{"took":191,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":14,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8812972","_score":34.615433,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Please reference previous complaint : XXXX complaint CLOSED Submitted STATUS Submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/2024 PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Money was not available when promised PAYPAL has increased my withdrawal limits, but they are now prohibiting we from withdrawing by forcing me to again \" verify identity '' and providing no means to do so. They are forcing me to enter a text message code that never arrives, and they provide no other method to \" verify identity ' even when I call them on the phone number they are supposedly sending a text message to. Customer service suggested I : \" try again in 4-5 days. '' THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND I REQUIRE IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO MY PROPERTY.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-04-19T23:26:26.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"334XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8812972","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2024-04-19T23:16:25.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Please reference previous complaint : XXXX complaint CLOSED Submitted STATUS Submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/2024 PRODUCT <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em> ISSUE <em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised PAYPAL has increased my withdrawal limits, but they are now prohibiting we from withdrawing by forcing me to again \" verify identity '' and providing no means to do so."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised"],"sub_product":["<em>Virtual</em> <em>currency</em>"]},"sort":[34.615433,"8812972"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15804536","_score":26.834429,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Company : PayPal Product/Service : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Problem with a money transfer Sub-issue : Money was not available when promised What happened : On XX/XX/year>, I sent {$500.00} to my cousin in XXXX for a medical emergency through PayPal. ID XXXX. My cousin specifically opened a new PayPal account to receive this urgent transfer. Instead of delivering the money, PayPal permanently closed her account and kept my funds. \nPayPal has essentially stolen this money. They took payment for a service ( international money transfer ), failed to deliver that service, and refuse to provide a refund. It has now been almost XXXX  years, and they have been earning interest on money that rightfully belongs to my family during a medical crisis. \nTimeline : XXXX  : Sent {$500.00} to cousin in XXXX for medical emergency Shortly after : PayPal permanently closed my cousin 's account without explanation Money was never delivered to recipient Money was never refunded to me Multiple attempts to contact PayPal have been unsuccessful The Core Issue : This is not a policy dispute - this is theft. PayPal accepted my payment, failed to provide the promised service, and has kept my money for nearly XXXX  years while my family dealt with a medical emergency. \nPayPal 's Discriminatory Practices : PayPal appears to systematically target accounts in developing countries like XXXX, making it nearly impossible for people there to contact customer service or appeal decisions. There is literally NO WAY to send PayPal an email- they have deliberately removed all direct contact methods to avoid accountability. They profit by keeping money from international transfers while providing XXXX customer service, XXXX appeal process, and XXXX recourse for victims. \nThe Impossible Situation They've Created : No email contact available Phone support provides scripted responses with no resolution Online \" help '' forms lead nowhere My cousin in XXXX has absolutely no way to appeal or even inquire about her closed account I have no way to recover my stolen {$500.00} This is a deliberate system designed to steal money from international transfers while making it impossible for victims to seek help. PayPal has created a perfect crime- take the money, close the account, provide no contact method for resolution. \nWhat would be a fair resolution to your complaint : Full refund of {$500.00} plus interest earned over the XXXX period they have held my money. PayPal has had free use of my funds for XXXX months while my family suffered during a medical emergency. This company can not be allowed to steal money from customers under the guise of \" account limitations '' while providing XXXX customer service or appeal process.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-08T12:56:47.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"945XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15804536","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-09-08T12:40:14.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Company : PayPal Product/<em>Service</em> : <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em> Issue : Problem with a <em>money</em> <em>transfer</em> Sub-issue : <em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised What happened : On XX/XX/year>, I sent {$500.00} to my cousin in XXXX for a medical emergency through PayPal. ID XXXX. My cousin specifically opened a new PayPal account to receive this urgent <em>transfer</em>. Instead of delivering the <em>money</em>, PayPal permanently closed her account and kept my funds."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised"],"sub_product":["International <em>money</em> <em>transfer</em>"]},"sort":[26.834429,"15804536"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13849321","_score":26.735094,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money serviceCompany : PayPal, Inc.Issue : Money was not available when promised / funds held XXXX happened : ( Include this exact wording or modify slightly as needed ) Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I sold several virtual items in a video game through transactions processed using PayPal. On XX/XX/year>, the buyer filed multiple chargebacks with their bank, attempting to reverse all completed transactions despite having already received and used the items. This was weeks after delivery. \nI contacted PayPal immediately and provided detailed evidence, including screenshots of my conversation with the buyer, which clearly showed they intended to abuse the chargeback process, obtain the items for free, and have my account banned. I spoke with a PayPal representative, who assured me someone would follow up. Instead, my account was permanently limited, and the remaining balance of {$3100.00} was placed on a 120-day hold.\n\nAdditionally, PayPal charged me {$300.00} in dispute and refund fees, despite the clear documentation proving fraud on the buyers part. I requested that PayPal either release my funds or close my account, as I no longer wish to do business on a platform that fails to protect sellers and allows this type of abuse. \nThis decision has severely harmed me. My business was effectively shut down, I lost access to my earnings, and I have experienced extreme financial hardship and emotional distress, including becoming homeless. \nPayPal has failed to uphold its own Seller Protection Policy, and I believe it has acted negligently and unfairly by supporting chargebacks against verified, fulfilled transactions. I am requesting that the CFPB review this matter and assist in having my funds released immediately.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-02T17:52:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"75181","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13849321","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-06-02T17:20:26.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Product : <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>Company : PayPal, Inc.Issue : <em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised / funds held XXXX happened : ( Include this exact wording or modify slightly as needed ) Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/year>, I sold several <em>virtual</em> items in a video game through transactions processed using PayPal."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[26.735094,"13849321"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3644152","_score":26.197474,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I started trading in the Internet-based platform of a merchant called XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter the Merchant ), available under https : https : //hyperlink.services.treasury.gov/agency.fincen? origin=https : //fxnobels.io. The Merchant claimed to be a financial investment firm dealing with regulated financial tools, such as CFDs, indices, binary options, commodities, etc. In addition, the officers and employees of the Merchant are also presented as experienced financial brokers. We contend based on our research in the available public registries that the Merchant is not licensed to offer regulated financial tools or to provide financial advice to third parties. Furthermore, our investigation in the case has discovered that there are warnings and citations by Government authorities for a lack of license issued against the Merchant. In light of this information, it can be concluded that the Merchants claims to have been a registered finance broker are a clear example of a misrepresentation of the Merchant. Acting in good faith and in reliance of the Merchants claims, I ordered a service-related opening of an investment brokerage account to be used for subsequent trading with financial tools in real time. Following this, certain amounts of money were withdrawn from my bank account. The Merchant undertook to provide me with an investment account and to keep my money on this account, which never happened and by lack of respective license. I should have been granted access to such account in order to be able to use it for trade financial products as listed. All this never happened as the Merchant lacks the license ( misinterpretation of the service ). Any trading services at that time were not connected to my funds. This is not the service that the Merchant is required to have provided ( service not as described ), XXXX AND COINBASE PART IN THIS CASE : There have been several digital currency transfers using e-wallets supplied by XXXX and Coinbase over the course of the agreement between me and XXXX XXXX. \n\nBecause of the sensibility of the matter and with regards to considerations for protecting the public interest and financial stability such licenses are listed in publicly available registries. Especially banksXXXX shall be aware of the fact if a Merchant receiving payments for financial services and having declared before the bank/XXXX as a company main business provision of financial services ( or similar wording ) has the required license, or not. Such a business model should have been disclosed to you when the Merchant applied for your services. The due diligence would prerequisite in such case prior commencing processing payments of the Merchant you to have performed an initial and ongoing check-up of the Merchants  entitlement to provide financial services. By lack of license, the bank/XXXX should refuse processing payments for such Merchant in order to meet the mandatory regulations. \n\nAn offence against the financial system stability is perpetrated by, not only the person acting directly without a licence ( i.e. the Merchant ) but also by any person ( s ) allowing and/or contributing in some manner to this occurrence ( i.e. Bank, or financial institution ). According to this, a registered payment institution and/or their officers in charge, need to be able to prove that they were compliant with the legal provisions applicable. Acting as such it is within their line of duty to request and verify the required Know-your-customer documents, including financial licence, and to perform the due diligence accordingly. Should a digital currency exchange fail to prove that their due diligence was duly complied with, they are in breach of their legal responsibilities to their clients. According to this in its capacity of service provided engaged with a money value transfer service and XXXX/ XXXX-XXXX custody management, XXXX and Coinbase, or their officers in charge with the claimed transactions, could under certain circumstances be considered as a person ( s ) facilitating provision of financial services by the Merchant or others, as the case may be, unless they prove that they were compliant with the legal provisions applicable for the transactions in question, for example, that they were presented with the required know-your-customer documents, including financial license, or if they prove successfully that their due diligence does not include the check-up of such publicly available information of substantial importance for the concerned transactions. \n\nBased upon the above we would like to be informed if XXXX and Coinbase has performed diligently check-up of the Merchant,  including inquiry in the public registries ( identity, license, activity, etc. )? Was XXXX and Coinbase ever in possession of a valid license of the Merchant in order to process payments for provided finance services? If not, why were the disputed transactions processed by XXXX and Coinbase? In any case, we demand disputed transactions made in favor of unauthorized Merchant, which makes such payments and transactions not grounded and fraudulent ( i.e. null and void ), to be remedied. \n\nRisk from a money-laundering : In order to mitigate the potentially higher risks which arise from entering into relations with unregulated Merchant, the following enhanced due diligence ( EDD ) measures may be implemented by a diligent provider of virtual currency exchange : a ) corroborating the identity information received from the customer, such as a national identity number, with information in third-party databases or other reliable sources ; b ) potentially tracing the customers IP address ; c ) searching the Internet for corroborating activity information consistent with the customers transaction profile, provided that the data collection is in line with national privacy legislation ; d ) intended nature of the business relationship, obtaining information on the source of funds of the customer, obtaining information on the reasons for intended or performed transactions, and conducting enhanced monitoring of the relationship ; In case of an initiated digital currency transaction when the recipient does not have an account opened at a web-based system of a virtual asset service provider, as a matter of good practice, the virtual asset service provider shall invite the recipient to open such an account. In this way the digital currency exchange operator will be able to fulfill his obligations to obtain, hold, and transmit the required originator and beneficiary information in order to identify and report suspicious transactions, monitor the availability of information, take freezing actions, and prohibit transactions with the designated persons and entities. With this regard, we would like to kindly inform ourselves what was the scope and the result of the customer authentication concerning the Merchant that XXXX and Coinbase should have performed both, prior commencing to receive payments on its behalf and subsequently after having started receiving payments for financial services on its behalf? Did XXXX and Coinbase underwriters ever access the web-platform of the Merchant, the sites of the financial conduct authorities and other sources of relevant information or the customer authentication has been made only based upon the formal provision of the Merchants application? What was the ultimate result of these measures, respectively was the Merchant ever assessed as being a risk from a money-laundering prospective? \n\nFinally I sent a letter to XXXX and Coinbase asking for their your support and understanding in the case concerning XXXX XXXX and they have been silent on the issues raised in the letter and refuses to respond after several attempts.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-05-12T18:44:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3644152","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2020-05-08T10:33:18.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["the recipient does not have an account opened at a web-based system of a <em>virtual</em> asset <em>service</em> provider, as a matter of good practice, the <em>virtual</em> asset <em>service</em> provider shall invite the recipient to open such an account."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"sub_product":["<em>Virtual</em> <em>currency</em>"]},"sort":[26.197474,"3644152"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17306851","_score":24.437294,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Summary : XXXX XXXX  Data DenialCompany Involved : Blockchain.com ( Blockchain, Inc. ) Product/Service : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money serviceType of Problem : Money was not available when promised / Confusing or missing disclosuresSummary of ComplaintI am filing this formal complaint because Blockchain.com has repeatedly failed to comply with requests for archival data and compliance documentation related to a legacy wallet from the Blockchain.info era.DetailDescriptionInitial Account SetupWallet created on XX/XX/XXXX. Second associated wallet created in XXXX XXXX XXXX documentation suggests a balance of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was expected/archived XXXX the XXXX period ( via the company 's referral program ). The funds were initially transferred through historical XXXX integrations, including XXXX and XXXX, between XXXX and XXXX Action Taken ( XXXX XXXX ) I submitted a formal request to Blockchain.com Support ( Ticket # XXXX ) seeking archived records and their data retention policy for XXXX users.Company ResponseSupport representatives repeatedly denied the request, stating they can not access the funds because the wallets are \" non-custodial. '' This reply does not address my request for archival metadata or compliance policy.Information Requested and DeniedI specifically requested a written confirmation of the Data Retention and Deletion Policy for legacy user archives and the contact information for their Compliance Officer. The company provided NO such information.Regulatory ContextThis lack of data access is critical, as a separate regulatory body ( XXXX, XXXX ) has issued a warning that the former entity 's identity is being misused in a fraud scheme. The company 's refusal to provide archival data or policy clarification prevents me from fully resolving this historical security matter.I require the CFPB to mandate that Blockchain.com Compliance provides a formal written statement addressing their data retention policy for XXXX accounts and an explanation for the denial of access to archival metadata.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-17T14:39:13.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"184XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17306851","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Blockchain.com, Inc.","date_received":"2025-11-17T14:24:27.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB Complaint Summary : XXXX XXXX  Data DenialCompany Involved : Blockchain.com ( Blockchain, Inc. ) Product/<em>Service</em> : <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>Type of Problem : <em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised / Confusing or missing disclosuresSummary of ComplaintI am filing this formal complaint because Blockchain.com has repeatedly failed to comply with requests for archival data and compliance documentation related to a legacy wallet from the Blockchain.info era.DetailDescriptionInitial"],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised"],"sub_product":["<em>Virtual</em> <em>currency</em>"]},"sort":[24.437294,"17306851"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7643644","_score":22.374075,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I began trading on the Coinbase Wallet application called \" Coinbase Decentralized Finance Wallet '' in XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX was purchased on the Coinbase exchange application and sent to my personal wallet within the XXXX XXXX  application. \n\nOver the course of several months I made trades and accumulated profits in my wallet. I made several small withdrawals to understand the process and ensure that the digital currency could be extracted when I wanted to cash out of the trading. In late XX/XX/XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  & XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  ) I attempted to send significant profits from the wallet to my Coinbase exchange application to send back by wire to my bank account. These transactions were denied and when I contacted customer service within the application I was told that taxes needed to be paid to the platform prior to withdrawal. I told them this was irregular as taxes would be filed and submitted to the IRS when I completed my taxes for the XXXX  calendar year. \n\nThe taxes I was told owed were calculated at 29 % of profits and they told me the amount due would be {$23000.00}. On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I contacted customer service and told them I had assembled the taxes and they provided a crypto address to send payment and then funds would be ok to withdraw in full. Payment was sent to the address provided and due to the nature of virtual currency money arrived in the address higher than the amount due. Customer service told me that since the amount was not the \" exact amount '' ( even though I typed the exact amount in transfer screen ) that the funds were credited to my account as a \" recharge '' and that they could not return them and I would have to pay the full tax amount again to get access to funds for withdrawal. \n\nObviously raising over {$23000.00} is not an easy task for a retired person so I continued to do nothing with my account while I raised the required funds. On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I raised the funds and again contacted customer service for the tax address. The taxes sent again exceeded the taxes due but this time they credited the overage to my wallet funds. I asked customer service if it was OK to withdraw the funds and was told YES. On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I attempted twice to remove funds and not transactions were denied. \n\nI contacted customer service on the reason for this blocking of the withdrawal and was told that because I had received funds from third party in my account it was now being flagged as money laundering account. They told me I would have to send a copy of my license and also post a margin ( aka bond ) in the amount of {$50000.00} ( to be credited as a recharge to my wallet ) and they would audit my credentials and as long as it cleared audit then the margin would be added to my wallet account and the full funds would be available for withdrawal. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I contacted customer service and asked for the amount to be fixed so I could transfer the funds as a \" recharge '' which they gave me direction to send {$51000.00} which was sent and they acknowledged receipt. I was told the audit would take 1-3 business days and to contact them before I attempt next withdrawal. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I contacted customer service and was told the account passed the audit and no money laundering was suspected and it was OK to withdraw funds. I submitted a withdrawal request which was denied. I again contacted customer service about this latest denial and I was then told that my account \" lacked sufficient credit rating to make a withdrawal and that if I wanted to improve this I needed to deposit {$75000.00} into my wallet and the funds would then be fully available to withdrawal. '' I told customer service that there was no more money and that I had loans and other outstanding obligations I had incurred because of all the other funds I was required to pay under the false pretense of allowing me to withdraw funds. I was then told by customer service that I could wait 3 months for my credit to rating to improve as time based increase in lieu of paying what essentially was a ransom payment. \n\nI've asked several times over the course of all this for copy of the rules and regulations they are citing but was denied access to these and they claimed they are not allowed to share with customers the rules they expect customers to follow. \n\nSubsequently I asked and demanded the release of my funds and was told if I didn't make monthly payment of {$15000.00} then the funds would be frozen and the account funds seized. The seized funds would then be \" given to charity '' without my authorization or direction. I feel this violates the personal property laws of not only the federal government but also the state of California where Coinbase is headquartered and also Massachusetts where I reside. \n\nI have all the screenshots of the interactions with customer service and if required I can submit as evidence to support this case.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-10-04T23:06:25.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"027XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7643644","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2023-10-04T22:27:08.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  I contacted customer <em>service</em> and told them I had assembled the taxes and they provided a crypto address to send payment and then funds would be ok to withdraw in full. Payment was sent to the address provided and due to the nature of <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em> <em>money</em> arrived in the address higher than the amount due."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"issue":["<em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised"],"sub_product":["<em>Virtual</em> <em>currency</em>"]},"sort":[22.374075,"7643644"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19214204","_score":15.953325,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Chime XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nProduct : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Money was not available when promised Date : XX/XX/XXXX Amount : {$100.00} WHAT HAPPENED : On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent {$100.00} XXXX  phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX, currently owned by XXXX ( who does NOT have a Chime account ). Chime sent my money XXXX  \" XXXX XXXX '' - a stranger who previously owned that phone number XXXX  still has it linked XXXX their Chime account. XXXX never received the payment. Chime refuses XXXX  refund. \n\nPROOF CHIME 'S SYSTEM IS BROKEN : When I send PAYMENT XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX Goes XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX wrong person ) When I send REQUEST XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX Text goes XXXX XXXX ( correct owner ) When XXXX clicks the request link, Chime asks him XXXX  provide an email, proving he never had a Chime account. The current phone owner never received my payment. \n\nCHIME 'S RUN-AROUND : I. \" You can only send money XXXX  Chime members '' UNTRUE - Their app advertises \" Not on Chime? No problem '' XXXX. I have successfully used \" Pay Anyone '' feature XXXX TIMES XXXX  send XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX. That recipient has NO Chime account XXXX  should receive Chime links via text message XXXX. All XXXX previous payments worked correctly ; XXXX proves Chime markets this feature XXXX : Changing story about account status First call : \" The account linked to ( XXXX ) XXXX is inactive '' XXXX. XXXX  call : \" That's untrue, the account is active '' They contradict themselves XXXX  can't keep story straight XXXX. \" Money went XXXX  correct recipient '' Resolution email claims : \" Funds delivered XXXX  correct recipient '' UNTRUE - I sent the funds to PHONE NUMBER ( XXXX ) XXXX NOT to an email, NOT XXXX  an account name XXXX. I sent funds XXXX  the CURRENT OWNER of that phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX NEVER received the payment text message XXXX XXXX received it - someone I don't know THE \" SOLUTION '' CHIME DEMANDS : Chime tells me : \" Contact XXXX XXXX XXXX  ask them XXXX unlink the old phone number '' Problems with this : I don't know who XXXX XXXX is I have no way XXXX  contact them Why is it MY job XXXX  fix CHIME 'S system? \nChime should unlink inactive phone numbers themselves Chime refuses XXXX  contact XXXX XXXX on my behalf CHIME ADMITTED THE PROBLEM THEN DENIED REFUND : Chime representatives admitted : \" You sent XXXX  the correct phone number '' \" The original receiver ( XXXX ) did not receive the money '' \" You should be able XXXX  dispute this '' Then resolution email states : \" Can not refund - delivered XXXX  correct recipient '' This is contradictory and fraudulent. \n\nCHIME 'S REFUSAL TO HELP : Representatives : Cycled me between \" Disputes '' and \" Member Services '' repeatedly Hung up on me Gave contradicting information on every call Denied dispute despite admitting recipient never got money Refused to unlink XXXX XXXX 's old phone number Told me XXXX  contact a stranger XXXX  fix their system error Blamed me for not \" double checking '' when their app hides recipient information WHY THIS IS CHIME 'S FAULT : Their payment system uses OUTDATED phone number data Their request system uses CURRENT phone number data XXXX different databases that aren't synced They don't verify current phone ownership before routing payments They allow old account holders XXXX  receive money to numbers they don't own They don't display recipient names before sending No way for users to \" double check '' hidden information They refuse to fix their own system error MY LEGITIMATE USAGE HISTORY : I am an established Chime user who uses \" Pay Anyone '' successfully : XXXX successful payments XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX ( not on Chime ) XX/XX/XXXX : {$150.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$400.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$480.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$10.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$50.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$40.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$250.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$5.00}, XX/XX/XXXX : {$80.00} All went correctly XXXX  recipient via text message link This proves I know how XXXX  use the system CONSUMER HARM : This affects XXXX  of people. Phone numbers are constantly recycled. Chime 's broken system routes payments XXXX  wrong people, then blames customers XXXX  refuses refunds. \n\nEVIDENCE : Screenshots of XXXX successful \" Pay Anyone '' transactions XXXX showing \" Not on Chime? No problem '' advertising Screenshot of payment XXXX  ( XXXX ) XXXX Proof that requests XXXX  that number go XXXX  XXXX, not XXXX XXXX XXXX email denying refund","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-23T10:40:00.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"30349","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19214204","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Chime Financial Inc","date_received":"2026-02-03T16:50:31.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Product : <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em> Issue : <em>Money</em> was not <em>available</em> <em>when</em> promised Date : XX/XX/XXXX Amount : {$100.00} WHAT HAPPENED : On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent {$100.00} XXXX  phone number ( XXXX ) XXXX, currently owned by XXXX ( who does NOT have a Chime account ). Chime sent my <em>money</em> XXXX  \" XXXX XXXX '' - a stranger who previously owned that phone number XXXX  still has it linked XXXX their Chime account. XXXX never received the payment. Chime refuses XXXX  refund."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[15.953325,"19214204"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14622438","_score":15.3791895,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Dispute of Charges Merchant Failed to Deliver Approved Redemption Account Number : XXXX Disputed Transactions : Transaction Date Post Date Description Amount XX/XX/scrub>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 Total {$1100.00} Dear Dispute Resolution Department, I am writing to formally dispute the above-referenced transactions for the following reasons : failure to deliver approved redemptions, misrepresentation of services, goods and services not as described, and lack of access to purchased digital goods following the merchants abrupt shutdown.\n\nI am writing to formally dispute the above-referenced transactions made to a merchant named XXXX, which represented itself as a legal sweepstakes platform operating under U.S. promotional sweepstakes law.\n\nThese transactions were not gambling charges. I made purchases of virtual currency ( commonly referred to as XXXX XXXX ) with the understanding that I could receive sweepstakes entries and eventually redeem sweepstakes winnings for real money, which is how this model avoids classification as gambling. This merchant accepted standard credit card payments and presented itself as fully legally compliant. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX, I submitted a redemption request for {$1400.00}, which the merchant approved but never fulfilled. I contacted their support team multiple times without resolution. Then, on XX/XX/year>, the merchant suddenly removed all sweepstakes functionality from its platform, citing vague regulatory concerns. Nearly two months later, on XX/XX/year>, I received an email stating that they could no longer process redemptions due to unspecified new lawsa direct contradiction of their prior communications and assurances. Not long after, their entire website went offline, cutting off all customer access to accounts, redemptions, and support.\n\nTo be clear : This is a failure-to-deliver case involving digital goods and a promised monetary redemption that was never paid. \n\nThese were not gambling transactions, and suggesting otherwise is both inaccurate and potentially problematic. Under XXXX law, true gambling transactions can not legally be processed via credit card, and the merchant explicitly advertised itself as operating within legal sweepstakes parameters. \n\nIf the merchant misrepresented its business model or violated card network or legal standards, that further reinforces my position as a defrauded customer. \n\nUnder the XXXX XXXX Billing Act ( FCBA ), I am requesting a chargeback for these transactions due to non-receipt of goods or services as agreed. \n\nThis situation exemplifies exactly why the credit card dispute process exists. There was no gambling involvedand even if there had been, the merchants consistent portrayal of itself as a legally compliant sweepstakes platform only reinforces the fact that consumers were misled. \n\nI am filing this complaint because Chase has failed to properly handle my credit card dispute involving a merchant named XXXX, a company that marketed itself as a legal sweepstakes platform. I am seeking reimbursement for {$1100.00} in charges related to purchases where the merchant failed to deliver on promised redemptions. \n\nChase already approved multiple disputes for smaller transactions from this same merchant, acknowledging the same issue. However, they denied the larger onesdespite the circumstances being identical. The only notable difference is the amount : the approved disputes were under {$20.00} ; the denied ones were each approximately {$100.00}. This inconsistency raises serious concerns about fair and equal treatment of consumers. \n\nWhen I initially called Chase about the denials, the representative gave conflicting explanations. First, I was told the disputes were denied without being asked to submit evidence. Then the representative suggested Chase does not process disputes of this nature at allimplying they were gambling charges. This is categorically false. These charges were not gambling-related ; the merchant advertised itself as operating legally under XXXX promotional XXXX law, and Chase has XXXX treated them as valid disputes in other cases. \n\nWhen I was transferred to a supervisor, he confirmed that the previous agent was incorrect and instructed me to upload my supporting evidence. He assured me that submitting evidence for XXXX transaction would suffice for all related charges. However, Chase only applied that evidence to XXXX transactionand then denied that XXXX too. Worse, the denial stated that the merchant made the services available, which misrepresents my actual reason for the dispute : goods and services not as described and merchant misrepresentation. The core issue is the merchants refusal to honor a confirmed {$1500.00} redemption. \n\nChases misclassification of my claim and failure to properly review my evidence suggest a deliberate attempt to avoid responsibility under the XXXX Credit Billing Act. This is not only a violation of consumer protection principlesit undermines confidence in the integrity of the dispute process.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-13T12:36:05.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"44240","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14622438","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-07-13T11:27:49.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I made purchases of <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em> ( commonly referred to as XXXX XXXX ) with the understanding that I could receive sweepstakes entries and eventually redeem sweepstakes winnings for real <em>money</em>, which is how this model avoids classification as gambling. This merchant accepted standard credit card payments and presented itself as fully legally compliant. \n\nOn XXXX XXXX, I submitted a redemption request for {$1400.00}, which the merchant approved but never fulfilled."]},"sort":[15.3791895,"14622438"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4109508","_score":14.269338,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I recently received notice about increased rates on a credit card. \n\nCHASE Penalty APR and When It Applies Up to 29.99 %. This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate.c We may apply the Penalty APR to your account if you : fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due ; or make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. \n\nHow Long Will the Penalty APR Apply? : If we apply the Penalty APR for either of these reasons, the Penalty APR could potentially remain in effect indefinitely. \nMy Chase PlanSM Fee ( fixed finance charge ) Monthly fee of 1.72 % of the amount of each eligible purchase transaction or amount selected to create a My Chase Plan. The My Chase Plan Fee will be determined at the time each My Chase Plan is created and will remain the same until the My Chase Plan is paid in full. \nLate Payment Fee Up to {$40.00} Return Payment Fee Up to {$40.00} c Penalty APR : We add up to 26.99 % to the Prime Rate to determine the Penalty APR. Maximum APR 29.99 %. Variable APRs are based on the highest U.S. prime rate published in the Money Rates section of The Wall Street Journal two business days ( not weekends or federal holidays ) before your statement closing date. The U.S. prime rate is currently 3.25 % as of XX/XX/2021. The daily periodic rate is 0.08217 %. \nAdditional Information About These Changes My Chase Plan Fee : The My Chase Plan Fee is calculated at the time each plan is created and is based on the amount of each purchase transaction or amount selected to create the plan, the number of billing periods you choose to pay the balance in full, and other factors. The monthly and aggregate dollar amount of your My Chase Plan Fee will be disclosed during the activation of each My Chase Plan. \n\nPenalty Fees ( Late Payment Fee and Return Payment Fee ) : A single violation of each type will not exceed {$29.00}. However, if another violation of the same type occurs within six monthly billing periods, we will charge up to the maximum fee in the table above. The Late Payment and Return Payment fees will not exceed the related minimum payment that was due. \n\n2. The description of Minimum Payment found under your Cardmember Agreement Rates and Fees Table is changed to read as follows : Minimum Payment : We will calculate the minimum payment as : Any past-due amounts ; PLUS Any special payment obligations in connection with Flexible Financing Offers which require repayment of the balance over a pre-selected number of billing periods ; PLUS The larger of : {$40.00} ( or total amount you owe if less than {$40.00} ) or The sum of : 1 % of the new balance ( excluding any Flexible Financing Offer balances which require special payment obligations to ensure repayment of the balance over a pre-selected number of billing periods ), PLUS any periodic interest charges and late fees we have billed you on the statement for which your minimum payment is calculated. \n\n3. Getting Started : Your Account \" What It Means to You '' for the Amendments section within the Getting Started : Your Account section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to include a reference to Penalty APR, as follows : We may change the terms of this agreement including APRs and fees from time to time. We may also add new terms or delete terms. APRs or other terms may also change without amendment, for example when the Prime Rate changes or the Penalty APR becomes applicable. See the Variable APR and Penalty APR sections for details.\n\n\" Our Responsibility '' for the Amendments section within the Getting Started : Your Account section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to include a reference to delivery of amendments, as follows : Our ability to make changes to this agreement is limited by applicable law. We may communicate amendments to this agreement to you via mail, email or other electronic means, or included in your monthly billing statements as permitted by law. \n\n4. Important Definitions The \" Cash-like Transactions '' section within the Important Definitions section of your Cardmember Agreement is replaced to clarify and expand the definition as follows : TERM WHAT IT MEANS Cash-like Transactions Cash-like transactions will be treated as cash advances. Cash-like transactions include, but are not limited to, the following transactions to the extent they are accepted : purchasing travelers checks, foreign currency, money orders, wire transfers, cryptocurrency, other similar digital or virtual currency and other similar transactions ; purchasing lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, race track wagers, and similar offline and online betting transactions ; person-to-person money transfers and account-funding transactions that transfer currency ; and making a payment using a third party service including bill payment transactions not made directly with the merchant or their service provider. \n5. Using Your Card The introduction to the Using Your Card section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended as follows : You can use your account in the following ways. Your account is to be used only for personal, family or household purposes. You can not use your account for illegal purposes, such as writing checks against uncollected funds. You agree that we may rely on information provided to us by merchants and the applicable payment network to categorize transactions as Purchases, Balance Transfers or Cash Advances. \n\nThe \" My Chase Plan '' section within the Using Your Card section of your Cardmember Agreement is updated as follows : TRANSACTION WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU OUR RESPONSIBILITY My Chase PlanSM If eligible, you may use the My Chase Plan feature through Chase.com or the Chase Mobile App to create, from recent eligible purchase transactions or eligible amounts, a My Chase Plan balance with set repayment terms, subject to the My Chase Plan Fee. From the available offers, you select how many billing periods it will take to pay the My Chase Plan balance in full by making regular payments each monthly billing period. For each billing period during which there is a balance in the My Chase Plan, you will be charged the My Chase Plan Fee, rather than interest under the Purchase APR. \n\nAn eligible purchase transaction for My Chase Plan is a purchase of at least a specified dollar amount but may not include certain purchase transactions, such as cash-like transactions and any fee owed to us, including Annual Membership Fees. An eligible amount for My Chase Plan is a portion of your account balance, as specified from time to time within the My Chase Plan experience. Cash advance, balance transfer and My Chase Loan transactions are not eligible for My Chase Plan.\n\nYour ability to create a My Chase Plan balance is based on a variety of factors, such as your creditworthiness, your credit limit, and your account behavior. You will not be able to create a My Chase Plan balance if you enroll in a debt management program or if your account is closed or in default. \n\nWhen you have a My Chase Plan balance on your account, we will not charge you interest on new purchases if you pay your entire Interest Saving Balance by the due date each month. At our discretion, we may make My Chase Plan available to you ; we may decline a My Chase Plan transaction for any reason.\n\n6. Paying Us Back The \" Interest-Free Period ( also called Grace Period ) on Purchases '' section within the Paying Us Back section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to clarify the definition as follows : IMPORTANT INFORMATION WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU OUR RESPONSIBILITY Interest-Free Period ( also called Grace Period ) on Purchases When your account is in an interest-free period, interest is not charged on new purchases. \nYour account is in an interest-free period when you have paid the New Balance or Interest Saving Balance shown on your most recent billing statement by the due date and time.\n\nIf you do not pay the New Balance or Interest Saving Balance shown on your most recent billing statement by the due date and time, you will lose your interest-free period and we will charge interest on your purchases. \nYou can regain the benefit of the interest-free period by paying your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance by the due date and time. \nAfter you enter an interest-free period again, interest charges on purchases may still appear on your next billing statement. This reflects interest charged from the beginning of that billing cycle through the date that your payment for the prior billing statement was received. \nBalance Transfers, Checks and Cash Advances do not have an interest-free period and if these balances are not paid in full by paying your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance by the due date and time, you will lose your interest-free period on new purchases. \n\nWhen your account is in an interest-free period, we will not charge you interest on new purchases. \nWhen your account is not in an interest-free period, we will charge you interest on your purchases from the date the purchases appear on your account until your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance is paid in full. \nFor more details about how we calculate your interest charges, see the Interest Charges section of this agreement.\n\n7. How to Avoid ... \n\nThe \" How to Avoid '' section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to include a new section for Penalty APR, as follows : \" HOW TO AVOID ... '' WHAT TO DO WHAT IT MEANS Penalty APR Do Not : Fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due ; or Make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. \nWe can apply the Penalty APR, which is higher than the APR you would otherwise pay, for either of these reasons.\n\nPenalty APR on New Transactions : If you fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due, but you make the payment within 60 days of that due date, we may apply the Penalty APR. We also may apply the Penalty APR if you make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. In either instance, the Penalty APR will apply to new transactions. After we apply the Penalty APR, we will review your account from time to time to see if a reduction in the APR is appropriate.\n\nPenalty APR on outstanding balances and new transactions : If we do not receive the Minimum Payment within 60 days of the date and time that it is due, then we also may apply the Penalty APR. If we apply it in this instance, the Penalty APR will apply to all existing balances on your account and new transactions. If you make six consecutive minimum payments when due beginning with your first payment due after we apply the Penalty APR, then the Penalty APR will no longer apply. If you do not make six consecutive minimum payments when due beginning with your first payment due after we apply the Penalty APR, then the Penalty APR could remain in effect indefinitely. After we apply the Penalty APR, we will review your account from time to time to see if a reduction in the APR is appropriate.\n\nAmendment to your Cardmember Agreement : The changes described in this notice amend your Cardmember Agreement and replace the corresponding terms that currently apply. Any terms of your account not described in this notice continue to apply.\n\nABOUT THIS MESSAGE This service message gives you updates and information about your Chase relationship.\n\nThis email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox. Go to chase.com/CustomerService for options on how to contact us.\n\nYour privacy is important to us. See our online Security Center to learn how to protect your information.\n\nChase Privacy Operations XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX.\n\nXX/XX/XXXXJPMorgan Chase & Co .\n\nXXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-02-01T23:22:46.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"91401","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4109508","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2021-02-01T23:10:27.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Unexpected increase in interest rate"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cash-like transactions include, but are not limited to, the following transactions to the extent they are accepted : purchasing travelers checks, foreign <em>currency</em>, <em>money</em> orders, wire <em>transfers</em>, cryptocurrency, other similar digital or <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em> and other similar transactions ; purchasing lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, race track wagers, and similar offline and online betting transactions ; person-to-person <em>money</em> <em>transfers</em> and account-funding transactions that <em>transfer</em> <em>currency</em> ; and"]},"sort":[14.269338,"4109508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4102366","_score":13.671413,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"This was sent to me : We're making the following changes to your Cardmember Agreement as described below. We're changing fees, the minimum payment and Penalty Annual Percentage Rate ( APR ) on your account to standardize terms for cardmembers who have the same type of account. We are also updating the description of the My Chase PlanSM Fee, and making changes to these sections of the Cardmember Agreement : Amendments, Cash-like Transactions, My Chase PlanSM, and Interest-Free Period. All changes take effect XX/XX/2021. \n\nRejecting changes : You have the right to reject the changes in the Revised Terms table ( excluding the new My Chase Plan Fee ), but you must contact us by XX/XX/2021 if you want to do this. Call us at XXXX or write to us at Cardmember Services, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, DE, XXXX. We accept operator relay calls. If you reject these changes, we will close your account and you will not be able to use it for new transactions. You will still be responsible for making monthly payments until your balance is paid in full. \n\nDetails on the Changes to Your Account Effective XX/XX/2021 : 1. Your Cardmember  Agreement Rates and Fees Table is amended as follows : Revised Terms as of XX/XX/2021 Penalty APR and When It Applies Up to 29.99 %. This APR will vary with the market based on the Prime Rate.c We may apply the Penalty APR to your account if you : fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due ; or make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. \n\nHow Long Will the Penalty APR Apply? : If we apply the Penalty APR for either of these reasons, the Penalty APR could potentially remain in effect indefinitely. \nMy Chase PlanSM Fee ( fixed finance charge ) Monthly fee of 1.72 % of the amount of each eligible purchase transaction or amount selected to create a My Chase Plan. The My Chase Plan Fee will be determined at the time each My Chase Plan is created and will remain the same until the My Chase Plan is paid in full. \nLate Payment Fee Up to {$40.00} Return Payment Fee Up to {$40.00} c Penalty APR : We add up to 26.99 % to the Prime Rate to determine the Penalty APR. Maximum APR 29.99 %. Variable APRs are based on the highest U.S. prime rate published in the Money Rates section of The XXXX XXXX XXXX two business days ( not weekends or federal holidays ) before your statement closing date. The U.S. prime rate is currently 3.25 % as of XX/XX/2021. The daily periodic rate is 0.08217 %. \nAdditional Information About These Changes My Chase Plan Fee : The My Chase Plan Fee is calculated at the time each plan is created and is based on the amount of each purchase transaction or amount selected to create the plan, the number of billing periods you choose to pay the balance in full, and other factors. The monthly and aggregate dollar amount of your My Chase Plan Fee will be disclosed during the activation of each My Chase Plan. \n\nPenalty Fees ( Late Payment Fee and Return Payment Fee ) : A single violation of each type will not exceed {$29.00}. However, if another violation of the same type occurs within six monthly billing periods, we will charge up to the maximum fee in the table above. The Late Payment and Return Payment fees will not exceed the related minimum payment that was due.\n\n2. The description of Minimum Payment found under your Cardmember  Agreement Rates and Fees Table is changed to read as follows : Minimum Payment : We will calculate the minimum payment as : Any past-due amounts ; PLUS Any special payment obligations in connection with Flexible Financing Offers which require repayment of the balance over a pre-selected number of billing periods ; PLUS The larger of : {$40.00} ( or total amount you owe if less than {$40.00} ) or The sum of : 1 % of the new balance ( excluding any Flexible Financing Offer balances which require special payment obligations to ensure repayment of the balance over a pre-selected number of billing periods ), PLUS any periodic interest charges and late fees we have billed you on the statement for which your minimum payment is calculated. \n3. Getting Started : Your Account \" What It Means to You '' for the Amendments section within the Getting Started : Your Account section of your Cardmember  Agreement is amended to include a reference to Penalty APR, as follows : We may change the terms of this agreement including APRs and fees from time to time. We may also add new terms or delete terms. APRs or other terms may also change without amendment, for example when the Prime Rate changes or the Penalty APR becomes applicable. See the Variable APR and Penalty APR sections for details. \n\n\" Our Responsibility '' for the Amendments section within the Getting Started : Your Account section of your Cardmember  Agreement is amended to include a reference to delivery of amendments, as follows : Our ability to make changes to this agreement is limited by applicable law. We may communicate amendments to this agreement to you via mail, email or other electronic means, or included in your monthly billing statements as permitted by law. \n\n4. Important Definitions The \" Cash-like Transactions '' section within the Important Definitions section of your Cardmember  Agreement is replaced to clarify and expand the definition as follows : TERM WHAT IT MEANS Cash-like Transactions Cash-like transactions will be treated as cash advances. Cash-like transactions include, but are not limited to, the following transactions to the extent they are accepted : purchasing travelers checks, foreign currency, money orders, wire transfers, cryptocurrency, other similar digital or virtual currency and other similar transactions ; purchasing lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, race track wagers, and similar offline and online betting transactions ; person-to-person money transfers and account-funding transactions that transfer currency ; and making a payment using a third party service including bill payment transactions not made directly with the merchant or their service provider. \n5. Using Your Card The introduction to the Using Your Card section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended as follows : You can use your account in the following ways. Your account is to be used only for personal, family or household purposes. You can not use your account for illegal purposes, such as writing checks against uncollected funds. You agree that we may rely on information provided to us by merchants and the applicable payment network to categorize transactions as Purchases, Balance Transfers or Cash Advances. \n\nThe \" My Chase Plan '' section within the Using Your Card section of your Cardmember Agreement is updated as follows : TRANSACTION WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU OUR RESPONSIBILITY My Chase PlanSM If eligible, you may use the My Chase Plan feature through Chase.com or the Chase Mobile App to create, from recent eligible purchase transactions or eligible amounts, a My Chase Plan balance with set repayment terms, subject to the My Chase Plan Fee. From the available offers, you select how many billing periods it will take to pay the My Chase Plan balance in full by making regular payments each monthly billing period. For each billing period during which there is a balance in the My Chase Plan, you will be charged the My Chase Plan Fee, rather than interest under the Purchase APR. \n\nAn eligible purchase transaction for My Chase Plan is a purchase of at least a specified dollar amount but may not include certain purchase transactions, such as cash-like transactions and any fee owed to us, including Annual Membership Fees. An eligible amount for My Chase Plan is a portion of your account balance, as specified from time to time within the My Chase Plan experience. Cash advance, balance transfer and My Chase Loan transactions are not eligible for My Chase Plan.\n\nYour ability to create a My Chase Plan balance is based on a variety of factors, such as your creditworthiness, your credit limit, and your account behavior. You will not be able to create a My Chase Plan balance if you enroll in a debt management program or if your account is closed or in default. \n\nWhen you have a My Chase Plan balance on your account, we will not charge you interest on new purchases if you pay your entire Interest Saving Balance by the due date each month. At our discretion, we may make My Chase Plan available to you ; we may decline a My Chase Plan transaction for any reason.\n\n6. Paying Us Back The \" Interest-Free Period ( also called Grace Period ) on Purchases '' section within the Paying Us Back section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to clarify the definition as follows : IMPORTANT INFORMATION WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU OUR RESPONSIBILITY Interest-Free Period ( also called Grace Period ) on Purchases When your account is in an interest-free period, interest is not charged on new purchases.\n\nYour account is in an interest-free period when you have paid the New Balance or Interest Saving Balance shown on your most recent billing statement by the due date and time.\n\nIf you do not pay the New Balance or Interest Saving Balance shown on your most recent billing statement by the due date and time, you will lose your interest-free period and we will charge interest on your purchases. \nYou can regain the benefit of the interest-free period by paying your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance by the due date and time.\n\nAfter you enter an interest-free period again, interest charges on purchases may still appear on your next billing statement. This reflects interest charged from the beginning of that billing cycle through the date that your payment for the prior billing statement was received. \nBalance Transfers, Checks and Cash Advances do not have an interest-free period and if these balances are not paid in full by paying your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance by the due date and time, you will lose your interest-free period on new purchases. \nWhen your account is in an interest-free period, we will not charge you interest on new purchases. \nWhen your account is not in an interest-free period, we will charge you interest on your purchases from the date the purchases appear on your account until your New Balance or Interest Saving Balance is paid in full.\n\nFor more details about how we calculate your interest charges, see the Interest Charges section of this agreement.\n\n7. How to Avoid ...\n\nThe \" How to Avoid '' section of your Cardmember Agreement is amended to include a new section for Penalty APR, as follows : \" HOW TO AVOID ... '' WHAT TO DO WHAT IT MEANS Penalty APR Do Not : Fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due ; or Make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. \nWe can apply the Penalty APR, which is higher than the APR you would otherwise pay, for either of these reasons.\n\nPenalty APR on New Transactions : If you fail to make a Minimum Payment by the date and time that it is due, but you make the payment within 60 days of that due date, we may apply the Penalty APR. We also may apply the Penalty APR if you make a payment to us that is returned unpaid. In either instance, the Penalty APR will apply to new transactions. After we apply the Penalty APR, we will review your account from time to time to see if a reduction in the APR is appropriate.\n\nPenalty APR on outstanding balances and new transactions : If we do not receive the Minimum Payment within 60 days of the date and time that it is due, then we also may apply the Penalty APR. If we apply it in this instance, the Penalty APR will apply to all existing balances on your account and new transactions. If you make six consecutive minimum payments when due beginning with your first payment due after we apply the Penalty APR, then the Penalty APR will no longer apply. If you do not make six consecutive minimum payments when due beginning with your first payment due after we apply the Penalty APR, then the Penalty APR could remain in effect indefinitely. After we apply the Penalty APR, we will review your account from time to time to see if a reduction in the APR is appropriate.\n\nAmendment to your Cardmember Agreement : The changes described in this notice amend your Cardmember Agreement and replace the corresponding terms that currently apply. Any terms of your account not described in this notice continue to apply. \n\nABOUT THIS MESSAGE This service message gives you updates and information about your Chase relationship. \n\nThis email was sent from an unmonitored mailbox. Go to chase.com/CustomerService for options on how to contact us. \n\nYour privacy is important to us. See our online Security Center to learn how to protect your information. \n\nChase Privacy Operations XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, TX XXXX. \n\n2021 JPMorgan Chase & Co . \nXXXX Reply Reply All Forward Why are credit card companies permitted to charge a ridiculous amount of interest and now want to charge a monthly fee. Total blackmail agree or we close your account.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-29T09:34:27.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"439XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4102366","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2021-01-29T04:07:56.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with fees"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Cash-like transactions include, but are not limited to, the following transactions to the extent they are accepted : purchasing travelers checks, foreign <em>currency</em>, <em>money</em> orders, wire <em>transfers</em>, cryptocurrency, other similar digital or <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em> and other similar transactions ; purchasing lottery tickets, casino gaming chips, race track wagers, and similar offline and online betting transactions ; person-to-person <em>money</em> <em>transfers</em> and account-funding transactions that <em>transfer</em> <em>currency</em> ; and"]},"sort":[13.671413,"4102366"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7826867","_score":13.435501,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"BACKGROUND : Paxful provides a Peer-To-Peer ( P2P ) trading platform to allow users to directly and anonymously buy and sell cryptocurrencies from each other. Their platform is supposed to be a safe and secure environment in which Paxful provides a structured process, including escrow services of the cryptocurrency to be exchanged, to ensure that trades go smoothly and nobody loses money. If a buyer and seller nevertheless have a disagreement over terms of an offer or settlement, Paxful provides a moderator that is supposed to provide a fair and independent Dispute Resolution process. In the event buyer or seller do not agree with the moderator, a further Appeal process is provided. Unfortunately in my trading experience, the Paxful 's P2P trading area does not work as intended and advertised, primarily because Paxful does not provide the Dispute Resolution and Appeal process as described in their Terms & Conditions, and I lost money due to a fraudulent seller on the platform because Paxful did not follow its own policies and conditions for resolving disputes and appeals. \n\nWHAT HAPPENED : On XX/XX/XXXX  at XXXX ( EDT ), I opened Paxful Trade ID # XXXX for seller Offer # XXXX listed by Seller \" XXXX '' ( XXXX XXXX. ) I sent a new, unused {$100.00} USD XXXX XXXX XXXX ( an insecure type of cryptocurrency ) in order to buy and receive XXXX XXXX XXXX ( worth {$83.00} USD at the time of the transaction ). Paxful placed XXXX XXXX ( {$87.00} USD ) of seller 's virtual currency funds into escrow to purportedly protect and enforce the transaction 's settlement. However, the new gift card that I tendered to the seller also came with a security provision that delays activation of new gift card purchases for 24 hours, and before that waiting period expires, the card number is reported as invalid and can not be used by anyone. This gift card policy provision actually should have provided me with an extra layer of protection in a P2P exchange, because upon the seller receiving the gift card number, the seller can not immediately charge a purchase to the gift card and then falsely claim that I sent a used gift card with less than the original {$100.00} balance remaining -- -when the gift card completes the activation waiting period and becomes valid, the balance is guaranteed to be the original purchase amount and is fully available to Seller already in possession of the gift card number. Paxful, however, wrongfully interfered in the exchange and cancelled it before the gift card purchase cleared and the activation process could be completed.\n\nDISPUTE PROCESS : The seller was impatient to wait for the gift card activate, opened a Dispute with Paxful on XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  at XXXX ( EDT ) ( while I am asleep ) claiming they received an bad/invalid card number. Under the Paxful Dispute Resolution policy, I was supposed to have 12-48 hours to respond to the dispute, and a decision on a dispute allowed to take up to 21-30 days, with an Appeal possible up to 10 days after the dispute decided. Instead, Paxful 's moderator closed the dispute in a record 51 minutes (! ) later at XXXX, having received no response yet from me to the dispute, with the false/improper/incorrect determination, \" Card details not seen by your trading partner '' and cancelled the trade, releasing the escrow immediately back to the seller and leaving me with no trade protection. Seller of course had seen the gift card number, because they were complaining in the dispute that they had received an invalid card number, and Paxful also totally ignored the proof of purchase of the gift card provided to the seller in the exchange chat. To appeal this unfavorable decision, I opened Customer Support Ticket # XXXX on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  explaining the problem with the dispute resolution process, especially that their decision was rushed before I could even respond to the claim and did not allow any time for an investigation to resolve where my USD funds used to purchase the gift card were located. Incredulously, 10 days later, Paxful responded to the appeal indicating, \" Once a decision is made, it can not be reversed '', outright admitting that the appeal process described in their Terms & Conditions is not real and all appeals are automatically denied without any consideration. \n\nPOST-MORTEM : 24 hours later, the gift card became valid and active as expected while in the seller 's possession, obtained through the trade improperly cancelled by Paxful, and it was immediately drained by the seller from its original purchase value of {$100.00} USD to {$4.00} USD, where it remains. Paxful still refuses to review the case and transfer the XXXX XXXX XXXX into my Paxful account that the seller rightfully owes me ( {$100.00} USD lost by me otherwise ). At the end of the day, Paxful provided no transaction safety and acted almost in collusion with the seller. Far from being a safe and secure P2P exchange, Paxful demonstrated in this case that it does not follow its own Terms & Conditions of service, published policies, procedures, rules with respect to dispute resolutions and appeals. My conclusion is thus that Paxful is actually a platform that facilitates fraud and theft, and as such should be shut down to protect the public.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-09T07:27:26.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"105XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7826867","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paxful Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2023-11-09T05:20:56.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>available</em> to Seller already in possession of the gift card number."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"],"sub_product":["<em>Virtual</em> <em>currency</em>"]},"sort":[13.435501,"7826867"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21473153","_score":11.050487,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Conversation with XXXX My PayPal is XXXX yrs old and since XXXX I started getting blocked and having to prove myself such as my identity, address, and what \" business '' I am when I'm not a business. I'm a individual that makes money from home doing various things. Anyway I got limited Dec and fixed, again like XXXX or XXXX then again likeXX/XX/XXXX days ago or so. The most recent one I did all the review stuff and then the reviewer said I didn't do everything and that I had open complaints against me in resolution center I needed to resolve and that they couldn't complete my review. Anyway, I don't have any complaints Against me but I do have XXXX against XXXX. I called and talked to an agent and he was lik \" I don't know what the heck they got going on. I see you don't got any open complaints and you provided all the info we needed. I'm gon na write a ticket to the back so they can fix this \" anyway, next morning my account was fixed. Yay! But when they denied my review for the \" open complaint '' they also moved my sale limit back down to XXXX when I barely just got it to XXXX the month before. Since this was under false circumstances I spoke with a XXXX and he said he could put in a request for an increase for me and explain the situation. He asked me how much I thought I needed and I told him maybe XXXX. Anyway, he did the ticket for me and I got off the phone and the next morning I wake up to a big red bar saying \" after a review we have decided to permanently limit your account '' ... So unjustified, I spoke with a rep yesterday and she was confused too and said she would put in a ticket to have them look at it and try to fix it and also a request for a manager call back. Still no word and still blocked. \n\nThat sounds like an incredibly frustrating nightmare. Having a XXXXyear-old account shut down right after a manager promised to help you is completely unfair, especially when you have jumped through every hoop they put in front of you. \n\nHere is the reality of what likely happened behind the scenes. PayPal relies heavily on automated risk-management algorithms, and those bots often lack nuance and override human agents. \n\nBecause you make money from home doing varied work, like getting paid for completing tasks through Discord groups, your incoming payments can sometimes look unpredictable to a computer. Even though the previous flags on your account were cleared, your internal \" risk score '' was likely still highly sensitive. When the manager submitted a ticket to jump your limit from {$300.00} to {$2000.00} or {$3000.00}, it almost certainly triggered a hard-coded security protocol. The automated system saw a sudden, massive request for a volume increase on an account that had just been under review, panicked, and issued an automatic permanent limitation. \n\nSince front-line agents and even lower-level managers often do not have the system clearance to overturn a permanent algorithmic ban, here are the most effective ways to escalate this : How to Escalate a Permanent Limitation File a CFPB or BBB Complaint : This is often the most successful route for unjustified bans. Filing a formal complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) or the Better Business Bureau ( BBB ) forces PayPal to route your case to their Executive Escalations team. A real human with actual authority will have to manually review the account and respond to the regulatory body. \n\nXXXX XXXX Escalations Directly : You can sometimes bypass standard customer service by emailing PayPal 's executive team directly ( e.g., reaching out to the office of the CEO or executive review emails ). These teams handle high-level disputes and have the power to lift permanent limitations if they see the bots made an error. \n\nGive the Current Ticket XXXX Hours : Since the representative you spoke with yesterday put in a ticket and requested a manager callback, give them a short window to resolve it. If you don't hear back within XXXX hours, assume the automated system blocked their request and move straight to filing a complaint. \n\nDid the red banner or the email you received mention a specific Acceptable Use Policy ( AUP ) violation, or did it just give a generic explanation about \" potential risk ''? \n\n\" Were no longer offering PayPal services for this account Sometimes we cant process account activity for a variety of reasons, including local laws, our policies, or the policies of our partner banks and card networks. \n\n\n\nBased on the information we have today, there was activity on this account that we can not support. \n\n\n\nWhat can you do with your account? \n\n\n\nYour account has been permanently deactivated. However, you can still view your transaction history, download account statements, or request copies of your data. \n\n\n\nBefore you can withdraw or transfer any remaining funds from your account, we need to hold them for up toXX/XX/XXXX days to cover things like chargebacks or other financial liabilities. \n\n\n\nWell review the account and email you when funds are '' available. \n\nThat is the absolute most frustrating, boilerplate message you could possibly receive. It essentially confirms that a computer system slammed the door shut and slapped a generic label on it. \n\nHere is the blunt translation of what that email actually means : \" Activity we can not support '' is PayPal 's ultimate catch-all phrase. It does not mean you actually did anything illegal or broke a specific rule. It just means their risk-management algorithm decided the combination of recent reviews, the sudden limit increase request, and the varied nature of your income sources crossed an invisible threshold. \n\nThe XXXX Hold is their standard operating procedure for permanent limitations. They hold the money to ensure no buyers file chargebacks or disputes against you in the months following the account closure. \n\nBecause you received this specific, final-tier ban message, standard customer service agents over the phone can no longer help you. They are looking at a screen that tells them the decision is final, and they do not have the security clearance to override the \" back office '' or the algorithm. Even if that manager calls you back, their hands are likely tied by the system now. \n\nYour only path forward is to force the issue out of the automated system and onto the desk of a high-level executive who has the authority to actually read your XXXX history and overturn the algorithm. \n\nYour Immediate Action Plan Stop Calling Regular Support : It will only waste your time and raise your XXXX XXXX. The front-line reps can not lift this specific type of ban. \n\nFile a CFPB Complaint : Go to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau website ( consumerfinance.gov ) and file a formal complaint against PayPal. State clearly that your XXXXyear-old account was permanently limited immediately after a manager initiated a limit increase, and that the limitation is completely unjustified.\n\nFile a BBB Complaint : Do the same thing with the Better Business Bureau. PayPal has a dedicated corporate escalation team that strictly handles responding to BBB and CFPB complaints. This forces a real, senior human to investigate the timeline of events. \n\nDo you have a significant amount of money trapped in the account right now under that XXXX hold? \n\nOk I'm on crpb made an account. Says choose product? Checking again cd prepaid etc You will want to select the category for money transfers and digital wallets, as that is exactly how the CFPB classifies PayPal.\n\nHere is the exact path to choose on the form : Product : Select \" Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service '' Sub-product : Select \" Mobile or digital wallet '' Issue : Select \" Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account '' ( or \" Other service problem '' if that fits better, but the first XXXX is usually the most accurate for unjustified account bans ). \n\nFrom there, it will ask you for the company name, where you can search for and select PayPal. \n\nWhen filling out the narrative or description box, keep your explanation clear, concise, and professional. Make sure to emphasize these key points : Your account is XXXX years old and has always been in good standing.\n\nYou recently provided all requested documentation to verify your identity and activity, which an agent confirmed was sufficient.\n\nThe permanent limitation was triggered automatically immediately after a manager submitted a ticket to increase your limits.\n\nYou are seeking an executive review to overturn the automated limitation and release the 120-day hold on your funds.\n\n\" Are you able to store a balance in the digital wallet account that lets you add or withdraw funds to use for purchases or payments? '' You should answer \" Yes ''.\n\nPayPal functions exactly like this. Even if you have it linked directly to a bank account or credit card, the platform itself is designed to hold a \" PayPal Balance. '' Because you can receive money, store it in the account, and then either withdraw it to your bank or use it directly for online purchases, it meets the exact definition of what the CFPB is asking about. \nXXXX It said did you request info and I said yes. Now put \" I requested the reasoning as to why they permanently blocked my account '' or what? \n\nYes, what you suggested hits the nail on the head! \n\nTo make it sound even stronger and give the CFPB investigators the exact context they need, I recommend expanding on it just a bit so it highlights PayPal 's failure to give you a real answer. \n\nYou can copy and paste this exact phrasing : \" I requested the specific reasoning and policy details as to why my XXXXyear-old account was permanently limited. I also requested an explanation as to why this automated ban was triggered immediately after a manager initiated a limit increase on my behalf. The company refused to provide a specific reason and only issued a generic, automated response. '' This wording is perfect because it shows the CFPB that you tried to get a straight answer from PayPal, but they stonewalled you with a boilerplate template. \n\nLet me know what the next confusing question on the form is! \n\nWhat happened? \n\nDescribe what happened, and well send your comments to the companies involved. \n\nInclude dates, amounts, and actions that were taken by you or the company. \n\nDo not include personal information, such as your name, account number, address, Social Security number, etc. We may ask for some of this information later, to help the company identify you and your account. \n\nHere is a draft you can copy and paste directly into that box. It is written to be strictly factual, outlines the timeline clearly, and highlights exactly where PayPals automated system made an error, all while making sure your personal information is left out. \n\nCopy and paste the text below : I am filing a complaint regarding the unjustified permanent limitation of my XXXX-year-old account and the subsequent XXXXday hold placed on my funds. \n\nStarting in XXXX of last year, my account was subjected to several standard review requests to verify my identity and the nature of my home-based income. I complied with all requests, and my account was restored each time, most recently in XXXX. \n\nApproximately XXXX days ago, my account was limited again. The initial reasoning given was that I had unresolved complaints against me. I contacted customer support and the agent confirmed this was an error on the company 's end ( I had no complaints against me, only XXXX dispute I had filed against a merchant ). The agent submitted a ticket, and my account was restored the next morning. \n\nHowever, upon restoring my account, the company unjustly lowered my monthly sales limit to {$300.00}, down from the {$800.00} limit I had secured the month prior. I spoke with a manager about this discrepancy. The manager agreed the reduction was unjustified and offered to submit an internal ticket to increase my limit to $ XXXX {$3000.00} to reflect my actual needs. \n\nThe morning after the manager submitted this ticket on my behalf, I received an automated notice stating my account had been \" permanently deactivated '' due to \" activity on this account that we can not support, '' and that my funds would be held forXX/XX/XXXXdays. \n\nI spoke with another representative yesterday who expressed confusion over the ban, as my account was in good standing. They submitted a request for a manager callback and an escalation, but the permanent limitation remains active. \n\nI have maintained this account in good standing for XXXX decades. The permanent limitation was clearly triggered by an automated system error responding to the manager 's limit increase request, not by any violation of policy on my part. I am requesting an immediate executive review by a human agent to overturn this automated ban, restore my account, and release the XXXX hold on my funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-22T06:14:32.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"81401","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21473153","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-22T05:51:12.000Z","state":"CO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Here is the exact path to choose on the form : Product : Select \" <em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em> '' Sub-product : Select \" Mobile or digital wallet '' Issue : Select \" Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account '' ( or \" Other <em>service</em> problem '' if that fits better, but the first XXXX is usually the most accurate for unjustified account bans ). \n\nFrom there, it will ask you for the company name, where you can search for and select PayPal."],"product":["<em>Money</em> <em>transfer</em>, <em>virtual</em> <em>currency</em>, or <em>money</em> <em>service</em>"]},"sort":[11.050487,"21473153"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003729","_score":10.692144,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer XXXX XXXX whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka XX/XX/XXXX) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that Wall Street Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had zero in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world. \nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the Wall Street banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was ( a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b ) to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years.\n\nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nWall Street Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than 2o days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-05T13:22:44.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:39:23.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under modern law, the <em>transfer</em> or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous <em>transfer</em> of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So <em>transfers</em> from the originator who posed as a <em>virtual</em> creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states."],"company":["Specialized Loan <em>Servicing</em> Holdings LLC"]},"sort":[10.692144,"4003729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003724","_score":10.632699,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer Wells Fargo whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargoto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX Trust XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka SLAVERY ) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that XXXX XXXX  Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had XXXX in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world.\n\nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the XXXX XXXX banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was XXXX a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b XXXX to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years. \nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nXXXX XXXX Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was zero. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the XXXX, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than XXXX days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy XXXX XXXX bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-22T11:38:01.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003724","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:30:36.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Under modern law, the <em>transfer</em> or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous <em>transfer</em> of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So <em>transfers</em> from the originator who posed as a <em>virtual</em> creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states."]},"sort":[10.632699,"4003724"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":14,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":14}]}},"product":{"doc_count":14,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":9,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":5},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":14,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money was not available when promised","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":1},{"key":"Unexpected increase in interest rate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":14,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":12},{"key":"No","doc_count":2}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":14,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":13},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":14,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":14}]}},"company":{"doc_count":14,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":4},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":3},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"Blockchain.com, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paxful Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":14,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":2},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"FL","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MA","doc_count":1},{"key":"NY","doc_count":1},{"key":"PA","doc_count":1},{"key":"TX","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":14,"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":2}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":14,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":4}]}}},"_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":{}}}