hold for a moment. This was at XXXX XXXX.\nThe next person got on the line (XXXX XXXX), the same phone number. This person identified himself as XXXX XXXX BadgeXXXX XXXX \nU.S. Marshall. He proceeded to describe that my name was used to open several bank accounts, in Texas, New York, New Jersey, etc. rent \na vehicle and that my name was being used in a money laundering scheme and possibly drug smuggling. He then started to tell me that he \nneeded me to talk to one of their U.S. Marshals that were in that department and proceeded to transfer me to yet another person. He had \nme stay on the line and not hang up for the whole day. The next person got on the line but had a different phone number, 1-XXXX. \nHe identified himself as a U.S. Marshall, XXXX XXXX, badgeXXXX XXXX, assigned to my caseXXXX XXXX, and that he would explain what \nwe could do to protect my money and provide proof that I was not involved with committing any of the fraud. \nHe said I needed to pull all my money out of my bank account and secure it so they could open a new account to put it into at my bank. \nHe then said to stay on the line no matter what and to not tell anyone what we were doing and asked how much money needed to be \nsecured, I then gave him my balance in my bank account. He never asked me for my actual bank account number. He then had me go to the \nbank and withdraw as much as I could in cash to take to a specific Bitcoin ATM that they provided to me after I let them know what city \nI was in. I used XXXX all day long because my car was in the shop.\nI withdrew XXXX cash and proceeded to the Bitcoin ATM address they gave me. He kept stating that my XXXX trips would be refunded \nafter all this was done. They sent me a QRC code to use at the Bitcoin ATM. I deposited the cash into the ATM and kept the receipt. Then \nhe directed me to buy as many XXXX  cash cards as I could to secure the rest. I went to XXXX and was only able to purchase XXXX  cash \ncards for the amount of XXXX each. Then he asked if I could do an ATM cash withdrawal at XXXX for the rest. I was only able to \nwithdraw XXXX because of limits.\nI told him I was at all my withdrawal limits and could do no more for XXXX hrs.\nHe then said that once we got all my money secured that he would set up an appointment for the next day to meet another Marshall in \nperson who would help me set up my new bank account and provide me with my new Social Security number and transfer all my money \ninto the new account.\nHe said he would postpone his case for a day so we could continue the next day because if we did not secure my money, they would close \nmy bank account and my Social Security number forever.\nThe next day, XX/XX/XXXX I was exhausted and didnt want to work with him anymore. I transferred my savings to checking for the next \nround of securing my money. I told him this and told him I did it because I needed to pay some bills with it and was leaving some money \nin my account,\nHe then got upset and said I broke the rules and hung up on me.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along!\nCHASE BANK is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you \ndon't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the \nred flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or \nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual \nand how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for \nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are \ndeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised \nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and \nfinancial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that \nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, \ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market \nparameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial \nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is \nadopted by CHASE BANK in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by \nstrictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems \nto me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby \nkeeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk \nmanagement system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the \ndigital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat\nlandscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and \nexperience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nCHASE BANKs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to \nmitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as \nthe direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair \nand reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX\n\nPage 1 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY\nRe: Demand Letter \n For negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam, \nThe goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as \nyou have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and have not acted in a reasonable and prudent \nmanner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall \nserve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among \nothers.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing an atypical, non-routine \ntransaction(s), and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein \nand/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of wrongful \nand negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that \nresulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in \nquestion are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation\norchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim \nat contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named\nBitcoin Of America in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher\nlevels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the\nsituation, whether by raising chargeback in respect of the transaction in question or reimbursing\nme and crediting my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced transaction, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also\nan irresponsible and reckless disregard for the customers financial safety.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XX/XX/XXXX)\nPage 2 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \n2 \n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and\ndemand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and \nsensitivity to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as \npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, \nstandards, and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where \nsuitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained \nherein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience or upon \nfacts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that \nsubstantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate \nopportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the \nScammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the \nfraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized \nas withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make \nan informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A \ncomplication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well \nto identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required \nto promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers. \nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive \nvictims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme \nand therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially \ninjurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The \nfalse statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transaction(s) the \nScammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on \nme which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-20T02:01:40.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"92071","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7135443","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-06-20T01:04:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["to me and if so, <em>whether</em> that \nduty was breached; (iii) <em>whether</em> CHASE BANK promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the \ntransaction(s) in question (iv) <em>whether</em> CHASE BANK was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) <em>whether</em> CHASE \nBANK owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and <em>whether</em> CHASE BANK did not uphold those duties; (vi) <em>whether</em> \nCHASE BANKs conduct was unfair; and (vii) <em>whether</em> CHASE BANK has within its power the ability"]},"sort":[11.61691,"7135443"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8942345","_score":10.815653,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am again writing to you about US Bank Reliacard. I am writing again about their deceptive practices. I am writing again because although I continue to report to you what they are doing, you have done nothing to assist me or regulate US Bank. \n\nUS Bank froze my account and my wife 's account and denied access to those accounts. This created a great hardship on me. In a letter from US Bank they acknowledge this hardship and apologize for it. This letter is an admission of guilt on the part of US Bank and this admission of guilt and the letter is evidence that I qualify to receive payment. In fact your own director stated : \" At a time when unemployment was close to 15 %, many out-of-work Americans throughout the country had little choice but to rely on U.S. Bank for their unemployment benefits. U.S. Bank blocked access to accounts and demanded burdensome paperwork in order for consumers to regain access to their frozen benefits, '' said CFPB Director Rohit Chopra. \" U.S. Bank must comply with the law, and the CFPB and OCC are making the bank pay for its conduct. '' Well I am still waiting on you to act and make the bank pay for all the losses I have experienced at their hands. I have seen no cooperation from the CFPB or US Bank. When exactly do you plan on enforcing these things and not just talk about them?\n\nTo make matters more insulting, US Bank issued two checks that they then rejected, that were issued from the funds in my wife and my bank accounts. So after waiting all that time for unemployment benefits that were locked up in frozen bank accounts, the false hope in the form of a paper check was offered and then not provided. US Bank claims that the checks that were deposited at a bank in XXXX KS on XX/XX/XXXX and then rejected had been previously digitally deposited else where. This was not a fact. \n\nUS Bank sent copies of the checks that they claim were previously paid out. I noticed firstly that the back of the checks were not signed. My signature was not present on these check copies. There was only a stamp on the back saying XXXX XXXX XXXX  and the name, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have never held a bank account at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The lack of signature and the bank where US Bank claims these checks were allegedly cashed show no connection to me. These funds that were issued by US Bank to me, that were not deposited by me, until XX/XX/XXXX, that were for the balance remaining in my account and my wifes account, are still owed to me. \n\nAs mentioned, I have never held a bank account at a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX excuse of the checks being paid out is not a good excuse. I once held an account at a different bank branch that existed under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, but this particular bank I held an account with was not named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  To further point out US Banks ridiculous claims I will mention the timeline of all of this. US Bank claims that one of these checks that are still owed to me had been cashed on XX/XX/XXXX and another on XX/XX/XXXX. The only bank account I have ever held with any branch that was remotely affiliated with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which again, bears a different name, was not even in existence at the time US Bank claims the checks were cashed prior. My bank account, the only XXXX ever affiliated with a XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX was not opened until Thursday XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX. I have verification of this. \n\nI would like to hear what US Bank has to say about the fact that a check bearing no signature on the back, being deposited to a bank I have never had an account at, is somehow my loss or responsibility? I would like to hear what US Bank has to say about the fact the the only account I have ever held that was somewhat affiliated with a XXXX XXXX, was not in existence at the time they claim these checks they owe me were cashed. If an account did not exist with a XXXX affiliate until XX/XX/XXXX, how exactly am I responsible for unsigned electronic checks that were cashed in XXXX and XXXX earlier in the year? The answer is simply, I am NOT. \n\nThe one and only time I deposited these XXXX checks was on XX/XX/XXXX. They were deposited with the XXXX XXXX XXXX  and that is where the money stayed until a later date when part was withdrawn. Shortly after the withdraw, US Bank rejected the very same checks that they had issued to me, the very same checks that they funded using my account and my wife 's account, the very same checks with tracking numbers verifying the validity, the very same checks that US Bank wrote me a letter indicating that they wrote these checks because they owed this money to me and they apologized for their poor service. \n\nIn summary, US Bank was guilty of deceptive practices in the past. The frozen assets that they refused to provide when necessary caused the loss of my home and even my state residency. US Bank was called out for these poor practices on XX/XX/XXXX when the CFPB made an order against them for doing exactly this. The letter I received from US Bank in which they admit doing these things to me is proof enough that I should be paid a great deal from their deceptions in addition to the amount they owe from the checking accounts, totaling {$3800.00}. I expect the CFPB to actually hold US Bank accountable and see to it that I am paid the amount of {$3800.00} for the account funds and more for all the hardships this has caused. To continue the summary, US Banks excuse for rejecting the checks they wrote to me is a weak attempt to weasel out of what they owe. The checks bore no signature by me and were said to be cashed at a bank I held no account. Even an affiliate account held by me did not come into existence until 8 months after the check was said to have been cashed, making this an obvious impossibility. \n\nI am fed up with the lack of honesty and cooperation by US Bank, and nearly as fed up with the CFPB and the inability to act or enforce these things. Should US Bank decide yet again to deny me what they owe me and not issue my money promptly, the following will occur : I intend to file suit against US Bank Reliacard in an amount that far exceeds any amount we have discussed here. I have contacted a highly reputable banking and finance attorney from XXXX  XXXX and I we will see to it that US Bank pays and pays greatly. The wheel is in motion to recuperate what US Bank owes me, so I offer you only one chance here and now to pay what you owe or you will pay what you truly owe for all the hardships and losses you caused. What's it gon na be US Bank Reliacard? Are you going to own up to your ridiculous attempts do dodge paying what you owe, or are we going to war for the long haul? I am a consumer needing redress and am owed as such. US Bank owes me a civil money penalty payment of large amounts and the CFPB had better enforce the payment to me. \n\nAs a reminder for US Bank and the CFPB, the order made was something like this : On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX issued an order against U.S. Bank in connection with its administration of prepaid debit cards that held unemployment insurance benefits. U.S. Bank has offered prepaid debit cards to eligible consumers in at least XXXX states and the District of Columbia to distribute unemployment insurance benefits through its ReliaCard program. In the summer of XXXX, U.S. Bank implemented new freeze criteria to determine whether to freeze a card due to suspected fraud. Using these new fraud controls and its expanded criteria used for freezing accounts, U.S. Bank froze the accounts of tens of thousands of cardholders eligible for benefits. The Bureau found that U.S. Bank engaged in unfair acts or practices in violation of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of XXXX by failing to provide those eligible ReliaCard prepaid debit cardholders whose accounts U.S. Bank froze with adequate means to verify their identities and timely regain access to their benefits. For freezes that U.S. Bank imposed in XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, on average it took a month or longer for consumers to unfreeze their ReliaCard accounts. And for freezes that U.S. Bank imposed in XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, on average it took multiple weeks for consumers to unfreeze their ReliaCard accounts. The XXXX also found that U.S. Bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, and its implementing Regulation E, by failing to timely investigate ReliaCard prepaid debit cardholders ' notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized electronic fund transfers ( EFTs ). The order requires U.S. Bank to provide {$5.00} XXXX in redress to consumers and to pay a {$15.00} XXXX civil money penalty. The order also requires U.S. Bank to take measures to ensure future compliance. The OCC concurrently issued an order against U.S. Bank addressing U.S. Bank 's conduct relating to administration of the ReliaCard program, separately fining it {$15.00} XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-06T16:17:19.000Z","issue":"Problem caused by your funds being low","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"671XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8942345","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2024-05-06T14:56:49.000Z","state":"KS","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Bounced checks or returned payments"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Even</em> an affiliate account held by me did not come into existence until 8 months after the check was said to have been <em>cashed</em>, making this an obvious impossibility. \n\nI am fed up with the lack of honesty and cooperation by US Bank, and nearly as fed up with the CFPB and the inability to act or enforce these things."],"issue":["Problem caused by your <em>funds</em> being low"]},"sort":[10.815653,"8942345"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7446800","_score":10.492514,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"To : Equifax I should not have to tell you at that transactions and experiences are excluded from consumer reports. I have, however, since XX/XX/2022, been telling you to STOP reporting my transactions and experiences. You can not pick and choose which section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act you want to follow and which section you do not. Pursuant to section 603 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you making a report containing my transactions and experiences is a prohibited. I suspect XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  and Equifax are in collusion with committing securities fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and extortion. \n\nTransaction XXXX. Any event that cause a change in an organizations financial position or net worth, resulting from normal business activity. It is recorded on the general ledger by debit or credit tickets. \nXXXX. Advance of funds, as in a credit card cash advance, purchase of goods at a retailer, or when a borrower activates a line of credit. \nXXXX. Activities affecting a deposit account, such as a deposit of funds or a withdrawal, carried out at the request of the account holder. \n\nEvery time I use my credit card to make a purchase, that purchase is recorded in the general ledger according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Every purchase I make is a transaction. Every purchase I make using my credit card raises my debt utilization. Debt utilization is the result of one or more a transactions. My credit card balances are based on the purchase of goods at a retailer. Purchases money or the advance of funds held on deposit is a transaction. My credit limit is a transaction. Activities such as a deposit or withdrawal reflect my payment history. My payment history is a transaction. Every transaction is a bank experience. My debt utilization, account balances, amounts due, due dates, and payment history are all transactions and experiences that must be excluded from my consumer report. Immediately stop reporting my debt utilization, account balances, amounts due, due dates, all payment history, and update both accounts referenced in this complaint to paid as agreed. \nThese transactions are a result of income being credited and debited from my accounts. Debt is a reflection of my income.\n\nFurthermore, Ive notified you over three times about the billing dispute Ive been having with XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/2022. After I notified you, you continued to make reports and allow reports to be made containing prohibited information. Pursuant to section 162 ( a ) of the Fair Credit Billing Act, adverse credit reporting during a billing dispute is prohibited. So even if you were permitted to make reports using my transactions and experiences, adverse reports made during a billing dispute, to any party, is prohibited. I personally gave you notice of the billing dispute Ive been having with XXXX XXXX and you still continue to create reports using the inaccurate and prohibited information given to you by XXXX XXXX. You are also currently making reports showing my XXXX by XXXX XXXX account is closed. Not only is that a violation of section 603 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting act and section 162 ( a ) of The Fair Credit Billing Act, pursuant to section 161 ( d ) of The Fair Credit Billing Act, restricting or closing my account because of a billing error is also prohibited. This account was closed unlawfully and you are allowing the furnishing and reporting of an unlawful action taken against me. I told you to remove these two accounts until the disputes are resolved and accurate credit reporting has been established. Due to the reports youre making containing this unlawful, prohibited, and inaccurate information, my name and credit has been made inequitable. My credit scores and credit ratings have dropped tremendously. This is a misrepresentation of my identity and your misrepresentation of my identity can be considered as identity theft. \n\nI suspect you did not do a proper investigation or reinvestigation before you allowed that information furnished and reported. Even after I specified what information was inaccurate you still allowed the inaccurate information to be furnished and reported. Even after I informed you of the billing dispute, you still allowed adverse credit reporting. Even after I pointed out to you exactly what information is prohibited from being furnished and reported on a consumer report, you still permitted the furnishing and reporting of said prohibited information on my consumer report. This dispute is has not been resolved. \n\nI pay my bill as agreed. Making an application for an extension of credit is a way of investing into companies who use short term debt instruments as a way of temporary financing. Owners of book-entry securities are issued statements. The draft attached to my statement is a bill equal to the amount of securities purchased and paid for with my credit. The bill amount is the security my credit purchased. Selling access to my credit makes me the purchaser. The draft is guaranteed because the proceeds do not belong to XXXX XXXX. My credit purchased the security. Im entitled to have my financial assets credited to my securities account. \n\nIve been trying for months to complete the purchase of securities I purchased on credit with the extension of credit I received from XXXX XXXX in exchanged for the investment of my application. The note is the part of the agreement where I promise to pay the amounts billed to me. Since the application is where the agreement is made, the application is the promissory note. My application created the deposit account and holds the purchase money that my application was exchange for. This account and the purchase money therein allows me to purchase more security on credit from the issuer in an amount no greater than the purchase money held on deposit at the time of purchase. Every purchase I make using my account is a deposit with the issuer of the bill. The deposit amount is the security I purchased from the issuer. The cash advance I received for investing my credit, via application, with XXXX XXXX is called purchase money because that money is used to purchase money, or security. Purchase money is used to purchase money. The deposit account, the purchase money in that account, the card used to make purchases, and all bills received from the transactions of that account are financial assets to me. This deposit account is a securities account being held on my behalf with the issuer of the monthly statements I receive. My credit is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Every security is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. I am a trust account customer. My social security account is the account being used to hold my deposit account. The deposit account is a securities account. This is why I can gain access to the transaction history of my deposit account by verifying my social security number over the phone with the issuer of my monthly statements. XXXX XXXX is the issuer of the monthly statements I receive. These statements evidence my ownership of book-entry securities. The due bill is a statement of money owed as when a bank sells a security and receives payment but has not delivered the security or equivalent asset to the purchaser within three business days. Outstanding due bills are considered borrowed funds by a bank issuing a bill and a loan to the holder of the obligation. This paper I received, and am now returning, is considered eligible paper for rediscount at the discount window. This form of paper money, the bill, are the funds you use as payment to borrow and use my credit as collateral for a securities loan. Credit card receivables are bill payments. XXXX XXXX is using my financial assets as collateral for a securities loan at the discount window. \n\nI have received the title documents and receipts for goods ( securities ) transported and I now want all of my unredeemed demand drafts, of past present and future, redeemed at face value, exchanged for securities of a new issue, and restricted to my United States Treasury Direct account. This paper money is legal tender that must be securitized to lawful money. Once its stripped and the coupon is restricted to my Treasury Direct Account my bill is considered paid. Whether the statement has a preprinted draft attached or not, this is how I want all bills payable to be paid for every account being held by XXXX XXXX on my behalf. This includes the account associated with my XXXX by XXXX XXXX credit card. The Treasury will make the principle payment to the securities account XXXX XXXX is holding on my behalf by issuing it the preprinted demand draft as a receipt via wire transfer. The interest rate XXXX XXXX is normally entitled to is the discount it receives on redemption at par. The zero coupon security is a marketable security. When XXXX XXXX gets the cusip number I want XXXX XXXX to trade or sell my security, at its discretion, on secondary the market. I know by law XXXX XXXX is entitled to receive 20 % at maturity. At maturity I want my 80 % deposited to my Treasury Direct Account. \n\nI continue receiving notice that my bill is payable. Bills payable are XXXX XXXX trade obligations that must be accepted. XXXX is guaranteed because the draft is guaranteed. The draft is guaranteed because the preprinted demand draft is a check payable on sight. Attached to the preprinted demand draft is a receipt of the goods being transported. The goods being transported are the numbers on the bill that represent the security purchased. I know acceptance is completed by delivery or notification and payable on sight. This is a demand that must be accepted because the draft is a demand. Consider this my notification. \n\nConsider this my final notification because I have notified XXXX XXXX of my concerns thrice before. XXXX XXXX and its Indenture Trustee are already in dishonor of its obligations to perform in this matter. XXXX XXXX attempting to make me believe my bill payment belongs to it is a deceptive business practice. I received notice that XXXX XXXX closed my account. XXXX XXXX does not have my permission to close my account. Closing my account was unauthorized. That action was unfair as dictated by reason and practice. Closing my account after I attempted to exercise my rights in good faith is discriminatory. Discrimination in relation to any aspect of a credit transaction is strictly prohibited by law. \n\nSadly I suspect XXXX XXXX dishonor is knowingly and willingly negligent noncompliant. I also suspect XXXX XXXX is in collusion with Equifax in an attempt to defame my character as a result of non payment by intimidating me with negative credit reporting. \n\nI know XXXX XXXX accepts Non-Conforming Payments. However I sent XXXX XXXX a proper form of payment. Ive attempted to pay my bill several times previously and my Conforming Payments have been refused and remain unreturned. This leads me to think that XXXX XXXX took my payment for itself. I want my account reopened upon receipt of this notice. If my account is not reopened, made current with all payments reporting on time and paid as agreed, I will know XXXX XXXX attempt at securities fraud and extortion is purposeful and deliberate. I have all documentation ready and available as evidence to prove my claim if and when necessary. \n\nThe term obligation or other security of the United States includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency , Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United Statesnotes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of theUnited States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act ofCongress, and canceledUnited Statesstamps.\n\nOn page two of the monthly statements I receive I notice a section titled Proper Form of Payments by Mail. Here it says payment should be sent to the address listed on the remittance portion of XXXX XXXX XXXX. I received this remittance because you XXXX XXXX has a bill that is a due bill.\n\nBill 1. Bill of exchange 2. Bill of lading 3. Treasury bill 4. Due bill, a statement of money owed as in when a bank sells a security and receives payment but has not delivered the security or equivalent asset. Outstanding due bills are considered borrowed funds by a bank issuing a bill, and a loan by the holder of the obligation. In the securities industry, a bill indicates the amount owed by a buying broker to a selling broker.\n\nEvery time I use my credit card associated with this account to make a purchase, what Im actually purchasing is security from the issuer of the bill. This security is delivered to me by way of remittance. I receive a remittance because Im selling XXXX XXXX access to my credit. XXXX XXXX, the issuer, are buying access to my credit. A remittance is how you deliver me the money owed or equivalent asset whether in cash or cash equivalent. This paper money is cash equivalent. \n\nREMITTANCE XXXX. Payment toward satisfaction of a debt, whether in cash or cash equivalents, such as checks, drafts, and other negotiable instruments. \nXXXX. Payment on an installment loan or open-end credit account, forwarded through the mail to a LOCK BOX, along with a remittance document, a machine readable billing document encoded with the customers account number, and the amount due, plus any late charges, if the loan payment is delinquent.\n\n3. PROCEEDS from a check submitted to another bank for COLLECTION. \n\nI was delivered this remittance from XXXX XXXX as payment towards satisfaction of a debt for not delivering the security purchased at the time of the purchase. This remittance is a cash equivalent that has a bill of exchange attached to it and the bill must be exchanged or redeemed for securities of a new issue. I received the remittance because the proceeds from the check attached belong to me. The only way the proceeds can be received by me, in a usable form such as cash, is to send XXXX XXXX the bill for payment as promised. \n\nLOCK BOX Post office box used by organizations to accelerate collection of receivables. Checks are routed to a designated po box number, where they are picked up several times during the day, separated from the envelopes, and submitted to the check collection system for conversion into cash receivables. Many large banks offer lock box processing as a cash management service to corporate customers. A lock box can be retail, designed for remittance processing for customer accounts, or wholesale, in which payments from other corporations are collected and submitted through DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK or electronic debit payments into a concentration account. \n\nThe address listed on the remittance portion of the statement is a lock box address for credit card receivables. Checks are routed to lock boxes. The remittances I receive are check payments that I am the beneficiary of. When the preprinted demand draft is stripped from the bill of lading, they can be processed as two separate securities. My demand draft needs to be securitized and shall be redeemed on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States. I can not detach the coupon in advance because coupon stripping can only be done by a trust fiduciary. \n\nDEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK Preprinted DEMAND DRAFT used by corporations to make transfers of cash from a checking account at XXXX bank to a CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT at another bank. This negotiable instrument requires no signature. \nA remittance is a preprinted demand draft called a depository transfer check. When the depository transfer check is submitted to the paying bank, the proceeds will be deposited to the concentration account of the person who issued the bill. \n\nCONCENTRATION ACCOUNT Deposit account into which funds are periodically transferred from various local banks, via wire transfer or automated clearing house debit, from other accounts in the same bank, or in different banks. \n\nA concentration account is also known as a zero-balance account. \n\nZERO-BALANCE ACCOUNT Checking account used by corporations to accelerate collection of funds from subsidiaries, or control funds disbursed to pay trade creditors. In a zero-balance collection account, collected balances are transferred by DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK or automated clearing house debit from subsidiary accounts into a central CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, bringing the collecting account to a XXXX balance at the end of each business day. Zero-balance concentration accounts are generally wanting centralized control of cash receipts. In a zero- balance disbursing account, corporate funds are transferred from a master account in an amount sufficient to cover checks presented for payment. Zero-balance disbursement accounts are typically used by companies that want centralized cash control but decentralized funds disbursement. \n\nMy security account, which XXXX XXXX is holding on my behalf, is the account with the balance at the beginning of the day. The collecting account with a XXXX balance at the end of the day is also my account. My account has a XXXX balance because an amount sufficient to cover checks presented for payment are transferred from XXXX XXXX XXXX disbursement account to my account. My account is collecting the amount transferred from a XXXX XXXX disbursement account because my check is the check presented for payment. \n\nThe directions also state to enclose a valid check, include name and account number on the check, include payment coupon and no cash permitted. \n\nCOUPON Detachable certificates showing the dollar amount of interest payable to a bond holder at regular intervals, ordinarily semiannually. Coupons on a BEARER BOND are negotiable instruments and are processed just like checks. Bond interest on BOOK-ENTRY securities is credited to the owners account. \n\nThe dollar amount on my coupon is my bond interest. Im the owner of the account collecting the bond interest. When my bond interest is credited to my account, my account will have a XXXX balance at the end of the business day. This coupon is processed just like a check because this coupon is a DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK. My coupon is a preprinted DEMAND DRAFT. The coupon can only be stripped by a trust fiduciary. Implying that I should detach the coupon myself is a form of inducement. \n\nDEMAND DRAFT Written order demanding that payment be made, on sight, to a third party. The person writing the draft is called the drawee ; the bank making the payment is the drawer, or the payor bank. The beneficiary of a demand draft, the person receiving the payment, is the payee. Drafts may be payable at some future date ( time drafts ) or on sight ( demand drafts ). Demand drafts drawn on by banks are known as CHECKS. \n\nSince this draft is preprinted, the issuer, XXXX XXXX in this case, is the drawee. The United States Treasury General Account is the checking account used by the Department XXXX XXXX Treasury from which the XXXX government makes all of its payments. The Federal Reserve Bank XXXX New York holds the Treasury XXXX Account and is the drawer, XXXX bank. I am the beneficiary of the demand draft, the person receiving payment, the payee. I am the payee. My demand draft needs to be securitized and shall be redeemed on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States. \n\n- CHECK Demand draft drawn on by a bank. \n\nThis remittance coupon is a check owed to me in payment of bond interest on book-entry securities that must be credited to my account. The coupon is a valid check. This check must be sent for presentment to the United States Treasury for redemption or in exchange for securities of a new issue. Treasury Direct makes principle, interest, and redemption payments, directly to an individual investors account at a financial institution. XXXX XXXX request that I write my card number as a memo on the check. I think that is a form of inducement to make me believe the coupon and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  account at your institution. My REMITTANCE COUPON is a valid CHECK. \n\nPROCEEDS XXXX. Amount given to a borrower after prepaid interest, loan fees, and other costs are deducted. \nXXXX. Funds received from the sale of assets, or from the issue of securities, after deductions of selling or marketing expenses incurred. \nXXXX. Sum of money collected on a CHECK or other negotiable instrument after deduction of exchange or collection charges. \n\nThe bank sells me a security every time I make a purchase using the card associated with the account. When I dont receive the assets, within XXXX business days, the funds for the purchase are considered borrowed, the sale becomes a DUE BILL, and the borrowed funds must be returned to me. The PROCEEDS from the REMITTANCE I receive is payment toward the satisfaction of the money owed to me. The DUE BILL is attached to my REMITTANCE. I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL. I did not promise to pay XXXX XXXX the PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE. The COUPON is my bond interest on my book-entry securities that must be credited to my account. My REMITTANCE COUPON is a preprinted DEMAND DRAFT called a DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK. The DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK is a DEMAND DRAFT payable on sight. Since I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL, a trust fiduciary must strip my COUPON and process them as separate securities. The equitable agreement is that I promise to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL and in return it must clear my electronic CHECK so I may receive my PROCEEDS. At redemption the DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK is deposited and XXXX XXXX will receive a receipt, which has actual cash value, for the face amount. The receipt is deposited via wire transfer into its CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, for zero-balance disbursement to my account which is the account collecting the balance. When all disbursements are made to collecting accounts, the CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, and all the collecting accounts will have a zero-balance by the end of that business day. XXXX XXXX PROCEEDS come from the deep discounts it receives at redemption. Separating the corpus, or the bond principle, from the interest COUPON effectively creates a zero-coupon security that can be traded on the secondary market. My PROCEEDS is the sum of money collected on the check I received from the issue of securities. The PROCEEDS from the CHECK is my REMITTANCE. When I receive the PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE, my financial asset or its equivalent, is considered delivered. The PROCEEDS from the REMITTANCE is considered my income. I believe XXXX XXXX has been keeping my income for itself. \n\n- CASH XXXX. Currency ( including bills and coin ) in circulation, including checking account balances. Cash held by a bank for example VAULT CASH, requires no capital backing under risk-based capital rules adopted by bank regulatory agencies. \nXXXX. To convert a check into cash by endorsing and presenting to a bank. \n\nChecking account balances are considered cash. Sending XXXX XXXX a check where funds will be debited from my checking account balance is the same as sending it cash and that would constitute payment not received in proper form. The only check I can send XXXX XXXX as a Proper Form of Payment by Mail is my remittance check. \n\nELECTRONIC CHECK PRESENTMENT In check clearing, electronic transmission of the check writers account number and other payment data directly to the paying bank. Electronic check presentment does not eliminate use of paper checks, but it does allow for a more efficient and less costly method for clearing checks. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century ( or Check 21 ) Act permits banks to send a digital image of a paper check instead of the actual check and thus eliminates much of the labor-intensive costs associated with clearing billions of checks Americans write every year. \n\nDue to federal law, known as The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, enabling banks to process paper checks as electronic payments, using a bank service called truncation, where the actual handling of the check is stopped and an electronic check image of the paper check is transmitted to the paying bank. Coupons are normally associated with physical bonds. Since my book-entry securities are held and traded electronically, a digital presentation of the coupon is needed to facilitate the interest payment process. At the paying bank a substitute check is created for check clearing. The actual paper check is held by XXXX XXXX and the check is not returned to the check writer with the account statement. I am in receipt of the account statement. I am the check writer with the account statement. Some of the payment data is already preprinted on the check. The other payment data that I add to the preprinted draft such as For Deposit Only makes me the writer and the payee. I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL. The DUE BILL is the corpus, or the paper above the perforated line. The corpus also carries the bill of lading with it. The bill of lading is the numbers being transported on the DUE BILL which act as a receipt detailing the security purchase. The numbers are the securities purchased and the goods being transported. This means that the numbers are the securities I purchased. The numbers represent money. The goods being transported is the money. Security is money. I use my purchase money to purchase money. The receipt is an inland bill of exchange that can be deposited and exchanged for a treasury bill. The bill is your payment and the remittance is my payment. The remittance is the money I purchased. I can not redeem my PROCEEDS without XXXX XXXX. Interest payments on book-entry securities need to be made electronically. I have not received any of my payments. The PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE is my income. \n\nSENDING XXXX XXXX MY REMITTANCE CHECK FOR PAYMENT IS A PROPER FORM OF PAYMENT BY MAIL. I AM ONCE AGAIN PROVIDING XXXX XXXX WITH A CHECK FOR PAYMENT AND I AUTHORIZE XXXX XXXX TO EITHER USE THE INFORMATION FROM MY CHECK TO MAKE A ONE-TIME ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER FROM MY ACCOUNT OR TO PROCESS MY PAYMENT AS A CHECK TRANSACTION. \n\nI have been sending XXXX XXXX checks and it is has not processed any of them. I have been sending XXXX XXXX checks and it has refused them all. XXXX XXXX closed my account. XXXX XXXX not only threatened to report my account, it actually does report, and continues to report my account negatively to the consumer reporting agencies. XXXX XXXX has taken the BILL along with my REMITTANCE and is now attempting to extort a cash payment from my checking account. XXXX XXXX has taken the PROCEEDS of my REMITTANCE, which is my income, and is making reports, with Equifax, claiming that I now owe XXXX XXXX an amount equal to the income it has already stolen from me. Transactions and experiences are a reflection of my income. Income is not a part of a credit report. You at Equifax have been making reports reflecting my income. You at Equifax may be guilty of racketeering like activity if you do not immediately update these two accounts to open, current, paid as agreed, XXXX debt utilization, XXXX due, and no late payments or you must completely remove them from my consumer report.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-23T16:09:18.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11412","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7446800","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-08-23T15:46:08.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A remittance is how you deliver me the money owed or equivalent asset <em>whether</em> in <em>cash</em> or <em>cash</em> equivalent. This paper money is <em>cash</em> equivalent. \n\nREMITTANCE XXXX. Payment toward satisfaction of a debt, <em>whether</em> in <em>cash</em> or <em>cash</em> equivalents, such as checks, drafts, and other negotiable instruments. \nXXXX."],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> <em>into</em> an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[10.492514,"7446800"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7442892","_score":10.461585,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I should not have to tell you at that transactions and experiences are excluded from consumer reports. I have, however, since XX/XX/2022, been telling you to STOP reporting my transactions and experiences. You can not pick and choose which section of the Fair Credit Reporting Act you want to follow and which section you do not. Pursuant to section 603 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you making a report containing my transactions and experiences is a prohibited. I suspect XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and Experian are in collusion with committing securities fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and extortion. \n\nTransaction 1. Any event that cause a change in an organizations financial position or net worth, resulting from normal business activity. It is recorded on the general ledger by debit or credit tickets. \n2. Advance of funds, as in a credit card cash advance, purchase of goods at a retailer, or when a borrower activates a line of credit. \n3. Activities affecting a deposit account, such as a deposit of funds or a withdrawal, carried out at the request of the account holder. \n\nEvery time I use my credit card to make a purchase, that purchase is recorded in the general ledger according to the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Every purchase I make is a transaction. Every purchase I make using my credit card raises my debt utilization. Debt utilization is the result of one or more a transactions. My credit card balances are based on the purchase of goods at a retailer. Purchases money or the advance of funds held on deposit is a transaction. My credit limit is a transaction. Activities such as a deposit or withdrawal reflect my payment history. My payment history is a transaction. Every transaction is a bank experience. My debt utilization, account balances, amounts due, due dates, and payment history are all transactions and experiences that must be excluded from my consumer report. Immediately stop reporting my debt utilization, account balances, amounts due, due dates, all payment history, and update both accounts referenced in this complaint to paid as agreed. \nThese transactions are a result of income being credited and debited from my accounts. Debt is a reflection of my income. \n\nFurthermore, Ive notified you over three times about the billing dispute Ive been having with XXXX XXXX since XX/XX/2022. After I notified you, you continued to make reports and allow reports to be made containing prohibited information. Pursuant to section 162 ( a ) of the Fair Credit Billing Act, adverse credit reporting during a billing dispute is prohibited. So even if you were permitted to make reports using my transactions and experiences, adverse reports made during a billing dispute, to any party, is prohibited. I personally gave you notice of the billing dispute Ive been having with XXXX XXXX and you still continue to create reports using the inaccurate and prohibited information given to you by XXXX XXXX. You are also currently making reports showing my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account is closed. Not only is that a violation of section 603 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ( i ) of the Fair Credit Reporting act and section 162 ( a ) of The Fair Credit Billing Act, pursuant to section 161 ( d ) of The Fair Credit Billing Act, restricting or closing my account because of a billing error is also prohibited. This account was closed unlawfully and you are allowing the furnishing and reporting of an unlawful action taken against me. I told you to remove these two accounts until the disputes are resolved and accurate credit reporting has been established. Due to the reports youre making containing this unlawful, prohibited, and inaccurate information, my name and credit has been made inequitable. My credit scores and credit ratings have dropped tremendously. This is a misrepresentation of my identity and your misrepresentation of my identity can be considered as identity theft. \n\nI suspect you did not do a proper investigation or reinvestigation before you allowed that information furnished and reported. Even after I specified what information was inaccurate you still allowed the inaccurate information to be furnished and reported. Even after I informed you of the billing dispute, you still allowed adverse credit reporting. Even after I pointed out to you exactly what information is prohibited from being furnished and reported on a consumer report, you still permitted the furnishing and reporting of said prohibited information on my consumer report. This dispute is has not been resolved. \n\nI pay my bill as agreed. Making an application for an extension of credit is a way of investing into companies who use short term debt instruments as a way of temporary financing. Owners of book-entry securities are issued statements. The draft attached to my statement is a bill equal to the amount of securities purchased and paid for with my credit. The bill amount is the security my credit purchased. Selling access to my credit makes me the purchaser. The draft is guaranteed because the proceeds do not belong to XXXX XXXX. My credit purchased the security. Im entitled to have my financial assets credited to my securities account. \n\nIve been trying for months to complete the purchase of securities I purchased on credit with the extension of credit I received from XXXX XXXX in exchanged for the investment of my application. The note is the part of the agreement where I promise to pay the amounts billed to me. Since the application is where the agreement is made, the application is the promissory note. My application created the deposit account and holds the purchase money that my application was exchange for. This account and the purchase money therein allows me to purchase more security on credit from the issuer in an amount no greater than the purchase money held on deposit at the time of purchase. Every purchase I make using my account is a deposit with the issuer of the bill. The deposit amount is the security I purchased from the issuer. The cash advance I received for investing my credit, via application, with XXXX XXXX is called purchase money because that money is used to purchase money, or security. Purchase money is used to purchase money. The deposit account, the purchase money in that account, the card used to make purchases, and all bills received from the transactions of that account are financial assets to me. This deposit account is a securities account being held on my behalf with the issuer of the monthly statements I receive. My credit is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Every security is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. I am a trust account customer. My social security account is the account being used to hold my deposit account. The deposit account is a securities account. This is why I can gain access to the transaction history of my deposit account by verifying my social security number over the phone with the issuer of my monthly statements. XXXX XXXX is the issuer of the monthly statements I receive. These statements evidence my ownership of book-entry securities. The due bill is a statement of money owed as when a bank sells a security and receives payment but has not delivered the security or equivalent asset to the purchaser within three business days. Outstanding due bills are considered borrowed funds by a bank issuing a bill and a loan to the holder of the obligation. This paper I received, and am now returning, is considered eligible paper for rediscount at the discount window. This form of paper money, the bill, are the funds you use as payment to borrow and use my credit as collateral for a securities loan. Credit card receivables are bill payments. XXXX XXXX is using my financial assets as collateral for a securities loan at the discount window. \n\nI have received the title documents and receipts for goods ( securities ) transported and I now want all of my unredeemed demand drafts, of past present and future, redeemed at face value, exchanged for securities of a new issue, and restricted to my United States Treasury Direct account. This paper money is legal tender that must be securitized to lawful money. Once its stripped and the coupon is restricted to my Treasury Direct Account my bill is considered paid. Whether the statement has a preprinted draft attached or not, this is how I want all bills payable to be paid for every account being held by XXXX XXXX on my behalf. This includes the account associated with my XXXX by XXXX XXXX credit card. The Treasury will make the principle payment to the securities account XXXX XXXX is holding on my behalf by issuing it the preprinted demand draft as a receipt via wire transfer. The interest rate XXXX XXXX is normally entitled to is the discount it receives on redemption at par. The zero coupon security is a marketable security. When XXXX XXXX gets the cusip number I want XXXX XXXX to trade or sell my security, at its discretion, on secondary the market. I know by law XXXX XXXX is entitled to receive 20 % at maturity. At maturity I want my 80 % deposited to my Treasury Direct Account. \n\nI continue receiving notice that my bill is payable. Bills payable are XXXX XXXX trade obligations that must be accepted. Acceptance is guaranteed because the draft is guaranteed. The draft is guaranteed because the preprinted demand draft is a check payable on sight. Attached to the preprinted demand draft is a receipt of the goods being transported. The goods being transported are the numbers on the bill that represent the security purchased. I know acceptance is completed by delivery or notification and payable on sight. This is a demand that must be accepted because the draft is a demand. Consider this my notification. \n\nConsider this my final notification because I have notified XXXX XXXX of my concerns thrice before. XXXX XXXX and its Indenture Trustee are already in dishonor of its obligations to perform in this matter. XXXX XXXX attempting to make me believe my bill payment belongs to it is a deceptive business practice. I received notice that XXXX XXXX closed my account. XXXX XXXX does not have my permission to close my account. Closing my account was unauthorized. That action was unfair as dictated by reason and practice. Closing my account after I attempted to exercise my rights in good faith is discriminatory. Discrimination in relation to any aspect of a credit transaction is strictly prohibited by law. \n\nSadly I suspect XXXX XXXX dishonor is knowingly and willingly negligent noncompliant. I also suspect XXXX XXXX is in collusion with Experian in an attempt to defame my character as a result of non payment by intimidating me with negative credit reporting. \n\nI know XXXX XXXX accepts Non-Conforming Payments. However I sent XXXX XXXX a proper form of payment. Ive attempted to pay my bill several times previously and my Conforming Payments have been refused and remain unreturned. This leads me to think that XXXX XXXX took my payment for itself. I want my account reopened upon receipt of this notice. If my account is not reopened, made current with all payments reporting on time and paid as agreed, I will know XXXX XXXX attempt at securities fraud and extortion is purposeful and deliberate. I have all documentation ready and available as evidence to prove my claim if and when necessary. \n\nThe term obligation or other security of the United States includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency , Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United Statesnotes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of theUnited States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act ofCongress, and canceledUnited Statesstamps. \n\nOn page two of the monthly statements I receive I notice a section titled Proper Form of Payments by Mail. Here it says payment should be sent to the address listed on the remittance portion of XXXX XXXX Statement. I received this remittance because you XXXX XXXX has a bill that is a due bill. \n\nBill 1. Bill of exchange 2. Bill of lading 3. Treasury bill 4. Due bill, a statement of money owed as in when a bank sells a security and receives payment but has not delivered the security or equivalent asset. Outstanding due bills are considered borrowed funds by a bank issuing a bill, and a loan by the holder of the obligation. In the securities industry, a bill indicates the amount owed by a buying broker to a selling broker. \n\nEvery time I use my credit card associated with this account to make a purchase, what Im actually purchasing is security from the issuer of the bill. This security is delivered to me by way of remittance. I receive a remittance because Im selling XXXX XXXX access to my credit. XXXX XXXX, the issuer, are buying access to my credit. A remittance is how you deliver me the money owed or equivalent asset whether in cash or cash equivalent. This paper money is cash equivalent. \n\nREMITTANCE 1. Payment toward satisfaction of a debt, whether in cash or cash equivalents, such as checks, drafts, and other negotiable instruments. \n2. Payment on an installment loan or open-end credit account, forwarded through the mail to a LOCK BOX, along with a remittance document, a machine readable billing document encoded with the customers account number, and the amount due, plus any late charges, if the loan payment is delinquent. \n3. PROCEEDS from a check submitted to another bank for COLLECTION. \n\nI was delivered this remittance from XXXX XXXX as payment towards satisfaction of a debt for not delivering the security purchased at the time of the purchase. This remittance is a cash equivalent that has a bill of exchange attached to it and the bill must be exchanged or redeemed for securities of a new issue. I received the remittance because the proceeds from the check attached belong to me. The only way the proceeds can be received by me, in a usable form such as cash, is to send you the bill for payment as promised. \n\nLOCK BOX XXXX XXXX XXXX used by organizations to accelerate collection of receivables. Checks are routed to a designated XXXX XXXX  number, where they are picked up several times during the day, separated from the envelopes, and submitted to the check collection system for conversion into cash receivables. Many large banks offer lock box processing as a cash management service to corporate customers. A lock box can be retail, designed for remittance processing for customer accounts, or wholesale, in which payments from other corporations are collected and submitted through DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK or electronic debit payments into a concentration account. \n\nThe address listed on the remittance portion of the statement is a lock box address for credit card receivables. Checks are routed to lock boxes. The remittances I receive are check payments that I am the beneficiary of. When the preprinted demand draft is stripped from the bill of lading, they can be processed as two separate securities. My demand draft needs to be securitized and shall be redeemed on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States. I can not detach the coupon in advance because coupon stripping can only be done by a trust fiduciary. \n\nDEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK Preprinted DEMAND DRAFT used by corporations to make transfers of cash from a checking account at one bank to a CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT at another bank. This negotiable instrument requires no signature. \nA remittance is a preprinted demand draft called a depository transfer check. When the depository transfer check is submitted to the paying bank, the proceeds will be deposited to the concentration account of the person who issued the bill. \n\nCONCENTRATION ACCOUNT Deposit account into which funds are periodically transferred from various local banks, via wire transfer or automated clearing house debit, from other accounts in the same bank, or in different banks. \n\nA concentration account is also known as a zero-balance account. \n\nZERO-BALANCE ACCOUNT Checking account used by corporations to accelerate collection of funds from subsidiaries, or control funds disbursed to pay trade creditors. In a zero-balance collection account, collected balances are transferred by DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK or automated clearing house debit from subsidiary accounts into a central CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, bringing the collecting account to a zero balance at the end of each business day. Zero-balance concentration accounts are generally wanting centralized control of cash receipts. In a zero- balance disbursing account, corporate funds are transferred from a master account in an amount sufficient to cover checks presented for payment. Zero-balance disbursement accounts are typically used by companies that want centralized cash control but decentralized funds disbursement. \n\nMy security account, which XXXX XXXX is holding on my behalf, is the account with the balance at the beginning of the day. The collecting account with a XXXX  balance at the end of the day is also my account. My account has a XXXX  balance because an amount sufficient to cover checks presented for payment are transferred from XXXX XXXX zero-balance disbursement account to my account. My account is collecting the amount transferred from a XXXX XXXX disbursement account because my check is the check presented for payment. \n\nThe directions also state to enclose a valid check, include name and account number on the check, include payment coupon and no cash permitted. \n\nCOUPON Detachable certificates showing the dollar amount of interest payable to a bond holder at regular intervals, ordinarily semiannually. Coupons on a BEARER BOND are negotiable instruments and are processed just like checks. Bond interest on BOOK-ENTRY securities is credited to the owners account. \n\nThe dollar amount on my coupon is my bond interest. Im the owner of the account collecting the bond interest. When my bond interest is credited to my account, my account will have a XXXX  balance at the end of the business day. This coupon is processed just like a check because this coupon is a DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK. My coupon is a preprinted DEMAND DRAFT. The coupon can only be stripped by a trust fiduciary. Implying that I should detach the coupon myself is a form of inducement. \n\nDEMAND DRAFT Written order demanding that payment be made, on sight, to a third party. The person writing the draft is called the drawee ; the bank making the payment is the drawer, or the payor bank. The beneficiary of a demand draft, the person receiving the payment, is the payee. Drafts may be payable at some future date ( time drafts ) or on sight ( demand drafts ). Demand drafts drawn on by banks are known as CHECKS. \n\nSince this draft is preprinted, the issuer, XXXX XXXX in this case, is the drawee. The United States Treasury General Account is the checking account used by the Department of U.S. Treasury from which the U.S. government makes all of its payments. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds the Treasury General Account and is the drawer, payor bank. I am the XXXX  of the demand draft, the person receiving payment, the payee. I am the XXXX. My demand draft needs to be securitized and shall be redeemed on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States. \n\n- CHECK Demand draft drawn on by a bank. \n\nThis remittance coupon is a check owed to me in payment of bond interest on book-entry securities that must be credited to my account. The coupon is a valid check. This check must be sent for presentment to the United States Treasury for redemption or in exchange for securities of a new issue. Treasury Direct  makes principle, interest, and redemption payments, directly to an individual investors account at a financial institution. XXXX XXXX request that I write my card number as a memo on the check. I think that is a form of inducement to make me believe the coupon and the bill are one and the same because I receive them attached to one another. Since the bill and coupon are attached, and only a trust fiduciary can strip it, In order to present the check for payment, I have to pay you the bill. I am an individual investor with an account at your institution. My REMITTANCE COUPON is a valid CHECK. \n\nPROCEEDS 1. Amount given to a borrower after prepaid interest, loan fees, and other costs are deducted. \n2. Funds received from the sale of assets, or from the issue of securities, after deductions of selling or marketing expenses incurred. \n3. Sum of money collected on a CHECK or other negotiable instrument after deduction of exchange or collection charges. \n\nThe bank sells me a security every time I make a purchase using the card associated with the account. When I dont receive the assets, within 3 business days, the funds for the purchase are considered borrowed, the sale becomes a DUE BILL, and the borrowed funds must be returned to me. The PROCEEDS from the REMITTANCE I receive is payment toward the satisfaction of the money owed to me. The DUE BILL is attached to my REMITTANCE. I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL. I did not promise to pay XXXX XXXX the PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE. The COUPON is my bond interest on my book-entry securities that must be credited to my account. My REMITTANCE COUPON is a preprinted DEMAND DRAFT called a DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK. The DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK is a DEMAND DRAFT payable on sight. Since I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL, a trust fiduciary must strip my COUPON and process them as separate securities. The equitable agreement is that I promise to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL and in return it must clear my electronic CHECK so I may receive my PROCEEDS. At redemption the DEPOSITORY TRANSFER CHECK is deposited and XXXX XXXX will receive a receipt, which has actual cash value, for the face amount. The receipt is deposited via wire transfer into its CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, for zero-balance disbursement to my account which is the account collecting the balance. When all disbursements are made to collecting accounts, the CONCENTRATION ACCOUNT, and all the collecting accounts will have a zero-balance by the end of that business day. XXXX XXXX PROCEEDS come from the deep discounts it receives at redemption. Separating the corpus, or the bond principle, from the interest COUPON effectively creates a zero-coupon security that can be traded on the secondary market. My PROCEEDS is the sum of money collected on the check I received from the issue of securities. The PROCEEDS from the CHECK is my REMITTANCE. When I receive the PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE, my financial asset or its equivalent, is considered delivered. The PROCEEDS from the REMITTANCE is considered my income. I believe XXXX XXXX has been keeping my income for itself. \n\n- CASH 1. Currency ( including bills and coin ) in circulation, including checking account balances. Cash held by a bank for example VAULT CASH, requires no capital backing under risk-based capital rules adopted by bank regulatory agencies. \n2. To convert a check into cash by endorsing and presenting to a bank. \n\nChecking account balances are considered cash. Sending XXXX XXXX a check where funds will be debited from my checking account balance is the same as sending it cash and that would constitute payment not received in proper form. The only check I can send XXXX XXXX as a Proper Form of Payment by Mail is my remittance check. \n\nELECTRONIC CHECK PRESENTMENT In check clearing, electronic transmission of the check writers account number and other payment data directly to the paying bank. Electronic check presentment does not eliminate use of paper checks, but it does allow for a more efficient and less costly method for clearing checks. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century ( or Check 21 ) Act permits banks to send a digital image of a paper check instead of the actual check and thus eliminates much of the labor-intensive costs associated with clearing billions of checks Americans write every year. \n\nDue to federal law, known as The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, enabling banks to process paper checks as electronic payments, using a bank service called truncation, where the actual handling of the check is stopped and an electronic check image of the paper check is transmitted to the paying bank. Coupons are normally associated with physical bonds. Since my book-entry securities are held and traded electronically, a digital presentation of the coupon is needed to facilitate the interest payment process. At the paying bank a substitute check is created for check clearing. The actual paper check is held by XXXX XXXX and the check is not returned to the check writer with the account statement. I am in receipt of the account statement. I am the check writer with the account statement. Some of the payment data is already preprinted on the check. The other payment data that I add to the preprinted draft such as For Deposit Only makes me the writer and the payee. I promised to pay XXXX XXXX the DUE BILL. The DUE BILL is the corpus, or the paper above the perforated line. The corpus also carries the bill of lading with it. The bill of lading is the numbers being transported on the DUE BILL which act as a receipt detailing the security purchase. The numbers are the securities purchased and the goods being transported. This means that the numbers are the securities I purchased. The numbers represent money. The goods being transported is the money. Security is money. I use my purchase money to purchase money. The receipt is an inland bill of exchange that can be deposited and exchanged for a treasury bill. The bill is your payment and the remittance is my payment. The remittance is the money I purchased. I can not redeem my PROCEEDS without XXXX XXXX. Interest payments on book-entry securities need to be made electronically. I have not received any of my payments. The PROCEEDS from my REMITTANCE is my income. \n\nSENDING XXXX XXXX MY REMITTANCE CHECK FOR PAYMENT IS A PROPER FORM OF PAYMENT BY MAIL. I AM ONCE AGAIN PROVIDING XXXX XXXX WITH A CHECK FOR PAYMENT AND I AUTHORIZE XXXX XXXX TO EITHER USE THE INFORMATION FROM MY CHECK TO MAKE A ONE-TIME ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER FROM MY ACCOUNT OR TO PROCESS MY PAYMENT AS A CHECK TRANSACTION. \n\nI have been sending XXXX XXXX checks and it is has not processed any of them. I have been sending XXXX XXXX checks and it has refused them all. XXXX XXXX closed my account. XXXX XXXX not only threatened to report my account, it actually does report, and continues to report my account negatively to the consumer reporting agencies. XXXX XXXX has taken the BILL along with my REMITTANCE and is now attempting to extort a cash payment from my checking account. XXXX XXXX has taken the PROCEEDS of my REMITTANCE, which is my income, and is making reports, with Experian, claiming that I now owe XXXX XXXX an amount equal to the income it has already stolen from me. Transactions and experiences are a reflection of my income. Income is not a part of a credit report. You at Experian have been making reports reflecting my income. You at Experian may be guilty of racketeering like activity if you do not immediately update these two accounts to open, current, paid as agreed, zero debt utilization, zero due, and no late payments or you must completely remove them from my consumer report. \nI have also received an email notification from you stating that pursuant section 611 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, you were unable to honor my request or a portion of it. What did you not understand about telling you to update these accounts as directed or remove them both completely?","date_sent_to_company":"2023-08-23T14:52:02.000Z","issue":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"11412","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7442892","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-08-23T14:15:24.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A remittance is how you deliver me the money owed or equivalent asset <em>whether</em> in <em>cash</em> or <em>cash</em> equivalent. This paper money is <em>cash</em> equivalent. \n\nREMITTANCE 1. Payment toward satisfaction of a debt, <em>whether</em> in <em>cash</em> or <em>cash</em> equivalents, such as checks, drafts, and other negotiable instruments. \n2."],"issue":["Problem with a credit reporting company's <em>investigation</em> <em>into</em> an existing problem"],"sub_issue":["Their <em>investigation</em> did not fix an error on your report"]},"sort":[10.461585,"7442892"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18823092","_score":9.488533,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"PLEASE REFER TO CASE XXXX - CASE WAS CLOSED WITHOUT RESOLUTION. \n\nDear Wells Fargo Customer Resolution Team, Thank you for your response. I respectfully dispute your conclusions and formally request further escalation for supervisory review, as several material issues remain unaddressed. This correspondence also serves as a XXXX XXXX formal demand for compensation in the amount of {$8500.00} XXXX XXXX for damages caused by Wells Fargos improper handling of my accounts, failure of due diligence, and disregard for foreseeable harm. This supplemental complaint summary highlights Wells Fargos serious misconduct, in their response to my original complaint. XXXX. Written Accusation of Check Alteration In a letter from Wells Fargos Fraud Prevention XXXX XXXX dated XX/XX/year>, the bank stated : We recently reviewed your account relationship and, as a result of this review, we will be closing your above referenced accounts because of XXXX or more checks deposited to or cashed against your account are suspected to be altered. This is a direct allegation of criminal behavior against me. The check was a legitimate {$15000.00} settlement check issued by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, drawn on XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, and verified by both XXXX and Wells Fargo. XXXX. Improper Full Account Freeze Despite the verification of the check on XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo : Froze all deposits, transfers, and access to both my checking and savings accounts Scheduled account closure Maintained the freeze even after the check cleared Regulatory Violation : Under Regulation CC ( 12 CFR 229 ), banks are authorized to place item-level holds for checks suspected to be altered, but do not have authority to freeze an entire account or block unrelated funds. XXXX rules allow reporting of suspicious activity but do not justify a full account freeze absent confirmed fraud, legal orders, or law enforcement involvement. Industry-standard practice is clear : suspected check alteration is managed through item-level holds and verification with the issuing bank. Wells Fargos deviation from these standards caused substantial harm. 3. Discriminatory Remarks A representative stated that the freeze may have occurred because I dont usually have large balances and much movement, a discriminatory comment against me as a XXXX XXXXXXXX woman who is both XXXX and unemployed. Financial : Late rent, bills, inability to receive and access my funds, fees Emotional : XXXX XXXX, stress, humiliation Medical : Interference with recovery following a serious injury First, your response does not meaningfully address the discriminatory statement communicated to me by a Wells Fargo representative, who stated that my account was flagged because I normally do not have much funds movement. This assertion was central to my complaint. Your letter neither denies that this statement was made nor explains why subjective account activity patterns were cited in a manner that suggests disparate treatment. A generalized statement that Wells Fargo does not tolerate discrimination does not substitute for a factual investigation into the specific conduct I reported. Second, your response conflates a permissible XXXX XXXX deposit hold XXXX XXXX with an XXXX XXXX account-wide credit block and total loss of access to funds XXXX XXXX. While I acknowledge that Regulation XXXX allows extended holds under certain circumstances, it does not automatically justify freezing all accounts and blocking all creditsparticularly XXXX XXXX  after the check was verified and cleared XXXX XXXX  Your own letter confirms the timeline, You provide no substantive explanation for why a full credit block across my accounts remained in place after verification, nor how this action was proportionate, necessary, or consistent with reasonable risk management. Critically, on XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX attorney verified the validity of the deposited funds directly with Wells Fargos XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have this in writing from the attorney, and had also received a call that morning from same. Despite confirmation from the issuing partys legal counsel, my accounts remained under a XXXX XXXX full freeze XXXX XXXX eliminating access to depositing and transfering funds across both accounts. During multiple calls with Loss Prevention, I repeatedly requested escalation and explained that I never altered a check, that XXXX had confirmed its validity, and that I was experiencing significant financial hardship due to the full block. I never received a call from their team, and my concerns every time I reached out were dismissed without meaningful review. Third, your letter acknowledges that a XXXX XXXX notice of account closure was sent on XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, then and only then after I complained to CFPB ( you reached out XX/XX/XXXX ) after being advised my account was still scheduled for closure of XX/XX/XXXX despite the funds being now available on the XXXX, suddenly it was determined that the account relationship would be retained. This inconsistency raises serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the original determination and whether any proper internal review occurred before imposing severe restrictions and issuing a closure notice. Fourth, while you cite provisions of the Deposit Account Agreement, contractual discretion does not eliminate the obligation to act XXXX XXXX fairly, proportionately, and without unnecessary harm XXXX XXXX. Your response does not address the financial hardship, stress, late fees, and disruption caused by the sudden and prolonged loss of access to my fundsparticularly after the alleged issue had been resolved and verified. Finally, your refusal to consider compensation is conclusory and unsupported by any analysis of damages or impact. As a direct and foreseeable result of Wells Fargos negligence and failure to exercise due diligence, I incurred * * late fees and additional expenses XXXX XXXX that would not have occurred but for your institutions actions and inaction. Continuing a full account freeze after third-party legal verification reflects a lack of professionalism, empathy, and adequate internal controls. For these reasons, I am requesting the following : XXXX. Further escalation of this matter to a senior reviewer not previously involved ; XXXX. A written explanation addressing the specific discriminatory statement reported ; XXXX. Clarification of the justification for the account-wide credit block beyond the deposit hold ; XXXX. Why despite me visiting the branch on XX/XX/XXXX where I deposited the funds on the XXXX and meeting with a represantive and providing her with all documents pertaining to the validity of the check, and her calling XXXX XXXXXXXX in my presence explaining same, her request on my behalf so my account restriction would be lifted, was ignored? XXXX. Confirmation that no adverse internal flags or negative indicators remain on my consumer profile ; XXXX. Reconsideration of compensation requested based on documented hardship, emotional harm and improper handling of my account. I am seeking to resolve this matter as soon as possible and amicably, however, absent a prompt and good-faith resolution, I am prepared to pursue recovery through small claims court, where I will present documentation including Wells Fargo letter accusing me of altering the XXXX local check from BXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX verification, call records, written allegations, and Wells Fargos refusal to remediate despite clear evidence. This response is being submitted concurrently to the XXXX XXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX  as part of my ongoing complaint record. I look forward to a substantive, transparent, and timely reply.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-19T07:04:45.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Other banking product or service","zip_code":"33461","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18823092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-19T06:59:12.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["A generalized statement that Wells Fargo does not tolerate discrimination does not substitute for a factual <em>investigation</em> into the specific conduct I reported. Second, your response conflates a permissible XXXX XXXX deposit hold XXXX XXXX with an XXXX XXXX account-wide credit block and total loss of access to <em>funds</em> XXXX XXXX."]},"sort":[9.488533,"18823092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4379269","_score":9.4028015,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I have been in contact with Capital One bank for the last 6 months, trying to get this situation resolved. The company has not attempted to legitimately address any of my issues in the slightest. Instead, they have accused myself, with no evidence, of having no established or registered business and repeatedly given me wrong or incorrect information. I have been conducting business for years under this name, while filing taxes as an XXXX XXXX, using my personal Social Security number. Not only that, I also have numerous photos of my myself working in this business, whether at catered events, or in the kitchen itself, which I have attached. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, I opened up a XXXX Checking account with Capital One Bank. I proceeded to conduct the usual banking actions over the course of the years ( ACH and cash deposits, check deposits, ATM withdrawals, credit card payments, bill pay orders, miscellaneous bill payments, etc. ) As a result of the covid-19 pandemic, I ended up depositing my EIDL SBA loan around XX/XX/XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Capital One XXXX XXXX XXXX  stating that they'd noticed unusual recent activity on my account and that my account had been restricted until I called in to verify some details. I immediately called the number provided, concerned that some type of fraudulent charges had posted to my account. When I called in, the representative began asking me questions regarding recent transactions, most specifically why I had been making an increased amount of withdrawals in the last few months. These withdrawals were a result of my attempt to withdraw the SBA disaster loan I had received in XXXX for my business that was shut down because of the pandemic. However, because there are no physical branch locations in my city, I was forced to make repeated ATM withdrawals, over the course of weeks, in order to gradually get the money out of my bank account. I had even called Capital One to see if my daily withdrawal limit could be temporarily raised so I could withdraw it all at one time, but I was told I could not. \n\nAs I was doing my best to verbally answer her questions, particularly why I had to make so many withdrawals and why I had received a government loan in addition to unemployment payments, I received a secondary call from Capital One. I asked the agent to give me a moment, as Capital One was calling me on the other line, just in case it was in regard to my account as well. Unfortunately, after asking the other representative to call me back and quickly switching back, the original agent had decided to hang up. After calling back several times, I was eventually able to speak to a different agent. However, after undergoing the questioning and justification regarding my banking habits again, this agent informed me that, based on the information ( only verbal answers ) I had provided, my account was under review and would be closed upon completion of the internal review. I was informed that my the remaining balance after the review would be mailed to me once the closure was complete. However, I was also told it was unlikely that any money would be returned to me, despite a current balance of {$680.00} ( all accrued from unemployment ), unless my total balance totaled the full amount of the loan amount I had previously received. The explanation I received for this was that the SBA might try to reverse the deposit, despite the fact that I had received no correspondence from the SBA to this effect. When I asked how long this review and closure process would take, I was not given any timeframe. When I asked for a point of contact, who could provide a timeframe or updates, whom I could provide documentation to prove the legality of my account activity and incoming deposits, I was told there was no one. \n\nAt no point was I EVER asked to provide ANY sort of documentation, tax documents or anything else that might legitimize my small business or ownership of loan funds being deposited. In the same way, at no point, was I EVER provided the opportunity to validate my deposits with evidence ; despite me asking successively, multiple times in the same conversation, for an email or someone to send supporting documentation or evidence to of the validity of my ownership of the funds. Instead Capital One decided to simply ask me inconsequential questions over the phone, like : Why did you make so many ATM withdrawals? What did you spend all the loan money on? How many employees do you have? Why dont you have any employees? Why do your commissary customers, who are catering for special events, choose to pay you in cash? Why dont you force them to write you a check to deposit in our bank account? Keep in mind, I reiterated and explained several times that I had NOT spent all the loan funds and had not even begun to utilize them, as the quarantine had required us to close temporarily. Why you ( Capital One ) feel the need to lie to a consumer protection bureau, in defense of money that you unjustly stole from me, is beyond my comprehension. If they actually wanted to give me the opportunity to legitimize my business, they would have provided me with a contact person to send documentation to, in order to allow me to properly defend myself against their baseless accusations. If they want to be power crazy, and do whatever they want because theyre the bank, then they should just own up to that. Stop pretending to be fair when you were not. \n\nThe next day I received another email stating that my account was restricted and that pending the review, my \" account ( s ) may be closed and your balance - plus all interest earned - will be transferred to your linked external checking account. '' This, in itself, is odd, since I did not have a linked external checking account. After this, I did not receive much more correspondence, until on or about XX/XX/XXXX, when I noticed that my account balance had gone from {$680.00} to XXXX. When I called Capital One to find out to what address they had mailed my account closure balance check, I was informed that my balance had been withdrawn and sent to the SBA instead. When I requested a transaction ID or identifying information on the deposit, to reference when I contacted the SBA, I was provided nothing. The representative simply told me to contact someone in Capital One Customer Protection. That same day, I contacted the SBA help line, to verify if the bank can send back a deposit to the SBA. I was told no, the only way to make a payment toward an SBA loan is through the specific portal and payment website. I have continued to monitor my SBA loan management account, balance and payments posted and there is record of any credit/payment posting to my account or crediting toward lowering amount due for repayment. \n\nOn or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received my actual account closure check amount, totaling {$0.00}, which was interest accrued on the prior month 's balance. On XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Capital One once again to determine where the {$680.00} was sent, since the SBA clearly never received it. After being transferred back to Customer Protection, I was informed that my payment had not been sent to the SBA, as previously stated, but to the Treasury. The representative then falsely claimed that it was the Treasury 's responsibility to disperse the funds to the appropriate department. However, the agent could not provide any evidence of who exactly the money was sent to or how the process worked. She simply claimed that it was their procedure to do it that way. I explained to her that the SBA, nor the Treasury, asked Capital One to make a payment toward my loan or return the loan payment, so why would they randomly send my money to the Treasury, with no explanation? She claimed that if the Treasury had not dispersed my money to the SBA, it probably was in their \" Uncollected Funds ''. I asked if my payment had been sent with my account details, my name, social security number, checking account number, or any other type of identifying information to guide the Treasury on where to send the money. The agent once again claim they could not provide any information, simply stating over and over that they don't do anything with the payment once it is sent. I then asked the agent to which Treasury the payment had been sent to. Was it the US Treasury? A state Treasury? Where exactly had my money gone? If Capital One is actually randomly sending money to government departments, I need to know exactly where it was sent, so I can call someone to get this straightened out myself. \n\nI once again asked for a deposit ID or a transaction number that I could reference when contacting the Treasury ( whichever one it was sent to ). I was told that Capital One does not have that information. It is quite clear that someone at Capital One has that information, since supposedly someone in Capital One is sending money to the Treasury. Finally, after continuing to press her, the representative put me on hold to find a contact number for someone at the specific Treasury that the money was sent to. When she returned to the line, she provided a contact phone number of XXXX, which I confirmed with her when writing it down. This same number is seen written on the statement attached. The agent then stated to me that she had confirmed that my payment had either been sent to the Treasury or the Secret Service, she wasn't sure. Upon calling the number provided, it is a disconnected phone number, or at least does not ring through to anything. I have now been on hold for a total of 25 hours, waiting for an operator at the Department of the Treasury, in order to try to speak to someone who can locate my funds and either return them to me or properly route them to the proper destination. \n\nI think it is also quite convenient that every time I contact Capital One to find out where this balance was sent, it magically gets sent to somewhere or someone else, that they believe I have not contacted yet. First, I was told it MIGHT be sent to the SBA, or it might be mailed back to me, with no provision of any point of contact. Then a month later, I am told it actually was sent back to the SBA, once again with no point of contact. Then, a few months after that, when I informed Capital One that, per the SBA, banks can not simply send funds back to the SBA, the story suddenly changes. Now, it was sent to the U.S. Treasury and I am given a disconnected number to call. Why does Capital One have a disconnected number for a government branch that they seem to do so many transactions with ( as I was informed repeatedly that Capital One has a procedure that they follow in these situations )? Yet, it seems that they cant get their story straight, even with a set procedure in place, since it is so unclear that I have been told, in total, that it was sent 3 different places, in 3 different conversations, with 3 different representatives, all of whom had to put me on hold, in order to contact the internal department who handles these sort of situations. Now, after filing a complaint, the current story is that it was actually sent to The Secret Service, for sure this time. Unfortunately for Capital One, I have already contacted both my local office in XXXX XXXX, NV, in addition to the XXXX, FL field office as well. Guess what I was told, by 2 federal agents in COMPLETELY OPPOSITE states? The Secret Service does not take any funds without contacting me in some way and getting my signature in writing. They also go and get the money proactively, after this consent is obtained. Banks do not send them money unrequested. In addition, there is no ongoing investigation into myself, my business, or my SBA loan by the Secret Service.\n\nAfter filing a complaint with a regulatory agency, a Capital One agent responded to my complaint with a standard justification entailing that I was provided opportunity to provide evidence and I did not. They stated : Our records confirmed that the account received two deposits of {$59000.00} from the SBA Treasury on XX/XX/XXXX and {$3000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. These deposits were deposited into a consumer account with no established or registered business. The accounts were restricted on XX/XX/XXXX. We provided you the opportunity to provide evidence to validate the proceeds that were received. Due to the lack of evidence a business decision was made to return the funds and close the account. The only amount that was owed to you was the interest earned of {$0.00} which was mailed to you via check when the account was closed on XX/XX/XXXX. The funds have been sent back to the United States Secret Service, this includes the {$680.00}. The government as well as Capital One will send a letter with directions to protest with a contact to reach out to the government to protest. \n\nIn closing, Capital One has not done what they said they would do, because they have not attempted to remedy this situation in the slightest. Instead, they have simply attempted to shift blame for this situation away from themselves. As I stated above, it is extremely misleading how Capital One claims that, due to lack of evidence a business decision was made to return the funds and close the account, when, at no point, did they give me ANY opportunity to provide any sort of documentation or evidence to them. Pretty convenient to claim that you gave me an opportunity, so that you can blame me for why you had to make that decision. Except for one thing, the claim that I was given opportunity to provide evidence is a lie. There currently is not nor was there ever any writ or judgment against me or filed upon my account. Based on this, my funds should have been immediately returned to me, and not held for an undisclosed amount of time and then stolen. At no point, has any representative from Customer Protection even apologized for me receiving incorrect information over the past 6 months and wasting weeks of my time. In addition, I HAVE NEVER received any correspondence from Capital One OR The United States Secret Service with directions to protest any of these decisions. When I was on the phone with the representative, I was once again not given ANY directions on how to protest, despite numerous requests for it. In my initial call, I requested a phone number to contact someone. I was denied. I requested an email that I could email documentation to. I was denied. Alternatively, I requested my contact information to be given to the internal department instead, so they could contact me at their convenience, with any requests for documentation or necessary information. I was denied. How can a claim be made that they mailed me a letter with directions to protest, when I was verbally denied this exact information? Similarly, if this government contact to reach out is known, then why isnt this information not specifically stated in this response, rather than this attempt at gaslighting me into believing that they will proactively contact me? Obviously, whoever they sent it to did not notify the Secret Service of receipt of such funds, since they do not know about it. In respect to the government mailing out a letter, I would think that if the Secret Service had sent me directions to protest, they would have record of that when I am calling their office and speaking with federal agents. Except, they do not. Because, they are not investigating me for loan fraud and thus did not request Capital One to freeze my account or seize my funds. Instead, of their own volition, Capital One chose to lock my account ( which is in their right to do ), and then determined to send unrequested funds to some unknown entity, who they continue to refuse to disclose ( which I do not believe is in their right to do, considering that they gave me no opportunity to provide documentation, despite my request to do so, and their insufficient evidence for seizure of my funds ). Upon closure of a bank account, the balance is to be returned to me, unless there is a levy or garnishment on the account. Since there is not, Capital One did not have a legal right to disperse my funds to someone other than myself. To this day, they continue to fail to provide any proof or evidence of delivery or recipient receipt of funds. You can not just send money to The United States Secret Service. You have to address it, whether to a person, a department, an address, or even a city ( still a little unreasonable, but at least I have something to work with ). In addition, they have also failed to provide proof of duty of care, to insure that these funds were properly labeled, for efficient dispersal of funds, once received by the recipient. They are obviously trying to mislead and misdirect attention, in order to waste mine and others time, while they continue to unjustly profit from stolen funds. \n\nIf Capital One wants to take people 's hard earned money, and money that the government is providing to small business owners to keep them from going bankrupt, they should at least keep track of where they're sending that money, unless they're simply unjustly enriching themselves/their government counterparts, with mine and I'm sure many other 's money that we need to survive. I am a young, XXXX, minority business owner and this is unacceptable during a pandemic and in this current day and age. Regulate these companies. They are out of control. \n\nI apologize for the length of this complaint, but Capital One seems to be avoiding every opportunity to rectify this situation and someone needs to hold them accountable for taking customers funds illegally. In their response to my complaint, I was also provided the responders specific contact info, whom I immediately attempted to contact. However, once again, they did not answer and I was forced to leave a voicemail, which has not been returned.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-06-01T14:26:52.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"89108","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4379269","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2021-05-14T22:16:50.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Because, they are not <em>investigating</em> me for loan fraud and thus did not request Capital One to freeze my account or seize my <em>funds</em>."]},"sort":[9.4028015,"4379269"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11745559","_score":9.217209,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This is the copy of the letter I mailed to Credit Karma on XX/XX/XXXX. I have not received a response. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XX/XX/XXXX Credit Karma XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX RE : Status of investigation and return of funds : Dear Credit Karma, I am writing to request a status update concerning unauthorized transactions and at least possibly XXXX deposit made to my closed Credit Karma Money XXXX Account ( checking and savings, and cancelled Visa debit card ). I am writing to you because I spoke to XXXX customer service representatives yesterday for close to an hour and neither could provide me with any discrete details about the account Credit Karma allowed to be compromised and ultimately closed. If I do not receive a timely response, I will be filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as other oversight and enforcement agencies. Below is my discrete biographical information so you may find my account. \nName : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, email address on file : XXXX ; address on file : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( please note my updated address above ), Card Ending in XXXX. \nBelow is a synopsis of what happened and why I am inquiring about funds possibly held by you without cause. \nI opened a Credit Karma Money account years ago and have used it largely without any issues ; I had a debit Visa card and used it as my primary card ; On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received notifications from Credit Karma about transactions I did not authorize. I immediately called Credit Karma and spoke to a representative and she cancelled my Visa Debit card, even though I told her that this was a virtual card that was opened ; the individuals that compromised my account were allowed by Credit Karma to open a virtual card without my knowledge or authorization and I was the XXXX to inform Credit Karma of this when I received an alert on my phone. Even after I called to report fraud, other transactions were allowed to go through using this virtual card. Again, the representative said my card has been cancelled and a new card will be mailed to the address I have on file ( at that time, it was XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \nThe last time I used my Credit Karma Visa Debit ( physical ) card was at a Krogers where I withdrew cash in the amount of either {$15.00} or {$20.00}. The total amount for the entire transaction was no more than {$46.00} including the cash. This was made either XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX, XXXX XXXX. All subsequent transactions were not authorized or made by me. \nPrior to the unauthorized transactions, I had approximately {$19000.00} in my Credit Karma account. \nWhen I called Credit Karma, I received the following dispute IDs for your reference : Dispute ID # : Amount : Date Disputed : XXXX {$2000.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$500.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$2400.00} XX/XX/XXXX Credit Karma approved the above Dispute IDs and deposited them back into my account in a timely fashion, but; there was more dereliction of your duties. I can not remember the total amount that was returned and I can not access my Credit Karma account. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, you sent me an email informing me that my XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ) in the amount of {$3300.00} arrived XXXX days early. This is my monthly XXXX check for which I rely on to pay my mortgage and bills as I am completely XXXX. \nAs I waited for my new Credit Karma card to arrive in the mail, I received notifications on my XXXX about more transactions that I did not authorize. Again, on XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, just XXXX  days after Credit Karma allowed my account to be compromised and allowed transactions to go forward even after I reported fraud to Credit Karma, and even after Credit Karma unilaterally cancelled my Visa Debit card and left me with no replacement card, my account was compromised again using the same method : opening a virtual card, and this time, the thief or thieves wiped my account clean leaving only pennies. I once again immediately called Credit Karma customer service to report the fraud, and this time I had the very bad luck of speaking with someone that was not knowledgeable, and because of this, money was literally being wiped out of my account as I spoke with her. During the call, she told me my case was being prioritized. I respectfully remind you that all of the money was wiped out of my account, including the money you returned to my account after the initial investigation of dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX as well as my XXXX check in the amount of {$3300.00}. As far as I was concerned, I started with about {$19000.00} before the fraud, then was wiped clean due to fraud and this amount does not include my XXXX deposit checks of {$3300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, a {$3300.00} deposit on or about XX/XX/XXXX, or any other possible deposits made to my debit card number from merchants. The customer service representative stated that she believes this incident may have been internal fraud on XXXX XXXX part. I am given the following dispute numbers : Dispute ID # : Amount : Date Disputed : XXXX {$1400.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX {$500.00} XX/XX/XXXX I was told that the dispute numbers were grouped together with other transactions, thus I can not be sure what was actually disputed. I do not know, for example, if the person I spoke with, disputed the correct transactions as I spoke to her over the phone and without having a computer in front of me and I have no way of knowing now because I do not have access to my account thanks to Credit Karma. You can understand my frustration, I hope. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I receive an email from Credit Karma stating the following : Dear XXXX, We thank you for selecting Credit Karma Money, powered by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX however, we regret to inform you that we are unable to serve your financial needs at this time. \n\nYour Spend and/or Save account will be closed, and if your accounts have a balance when we close them, we will return the funds to you, via ACH Transfer to your linked bank account or by mailing you a check, within the next XXXX to XXXX ( XXXX ) business days. \n\nIf you have filed any transaction dispute ( XXXX ), you will be receiving the final determination letter ( XXXX ) separately, in compliance with law. Your closing balance, if any, will include your final credited amount ( XXXX ). \n\nTo allow for closure, your Spend and/or Save account, as well as your debit card have been locked. Any automatic recurring deposits have been removed and no further withdrawal requests will be honored. \n\nBased on this closure, we request the following : Please destroy any debit card ( XXXX ), physical and virtual, associated with the account ( XXXX ). \nPlease stop scheduling payments or transfers or conducting any ATM or debit card transactions. \nPlease cancel any direct deposits, external automatic or recurring transactions, or any other type of electronic transactions you may have set up for this account ( XXXX ). \n\nYou never told me in advance that my account was being closed. At this time, I was still expecting a card in the mail until I received this email the email continued with other advisals and precautions. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Credit Karma wired to my externally linked account {$10000.00}. I assumed this amount to be part of my dispute, but not all of it as I just lost all of my money and I started with roughly {$19000.00}. \nAlso on XX/XX/XXXX, I requested that my direct deposit for my XXXX check be changed to a new account based on XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX email instructions noted and highlighted above. I am informed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX automated system that the changes to my account deposit may take up to XXXX deposits to take effect or XXXX  days. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Credit Karma sent me an email informing me that my account has successfully been closed. This means I can no longer access my Credit Karma online or app account, which has more details other than the details I am providing in this letter. Some of these details might have allowed me to verify certain information and even possibly obviate this letter entirely, but since Credit Karma handled this matter so poorly and with little to no regard for my accounts security. Additionally, the unilateral closing of this account has caused me to borrow money as my social security deposits were being transferred from Credit Karma to my new account and caused me to miss payments and have checks returned due to not having access to funds. \nI also never received a XXXX check for the month of XXXX or XXXX, but on XX/XX/XXXX, a XXXX deposit was made to my new account. This means that Credit Karma and XXXX  are holding my XXXX check that came in either XXXX or XXXX, and possibly the XXXX check that was wiped out on the XX/XX/XXXX theft. \nI am happy to file police reports and have made that clear to Credit Karma ; I am still happy to file such reports if necessary. I am respectfully requesting the following before I take this matter up with federal government authorities : XXXX. A clear accounting and investigation of all transactions ( including withdrawals and deposits, whether online, via check, debit, or virtual card ) attributed to my account from XX/XX/XXXX until you closed this account on XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX. A search and accounting for a deposit by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made after XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX. I surmise that a deposit from the XXXX XXXX  XXXX was made on or about XX/XX/XXXX or XX/XX/XXXX. \nXXXX. I will not call and speak to someone unless they are senior or extremely knowledgeable of these matters as I have wasted a significant amount of my time with XXXX XXXX customer service representatives in XXXX and the XXXX ; Lastly, because I do not have access to my account, I reserve the right to be wrong, but wonder what happened to my social security checks and why do I feel over {$10000.00} lighter in the pocket. I am also convinced that XXXX XXXX inept handling of my account allowed it to be compromised and left me without access to funds used for daily living. The incompetence of XXXX XXXX call-center employees was a contributing factor in the amount of money that was lost. Please note that if you call me, I screen all calls and allow them to go to voicemail if the caller is unrecognized. My mobile number is below. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-25T01:02:43.000Z","issue":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"48203","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11745559","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Credit Karma, LLC","date_received":"2025-01-25T00:55:25.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Transaction was not authorized"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I am happy to file police reports and have made that clear to Credit Karma ; I am still happy to file such reports if <em>necessary</em>. I am respectfully requesting the following before I take this matter up with federal government authorities : XXXX. A clear accounting and <em>investigation</em> of all transactions ( including withdrawals and deposits, <em>whether</em> online, via check, debit, or virtual card ) attributed to my account from XX/XX/XXXX until you closed this account on XX/XX/XXXX ; XXXX."]},"sort":[9.217209,"11745559"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8148655","_score":9.173222,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"On Saturday XX/XX/2023, I deposited a {$72000.00} cashiers checkpaid to myself and drawn from my XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXnto my Navy Federal Credit Union savings account . \n\nOn Monday XX/XX/2023 NFCU notified me of its intent to hold my deposit for 5 business days, citing reasonable cause to believe the check is uncollectible from the paying bank based on confidential information that indicates that the check may not be paid. This language is consistent with subsection 12 CFR 229.13 ( g ) Notice of Exception, which is required when a financial institution invokes subsection 12 CFR 229.13 ( e ) Reasonable Cause to Doub Collectability to delay the deposit of a check.\n\nI am alleging that NFCU did not have reasonable cause to doubt the collectability of the check and has thus violated 12 CFR 229.10 ( c ) ( v ) which dictates the check should have been made available on the next business day ( XX/XX/2023 ). \n-- - I am alleging this for the following reasons : 1. Navy Federal Credit Union has repeatedly evaded requests to explain any cause for believing that my cashiers check would not be paid despite multiple requests by phone and in-writing. \n\nOn Wednesday XX/XX/XXXX, in two separate calls with three agentsincluding two supervisorsat XXXX and XXXX respectively, NFCU personnel provided vague explanations about the hold. During these calls I was told multiple times that NFCU sends similar written notices to all customers whose checks are held regardless of the reason and that all checks in excess of {$1000.00} are subject to holds. Even if these were true, no agent spoke to the causes in my specific case. When I requested elevation to the Escalation Case Manager Team ( Resolution Department ), a representative named XXXX initially wrote me back : This message is regarding your recent concerns raised via phone call to our Contact Center. After you spoke with a XXXX, your concerns were elevated to and thoroughly reviewed by our Escalation Case Management team. At this time, we do not have any other solutions to offer for your concerns and consider this escalation case closed.\n\nAfter pressing the representative further, he stated multiple nondescript reasons why a check may be held and then refused to respond further.\n\n2. The payor bank XXXX XXXX  ) reports that it did not indicate the check would not be paid to NFCU and had no cause to do so. \n\nOn Wednesday XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX PST, I contacted the XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) who issued the cashiers check. In a XXXX minute call, an XXXX agent researched my case and explained XXXX had not advised the check be held nor had any cause to do so, because my banking history was long, exemplary, absent returned checks or overdrafts and that I had maintained a history of high balances in my savings account to cover the cashiers check. \n\n3. Navy Federal Credit Union had no reason to suspect check kiting, pending insolvency or other condition that might lead to the check being unpaid.\n\nI hold several banking services with NFCU including one consumer loan, banking and checking accounts, and digital financial services that provide NFCU significant with insight into my financial condition ( including balances, credit score, and credit history ). Such insight would preclude any notion of suspicion that the check would not be paid.\n\n- NFCU is likely aware that I maintain a high credit score and have no defaults that might indicate financial trouble.\n\n- NFCU is likely aware that I have no bankruptcy filings or pending insolvency.\n\n- NFCU might be aware that I have no civil suits or criminal cases filed against me.\n\n- My FCCU account is directly linked to my NFCU account in NFCUs digital services portal, and I have a history of moving large sums of money in excess of {$20000.00} between accounts in these two credit unions. This fact directly refutes any fabrication that I may have been check kiting. \n\nXXXX. During my XX/XX/XXXX calls with NFCU, I inquired about whether bias contributed to this hold and shared a concerning interaction with the teller who cashed my check. NFCU did not acknowledge receipt of this concern. \n\nI do not have any direct evidence that any agent of NFCU considered my identity in deciding to hold my check. However, I did verbalize this consideration to the Escalation Department which failed to acknowledge this concern in writing.\n\nThat my account was omitted entirely in the response from the Escalation Department is doubly concerning given recent reports that NFCU may be systemically violating federal anti-discrimination laws in its banking practices, as reported in several major media outlets and for which multiple members are Congress are now urging the CFBP to investigate NFCU. Therefore, I will not rule this out as a possible cause, pending more information about other customers to whom NFCU has applied holds on the basis of suspicion to doubt collectibility : https : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXfederal-credit-union-for-unfair-mortgage-lending-and-hold-lenders-using-algorithmic-scoring-accountable-for-preventing-discrimination/ 5. The check was eventually paid without incident, proving any \" confidential information '' alleging the check might not be paid was false.\n\nWhatever reasonable cause that NFCU claimed to believe the check [ was ] uncollectible was meritless. The payor bank paid the full amount as expected, because I had the funds to do so for monthsnot just throughout the lifecycle of the cashiers check. \n\nUnfortunately, bank statements visible to me do not indicate when exactly the funds were paid. In fact, aside from the email NFCU sent on XX/XX/2023, no record of the hold exists. It appears the funds may have been deposited around Monday XX/XX/2023. \n\n-- In summary, NFCU is accountable to federal law regarding the deposit of legitimate monies and may not arbitrarily delay funds deposited in its bank without reasonable cause. It is extremely alarming to a customer who has maintained a spotless banking history to suddenly have such a large quantity of funds seized with no explanation or transparency.\n\nI made multiple earnest requests to NFCU agents for an articulation of the cause for the hold on my check, and said agents did not respond in good faith.\n\nI now appeal to the CFPB in hopes of ascertaining the cause for my checks hold, and in lieu of any justifiable explanation, the oversight necessary to ensure customers can take advantage of banking services in the future as guaranteed by federal law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-12T12:37:05.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"891XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8148655","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-01-12T12:08:28.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Cashing a check"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["During my XX/XX/XXXX calls with NFCU, I inquired about <em>whether</em> bias contributed to this hold and shared a concerning interaction with the teller who <em>cashed</em> my check. NFCU did not acknowledge receipt of this concern. \n\nI do not have any direct evidence that any agent of NFCU considered my identity in deciding to hold my check. However, I did verbalize this consideration to the Escalation Department which failed to acknowledge this concern in writing."]},"sort":[9.173222,"8148655"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6251270","_score":9.0876045,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL No proof of original contract and signature, no valid debt verification, no evidence of itemized billing, and no proof of authority to collect debt in the state of North Carolina has been received after mailed requests. Upon reasonable public investigation none can be found in the XXXX and XXXX public registry databases for authorized debt collectors in North Carolina. Copies of the database entries and searches are attached. \n\nMountain Run Solutions , LLC self misrepresents to me a consumer in their collection debt activities at my dwelling in North Carolina as a known authorized debt collector in the state of North Carolina and fraudulently reports to consumer reporting agencies. \n\nThe unlawful collection of debt by U.S. Mail is prohibited by the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act. Upon information and observed actions by Mountain Run Solutions , LLC established a pattern of racketeering activity by using the U.S. Mail more than twice to collect an unlawful debt and the debt collector may be in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343, 1961 and 1962.\n\nNo evidence or rebuttal Mountain Run Solutions , LLC did not fraudulently defy indemnity and embezzle and usuriously collect on two sources has been provided : Social Security Cestui Que Trust Funds, and Payment demands using the U.S.P.S. Mail System. \n\nMountain Run Solutions , LLC has not met the requirements mandated in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) or the North Carolina Collection Agency Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, necessary to be a legal debt collector in this state.\n\nThe FDCPA or the North Carolina Collection Agency Act and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act mandates Mountain Run Solutions , LLC have a license to be a debt collector, a bond, and they must be registered with the Attorney General in the State in which they are collecting. In this instance it would be the North Carolina Attorney General with authority over the debt collection activities in the state of North Carolina.\n\nUpon information and the observed actions by Mountain Run Solutions , LLC ; the debt collector is in violation of the FDCPA, they do not meet the legal requirements to be considered a debt collector and therefore have no standing before any court with unclean hands.\n\nMoreover, the Federal Law mandates any debt collection company attempting to collect debt within the State of North Carolina, must be bonded and licensed to do so. Failure of the Corporation to maintain active surety bond, warrants grounds for immediate ceasing of collection activities and reporting to major credit bureaus. The evidence of lacking registration in the State of North Carolina from the NMLS Consumer Access database, is attached with active debt collection activities in North Carolina. \n\nA third party collection agency that violates any provision of the FDCPA, NCDCPA, and North Carolina Debt Collection Act, is liable to civil and criminal penalties which may include monetary compensation to the victim. The debt collector company can not at any point engage in abuse, threats, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, harassment, unfair means, and deception to collect debt. \n\nMountain Run Solutions , LLC misrepresents who the original creditor is and the amount with the alleged finance charges collected. The original creditor is XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX social security trust account the with the extension of consumer credit in thie transaction with the Social Security credit card with # XXXX. The extension of credit always begins with a indorsment or signature of the maker. Proceeding without full disclosure to the maker and consumer is fraud-in-the-factumn and a misrepresentation. \n\nThe account is Paid-in-Full the instant credit was extended and recognized as a deposited cash equivalent. U.S. Code Title 12 U.S.C. 1813 ( l ) Deposit The term deposit means ( 1 ) the unpaid balance of money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association in the usual course of business and for which it has given or is obligated to give credit, either conditionally or unconditionally, to a commercial, checking, savings, time, or thrift account, or which is evidenced by its certificate of deposit, thrift certificate, investment certificate, certificate of indebtedness, or other similar name, or a check or draft drawn against a deposit account and certified by the bank or savings association, or a letter of credit or a travelers check on which the bank or savings association is primarily liable : Provided, That, without limiting the generality of the term money or its equivalent, any such account or instrument must be regarded as evidencing the receipt of the equivalent of money when credited or issued in exchange for checks or drafts or for a promissory note upon which the person obtaining any such credit or instrument is primarily or secondarily liable, or for a charge against a deposit account, or in settlement of checks, drafts, or other instruments forwarded to such bank or savings association for collection.\n\n( 2 ) trust funds as defined in this chapter received or held by such bank or savings association, whether held in the trust department or held or deposited in any other department of such bank or savings association.\n\n( 3 ) money received or held by a bank or savings association, or the credit given for money or its equivalent received or held by a bank or savings association, in the usual course of business for a special or specific purpose, regardless of the legal relationship thereby established, including without being limited to, escrow funds, funds held as security for an obligation due to the bank or savings association or others ( including funds held as dealers reserves ) or for securities loaned by the bank or savings association, funds deposited by a debtor to meet maturing obligations, funds deposited as advance payment on subscriptions to United States Government securities, funds held for distribution or purchase of securities, funds held to meet its acceptances or letters of credit, and withheld taxes : Provided, That there shall not be included funds which are received by the bank or savings association for immediate application to the reduction of an indebtedness to the receiving bank or savings association, or under condition that the receipt thereof immediately reduces or extinguishes such an indebtedness.\n\nIn U.S. Code Title 15 Section 1602 ( l ) The term credit card means any card, plate, coupon book or other credit device existing for the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit.\n\nThe aformentioned acts in general are a violation Federal and State of North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Tade practices Act which applies to anyone misrepresenting as original creditor, Section 5 of the FTC Act and Dodd-Frank applies to general prohibition in absence of FDCPA coverage stating that even if the FDCPA doesnt apply, your collection activities are still covered by Section 5 of the FTC Acts general prohibition against deceptive or unfair practices .... [ T ] he FTC has taken action under Section 5 when first-party creditors engage in other practices expressly prohibited by the FDCPA. In 2013, the Cosumer Financial Protection Bureau issued Compliance Bulletin 2013-07 attached as evidence, clearly laid out its position : [ a ] lthough the FDCPA definition of debt collector does not include some persons who collect consumer debt, all covered persons and service providers must refrain from committing unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( collectively, UDAAPs ) in violation of the Dodd-Frank Act. In this state, the North Carolina Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to original creditors collecting their debt.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1611- Whoever willfully and knowingly ( 1 ) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation issued thereunder, ( 2 ) uses any chart or table authorized by the Bureau under section 1606 of this title in such a manner as to consistently understate the annual percentage rate determined under section 1606 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of this title, or ( 3 ) otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter, shall be fined not more than {$5000.00} or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. ( Pub. L. 90321, title I, 112, XX/XX/XXXX, 82 Stat. 151 ; Pub. L. 111203, title X, 1100A ( 2 ), XX/XX/XXXX, 124 Stat. 2107. ) 15 U.S. Code 1681n - ( b ) Civil liability for knowing noncompliance Any person who obtains a consumer report from a consumer reporting agency under false pretenses or knowingly without a permissible purpose shall be liable to the consumer reporting agency for actual damages sustained by the consumer reporting agency or {$1000.00}, whichever is greater. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for Social Security Trust Account XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-11-29T00:29:07.000Z","issue":"False statements or representation","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"28269","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6251270","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Mountain Run Solutions, LLC","date_received":"2022-11-29T00:19:54.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","sub_issue":"Attempted to collect wrong amount"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( 2 ) trust <em>funds</em> as defined in this chapter received or held by such bank or savings association, <em>whether</em> held in the trust department or held or deposited in any other department of such bank or savings association."]},"sort":[9.0876045,"6251270"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6120923","_score":8.252232,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Charles Schwab Bank & Co,. Inc. \n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( XXXX ) with Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc . \n\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Charles Schwab & Co., Inc 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. \n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \n\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc 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. \n\nDuring the complaints process with Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering 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 which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGeneral Obligation : On XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX  which involved me making cash withdrawals and gift card deposits in the total amount of XXXX USD from my Charles Schwab & Co., Inc account to a fraudulent investment firm. \n\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Charles Schwab & Co., Inc 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 Charles Schwab & Co. , Incs 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 Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Incs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\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. \n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc 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. \n\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. \n\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 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \n\n\n\n\nCharles Schwab & Co., Incs Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc wrote in a letter : The Client Advocacy team has thoroughly reviewed and evaluated your concerns on several occasions. We have not been able to reach a resolution that you find acceptable. Please consider that Schwab considers this matter closed. \nXXXX XXXX, respectfully, Schwab declines to respond to your future communications regarding this matter. \n\n\nRefuting Charles Schwab & Co., Incs arguments from a purely logical perspective : Charles Schwab & Co., Incs 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. \n\nIn Charles Schwab & Co., Incs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, 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.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Charles Schwab & Co., Inc morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Charles Schwab & Co., Inc encounter 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 Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc . \n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc 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. \n\nIt is perfectly obvious that Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \n\nIt is Charles Schwab & Co., Inc here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Charles Schwab & Co., Inc 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 Charles Schwab & Co., Incs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Charles Schwab & Co., Incs 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 and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc 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.\n\nCharles Schwab & Co. , Inc is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \n\nCharles Schwab & Co. , Inc are 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.\n\nRather than empathising 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 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\n\nFurther points for consideration : I ask CFPB to respectfully take into consideration my position as a victim. I have been a client of Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc. since XXXX, regularly settling all of my obligations towards them, and putting my trust in them. On the other hand, I have reasons to believe that the fraudster group targeted me because I am a nurse, disabled, and because I had no prior knowledge of how the scammers schemes operate. I have never bought a gift card in my life, and the scammers used it with the purpose of me losing all of my money.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that I have reached out to another bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose client am I regarding the issue since some of my funds were transferred from their account. XXXX XXXX XXXX recognized that I was a victim of a scam and refunded me the full amount ( I am willing to provide you the written proof of that ). This only proves that the banks, if they are willing to, can protect their clients by acknowledging their responsibility, recognizing the fraud, and taking protective measures. \n\nIn addition to this, I would like to mention that a direct result of this scam was not only the money that was lost but also the severe negative effects on my mental health. I have been experiencing symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. all consequences of XXXX  I endured and still continue to endure. \n\nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \n\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Charles Schwab & Co., Incs 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. Charles Schwab & Co., Incs 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. \n\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 Charles Schwab & Co., Inc pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\n\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. \n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-24T13:51:47.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Check cashing service","zip_code":"94530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6120923","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2022-10-24T13:45:38.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) <em>whether</em> Charles Schwab & Co., Inc 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 ) <em>whether</em> by virtue of Charles Schwab & Co. , Incs custodianship over my <em>funds</em> or by its control"]},"sort":[8.252232,"6120923"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2970984","_score":7.969057,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a complaint ( XXXX ) to the CFPB regarding the incident documented below. Today XX/XX/XXXX I received a notification that the complaint submitted by the CFPB to US bank was rejected because apparently the person who submitted the complaint is an unauthorized party. Given I am the owner of the account and I submitted the complaint via the CFPB, this is not true. From the time I submitted the 1st complaint to now, US bank has returned the {$4500.00} removed from my account. They however have not adhered to their policies of notifying me of status by corresponding with me in 10 business days. They continue to not provide information surrounding the incident and are unable to provide any level of explanation as to whether accounts held with US bank are safe. They continue to refuse to deal with me as the account owner even through a complaint lodged through the CFPB. \n\nOriginal incident reported XX/XX/XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX while reviewing my checking account on line, I noticed a transaction to the amount of {$4500.00} processed for payment using XXXX money transfer service to an unknown person - XXXX XXXX. I immediately called US bank customer service and reported this was an unknown transaction and while on the line I was advised that the transaction had just occurred within past 40 minutes and that it is possible it could be stopped. While on the call with the representative, I was informed that she was contacting the XXXX department to advise. After a short delay, she returned saying that it was not possible to stop the transaction. She advised that a XXXX incident would be submitted and that she would place an immediate freeze on my account. When pressing for more information, I was advised that since this transaction appeared to have been made using my wife 's login credentials, she would need to call in to get more details. Despite advising that my wife did not have login credentials for this account which is a business account, they insisted that these credentials were in existence and consequently she needed to contact US bank directly. That once she called in they would release the information which she could not share with me. I was also advised to call on my branch and have a new account set up as the current account was frozen. I immediately contacted my wife and asked her to call the customer service number I was provided and provide them whatever information was needed and request further details of what transpired. She called immediately only to be told that they could not verify her identity over the phone and that she should visit a branch. She then within less than an hour called on a US Bank branch located on XXXX XXXX, XXXX Colorado and explained the situation and was referred to a personal who then called US bank XXXX department in her presence. The banker at the branch verified my wife 's identity and she then spoke with a representative in the XXXX Department. She requested more information but was unable to have the person she was speaking to provide any further information. It was revealed at that time that the date of birth which US bank had on file was incorrect and this was what prevented them being able to initially verify identity. She was advised that a XXXX investigation would need to be conducted and a response would be provided by mail in 10 business days. No further information could be provided. She then in the presence of the personal banker at the branch, called me to advise that they would not release further information. She asked the banker at that point to speak with me. At that point the banker said to me she had spoken to their XXXX department and that there was no additional information to share. She advised that once the investigation was concluded in 10 days, they would send a letter with findings. At this point, I was again advised to call on a branch and have my account closed and a new account opened. On XX/XX/XXXX, I with my wife, called on my local branch of US bank located In XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Colorado. I spoke with a member of the banking staff - XXXX XXXX and explained the situation advising that there were 2 issues that needed addressing. The 1st confirming my original account was indeed frozen and that a new account needed to be established, the 2nd being addressing the absence of any intelligible information around the XXXX incident reported. XXXX XXXX immediately contacted US Bank XXXX department and spoke to a party there, and attempted to ascertain what had transpired. He was unable to provide any additional information except to say that it was my wife 's credentials that were used to commit the XXXX. When I explained to him that my wife did not have any login credentials for the business account, he advised that these were credentials established when we had a joint personal Home Owner Line of Credit, checking and savings account. I advised him that that account had been closed some time ago and that these credentials, while not known to my wife at the time the account was active, should nevertheless have been cancelled anyway as the account was closed and in addition never associated with my company account. He advised that there was little he could do and that the issue was being investigated, and we would be informed of the outcome in 10 days. At this time, I expressed concern that other login credentials may exist on my account and requested that the account be checked in the presence of my wife and I. During the process we advised of the incorrect birth date on US banks systems, to which he offered to correct. At this point we were shown the computer screen of her personal details and were shocked to see that they had unknown email, and mobile phone number on my wifes profile. A photo of this screen was taken for my records. At this point we requested that no changes be made, and this be preserved in to ensure it would interfere with their XXXX investigation. We asked that all login credentials for the account apart from 3 be locked or cancelled. Several stale/old/unknown Login IDs were identified and removed. XXXX confirmed that all was in order and that we would hear from US bank in 10 business days.We subsequently set about opening a new bank account, transferring most of the cash from the old account into the new. We also cancelled credit cards and debit cards and initiated process for reissuing new ones as a precautionary measure. On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted an online query on status of the XXXX incident reported, and as of XX/XX/XXXX had not received a response. I consequently called into the XXXX department number ( phone recording available ) only to be advised that there was no open XXXX incident. The the incident reported was closed on XX/XX/XXXX as the incident occurred with my wifes credentials and she need to report it. That no further details could be provided given to me given this was for my wife to address. I explained that we had been through all this and that my wife had been communicated with earlier, in the physical presence of a banker while talking to XXXX  department. I further explained that this account, in any case was owned by me and that my wife should not have login credentials associated with it. The agent again said that since this was a XXXX incident involving her that she would need to call in. I advised my wife was with me and she could speak to him now and do whatever he now felt necessary. My wife went through his verification process after 1st informing him that her birth date details on their system are likely incorrect. He requested telephone number we were calling from and for her to login in get last transaction details. She advised she has no login credentials but that I was logged in, and we provided him the details of the last transaction as requested. He successfully verified her and went about informing her that there was no XXXX incident opened and that all he could do was open one now. Exasperated she provided details requested and disconnected without further dialog. Shortly after this call, ( approx. XXXX ) I contacted my US Bank branch from my cell phone ( no recording ) and explained the situation to XXXX XXXX XXXX the banker who had assisted us on XX/XX/XXXX at our branch. I expressed my totla amazement at the response and my dissatisfaction to how this was being handled. He confirmed that when he helped us in person on XX/XX/XXXX, all was in order and that the matter was being addressed. He expressed that he felt the representative my wife and I had spoken to did not have complete details and he would call to find out what the status is and get back to me. XXXX later called back XXXX recording available ) and advised he had escalated the situation, and it was now back on track. He was not able to provide any further details apart from advising that the amount of {$4500.00} will provisionally be returned to my account. I asked him whether the incident had in fact fallen through the cracks and incorrectly closed out. He was not able to confirm but did say that it had been impacted by this being my wifes credentials and they were waiting for a contact from her? I asked explicitly whether they had no record of my wife 1st calling in on her own and then later in the presence of 2 bankers ( 1 being him ). He was not able to provide any explanation or detail of this. I again stated that I believe no action is being taken and stated as the owner of the account they are obliged to communicate with me. I expressed my dissatisfaction that they had likely compromised my account through a breach on their side and were now evading taking action to rectify. I reminded him that I had discovered this XXXX transfer within 40 minutes of it occurring, and that XXXX being a person to person transfer service, it should have been exceedingly easy to identify who the amount was transferred to ( or at least the bank account ), and to reverse or cancel the transaction. Their procrastination and incompetent handling in acting on this is was unacceptable. He advised that we should wait for the {$4500.00} to be reversed into my account and the official notification letter to be sent. A week or so later on XX/XX/XXXX at approx XXXX, My wife received a voicemail to call XXXX XXXX at US bank. When she called approx 20 minutes later she was asked a series of questions surrounding the incident. ( Recording Available ). The questions XXXX set about asking sounded very much like questions asked when reporting a XXXX Incident. She answered the questions and disconnected at approx XXXX. Later on the same day I saw that XXXX called and left VM for me as well to call him. Called and talked through a series of questions and scenarios. ( Recording Available ) On XX/XX/XXXX after still having not been contacted by anyone at US bank for 12 days with missing funds still not being returned and no letter received, I called my Branch and left a VM for XXXX XXXX the banker who has been assisting us. XXXX returned my call at approx. XXXX to advise he had heard nothing and also confirmed that funds had still not been returned to my account. He advised he will contact the responsible person in their XXXX Department to solicit status. While XXXX has been exceedingly helpful this situation is clearly not being adequately addressed despite his efforts. I feel that US bank is mishandling this incident for going on 1 month and evading acceptance of responsibility. They initially closed out the XXXX  incident 1st reported despite all efforts to conform with their requests. They have failed to provide a  information, reversal of funds or a letter after 10 days of reporting despite this being their policy. It is clear that while we have attempted to report this matter on multiple occasions they are not addressing the situation at all. Photos of computer screens along with voice recordings of phone calls are available if needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-07-23T19:47:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"80027","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2970984","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2018-07-23T19:35:03.000Z","state":"CO","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":["They continue to not provide information surrounding the incident and are unable to provide any level of explanation as to <em>whether</em> accounts held with US bank are safe. They continue to refuse to deal with me as the account owner <em>even</em> through a complaint lodged through the CFPB."]},"sort":[7.969057,"2970984"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13293188","_score":7.702532,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"In efforts to increase my income and to have more financial stability, I decided to pursue a side hustle. This is not a new venture for me, as over the years, I've made additional income through mainly supporting small businesses via administrative tasks, via platforms like my University 's job search site and XXXX XXXX. I was recommended to try XXXX, a very popular XXXX XXXX to work as a XXXX. I invested money in this platform ( with receipts ) in over {$100.00}, including gaining access to their premium platform which allows you to bid various jobs on the hopes of working with that client. This took money, time, and energy, for what I thought was a good investment long term. Through one of the projects I bidded for, the client reached out directly to me ( I had included my resum in my application ), saying they would like to interview me. I of course, was open. We had gone through the standard protocol, where they asked me interview questions ( all I which I have receipts for ), etc. My tasks included being an executive assistant ( which I currently am for another small business in XXXX ), and specifically help them plan the various educational seminars they'll be hosting across the XXXX this summer. For simple and straight forward, they had sent me a contract to sign ( XX/XX/2025 ) + later an onboarding form for their \" accountant '' to enroll me in their payroll ( XX/XX/2025 ) for my weekly contracting fee. This unbeknownst to me, meant I gave away my account + routing information in good faith. In the first few days, they sent me tasks related to the summer planning, where I was responsible for reaching out to event venues in various cities where they 's be speaking, as well as keeping email correspondence with current vendors that were already onboarded. I have all the email exchanges between myself and this party, all the vendors I contacted, etc. About the XXXX day in, this \" employer '' had informed me that they'd want me to handle the payments to some of these vendors. Not thinking much of it at all, I agreed, thinking I was doing my job. He informed me that said \" accountant '' will be emailing a picture of the checks in order for me to cash into my account and then pay these vendors. They said they'll be sending me a company card, but for now they need to pay these vendors in order to reserve their event dates, which didn't raise a flag to me because when planning for these speaking seminars with legit businesses, that's one thing I was informed of, that they require deposits in order to reserve the dates we plan to book. Mind you, I've never done anything in the event space, so although I've been an executive assistant, this aspect was new to me and I was learning as I went. The first check was for {$1500.00} and the \" employer '' gave me the contacts to send the deposits to ( XX/XX/2025 ). First it was a XXXX, and the reason why that didn't stand out to me was because there's been many times in my personal life where business owners I worked wanted to be paid via XXXX XXXX for example, when I took my mom to the hair salon ). Because this was a service, and the employer had already established the relationship, I didn't think much of it. The same when they asked me to attempt a XXXX / XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/2025 ). Again, I've had personal experience paying businesses for their services via these platforms and hence didn't raise any red flags. I NEVER TOUCHED ANY OF THE MONEY FOR MY PERSONAL USE WHICH IS WHAT CHASE CLAIMS I DID. And mind you, the first time I tried to XXXX the contact my \" employer '' gave me there was a flag in the system. I CALLED CHASE asking them why ( XX/XX/2025 ), and they said they were doing their background checks, which of course I had no problem with. The person on the phone asked me a bunch of questions regarding the transaction to which I answered truthfully. I even told them that I WAS EMAILED A CHECK to perform this transaction. I also told them this was for a recent job and that I HAD NEVER MET THAT EMPLOYER IN PERSON. Looking back, I don't know how a PROFESSIONAL in the fraud department didn't even question my answers. He just went along and did nothing to confirm whether this was a fraudulent transaction or not. And I of course had my own personal funds in my account, but if you account for those fraudulent transactions and the check, they balance out. Outside of those transactions, I still had my personal funds to pull from and none of MY personal transactions would have brought my account to a negative, because I am on top of my finances and make sure I always have enough in my bank account. Anyways, at this point, I'm still not aware this is a scam, I fact I spoke to my mom about this new \" job opportunity '' and she wasn't even flagged of anything suspicious. My \" employer '' followed up again with another check of {$1500.00} ( XX/XX/2025 ), for me to perform this same tasks. I did my business as usual, and this time the check was put on hold. Now mind you, I had called Chase AND the bank on the check ( XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX ) concerning this because I found it weird. The person I spoke to from CHASE told me I had NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT and that they would perform the necessary checks and balances to make sure I was in the clear. I BROUGHT UP THE CHECK AGAIN, asking how I can confirm this isn't a bad check ( just because I was curious ) and they said there's NOTHING THEY COULD DO and that I would have to call the bank on the check which is what I did IMMEDIATELY after. I got in touch with XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  and their teller told me the best I can do is confirm the account has sufficient funds. I specifically asked if I could CONFIRM THE OWNER OF THE ACCOUNT, to which they said no because it goes against company policies, which of course, I couldn't argue with. I informed my \" employer '' of the hold and said we would have to wait. Because scammers thrive on urgency ( which I wasn't aware of at the time ), he told me there was a deadline for a vendor and that I would immediately be refunded by the next day. I told him I didn't feel comfortable sending {$200.00} of my own money. He pressed on about the urgency, and because I wanted to do a \" good job '' and figured since I didn't get any BAD REPORTS FROM SPEAKING TO BOTH BANKS EARLIER, that I'll make the sacrifice and just wait to get paid back the following day. For some reason, I got this urge to call Chase the following Tuesday morning ( XX/XX/2025 ), and I specifically called their frauds department line. The first lady I spoke to informed me that even though CHASE APPROVED the check they would have to do further investigation because the checks I deposited did not look like past checks from that \" employer. '' I asked her why they didn't do their due diligence when I spoke with representatives the first time, to which she didn't have a proper answer for. She informed me that the check will be put on hold until the scheduled clear out date and that I would potentially have to call their Chase collections to pay off this DEBT that SHOULDN'T BE MINE TO BEGIN WITH. That same lady said she'll close my account since I had given private information away, which I agreed to. I had called Chase again later that Tuesday afternoon trying to understand what I can do to best get my account in order in shape, because I was lost and confused and felt gaslit because I did my due diligence and acted in good faith by calling them and asking the best questions I knew how. Then I wake up today ( XX/XX/2025 ) to find that I can no longer access my account, which I was warned may happen by the last Chase rep I spoke with, so I immediately got in touch with their frauds department to get to the next steps. I got connected to one of the most disrespectful employees, who's apparently the supervisor of the department branch. He kept cutting me off despite asking me questions and kept speaking over me, as if I woke up one day and decided that I wanted to be scammed as some sick funny joke. My account has been compromised due to the course of events and my balance is now at a - {$1300.00} balance which Chase wants me to pay. BUT THEY REFUSED TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE DESPITE TALKING TO MULTIPLE REPS IN THE COURSE OF FOUR DAYS. I got various answers from various people which tells me that Chase truly does not have a grip on their operations. YOU HAVE A FRAUD DEPARTMENT, AND COULDN'T EVEN RECOGNIZE FRAUD. And now what was supposed to be an opportunity to make my life just a little bit easier, has now set me back over a XXXX dollars and I am beyond infuriated and upset.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-05-01T15:08:19.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"10467","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13293188","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-05-01T13:59:01.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>even</em> told them that I WAS EMAILED A CHECK to perform this transaction. I also told them this was for a recent job and that I HAD NEVER MET THAT EMPLOYER IN PERSON. Looking back, I don't know how a PROFESSIONAL in the fraud department didn't <em>even</em> question my answers. He just went along and did nothing to confirm <em>whether</em> this was a fraudulent transaction or not."]},"sort":[7.702532,"13293188"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4657802","_score":7.596281,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I. INTRODUCTION This is a new complaint. It is based partially on Complaint number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX. we have filed this complaint because Bank of Americas response to the first Complaint was in bad faith and a blatant attempt to avoid responding for its unreasonable actions. We filed a Reply. But, since we could not attach any documents to our Reply and the case was treated as closed, we were advised by the CFPB to file a new Complaint. We are attaching all exhibits to this Complaint, along with our Reply to their Response. \n\nI am a lawyer in XXXX, Arizona. I was the victim of a criminal scam ( See, Endnote ) in which I lost {$65000.00} involving a fraudulent check in the amount of {$69000.00} drawn on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX and deposited into my XXXX XXXX XXXX  Account ( XXXX  ) at Bank of America located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Arizona XXXX. Bank of America was negligent in ( 1 ) failing to reasonably handle the deposit of the check on XX/XX/XXXX, by failing to put a hold on the check or advising me not to use the funds until the check had cleared, ( 2 ) failing to promptly act or notify me when the check was returned to Bank of America from XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX as uncollected funds and ( 3 ) failing to act reasonably to stop the wire to an account in XXXX in XXXX from being paid. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a letter to BOA, which was attached to our initial Complaint as Exhibit A. BOA failed to respond to this letter when we sent it to them and when it filed its Response to our Complaint, it failed to respond to most of the important issues set forth in the letter. \n\nII. THE XX/XX/XXXX, LETTER. \n\nA. THE XX/XX/XXXX LETTER STATED THAT BOA FAILED TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE DEPOSIT OF THE CHECK, BY FAILING TO PUT A HOLD ON THE CHECK OR ADVISE ME NOT TO USE THE FUNDS, UNTIL THE CHECK HAD CLEARED. BOA DID NOT RESPOND. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited at BOA a check in the amount of {$69000.00} drawn on XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( Exhibit A-1 ). BOA did not put a hold on the check and did not tell me not to use the funds until the check had cleared. I have since learned that banks will put an out-of-state or out-of-country check on hold for at least 10 business days. ( See, XXXX ). According to BOA, When you deposit a check, some or all of the check amounts may not be part of your available balance for a period of time. This is done for the purpose of validating the check and collecting the funds from the issuer of the check. \n\nWhen I presented the {$69000.00} check for deposit to the BOA bank teller, she called over someone else to take the check to complete the deposit. That person was either an assistant manager or the head-teller, I am not certain. But neither told me that I should wait any period of time before transferring any funds out of the account. I was never told there was, nor did BOA place a hold on this check.\n\nContrary to BOAs actions in this matter, in which BOA did not place a hold on the {$69000.00} check drawn on a XXXX bank, on XX/XX/XXXX, when I deposited a check for {$65000.00} drawn on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, into my XXXX  account to cover the overdraft ( Exhibit A-2 ), BOA placed a hold on this check for 10 days ( Exhibit A-3 ). BOA stated, We placed a hold on a check you deposited at a financial Center. The full amount isnt available yet.... A hold was placed on your check because check specific information indicates item may be returned. Additionally, other BOA account holders have stated that BOA regularly places holds on their checks for at least some part of the check amount that they deposit. Yet, BOA did not place even a partial hold on the check from a XXXX bank the amount of {$69000.00} or explain to me that I should not access the funds for a certain period of time. \n\nBy federal law, The Bank Secrecy Act also known as The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act requires cash or a check deposit of {$10000.00} or more in a single or multiple transaction, be reported by the bank within 15 days of receiving it. The purpose is to validate the check and collect the funds from the issuer of the check. This is not because the Bank is wary of the depositor, but because large amounts of money changing hands could indicate possible illegal activity. There is no indication that BOA reported this transaction to the IRS. Had they done so, the deposit may have been rejected. \n\nBOAs failure to place a hold on the check and to tell me not to write a check out of the account until the check for {$69000.00} had cleared was a violation of the standard of procedure and care and was negligent. \n\nB. THE XX/XX/XXXX LETTER STATED THAT BOA FAILED IN SCHEDULING THE FORWARDING OF THE WIRE TO THE BANK IN XXXX, WHEN BOA WAS AWARE THAT XXXX XXXX  HAD RETURNED THE WIRE DUE TO UNABLE TO COLLECT MAKER. BOA DID NOT RESPOND. \n\nBOA would not provide verbal or written documentation to me of precisely when BOA was notified that the check was fraudulent. Likewise, XXXX XXXX  would not provide verbal or written documentation to me or Detective XXXX XXXX of precisely when BOA was notified that the check was fraudulent. Detective XXXX, a XXXX police detective, contacted XXXX XXXX  regarding the check deposit and was told that the {$69000.00} check ( Exhibit A-1 ) was immediately rejected because it was in US dollars and did not match the account which belonged to another bank customer. He was also told that the routing number on the check was not linked to any XXXX account. He was told that this was known shortly after they received the check ( that had to be XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX at the latest ). \n\nBOAs records indicate that on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX, Arizona time, I requested an online wire for {$65000.00} to the bank account in XXXX ( Because the criminal scammer told me his company did business in XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX, I did not think his having an account in XXXX was unusual, See, endnote. ) and BOA scheduled the Funds Transfer Request ( Exhibit A-4 ). My account showed a balance of {$73000.00} at the time I ordered the wire ( Exhibit A-5 ). \n\nAccording to BOA records, it sent the wire on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ET or XXXX XXXX  Arizona time ( Exhibit A-6 ). That wire cleared the account. However, BOAs records indicate that on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ET ( Exhibit A-7 ) the available account balance was already below the {$25.00} level. On XX/XX/XXXX, a Foreign Item Adjustment due to returned due to unable to collect maker was entered on the account. ( Exhibit A-8 ). There is no time, however, indicated. \n\nWhat the sequence of events indicates is that BOA did not act reasonably to advise me that the check was rejected by XXXX as fraudulent. The check was deposited on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX  ET, the wire for {$65000.00} was sent to the bank in XXXX ( Exhibit A-6 ). \n\nI contacted XXXX by email and requested information as to when they notified BOA that they were unable to collect from the maker. They never responded. Detective XXXX XXXX, a XXXX police detective, contacted XXXX XXXX  regarding the check deposit and was told that the {$69000.00} check ( Exhibit A-1 ) was immediately rejected because it was in US dollars and did not match the account which belonged to another bank customer. He was also told that the routing number on the check was not correct. He was told that this was known shortly after XXXX received the check ( that had to be XX/XX/XXXX or XXXX at the latest ). BOA would not provide verbal or written documentation to me of precisely when BOA was notified by XXXX that the check was fraudulent. Likewise, XXXX XXXX  would not provide verbal or written documentation to me or Detective XXXX of precisely when BOA was notified that the check was fraudulent. \nAlthough XXXX XXXX would have notified BOA on the XXXX or XXXX, BOA sent the wire anyway on XX/XX/XXXX, when the online account still showed a balance of {$73000.00} ( Exhibits A-5 and A-6 ).\n\nC. THE XX/XX/XXXX LETTER STATED THAT BOA FAILED TO ACT TO STOP THE WIRE FROM BEING PAID. BOA DID NOT RESPOND. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I saw the Account Activity Report online, that showed my account was overdrawn ( Exhibit A-5 ). It also showed a Wire Transfer Hold and Debit Hold were processed on XX/XX/XXXX. I printed out the Account Activity Statement and took it with me to BOA when the Bank opened. I met with XXXX XXXX, who I believed to be an assistant manager. I showed her the status of the account and asked her to help find out what was going on. \n\nShe called the Wire Research Department. I waited when she made the phone call. She was on the phone for almost an hour but was unable to get through to anyone. I had an appointment at XXXX XXXX  and she was not getting anywhere, so she wrote her name, email address and phone number on the account statement I had brought in and I left. She stated she would continue to try to reach them. She was unable to reach them that day. They did not answer the phone. \n\nThe next morning, I saw a voicemail from Ms. XXXX ( Translation, Exhibit A-9 ). She had called me at XXXX XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. She was giving me an update and told me that she did not have an update yet ; that the wire was still processing ( it is not clear whether this fact is true or not ), and she spent about 40 minutes trying to get through to the Wire Research Team and got nowhere. She, therefore, had no updated information. She wanted me to know that she was working on it and would again call the Wire Research Department to follow-up in the morning. My wife and I met with the branch manager, XXXX XXXX, on two occasions without any satisfactory result. Ms. XXXX told us that once the check left their branch, they had no further responsibility. Meanwhile, time was moving on and the ability to stop the wire was lost. \n\nOn Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted the BOA Wire Research Department. It took me over an hour to get through. I spoke to someone in that Department of BOA in New York and gave her the information and my phone number. She told me that she would talk to someone further up the line. As I waited, 10 or 15 minutes later the phone disconnected. The person I spoke to had my information and my phone number but never called me back. I was unable to get back to her on their phone system. My frustration was growing that they never attempted to call me back after their dropped calls, especially since they knew the necessity for expediency. \nOn Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, I again called the Wire Research Department. I finally reached them and discussed the matter with them. They said they would check to see whether the item was returned or whether or not they could stop it. I went to see Ms. XXXX at the branch office but she would not see me because of other appointments. We scheduled an appointment for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX. When we met on XX/XX/XXXX there was no further information. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I made one further attempt. I again called the Wire Research Department. Instead of reaching the Wire Research Department I was accidentally routed to the Fraud Department. On Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I spoke with XXXX in the Fraud Department in XXXX XXXX. She said the wire had been processed and the matter had been referred to an investigator. Again, I was never contacted by an investigator. I discovered this is the department that BOA should have contacted in the first place and should have told me to contact.\n\nOne major problem was that Ms. XXXX did not contact the BOA Fraud Department. The fraud Department was very responsive. Had she contacted them initially, they would have been able to stop the wire in time. So many days were lost and wasted due to BOA departments not answering phones, not returning phone calls and contacting incorrect bank divisions such as Wire Research Department when it should have been the Fraud Department.\n\nD. THE MAY 6 LETTER STATED THAT BOA FAILED TO SEND ME THE RECALL NOTICE. BOA FAILED TO RESPOND. \nThe Fraud Department representative told me she would send me a Recall Notice by email. She told me that sometimes a bank would honor a Recall Notice, but there was no guarantee. When I did not receive an email by Monday, I contacted the Fraud Department and they told me that, contrary to what I was told, they do not send Recall Notices by email, but they would send it to me by regular mail. As of XX/XX/XXXX, I have not received this Recall Notice. I lost whatever chance I had to recover my {$65000.00}. This is indicative of the way in which BOA has handled this matter. They were careless because they could care less.\n\nIII. BANK OF AMERICAS RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINALLY FILED COMPLAINT WAS IN BAD FAITH AND A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO AVOID RESPONDING FOR ITS UNREASONABLE ACTIONS.\n\nA. IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT, BOA STATES, WE HAVE NO RECORD OF RECEIVING THE LETTERS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR INQUIRY. \n\nThe XX/XX/XXXX, letter ( Exhibit A ), was sent to XXXX XXXX, who was listed on the BOA website, as the CEO of Bank of America, XXXX XXXX XXXX, who was listed as President/CEO Bank of America Arizona and XXXX XXXX , manager, Bank of America branch XXXX XXXX XXXX Additionally, I sent an email to XXXX XXXX, of the letter ( Exhibit B ). That email was received by her ( Exhibit C ). There was no response from anyone. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I again sent the information to Mr. XXXX by email, as the certified letter sent to him was returned as undeliverable as addressed unable to forward. ( Exhibit D ). We sent a certified second letter to Mr. XXXX and received no response. Additionally, when we learned that XXXX XXXX XXXX was not the CEO of Bank of America Arizona ( We received her certified letter back ), we sent a certified letter to XXXX XXXX, who was listed as the CEO of Bank of America Arizona on the BOA website. We anxiously waited for a response but received none. We never received the calls they said they made to us. If we did, we would have responded timely. \n\nWe then filed our Complaint with the CFPB, on XX/XX/XXXX. We received a voicemail from a XXXX XXXX who stated that she was with the BOA Regulatory Complaint Department. She stated that she was researching the matter. She needed to speak to me directly. She asked me to call back by XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit E ). I called her back immediately but was not able to reach her until XX/XX/XXXX. She asked for information, and I sent her my letter of XX/XX/XXXX ( Exhibit F ). \n\nFor BOA to claim that we did not respond promptly but disregarded BOAs communications, is ludicrous. \n\nB. IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT, BANK OF AMERICA STATES ON XX/XX/XXXX, THE SCAM VICTIM ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM WAS SENT FOR YOUR COMPLETION. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS ; THEREFORE, OUR CLAIMS DEPARTMENT ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT YOU BY PHONE ON XX/XX/XXXX, AND XX/XX/XXXX ; VOICEMAILS WERE LEFT ON EACH ATTEMPT. \n\nWe have never received a Scam Victim Acknowledgment form ( As previously stated, we never received a promised Recall Notice or spoken to a BOA Fraud Investigator either ). We never saw any voicemails from BOA ( except as previously noted ), as we would have responded quickly, if we had. We had previously sent the letter and emails of the XX/XX/XXXX Letter, with attached documents. As far as we knew, this matter was being ignored by BOA. We would not have failed to respond to any communication from BOA. In fact, we waited for information from BOA and never received it. That is the reason we filed the complaint with the CFPB.\n\nC. BANK OF AMERICAS RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FAILS TO RESPOND TO ITEM 1 OF THE XX/XX/XXXX, LETTER. \n\nITEM 1. FAILING TO PROPERLY HANDLE THE DEPOSIT OF THE CHECK, BY FAILING TO PUT A HOLD ON THE CHECK OR ADVISE ME NOT TO USE THE FUNDS UNTIL THE CHECK HAD CLEARED SEE, SECTION II ( A ).\n\nD. BANK OF AMERICAS RESPONSE TO THE COMPLAINT FAILED TO RESPOND TO ITEM 2 OF THE XX/XX/XXXX, LETTER AND THE FACT THAT BANK OF AMERICA WAS AWARE THAT XXXX XXXX  HAD RETURNED THE WIRE ( DUE TO UNABLE TO COLLECT MAKER ) PRIOR TO FORWARDING THE WIRE TO THE BANK IN XXXX. \n\nITEM 2. SCHEDULING THE FORWARDING OF THE WIRE TO THE BANK IN XXXX WHEN BOA WAS AWARE THAT XXXX XXXX  HAD RETURNED THE WIRE DUE TO UNABLE TO COLLECT MAKER. \n\nSEE, SECTION II ( B ).\n\nE. BANK OF AMERICA STATES THAT IF WE ASKED TO AMEND OR CANCEL A PAYMENT, THEY MAY MAKE REASONABLE EFFORT TO ACT ON OUR REQUEST. YET, THEY FAILED TO RESPOND TO ITEM 3 OF THE XX/XX/XXXX LETTER. \n\nITEM 3. BANK OF AMERICA FAILED TO ACT TO STOP THE WIRE FROM BEING PAID.\n\nSEE, II ( C ).\n\nIII. I HAVE SUFFERED DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF BOAS CONDUCT. \nI have been a lawyer licensed in the states of XXXX, District of XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. I have been practicing law for over 50 years. I have never had an issue with any XXXX XXXX XXXX Account. I have never had any Bar Association discipline me for any inappropriate activity. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, this overdraft of my Public Service IOLTA Account resulted in an Attorney Trust Account Overdraft Report from Bank of America to the Chief Bar Counsel State of Arizona. As a result, the XXXX  XXXX XXXX notified me that they were investigating this matter and required me to provide a written response and produce numerous documents for examination. \n\nBecause this was a very serious matter, I was required to retain an attorney and incurred substantial legal fees. On XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dismissed the charges based upon the fact that I was the victim of a scam that caused the overdraft in my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account, and I had done everything necessary to remedy the situation. I have sustained serious mental anguish, suffering and embarrassment pertaining to the above due to Bank of Americas negligent handling of this matter.\n\nIn the present case, BOA failed to put a hold on a check from out-of-the-country bank in the amount of {$69000.00}. As previously stated, that was a violation of the standard of care. In XXXX  v. XXXX  XXXX  and Financial Corporation, a Memorandum Decision, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for the defendant for negligence where an escrow company accepted email wire instructions from an imposter for the sale of a business ( There was a slight difference in the email address. ).\n\nThe Court stated, Arizona law provides that, whether the defendant has met the standard of care-that is, whether there has been a breach of duty-is an issue of fact that turns on the specifics of the individual case. The Court found that even though the defendant followed up on the account name and confirmed the wiring amount with the plaintiff ( Plaintiff emailed the defendant to release the funds to the imposter. ), and although that was significant evidence a jury might find highly persuasive, it was not an absolute defense.\n\nThe court found that based on the discrepancies in the email addresses and the unusual wiring instructions, we can not say as a matter of law that a reasonable escrow agent would not have perceived those facts as evidence of a potential fraud, especially in light of Arizonas Escrows past encounters with fraudulent email instructions. \nBOA failed to respond reasonably and properly to our initial Complaint, just as it failed to respond properly and reasonably during the entire course-of-events that led to my loss of {$65000.00}. This is how it handled this matter from the beginning. \n\nI demand that Bank of America compensate me for the {$65000.00} that I have lost. In addition, Bank of America acted knowingly and in reckless disregard of its duties and obligations in the way in which it handled this matter. I demand compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of {$250000.00} because of the malicious conduct of BOA which caused me to sustain serious mental anguish, suffering, embarrassment and the costs and expenses incurred defending myself against the XXXX XXXX XXXX. I have been practicing law for over 50 years. I have never had an issue with my XXXX XXXX XXXX Account ( XXXX ). I have never had any Bar Association discipline me for any inappropriate activity.\n\n( Endnote 1 ) THE SCAM : The {$65000.00} check was the result of a criminal scam perpetrated by XXXX  XXXX, allegedly from XXXX, XXXX. I believed that he was a legitimate business client. He told me that he was in international business in XXXX XXXX and the XXXX XXXX. He asked me to represent him regarding a breach of contract case against XXXX XXXX. This occurred during COVID and was not an unusual transaction. He sent me a loan agreement between him and XXXX. He told me he loaned XXXX {$500000.00} as an advance on a project XXXX was working on for the purchase of the XXXX XXXX, a restaurant in XXXX. He said he received the first installment payment of {$130000.00}, but he had not collected anything since then. He sent me a loan agreement and a Funds Transfer Request and Authorization from XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX for the transfer to XXXX of {$500000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX sent me an email from XXXX to him dated XX/XX/XXXX, saying he was sorry for the delay in paying. I believed that it was a legitimate business transaction. I sent my fee agreement requesting my standard hourly rate and a {$1500.00} refundable retainer. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a collection letter to XXXX. XXXX responded that he would make an initial payment of {$68000.00} plus the {$1500.00} legal fee and make the other payments required pursuant to the schedule. I received a check from XXXX for {$69000.00}, labelled, XXXX XXXX XXXX, drawn on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX. \nThe check contained the following numbers : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX said that he had an account at XXXX XXXX, Address : XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, account number XXXX, XXXX : XXXX, Swift Code : XXXX, BENEFICIARY 'S Name : XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Subsequently, I talked to both the XXXX police and the FBI. They told me that XXXX was a very sophisticated con artist. In fact, although I was holding {$69000.00} and expected to take a fee for how many hours I had expended, XXXX did not ask me to send the remaining balance but told me to send only {$65000.00} and keep the balance in my XXXX  account for any further work that I might do in attempting to collect the balance due. This further indicated to me that this was a legitimate business transaction.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-08T17:21:43.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"85259","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4657802","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2021-08-24T22:52:58.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Yet, BOA did not place <em>even</em> a partial hold on the check from a XXXX bank the amount of {$69000.00} or explain to me that I should not access the <em>funds</em> for a certain period of time. \n\nBy federal law, The Bank Secrecy Act also known as The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act requires <em>cash</em> or a check deposit of {$10000.00} or more in a single or multiple transaction, be reported by the bank within 15 days of receiving it."]},"sort":[7.596281,"4657802"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2981580","_score":6.9657135,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This will be the 3rd attempt I have attempted to resolve this issue on two previous complaints opened through CFPB. \n\nOn both previous occasions the complaints were closed out stating that I was not the authorized account holder. This was presumably because my 1st name is listed on my as my legal name ( XXXX ) whereas the complaint was submitted in my AKA name ( XXXX ) which is known to the branch and US bank in general. All other details - Last name, Account Number, Address were correct. On 2nd occasion I received a letter to call on my branch to have me added as an account holder ( to my own account ). The branch however could find no way to add me to the account twice to satisfy the request in the letter received. Areas of US bank continues to amaze and provide a high level of reassurance that they know what they are doing! \n\nDetails of the two previous complaints submitted are below : Complaint XXXX Submitted XX/XX/XXXX Complaint XXXX Submitted XX/XX/XXXX While the amount fraudulently removed from my account has been returned. US bank continues to not disclose information I have repeatedly requested both through my branch who have been exceedingly polite and helpful as well as through CFPB.\n\nThe two points that remain to be adressed are : 1 ) Provide details or information on how the incident occurred.\n\n2 ) Provide assurance that my accounts with US bank are safe.\n\nThe transcript of the last complaint submitted is below and the letter received from US bank attached. \n\nSubmitted XX/XX/XXXX : -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted a complaint ( XXXX ) to the CFPB regarding the incident documented below. Today XX/XX/XXXX I received a notification that the complaint submitted by the CFPB to US bank was rejected because apparently the person who submitted the complaint is an unauthorized party. Given I am the owner of the account and I submitted the complaint via the CFPB, this is not true. From the time I submitted the 1st complaint to now, US bank has returned the {$4500.00} removed from my account. They however have not adhered to their policies of notifying me of status by corresponding with me in 10 business days. They continue to not provide information surrounding the incident and are unable to provide any level of explanation as to whether accounts held with US bank are safe. They continue to refuse to deal with me as the account owner even through a complaint lodged through the CFPB. Original incident reported XX/XX/XXXX : On XX/XX/XXXX while reviewing my checking account on line, I noticed a transaction to the amount of {$4500.00} processed for payment using XXXX money transfer service to an unknown person - XXXX XXXX. I immediately called US bank customer service and reported this was an unknown transaction and while on the line I was advised that the transaction had just occurred within past 40 minutes and that it is possible it could be stopped. While on the call with the representative, I was informed that she was contacting the fraud department to advise. After a short delay, she returned saying that it was not possible to stop the transaction. She advised that a fraud incident would be submitted and that she would place an immediate freeze on my account. When pressing for more information, I was advised that since this transaction appeared to have been made using my wife 's login credentials, she would need to call in to get more details. Despite advising that my wife did not have login credentials for this account which is a business account, they insisted that these credentials were in existence and consequently she needed to contact US bank directly. That once she called in they would release the information which she could not share with me. I was also advised to call on my branch and have a new account set up as the current account was frozen. I immediately contacted my wife and asked her to call the customer service number I was provided and provide them whatever information was needed and request further details of what transpired. She called immediately only to be told that they could not verify her identity over the phone and that she should visit a branch. She then within less than an hour called on a US Bank branch located on XXXX XXXX, XXXX Colorado and explained the situation and was referred to a personal who then called US bank fraud department in her presence. The banker at the branch verified my wife 's identity and she then spoke with a representative in the Fraud Department. She requested more information but was unable to have the person she was speaking to provide any further information. It was revealed at that time that the date of birth which US bank had on file was incorrect and this was what prevented them being able to initially verify identity. She was advised that a Fraud investigation would need to be conducted and a response would be provided by mail in 10 business days. No further information could be provided. She then in the presence of the personal banker at the branch, called me to advise that they would not release further information. She asked the banker at that point to speak with me. At that point the banker said to me she had spoken to their fraud department and that there was no additional information to share. She advised that once the investigation was concluded in 10 days, they would send a letter with findings. At this point, I was again advised to call on a branch and have my account closed and a new account opened. On XX/XX/XXXX, I with my wife, called on my local branch of US bank located In XXXX on XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Colorado. I spoke with a member of the banking staff - XXXX XXXX and explained the situation advising that there were 2 issues that needed addressing. The 1st confirming my original account was indeed frozen and that a new account needed to be established, the 2nd being addressing the absence of any intelligible information around the fraud incident reported. XXXX XXXX immediately contacted US Bank fraud department and spoke to a party there, and attempted to ascertain what had transpired. He was unable to provide any additional information except to say that it was my wife 's credentials that were used to commit the Fraud. When I explained to him that my wife did not have any login credentials for the business account, he advised that these were credentials established when we had a joint personal Home Owner Line of Credit, checking and savings account. I advised him that that account had been closed some time ago and that these credentials, while not known to my wife at the time the account was active, should nevertheless have been cancelled anyway as the account was closed and in addition never associated with my company account. He advised that there was little he could do and that the issue was being investigated, and we would be informed of the outcome in 10 days. At this time, I expressed concern that other login credentials may exist on my account and requested that the account be checked in the presence of my wife and I. During the process we advised of the incorrect birth date on US banks systems, to which he offered to correct. At this point we were shown the computer screen of her personal details and were shocked to see that they had unknown email, and mobile phone number on my wifes profile. A photo of this screen was taken for my records. At this point we requested that no changes be made, and this be preserved in to ensure it would interfere with their Fraud investigation. We asked that all login credentials for the account apart from 3 be locked or cancelled. Several stale/old/unknown Login IDs were identified and removed. XXXX confirmed that all was in order and that we would hear from US bank in 10 business days.We subsequently set about opening a new bank account, transferring most of the cash from the old account into the new. We also cancelled credit cards and debit cards and initiated process for reissuing new ones as a precautionary measure. On XX/XX/XXXX I submitted an online query on status of the Fraud incident reported, and as of XX/XX/XXXX had not received a response. I consequently called into the Fraud department number ( phone recording available ) only to be advised that there was no open fraud incident. The the incident reported was closed on XX/XX/XXXX as the incident occurred with my wifes credentials and she need to report it. That no further details could be provided given to me given this was for my wife to address. I explained that we had been through all this and that my wife had been communicated with earlier, in the physical presence of a banker while talking to fraud department. I further explained that this account, in any case was owned by me and that my wife should not have login credentials associated with it. The agent again said that since this was a fraud incident involving her that she would need to call in. I advised my wife was with me and she could speak to him now and do whatever he now felt necessary. My wife went through his verification process after 1st informing him that her birth date details on their system are likely incorrect. He requested telephone number we were calling from and for her to login in get last transaction details. She advised she has no login credentials but that I was logged in, and we provided him the details of the last transaction as requested. He successfully verified her and went about informing her that there was no Fraud incident opened and that all he could do was open one now. Exasperated she provided details requested and disconnected without further dialog. Shortly after this call, ( approx. XXXX ) I contacted my US Bank branch from my cell phone ( no recording ) and explained the situation to XXXX XXXX , the banker who had assisted us on XX/XX/XXXX at our branch. I expressed my totla amazement at the response and my dissatisfaction to how this was being handled. He confirmed that when he helped us in person on XX/XX/XXXX, all was in order and that the matter was being addressed. He expressed that he felt the representative my wife and I had spoken to did not have complete details and he would call to find out what the status is and get back to me. XXXX later called back ( recording available ) and advised he had escalated the situation, and it was now back on track. He was not able to provide any further details apart from advising that the amount of {$4500.00} will provisionally be returned to my account. I asked him whether the incident had in fact fallen through the cracks and incorrectly closed out. He was not able to confirm but did say that it had been impacted by this being my wifes credentials and they were waiting for a contact from her? I asked explicitly whether they had no record of my wife 1st calling in on her own and then later in the presence of 2 bankers ( 1 being him ). He was not able to provide any explanation or detail of this. I again stated that I believe no action is being taken and stated as the owner of the account they are obliged to communicate with me. I expressed my dissatisfaction that they had likely compromised my account through a breach on their side and were now evading taking action to rectify. I reminded him that I had discovered this fraudulent transfer within 40 minutes of it occurring, and that XXXX being a person to person transfer service, it should have been exceedingly easy to identify who the amount was transferred to ( or at least the bank account ), and to reverse or cancel the transaction. Their procrastination and incompetent handling in acting on this is was unacceptable. He advised that we should wait for the {$4500.00} to be reversed into my account and the official notification letter to be sent. A week or so later on XX/XX/XXXX at approx XXXX, My wife received a voicemail to call XXXX XXXX at US bank. When she called approx 20 minutes later she was asked a series of questions surrounding the incident. ( Recording Available ). The questions XXXX set about asking sounded very much like questions asked when reporting a Fraud Incident. She answered the questions and disconnected at approx XXXX. Later on the same day I saw that XXXX called and left VM for me as well to call him. Called and talked through a series of questions and scenarios. ( Recording Available ) On XX/XX/XXXX after still having not been contacted by anyone at US bank for 12 days with missing funds still not being returned and no letter received, I called my Branch and left a VM for XXXX XXXX the banker who has been assisting us. XXXX returned my call at approx. XXXX to advise he had heard nothing and also confirmed that funds had still not been returned to my account. He advised he will contact the responsible person in their Fraud Department to solicit status. While XXXX has been exceedingly helpful this situation is clearly not being adequately addressed despite his efforts. I feel that US bank is mishandling this incident for going on 1 month and evading acceptance of responsibility. They initially closed out the fraud incident 1st reported despite all efforts to conform with their requests. They have failed to provide a information, reversal of funds or a letter after 10 days of reporting despite this being their policy. It is clear that while we have attempted to report this matter on multiple occasions they are not addressing the situation at all. Photos of computer screens along with voice recordings of phone calls are available if needed.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-08-03T21:17:50.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"80027","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2981580","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2018-08-03T20:55:26.000Z","state":"CO","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":["They continue to not provide information surrounding the incident and are unable to provide any level of explanation as to <em>whether</em> accounts held with US bank are safe. They continue to refuse to deal with me as the account owner <em>even</em> through a complaint lodged through the CFPB."]},"sort":[6.9657135,"2981580"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5508360","_score":6.9404483,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"The vehicle was repossessed on XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX, I then sent credit acceptance corporation a remittance coupon in the amount of {$12000.00} was sent to the corporate office and received on XX/XX/2022. Credit acceptance did not process my payment and has not released the vehicle. \nViolations ; -15 U.S. Code 1605 - Determination of finance charge ( a ) Finance charge defined Except as otherwise provided in this section, the amount of the finance charge in connection with any consumer credit transaction shall be determined as the sum of all charges.\n\nExamples of charges which are included in the finance charge include any of the following types of charges which are applicable : ( 1 ) Interest, time price differential, and any amount payable under a point, discount, or other system or additional charges.\n\n( 2 ) Service or carrying charge.\n\n( 3 ) Loan fee, finders fee, or similar charge.\n\n( 4 ) Fee for an investigation or credit report.\n\n( 5 ) Premium or other charge for any guarantee or insurance protecting the creditor against the obligors default or other credit loss.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1611- Criminal liability for willful and knowing violation Whoever willfully and knowingly ( 1 ) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation issued thereunder, ( 2 ) uses any chart or table authorized by the Bureau under section 1606 of this title in such a manner as to consistently understate the annual percentage rate determined under section 1606 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) of this title, or ( 3 ) otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter, shall be fined not more than {$5000.00} or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1631 - Disclosure requirements ( a ) Duty of creditor or lessor respecting one or more than one obligor Subject to subsection ( b ), a creditor or lessor shall disclose to the person who is obligated on a consumer lease or a consumer credit transaction the information required under this subchapter. In a transaction involving more than one obligor, a creditor or lessor, except in a transaction under section 1635 of this title, need not disclose to more than one of such obligors if the obligor given disclosure is a primary obligor.\n\n( b ) Creditor or lessor required to make disclosure If a transaction involves one creditor as defined in section 1602 ( f ) [ 1 ] of this title, or one lessor as defined in section 1667 ( 3 ) of this title, such creditor or lessor shall make the disclosures. If a transaction involves more than one creditor or lessor, only one creditor or lessor shall by required to make the disclosures. The Bureau shall by regulation specify which creditor or lessor shall make the disclosures.\n\n( c ) Estimates as satisfying statutory requirements ; basis of disclosure for per diem interest The Bureau may provide by regulation that any portion of the information required to be disclosed by this subchapter may be given in the form of estimates where the provider of such information is not in a position to know exact information. In the case of any consumer credit transaction a portion of the interest on which is determined on a per diem basis and is to be collected upon the consummation of such transaction, any disclosure with respect to such portion of interest shall be deemed to be accurate for purposes of this subchapter if the disclosure is based on information actually known to the creditor at the time that the disclosure documents are being prepared for the consummation of the transaction.\n\n( d ) Tolerances for numerical disclosures The Bureau shall determine whether tolerances for numerical disclosures other than the annual percentage rate are necessary to facilitate compliance with this subchapter, and if it determines that such tolerances are necessary to facilitate compliance, it shall by regulation permit disclosures within such tolerances. The Bureau shall exercise its authority to permit tolerances for numerical disclosures other than the annual percentage rate so that such tolerances are narrow enough to prevent such tolerances from resulting in misleading disclosures or disclosures that circumvent the purposes of this subchapter.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1665e - Consideration of ability to repay A card issuer may not open any credit card account for any consumer under an open end consumer credit plan, or increase any credit limit applicable to such account, unless the card issuer considers the ability of the consumer to make the required payments under the terms of such account.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1666d - Treatment of credit balances Whenever a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created in connection with a consumer credit transaction through ( 1 ) transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, ( 2 ) rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or ( 3 ) amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of an obligor, the creditor shall ( A ) credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumers account ; ( B ) refund any part of the amount of the remaining credit balance, upon request of the consumer ; and ( C ) make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order any part of the amount of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than six months, except that no further action is required in any case in which the consumers current location is not known by the creditor and can not be traced through the consumers last known address or telephone number.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1692- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose ( d ) Interstate commerce Abusive debt collection practices are carried on to a substantial extent in interstate commerce and through means and instrumentalities of such commerce. Even where abusive debt collection practices are purely intrastate in character, they nevertheless directly affect interstate commerce.\n\nA debt collector may not engage in any conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in connection with the collection of a debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : ( 1 ) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.\n\n( 3 ) The publication of a list of consumers who allegedly refuse to pay debts, except to a consumer reporting agency or to persons meeting the requirements of section 1681a ( f ) or 1681b ( 3 ) [ 1 ] of this title.\n\n( 4 ) The advertisement for sale of any debt to coerce payment of the debt.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1692e - False or misleading representations A debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt. Without limiting the general application of the foregoing, the following conduct is a violation of this section : ( 2 ) The false representation of ( A ) the character, amount, or legal status of any debt ( 4 ) The representation or implication that nonpayment of any debt will result in the arrest or imprisonment of any person or the seizure, garnishment, attachment, or sale of any property or wages of any person unless such action is lawful and the debt collector or creditor intends to take such action.\n\n( 6 ) The false representation or implication that a sale, referral, or other transfer of any interest in a debt shall cause the consumer to ( B ) become subject to any practice prohibited by this subchapter.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1692j - Furnishing certain deceptive forms ( a ) It is unlawful to design, compile, and furnish any form knowing that such form would be used to create the false belief in a consumer that a person other than the creditor of such consumer is participating in the collection of or in an attempt to collect a debt such consumer allegedly owes such creditor, when in fact such person is not so participating.\n\n-15 U.S. Code 1693o1 - Remittance transfers ( a ) Disclosures required for remittance transfers ( 1 ) In general Each remittance transfer provider shall make disclosures as required under this section and in accordance with rules prescribed by the Bureau. Disclosures required under this section shall be in addition to any other disclosures applicable under this subchapter.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-04-27T07:16:50.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay your loan","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"95966","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5508360","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-04-27T06:33:10.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( d ) Tolerances for numerical disclosures The Bureau shall determine <em>whether</em> tolerances for numerical disclosures other than the annual percentage rate are <em>necessary</em> to facilitate compliance with this subchapter, and if it determines that such tolerances are <em>necessary</em> to facilitate compliance, it shall by regulation permit disclosures within such tolerances."]},"sort":[6.9404483,"5508360"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3075236","_score":6.6414323,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I address to you at this opportunity in order to request the following : opened an account from XXXX in the XXXX XXXX XXXX, Client Number XXXX XXXX, which had an office in the City of XXXX , XXXX . \nThis bank closed its facilities and sent Bank representatives to XXXX who said that her account had passed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, with the same account number. The Account was managed from XXXX which evidences the existence of the account and the address which In the last quarter of XXXX, my client was informed that XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, was no longer going to operate and that her account would be transferred to HSBC BANK USA. On XXXX, my client receives a notification to her son 's email which is : XXXX which said that she had to sign the master deposit On XXXX HSBC BANK USA, opens the account Number in my name, having been present to provide any security data for the Bank. \nOn XXXX, my client received an email from HSBC BANK USA to send the transfer instructions. On XXXX in the same an email receives instructions to close the account i had in The In order to expand the information about it, to which he received no response. By the time the account still could not be used. \nOn XXXX and XXXX, i sent an email requesting information for the account for not having received any type of communication. On XXXX my client sends an email in which i indicates that i wants to travel very soon in order to fix the situation in that financial institution. On XXXX i receives a communication stating that after so much time, i must inform in advance what day they will be in the city to make an appointment. On XXXX i receives an email in which is instructed to contact the Bank ; due to the situation of the country in XXXX, it is almost impossible to communicate with the United States and, as we have already stated, when they called to request authorization for a card or account to be paid, they did not respond and the account could not be activated. i thought it was the same .On XXXX an email was sent stating the following : \" Good afternoon, sorry I did not answer you before. I do not have the pleasure of meeting you since the contact I have had has been with Mrs. XXXX and I made arrangements with her to make a personal visit to fix our situation ( my mothers and mine ) before this prestigious banking institution, but our visit has been delayed. I am at your disposal for what you need. My phone numbers : home and cell \". \nThe email was underlined and bold as the example above. As seen in the email, by this date, it had been impossible to use the bank account in HSBC BANK USA. And the account had been having movements, the money had been withdrawn through ATMs, checks, etc. and they never notified my client, instead they kept silent. \nOn XXXX i received an email from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Premier Relationship Manager, who said they could be calm knowing that their accounts were in good hands, as it should be, because when someone has an account in a bank, it is for the security that this provides in the custody of the money ( attachment marked \" O '' ). \nOn XXXX they sent an email in which they said the following : \" I take the opportunity to consult you if you are the person in charge of my account, since I had always had contact with Mrs. XXXX and I would be interested in getting in touch as I am trying to schedule a flight to update my account and know which branch to go. ( ... ) I await for your response, thank you. \" In this email they point out that they are going to update the account, which they had not done until this date and they could not use the money. They obtained the following answer : ( ... ) \" If you are around here, please stop by. I'm located on the same office, the XXXX one. Happy birthday again = ) ( ... ) \". \nNever did they tell her that the account was active, or that the money was being moved, or anything like that. ( attachment marked \" P '' ). \nOn Monday XXXX, XXXX AM i sent an email that says the following : ( ... ) \" To : XXXX ; Good morning, I need to talk with you I have called your phone number that appears in your email and I have not had been able to connect with you, please when you can send me a number where I can contact you, Thank you, Mobile phone \". \nIt should be noted that the communication my with HSBC BANK USA, always was from the an email .com, and the phone number indicated for contact Mobile phone. \nIn view of not having been able to communicate with HSBC BANK USA, and in order to update her account, meaning in order to move and use my money, on XX/XX/XXXX, i went to the offices of HSBC BANK USA, located in XXXX ; i found out that what i had not been able to do for years ( which was to activate my account, until she personally went to the Bank 's offices ) someone had done it already, either inside or outside the bank and my account was in negative balance. \nNow, in summary, the situation is that her account comes from the XXXX XXXX XXXX, Client NumberXXXX, which had an office in the City of XXXX, XXXX. As this bank closed, the account passed to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX, which my client always managed from XXXX. i was never in the offices of HSBC BANK USA, located in XXXX, or any other office of that institution in order to personally appear and provide the information required to use the account. It should be noted that whenever i called the HSBC BANK USA Offices, located in XXXX, she was told to go personally in order to identify myself and fill thenecessary steps to activate the account. \nNot only the account had been used, but they had also changed the an email, address and telephone number and that the money had disappeared, and that we must wait for a mail from the bank to make the report, which we received on XX/XX/XXXX. \nThis mail indicated as address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX, which is not and has never been her address. The address is in XXXX,, as indicated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX  account statements, Client Number - XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX   XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX. \nAccording to what is evidenced by the XXXX  and XXXX passports my i never traveled to the United States or to XXXX, nor to any other country ; which is why she could not have been in the Bank 's offices to change the email, address and telephone number. i was never in any office to fill out the forms and sign them, we do not know how they activated the account, they delivered a card and they opened a current account and they issued a checkbook. \nWhen i personally showed up at the Bank, they did not give my the account statements even though i had proved my identity, they did not give my information on how, when and where the account was activated. The address being used by the bank was XXXX XXXX, a shipping service. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, i went to the offices of HSBC BANK USA, located in XXXX, with the purpose of delivering a mail regarding the account Number ; in which she requested information on why her account was activated, if i had always been told when she communicated with the Bank 's Executives that until i personally addressed the Bank 's Offices, i could not use the Account, and that someone had done it, either inside or outside the bank and that my account was in negative balance. \ni noted the following : \" ( ... ) I still have not received an answer for these questions : how did they activate the account, issued a card and checks? I personally, despite having identified myself, did not receive information on how, when and where was the account activated. \nI request the refund of the money of the transactions done with debit card from the XX/XX/XXXX to the XX/XX/XXXX and the refund of the money paid by the bank for the checks : XXXX for an amount of {$8300.00}, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX for an amount of {$7800.00}, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX for an amount of {$9200.00}, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX for an amount of {$9000.00}, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX for an amount of {$7500.00}, XX/XX/XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$8000.00} XX/XX/XXXX XXXX for an amount of {$9500.00} XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX for an amount of {$8500.00} XX/XX/XXXX These checks were paid by the Bank between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \nSo : 1. My account was never activated, 2. I never received a checkbook to use it since they told me that I should fix my situation in the Bank Offices and for that I had to personally go to the HSBC XXXX Office ; which I did not do until XX/XX/XXXX I see with extreme concern the ease with which they could use my debit card and checkbook and as in a month with checks over {$5000.00}, totaling {$67000.00}, the Bank allowed the payment of them, even when the account was inactive for a long time. I also request the refund of transactions identified as PAYMENT XXXX XXXX-CASH FOR THE AMOUNTS OF {$7500.00} and {$9800.00} DATED XXXX AND XXXX. For the reasons indicated above. \nOn XXXX XXXX I made a report to XXXX Police Department case number XXXX. \nHow is it possible that an account that was inactive for more than nine ( 9 ) years, for not having been opened according to the Bank 's requirements, had in one month transactions for more than XXXX XXXX AND XXXX XXXX DOLLARS ( {$150000.00} ), WITHOUT YOU BLOCKING AND TAKING THE CORRESPONDING SECURITY MEASURES? \nYou as custodians of my money must guarantee to me even the last dollar that was deposited in my Account, because you were in the obligation to take care of it and have all the necessary means to activate the account and so you let me know when, on repeated occasions, you indicated me that to activate it, I had to go to the Bank 's offices in XXXX to fill out the forms and sign. I believe that you should do a thorough investigation of this situation as this generates me little credibility in the bank, and you should respond for my money and for all the damages and losses that this has caused me. \nI do not recognize any transaction, deposit or transfer that had been made, in any way, in my account, either by debit card, check or any form of withdrawal that had been used, and I request the refund of all transaction which could never have been made by me, since never did I go to the Bank 's offices to sign any form, nor did I change address, an email or telephone, and they were charged to my account ( ... ) \". \nNotably, the HSBC IN XXXX ; acknowledged that there was a banking fraud and reversed the consumptions made with the debit card from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ( attachment marked \" T '' ). Even though in emails sent on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX ( attachment marked \" T '' ) i continues to demand the refund of the money, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX a.m. i finally obtained an answer : ( ... ) \" Denying the claim of the fraudulent check since too many days have passed ( months ). There is no other instance where to scale the case. All departments say you took too long to start the claim. I know that this is not the information that you are waiting for and if there was someone to continue talking with, we would connect you with that person ( ... ) \". \nTo which i responds on XX/XX/XXXX asking if they made an administrative investigation within the Bank, because of the strangeness of the situation. \nFrom which she received as an answer : \" ( ... ) Before the fraud happened, the account was not \" closed '' as you thought. An account can not be closed if it has funds inside. What I think happened when you called the branch to get information, is that we are not allowed to give information by phone at the branch level when we have not met the client personally. \nFor example, if you had called me a year ago to ask for information about the account, I would have said \" Mr. XXXX, since we do not know you personally yet, you should call customer service to get information about your account '' What I want you to understand is that this account was always open, and all the fraud was done by someone who called customer service, and knew the responses and answered all of your mom 's personal questions correctly ( ... ) \".\n\nI wonder what personal questions, if there was never an opportunity to create them. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX i sent an email again indicating that although the account was open, it could not be used, until the owner appeared personally to provide the data and to create a password, a user and some security questions that would let you know that this is the account holder. I told them that it was really an odyssey at that time to accessmy account with the multiple requirements of the bank as we know, because we just went through that, to be able to access the account online despite having attended the XXXX XXXX and to have your wonderful collaboration, it was quite difficult, because we had to request access to you. \nLater we had to wait for a password that would arrive by an email, a key that would reach the indicated cell phone and after we placed those passwords we had to wait for the Bank 's security to allow us to enter, the question is : did the Bank conduct the administrative investigation, with the purpose of knowing how these procedures were done in order to activate the account? Where was the information stolen in order to change the email and the telephone number to which the account was associated? If the owner never showed up at the XXXX  to identify myrself and activate the account with all the security mechanisms that you have. \nIf an investigation ha been made I would like you to tell me what the result was and the number of it. If they have support on how and what were the security data that was provided for the account in question. \nI subsequently sent an email on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX until he received the reply that they could not resolve anything and at never conducted an administrative investigation in order to determine the bank 's responsibility I request your good offices to open the investigation of the case, to determine if there was bank fraud and the responsibility of HSBC Bank USA, N.A., in the same, or negligence of the institution to allow the use of the account, since even though that financial institution acknowledged that there was banking fraud, because it returned to my client the transactions made with debit cards XX/XX/XXXX until XX/XX/XXXX ; they do not recognize the rest of the consumptions made with the debit and checkbook card ; as in a month with checks over {$7000.00}, totaling $ XXXX.The Bank allowed the payment of these, even though the account was inactive for a long time, in addition to transactions identified as : PAYMENT XXXX XXXX-CASH FOR THE AMOUNTS OF {$7500.00} and {$9800.00} DATED XXXX AND XXXX XXXX. \nFor a month the Bank allowed the use of an inactive account with transactions without blocking the account or requiring the presence of the account holder in the Bank 's offices in order to identify and recognize the transactions, and allowed the change of address, email and telephone number. The only true data that they had of my client, without demanding the physical presence and identification of her, they approved the change of all the data without confirming said data with the only thing they had as a form ofcommunication which was the email address. \nHow is it possible that an account that was inactive for more than nine ( 9 ) years, for not having been opened according to the requirements of the Bank and demanding the presence of the holder of the same had in one month used more than XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DOLLARS ( {$150000.00} ), WITHOUT HSBC Bank USA, N.A. HAVE ITBLOCKED AND TAKEN THE CORRESPONDING SECURITY MEASURES? \nIt is really strange that this has happened without the participation of people from the same Bank, since normally when an account does not have regular movements and suddenly begins to have them, the Financial Institutions block them and invite the client to personally go to the Bank. As indicated by my in one of my emails : \" ( ... ) because we just went through that, to be able to access the account online despite having attended the XXXX XXXX and having the collaboration of the account executive, it was quite difficult, because we had to request the access, then had to wait for a key that would arrive by an email and a key that would reach the indicated cell phone and after these keys were placed we had to wait for the Bank 's security to allow us to enter, ''. \nThe question is whether the Bank conducted the administrative investigation, with the purpose of knowing how these procedures were done in order to activate the account, from where the information was subtracted to be able to change the an email and the telephone number to which the account was associated? If the owner never showed up at the XXXX to identify myself and activate the account with all the security mechanisms that you have. If an inquiry has been done, I would like you to tell me what the result was and the number of it. If they have support on how and what were the security data that was provided for the mentioned account. \nI believe that a thorough investigation of this situation should be done, the Bank must be accountable for the money of my, which totals {$67000.00} in checks, the Bank allowed the payment of the same, even though the account was inactive for a long time, also transactions identified as : PAYMENT XXXX XXXX-CASH FOR THE AMOUNTS OF {$7500.00} and {$9800.00} dated XXXX and XXXX. {$17000.00}, transactions of debitcards over {$50000.00} and for all the damages and losses that this situation has caused. I respectfully request that this document be processed according to law.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-11-15T12:01:45.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3075236","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.","date_received":"2018-11-15T11:11:37.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["To which i responds on XX/XX/XXXX asking if they made an administrative <em>investigation</em> within the Bank, because of the strangeness of the situation. \nFrom which she received as an answer : \" ( ... ) Before the fraud happened, the account was not \" closed '' as you thought. An account can not be closed if it has <em>funds</em> inside."],"sub_issue":["<em>Funds</em> not handled or disbursed as instructed"]},"sort":[6.6414323,"3075236"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9416631","_score":6.050254,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"Notice of Billing Error ; Notice of Rescission of Security Interest ; Notice of Dispute ; Entitlement Order/Instruction Account Owner Name : XXXX XXXX Billing Address : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Georgia XXXX Account Number : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Please find below my directions regarding Account Number : XXXX pursuant to the Trust Indenture Act of XXXX I am a federally protected consumer and I have reason to believe Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX and AT & XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and President and Pascal Desroches , Principal Financial Officer, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer are committing Securities Fraud and Mail Fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are in direct violation of their SEC filings. I am now requesting a billing error as I know per XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SEC Prospectus filing, XXXX, and XXXX report my coupon is a receivable that has been credited. During this investigation of the billing error my services must be reconnected or I will be forced to contact the SEC for Securities Fraud and violations of said agreement on file with SEC. I am the Holder in Due Course here to claim all Equitable rights and interests owed to me, the Principal. Do you disclaim I am the Investor and Beneficiary? If so, furnish documentary evidence for the record. I know what I receive from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX every XXXX weeks is a book entry security based on the Uniform Commercial Code ; I have not and am not receiving my credits as I am supposed to according to the Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that my signature secured the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading according to the Securities Exchange and Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that I am an investor into this company based on the Uniform Commercial Code. It is a fact that my Securities Account is to be credited every month or every four weeks as the dividend payments mature. In bank law Account means a written list of transactions noting money owed and money paid ; a detailed statement of mutual demands arising out of a contract or a fiduciary relationship. According to Article 9-102 of the UCC \" Account '', except as used in \" account for '', means a right to payment of a monetary obligation, whether or not earned by performance, ( i ) for property that has been or is to be sold, leased, licensed, assigned, or otherwise disposed of, ( ii ) for services rendered or to be rendered, ( iii ) for a policy of insurance issued or to be issued, ( iv ) for a secondary obligation incurred or to be incurred, ( v ) for energy provided or to be provided, ( vi ) for the use or hire of a vessel under a charter or other contract, ( vii ) arising out of the use of a credit or charge card or information contained on or for use with the card It is a fact that I do not owe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or any subsidiaries or branches of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  any funds based on the Uniform Commercial Code, but XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in fact owes me. It is a fact XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX trustee is Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company that has a fiduciary duty and obligation to me based on the Uniform Commercial Code. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are in violation of the Securities Exchange by committing Securities Fraud. Securities Fraud has no Statute of Limitations. I am not supposed to be paying a debt with debt. I know they have a custodial primary linked to my account to make sure I am not receiving my credits. The Statements I receive every four weeks from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a book entry to be credited to my Securities Account. Which is on the public and private side. The Statements are actually a dividend payment based on the interest that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX made in a four week period and what they send me in the mail is a Statement of my Account. The top portion of the Statement is the bond, the financial asset ; the bottom portion of the Statement is what was credited to my Securities Account and owed to me. This is why it comes in a positive status and never negative. However, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX takes the credits and says I owe them and threatens to disconnect my service when I do not pay them. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is where my Security originated, then XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX transferred it to Bank of New York Mellon which Bank of New York Mellon then transfers it over to the Treasury to securitize it to get the CUSIP number and the Treasury gives the funds back to me XXXX. Bank of New York Mellon transfers it out to their Intermediary bank instead of to me as it is supposed to be in ordinary course of business. This is how they are hiding the funds. When these funds come back into my account between the hours of XXXX and XXXX every XXXX except on Saturdays and Sundays it goes through my Account but they transfer it to their Intermediary bank which is their security bank Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association. There has to be equal consideration in a contract. My contract is payable to the bearer at the time it comes into my possession as a holder. My contract is payable on demand at a definite time and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me promising to pay. By the very definition of a negotiable instrument the contract that I initially endorsed with XXXX XXXX XXXX is a negotiable instrument. The negotiable instrument is what XXXX & XXXX purchased therefore they have received consideration. I transferred my financial asset to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 12 CFR 360.6 Treatment of financial assets transferred in connection with a securitization or participation. ( a ) definitions ( 2 ) Financial asset means cash or a contract or instrument that conveys to one entity a contractual right to receive cash or another financial instrument from another entity. ( XXXX ) Investor means a person or entity that owns an obligation issued by an issuing entity. ( 6 ) Obligation means a debt or equity ( or mixed ) beneficial interest or security that is primarily serviced by the cash flows of one or more financial assets or financial asset pools, either fixed or revolving, that by their terms convert into cash within a finite time period, or upon the disposition of the underlying financial assets, and by any rights or other assets designed to assure the servicing or timely distributions of proceeds to the security holders issued by an issuing entity. ( 8 ) Securitization means the issuance by an issuing entity of obligations for which the investors are relying on the cash flow or market value characteristics and the credit quality of transferred financial assets ( together with any external credit support permitted by this section ) to repay the obligations. The contract I endorsed is the Security/Negotiable Instrument XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me in the mail every four weeks is the Interest. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me every four weeks in the mail is another Security which I can order XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to deposit to get other Securities from it. The Statements received every four weeks in the mail also fits the UCC definition of a negotiable instrument because it is payable to the bearer at the time it is issued on demand or at a definite time ; it has a issue date that it is due by and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me ordering the payment. When I Endorse these Statements I am receiving every four weeks for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, it is me creating an order. An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ) of Article XXXX104 of the UCC and falls within the definition of a \" check ''. A promise or order is not a check or instrument at the time it comes into possession it contains a conspicuous statement however expressed to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by Article 3-104. Unless it says on my Statements however expressed it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code it means I have a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT! None, not one of the Statements I have received or still receive up to this day which I get every four weeks in the mail from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX states however expressed that it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code. These Statements I receive every four weeks in the mail are Negotiable Instruments by definition of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-104 also known as the Bills of Exchange Act. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Fiduciary duty was created when I endorsed the contract. When I endorsed the contract I gave consideration and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX agreed. The Statement I am given every XXXX weeks IS NOT a bill as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX likes to consider it. What I get every four weeks from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a Statement of Transactions of money owed by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and money paid by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Which I am not receiving from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as the Federal Law and Uniform Commercial Code states I am supposed to. Only the president can write a bill. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is committing Language Fraud along with Mail Fraud according to 39 USC 3001 by not listing ( A ) the following notice : This is a solicitation for the order of goods or services, or both, and not a bill, invoice, or statement of account due. You are under no obligation to make any payments on account of this offer unless you accept this offer and Securities Fraud above all. U.C.C. - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ( 2002 ) Uniform Commercial Code 1-103. Construction of Uniform Commercial Code to Promote its Purposes and Policies : Applicability of Supplemental Principles of Law. States ( b ) Unless displaced by the particular provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant and the law relative to capacity to contract, principal and agent, estoppel, fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, and other validating or invalidating cause supplement its provisions. The Uniform Commercial Code rules that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association have agreed upon are automatically assumed to be that known to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association is committing Securities Fraud, Mail Fraud, Language Fraud, and Misrepresentation. I Rescind ALL security interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and all subsidiaries and Branches XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that was given written, verbal, express, and/or implied from now and forever. Take any action necessary and/or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created. Uniform Commercial Code 1-105. Severability. States If any provision or clause of the Uniform Commercial Code or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Uniform Commercial Code which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code are severable. Therefore, rescinding the Security Interest and Proceeds in contract does not effect or invalidate the contract. Uniform Commercial Code 1-201. General Definitions. ( b ) Subject to definitions contained in other articles of the Uniform Commercial Code that apply to particular articles or parts thereof : ( 3 ) \" Agreement '', as distinguished from \" contract '', means the bargain of the parties in fact, as found in their language or inferred from other circumstances, including course of performance, course of dealing, or usage of trade as provided in Section 1-303. ( 4 ) \" Bank '' means a person engaged in the business of banking and includes a savings bank, savings and loan association, credit union, and trust company. ( 5 ) \" Bearer '' means a person in possession of a negotiable instrument, document of title, or certificated security that is payable to bearer or indorsed in blank. When I receive my securities from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX every 4 weeks/ month, I am the bearer because I am in possession of a negotiable instrument. ( 11 ) \" Consumer '' means an individual who enters into a transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. I am the consumer who entered into this transaction primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ( 12 ) \" Contract '', as distinguished from \" agreement '', means the total legal obligation that results from the parties ' agreement as determined by the Uniform Commercial Code as supplemented by any other applicable laws. An agreement becomes a contract once I sign it and both parties agree ( 13 ) \" Creditor '' includes a general creditor, a secured creditor, a lien creditor, and any representative of creditors, including an assignee for the benefit of creditors, a trustee in bankruptcy, a receiver in equity, and an executor or administrator of an insolvent debtor 's or assignor 's estate. ( 15 ) \" Delivery '', with respect to an instrument, document of title, or XXXX XXXX, means voluntary transfer of possession.I transferred possession of my Security to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX making them a holder in due course of the instrument which makes them entitled to enforce Fiduciary Duties along with their Trustee Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association and Depository Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n( 17 ) \" Fault '' means a default, breach, or wrongful act or omission. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX omitted information of what they are really doing with my Security and the true purpose of this contract ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX did not disclose that my Security would be deposited or sold over and over to make proceeds and I am to receive interest as an investor in the company. Then XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX tells me I owe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX funds for the services and goods. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company National Association are at Fault. ( 20 ) \" Good faith, '' except as otherwise provided in Article 5, means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. I engaged in this contract in good faith and that the other party to this contract was conducting this contract according to the customs and the way it is supposed to be done. My mistake was assuming XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX were doing things as they were supposed to or conducting business the right way. Now that I know XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is not doing their Fiduciary Duty it is my right to enforce them to do so. ( 21 ) \" Holder '' means : ( A ) the person in possession of a negotiable instrument that is payable either to bearer or to an identified person that is the person in possession; or ( B ) the person in possession of a document of title if the goods are deliverable either to bearer or to the order of the person in possession. \n( 24 ) \" Money '' means a medium of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government. The term includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more countries. ( 29 ) \" Purchase '' means taking by sale, lease, discount, negotiation, mortgage, pledge, lien, security interest, issue or reissue, gift, or any other voluntary transaction creating an interest in property. ( 32 ) \" Remedy '' means any remedial right to which an aggrieved party is entitled with or without resort to a tribunal. ( 2 ) \" Aggrieved party '' means a party entitled to pursue a remedy. 16 CFR 433.2 - Preservation of consumers ' claims and defenses, unfair or deceptive acts or practices states ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. RECOVERY HEREUNDER BY THE DEBTOR SHALL NOT EXCEED AMOUNTS PAID BY THE DEBTOR HEREUNDER. This notice is listed in my contract, I am the debtor and I am asserting my rights. ( XXXX ) \" Security interest '' means an interest in personal property or fixtures which secures payment or performance of an obligation. \" Security interest '' includes any interest of a consignor and a buyer of accounts, chattel paper, a payment intangible, or a promissory note in a transaction that is subject to Article XXXX. I rescind all Security Interest.\n\n( 38 ) \" State '' means a State of the United States, thXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Uniform Commercial Code 3-103. DEFINITIONS. ( 2 ) \" Consumer account '' means an account established by an individual primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. ( 4 ) \" Drawee '' means a person ordered in a draft to make payment. ( 5 ) \" Drawer '' means a person who signs or is identified in a draft as a person ordering payment. ( 8 ) \" Order '' means a written instruction to pay money signed by the person giving the instruction My endorsed signature is an instruction to pay money to whoever I am giving it to, in this case my endorsed contract was given to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which they purchased and are trading. ( 15 ) \" Remitter '' means a person who purchases an instrument from its issuer if the instrument is payable to an identified person other than the purchaser. Uniform Commercial Code 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. States ( a ) Except as provided in subsections ( c ) and ( d ), \" negotiable instrument '' means an unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money, with or without interest or other charges described in the promise or order, if it : ( XXXX ) is payable to bearer or to order at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder ; ( XXXX ) is payable on demand or at a definite time; and ( XXXX ) does not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money, but the promise or order may contain ( i ) an undertaking or power to give, maintain, or protect collateral to secure payment, ( ii ) an authorization or power to the holder to confess judgment or realize on or dispose of collateral, or ( iii ) a waiver of the benefit of any law intended for the advantage or protection of an obligor. There has to be equal consideration in a contract. My contract is payable to the bearer at the time it comes into my possession as a holder. My contract is payable on demand at a definite time and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me promising to pay. By the very definition of a negotiable instrument the contract that I initially signed with XXXX XXXX XXXX is a negotiable instrument. The negotiable instrument is what XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased. The negotiable instrument is the security XXXX XXXX XXXX is trading. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX  sends me in the mail every four weeks is the Interest. The Statements XXXX XXXX XXXX sends me every four weeks in the mail is another security which I can order XXXX XXXX XXXX to deposit to get other securities from it. The Statements received every four weeks in the mail also fits the definition of a negotiable instrument because it is payable to the bearer at the time it is issued on demand or at a definite time ; it has a issue date that it is due by and does not state any other undertaking or instruction besides me ordering the payment. When I Endorse these Statements I am receiving every four weeks is me creating an order. An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ) of Article 3-104 and falls within the definition of a \" check ''. A promise or order is not a check or instrument at the time it comes into possession it contains a conspicuous statement however expressed to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by Article 3-104. Unless it says on my Statements it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code or in any way meaning the same thing, this means I have a NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT! None, not one of the Statements I have received or still receive up to this day which I get every four weeks in the mail from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in any way that it is not a negotiable instrument as governed by article 3-104 of the Uniform Commercial Code. These Statements are Negotiable Instruments by definition of the Uniform Commercial Code Article 3-104 also known as the Bills of Exchange Act. Uniform Commercial Code 3-104. NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT. ( b ) \" Instrument '' means a negotiable instrument. ( c ) An order that meets all of the requirements of subsection ( a ), except paragraph ( XXXX ), and otherwise falls within the definition of \" check '' in subsection ( f ) is a negotiable instrument and a check. ( d ) A promise or order other than a check is not an instrument if, at the time it is issued or first comes into possession of a holder, it contains a conspicuous statement, however expressed, to the effect that the promise or order is not negotiable or is not an instrument governed by this Article. ( e ) An instrument is a \" note '' if it is a promise and is a \" draft '' if it is an order. If an instrument falls within the definition of both \" note '' and \" draft, '' a person entitled to enforce the instrument may treat it as either. Uniform Commercial Code 3-204. INDORSEMENT. ( a ) \" Indorsement '' means a signature, other than that of a signer as maker, drawer, or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for the purpose of ( i ) negotiating the instrument, ( ii ) restricting payment of the instrument, or ( iii ) incurring indorser 's liability on the instrument, but regardless of the intent of the signer, a signature and its accompanying words is an indorsement unless the accompanying words, terms of the instrument, place of the signature, or other circumstances unambiguously indicate that the signature was made for a purpose other than indorsement. For the purpose of determining whether a signature is made on an instrument, a paper affixed to the instrument is a part of the instrument. ( b ) \" Indorser '' means a person who makes an indorsement. ( c ) For the purpose of determining whether the transferee of an instrument is a holder, an indorsement that transfers a security interest in the instrument is effective as an unqualified indorsement of the instrument. ( d ) If an instrument is payable to a holder under a name that is not the name of the holder, indorsement may be made by the holder in the name stated in the instrument or in the holder 's name or both, but signature in both names may be required by a person paying or taking the instrument for value or collection. I rescind all security interest. 3-301. PERSON ENTITLED TO ENFORCE INSTRUMENT. \n\" Person entitled to enforce '' an instrument means ( i ) the holder of the instrument, ( ii ) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or ( iii ) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3-309 or 3-418 ( d ). A person may be a person entitled to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. I am entitled to enforce my instruments as the holder of the instrument and holder in due course, 3-302. HOLDER IN DUE COURSE.\n\n( a ) Subject to subsection ( c ) and Section 3-106 ( d ), \" holder in due course '' means the holder of an instrument if : ( 1 ) the instrument when issued or negotiated to the holder does not bear such apparent evidence of forgery or alteration or is not otherwise so irregular or incomplete as to call into question its authenticity; and ( 2 ) the holder took the instrument ( i ) for value, ( ii ) in good faith, ( iii ) without notice that the instrument is overdue or has been dishonored or that there is an uncured default with respect to payment of another instrument issued as part of the same series, ( iv ) without notice that the instrument contains an unauthorized signature or has been altered, ( v ) without notice of any claim to the instrument described in Section XXXX306, and ( vi ) without notice that any party has a defense or claim in recoupment described in Section 3-305 ( a ).\n\n3-303. VALUE AND CONSIDERATION. ( a ) An instrument is issued or transferred for value if : ( 1 ) the instrument is issued or transferred for a promise of performance, to the extent the promise has been performed ; ( 2 ) the transferee acquires a security interest or other lien in the instrument other than a lien obtained by judicial proceeding ; ( 3 ) the instrument is issued or transferred as payment of, or as security for, an antecedent claim against any person, whether or not the claim is due ; ( 4 ) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for a negotiable instrument; or ( XXXX ) the instrument is issued or transferred in exchange for the incurring of an irrevocable obligation to a third party by the person taking the instrument. ( b ) \" Consideration '' means any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract. The drawer or maker of an instrument has a defense if the instrument is issued without consideration. If an instrument is issued for a promise of performance, the issuer has a defense to the extent performance of the promise is due and the promise has not been performed. If an instrument is issued for value as stated in subsection ( a ), the instrument is also issued for consideration. \nConsideration was given to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the time I performed and endorsed the contract that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX purchased and is now trading via the Securities and Exchange. According to 15 U.S. Code 1666 - Correction of billing errors ( b ) Billing error For the purpose of this section, a billing error consists of any of the following : ( 1 ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit which was not made to the obligor or, if made, was not in the amount reflected on such statement. ( XXXX ) A reflection on a statement of an extension of credit for which the obligor requests additional clarification including documentary evidence thereof. 15 U.S. Code 1666d - Treatment of credit balances Whenever a credit balance in excess of {$1.00} is created in connection with a consumer credit transaction through ( 1 ) transmittal of funds to a creditor in excess of the total balance due on an account, ( 2 ) rebates of unearned finance charges or insurance premiums, or ( 3 ) amounts otherwise owed to or held for the benefit of an obligor, the creditor shall ( A ) credit the amount of the credit balance to the consumers account ; ( B ) refund any part of the amount of the remaining credit balance, upon request of the consumer ; and ( C ) make a good faith effort to refund to the consumer by cash, check, or money order any part of the amount of the credit balance remaining in the account for more than six months, except that no further action is required in any case in which the consumers current location is not known by the creditor and can not be traced through the consumers last known address or telephone number. The Interest checks I receive every four weeks is an Interest payment according to the Department of Treasury, coupons gain interest every four weeks. The Interest I receive is a credit balance in excess of {$1.00}. My Account with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a credit balance in excess of {$1.00}. How can I pay a positive balance with a debt? IT IS NOT POSSIBLE. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are committing Securities Fraud. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company are to immediately transmit my funds to my Account via the Electronic Funds Transfer. Release my Funds to me immediately as I am currently not receiving my Funds as I am supposed to. This is a Billing Error according to 12 CFR 1026.13 Truth In Lending Regulation Z. 12 CFR 1026.13 - Billing error resolution states ( a ) Definition of billing error. For purposes of this section, the term billing error means : ( 4 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of the creditor 's failure to credit properly a payment or other credit issued to the consumer 's account. ( 6 ) A reflection on a periodic statement of an extension of credit for which the consumer requests additional clarification, including documentary evidence. ( b ) Billing error notice. A billing error notice is a written notice from a consumer that : ( 1 ) Is received by a creditor at the address disclosed under 1026.7 ( a ) ( 9 ) or ( b ) ( 9 ), as applicable, no later than 60 days after the creditor transmitted the first periodic statement that reflects the alleged billing error ; ( 2 ) Enables the creditor to identify the consumer 's name and account number; and ( 3 ) To the extent possible, indicates the consumer 's belief and the reasons for the belief that a billing error exists, and the type, date, and amount of the error. ( c ) Time for resolution ; general procedures. ( 1 ) The creditor shall mail or deliver written acknowledgment to the consumer within 30 days of receiving a billing error notice, unless the creditor has complied with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within the 30-day period; and ( 2 ) The creditor shall comply with the appropriate resolution procedures of paragraphs ( e ) and ( f ) of this section, as applicable, within 2 complete billing cycles ( but in no event later than 90 days ) after receiving a billing error notice. ( d ) Rules pending resolution. Until a billing error is resolved under paragraph ( e ) or ( f ) of this section, the following rules apply : ( 1 ) Consumer 's right to withhold disputed amount ; collection action prohibited. The consumer need not pay ( and the creditor may not try to collect ) any portion of any required payment that the consumer believes is related to the disputed amount ( including related finance or other charges ). If the cardholder has enrolled in an automatic payment plan offered by the card issuer and has agreed to pay the credit card indebtedness by periodic deductions from the cardholder 's deposit account, the card issuer shall not deduct any part of the disputed amount or related finance or othercharges, as applicable; and ( 2 ) Mail or deliver a correction notice to the consumer.\n\n16 CFR 433.3 - Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/XXXX from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/XXXX from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XX/XX/XXXX, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( XXXX ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( d ) Purchase money loan. A cash advance which is received by a consumer in return for a Finance Charge within the meaning of the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, which is applied, in whole or substantial part, to a purchase of goods or services from a seller who ( 1 ) refers consumers to the creditor or ( 2 ) is affiliated with the creditor by common control, contract, or business arrangement. ( i ) Consumer credit contract. Any instrument which evidences or embodies a debt arising from a Purchase Money Loan transaction or a financed sale as defined in paragraphs ( d ) and ( e ) of this section. You know your Fiduciary Duty so do them. If XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company does not perform as they should I will have no choice but to contact Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-03T17:32:29.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"Personal line of credit","zip_code":"30034","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9416631","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2024-07-03T16:48:53.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Take any action <em>necessary</em> and/or appropriate to reflect the termination of any security interest created. Uniform Commercial Code 1-105. Severability."]},"sort":[6.050254,"9416631"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6482545","_score":5.9445753,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\nP.O. Box 2900\nClinton, \nIA 52733-2900 TRUIST BANK  BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE\n \t \t \t \nDear Sir/Madam of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,  \n\nPlease take the time to read this information pack as it will explain the reason for my complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated\nby XXXX XXXX (the Scammer) and innocently lost XXXX  USD of my hard-earned life-savings.  I advised Truist Bank of this fact on XXXX XXXX XXXX and I havent received any satisfactory response so far.\n\nTruist Bank had a duty to exercise reasonable professionalism, care, pay due to regards to the interest of their customers and follow good industry practices (GIP) to keep customers accounts safe. This includes identifying vulnerable consumers who may be particularly susceptible to scams and looking out for payments which might indicate the consumer is at risk of financial harm.   \n \nSince XXXX XXXX, I have been attempting to resolve this matter with Truist Bank, but they have failed to settle this matter satisfactorily. I have been dealing with Truist Bank in good faith and am deeply disappointed in how they have handled this matter thus far.  \n   \nI find it baffling and reprehensible that my money has been so egregiously misused in a fashion that violates their principles, which call me to defend my rights. This is poorly thought out and vaguely defined nonsense. I doubt they care however since nonsense is what renders unscrupulous businesses financially successful. \nAccordingly, I respectfully insist that Truist Bank covers all overdrafts (560,000.00 USD) on the account. This is fair and reasonable given I was given no appropriate warning about the possibility of a scam. I have been a loyal customer of Truist Bank and have never had any difficulties of this kind before.\n\nFURTHER POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION \n\nThe examples of good and bad practices around investment fraud. Good practice included but was not limited to:\n\tA bank regularly assesses the risk to itself and its customers of losses from fraud, including investment fraud, in accordance with their established risk management framework. The risk assessment does not only cover situations where the bank could cover losses, but also where customers could lose and not be reimbursed by the bank. Resource allocation and mitigation measures are informed by this assessment.\n\tA bank contacts customers if it suspects a payment is being made to an investment fraudster.\n\tA bank has transaction monitoring rules designed to detect specific types of investment fraud. Investment fraud subject matter experts help set these rules.\n\tReal-time payment screening against a well-formulated watch list; transaction monitoring rules designed to detect specific types of investment fraud\n\tBanks actively contacting customers if suspect payments are identified\n\tBanks placing material on investment fraud on its website\n\tWork to detect and prevent investment fraud from being integrated with a banks vulnerable customers initiative\n\nTaking into account the law, regulatory rules and guidance, relevant codes of practice and what should consider having been good industry practice at the time, Truist Bank should reasonably and reasonably consider:\n\tHave been monitoring accountsand any payments made or receivedto counter various risks, including anti-money-laundering, countering the financing of terrorism, and preventing fraud and scams;\n\tHave had systems in place to look out for unusual transactions or other signs that might indicate its customers were at risk of fraud (amongst other things). This is particularly so given the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years, which banks are generally more familiar with than the average customer; and\n\tIn some circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, have taken additional steps, or made additional checks, before processed a payment, or in some cases declined to make a payment altogether, to help protect customers from the possibility of financial harm from fraud.\n\nDespite the regulatory and statutory requirements Truist Bank shall abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution, instead of detecting patterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly, Truist Bank may have insufficiently performed some hasty and haphazard review of the transaction(s) regarding the suspicious activities, but it seems that rather than being careful, methodical, and vigilant, they took no notice of what was happening.\n\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of Truist Bank actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that they could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within their purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, they should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n\tinvolve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n\tis intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n\tis intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n\tserves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n\tinvolve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\n\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\tThe timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n\tThe abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n\tThe suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n\tSystemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n\tPeriodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies and procedures.\n\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimization:\nTruist Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you 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\tparticularly vulnerable, or\n\tif the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\n\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:\n\n1)\tTakes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\n\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.\n\nB) organizations 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.\n\nMy true issue with the bank is their limited understanding of the kind of recall I was requesting to raise. The most common reason for a recall is where the account holder says the transaction was not authorised; a recall can also be claimed if the goods were not received or if the cardholder paid in another way (eg., with cash).\n\nWhilst I am not denying the demand for the reason code, I am emphasizing to the bank that my case falls under a different reason code. Despite providing the bank with the required explanations of my case, Truist Bank preferred to stick with the authorisation issue which has never been raised by me which already shows the banks lack of understanding of how to treat my case.\n\nTruist Bank could have done more at the time of the payment to warn me of the risks of scams\n\tTaking steps to educate their customers about scams.\n\tTaking steps to identify higher risk payments and customers who have a higher risk of becoming a victim of scams.\n\tProviding effective warnings to customers if the bank identifies a scam risk.\n\tTaking extra steps to protect customers who might be vulnerable to scams.\n\tTalking to customers about payments and even delaying or stopping payments where there are scam concerns.\n\tActing quickly when a scam is reported to it.\n\tTaking steps to stop fraudsters from opening bank accounts.\nBanks and other Payment Services Providers (PSPs) do have a duty to protect customers against the risk of financial loss due to fraud and/or to undertake due diligence on large transactions to guard against money laundering. In broad terms, the starting position at law is that a firm is expected to process payments and withdrawals that a customer authorises it to make, in accordance with the Payment Services Regulations and the terms and conditions of the customers account.\nBut, where the consumer made the payment as a consequence of the actions of a fraudster, it may sometimes be fair and reasonable for the bank to reimburse the consumer even though they authorised the payment.  \nI think Truist Bank shouldve had enough knowledge of this type of scam at the time. Truist Bank could have protected me from this; unlike me, the bank knows about the existence of such scams and how you prey on vulnerable victims like myself, taking advantage of lack of knowledge, awareness, and circumstance. Despite the irregularities in my spending and such untypical patterns, not a single contact was made me question what I was doing. The treatment from Truist Bank is compounded by trauma and anxiety and has left me in the awful situation I now find myself in.\nAlthough it was not Truist Bank that scammed me, they had many obligations to protect my Financial Interest - which they did not uphold if you take a quick look at the bank statements you will realise how the transactions were absolutely out of the usual pattern, there was suddenly increased spending, payments for considerably large amounts, series of payments to a new payee and of course financial activity that matched a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nAll of the above points were not considered by Truist Bank when I was victimised, and no actions were taken to prevent that victimisation. Of course, I appreciate that they might want to act in good faith and uphold my requests to transfer these payments but the code sets out that organisations should have a process in place, to ensure that (i) staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, (ii) challenge its authenticity, (iii) explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and (iv) discuss an appropriate plan of action. \n \nTo further simplify the situation with respect to the nature of the transactions, there are circumstances, irrespective of the payment channel used, where a bank should take additional steps, or make additional checks, before processing a payment, or in some cases decline to make a payment altogether, to help protect customers from the possibility of financial harm. This is particularly so in light of the environment created by the increase in sophisticated fraud and scams in recent years - which banks are generally more familiar with than the average customer.\n \nKindly take into account that this case against Truist Bank is not primarily about the scam that happened. My main issue with Truist Bank is its unwillingness to raise a recall under the relevant reason code. It is obvious that they did not take any of my reasonings into account and blatantly focused on the authorisation argument that does not match my case and the issue of whether the transactions were fraudulent according to what is written on the paper. \n\nAnti-Money Laundering Requirements for Financial Institutions and Other Designated Businesses \n\n3.1 What financial institutions and other businesses are subject to anti-money laundering requirements? Describe which professional activities are subject to such requirements and the obligations of the financial institutions and other businesses. The following are subject to the requirement to maintain risk-based AML Programs: \n\n\tBanks, including savings associations, trust companies, credit unions, branches and subsidiaries of foreign banks in the United States, and Edge corporations.\n\tBroker-dealers in securities.\n\tMutual funds. Futures Commission Merchants and Introducing Brokers in Commodities. Money Services Businesses 3.4 What are the requirements for recordkeeping or reporting large currency transactions? When must reports be filed and at what thresholds?\n\nCurrency Transaction Reporting\n\nFinancial institutions (defined as financial institutions under the BSA regulations) must file CTRs with FinCEN on all transactions in (physical) currency in excess of XXXX  (or the foreign equivalent) conducted by, though, or to the financial institution, by or on behalf of the same person, on the same day. 31C.F.R.  1010.310315.\nIt is prohibited to structure transactions to cause a financial institution not to file a CTR or to file an inaccurate CTR by breaking down transactions into smaller amounts at one or more financial institutions over one or more days. 31 C.F.R.  1010.314.\n\nCustomer Due Diligence\nPursuant to regulatory requirements, which became effective May 11, 2018, as part of their AML Programs, certain financial institutions (banks, broker-dealers, mutual funds, FCMs and IB-Cs) must implement formal risk-based CDD programs that include certain minimum elements, including customer identification and verification (under a Customer Identification Program), obtaining information about the nature and purpose of a customers account, ongoing monitoring of customer accounts, obtaining beneficial ownership information at a 25% threshold\nfor legal entity customers and identifying a control person for legal entity customers (with certain exceptions).\n\nThere also is a specific BSA requirement to maintain CDD programs for non-U.S. persons private banking accounts and foreign correspondent accounts. The same covered financial institutions as for CDD programs (banks, broker-dealers, mutual funds, FCMs and IB-Cs) must maintain a CDD program for non-U.S. private banking accounts established on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a non-U.S. person and foreign correspondent customers and an enhanced due diligence (EDD) program for those relationships posing a higher risk. These programs must be designed to detect and report suspicious activity with certain minimum standards. These requirements are based on Section 312 of the PATRIOT Act and are often referred to as Section 312 requirements. 31 C.F.R.  1010.610 (due diligence for foreign correspondent accounts), 1010.620 (due diligence for private banking for non-U.S. persons).\n3.9 What is the criteria for reporting suspicious activity?\n\nFinancial institutions and other businesses subject to the AML Program requirement (except Check Cashers, Operators of Credit Card Systems, and Dealers in Precious Metals, Precious Stones, or Jewels) are required to file SARs with FinCEN under the BSA (and for banks, under parallel requirements of their federal functional regulators). SARs are required where the filer knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect a transaction conducted or attempted by, at\nor through the financial institution: \n\n\tinvolves money laundering;\n\tis designed to evade any BSA regulation or requirement;\n\thas no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the sort in which a particular customer would engage; or \n\tinvolves the use of the financial institution to facilitate criminal activity or involves any known or suspected violation of federal criminal law. \n\tSee, e.g., 31 C.F.R.  1023.320(c) (SAR requirements for broker-dealers). Generally, the reporting threshold is XXXX or more. For banks, if the suspect is unknown, it is XXXX or more. For MSBs, generally, it is XXXX or more.\n\nIn XXXX XXXX the office of the Senator XXXX XXXX  issued a report called: Facilitating Fraud: How Consumers Defrauded on XXXX are Left High and Dry by the Banks that Created It. These are some of the most important statements mentioned in the report:\nIn XXXX XXXX, Senator XXXX opened an investigation to determine the extent of fraudulent activity on XXXX, and to understand how the company and the banks that own and operate it make consumers whole when they are defrauded on the platform. Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  wrote to XXXX seeking information about the frequency of scams and fraud and the companys policies on redressing consumers who have been defrauded. \nThe information provided by XXXX revealed that an estimated XXXX XXXX was lost by XXXX users through frauds and scams in 2021, but that the banks that participate in the network appear not to have provided sufficient recourse to their customers. In particular, XXXX response indicated that XXXX  facilitates fraudulent activity of many kinds That includes activity in which a users account is accessed by a bad actor and used to transfer a payment  often called unauthorized transactions  and activity in which a user is fraudulently induced into transferring a payment to a bad actor  often referred to by XXXX and XXXX-participant banks as authorized transactions.\nSenators XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX then sent letters to the seven big banks that own and operate XXXX parent company to determine the extent of the problems with illegal and fraudulent activity, and to determine how banks were helping consumers who lost money on the platform.\nAt nearly every turn, most of the big banks have stonewalled, refusing to provide the information requested by members of Congress. However, Senators XXXX XXXX XXXX finally obtained commitments from several of the banks CEOs that they would provide the information on XXXX to Congress during a Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing on XXXX XXXX XXXX\nOverall, the three banks that provided complete data sets  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Truist  reported 35,848 cases of scams, involving over XXXX  million of payments in XXXX  and the first half of XXXX. In the vast majority of these cases, the banks did not repay the customers that reported being scammed. Overall these three banks reported repaying customers in only 3,473 cases (representing nearly 10% of scam claims) and repaid only XXXX XXXX  (representing 11.2% of payments).\nThe findings of this report reveal that fraud and theft on XXXX are widespread and growing, with consumers losing XXXX  each year. The banks that own and profit from the platform are failing to make their customers whole for both authorized and unauthorized fraudulent transactions, while refusing to release information publicly or to their customers that could help keep all consumers safe. Given this uncertain landscape and the banks abdication of responsibility, regulatory clarity is needed to further protect XXXX  users.\nThe CFPB has regulatory authority over peer-to-peer platforms including XXXX, and is reportedly considering issuing guidance to push banks to cover more fraudulently induced transactions, a move that would greatly improve consumer protections on peer-to-peer platforms like XXXX The agency should act to clarify and strengthen Regulation E and include fraud in the Regulations error resolution purview, increasing the responsibility of banks to keep XXXX safe and to ensure that consumers will be protected. The banks that created and profit off of XXXX should be pushed to protect their consumers from bad actors on their platform, and regulators should step in to ensure a fair and consistent process for everyone.\nFrom the report issued by the office of Senator XXXX XXXX, it is clear that the banks dont treat scam victims fairly, only 10% of scam victims get a compensation from the bank, while others just left suffering. Even more, banks keep getting their profit, while more and more people keep being scammed, hacked, simply saying, losing their hard-earned funds.\nAs it is mentioned in the report, such organizations as CFPB should issue a guidance in which it will be written how step-by step, financial institutions need to check each and every transaction that looks suspicious, especially those which are sent to a new payee (e.g., cryptocurrency platforms). In case if the financial institution doesnt follow these rules and their customer is scammed, it shouldnt be blamed only as a victims guilt. Financial institutions need to take their responsibility as well and provide their customer with a decent compensation.\n\nDesired outcome: Truist Bank has to put things into the right perspective for me by reversing the total amount of XXXX  USD paid to scammers as I have suffered a great loss because of this fraud, it had affected me personally, emotionally and financially. \n\n\nYours sincerely, \n\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-01-24T12:46:36.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"20852","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6482545","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2023-01-24T12:41:22.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Even</em> more, banks keep getting their profit, while more and more people keep being scammed, hacked, simply saying, losing their hard-earned <em>funds</em>.\nAs it is mentioned in the report, such organizations as CFPB should issue a guidance in which it will be written how step-by step, financial institutions need to check each and every transaction that looks suspicious, especially those which are sent to a new payee (e.g., cryptocurrency platforms)."]},"sort":[5.9445753,"6482545"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":39,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":39}]}},"product":{"doc_count":39,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":10},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":7,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":3},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Credit 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":3}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":2},{"key":"Other type of mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2},{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Personal line of credit","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":39,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":5},{"key":"Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed","doc_count":3},{"key":"Cashing a check","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":5,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":4},{"key":"Account information incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1},{"key":"Problem with rewards from credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Delays with the closing process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"False statements or representation","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempted to collect wrong amount","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","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":"Bounced checks or returned payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem related to refinancing","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem lowering your monthly payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":39,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":38},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":39,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":33},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":4},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":2}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":39,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":39}]}},"company":{"doc_count":39,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":4},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":3},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit Karma, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIFTH THIRD FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FORD MOTOR CREDIT CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mountain Run Solutions, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Mr. Cooper Group Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"ProCollect, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WATERSTONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":39,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":5},{"key":"FL","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":4},{"key":"WA","doc_count":4},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":2},{"key":"NC","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"AL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"KS","doc_count":1},{"key":"MD","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MT","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":39,"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":14},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":5},{"key":"Company believes the complaint provided an opportunity to answer consumer's questions","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":39,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":6},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":5}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[5.9445753,"6482545"]}}}