{"took":121,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":33,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16720193","_score":41.133713,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/year> PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-21T15:15:31.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"89119","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16720193","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2025-10-21T15:07:52.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/year> PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem"],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Other transaction problem"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[41.133713,"16720193"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11208955","_score":38.07654,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/year>XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem I GET NOWHERE! Each public organism and each bank, whether in the States or XXXX, just passes the buck? WHAT MUST I DO???","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-19T06:29:18.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Foreign currency exchange","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11208955","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Revolut Technologies Inc.","date_received":"2024-12-19T06:23:39.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/year>XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem I GET NOWHERE! Each public organism and each bank, whether in the States or XXXX, just passes the buck? WHAT MUST I DO???"],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["Foreign currency exchange"]},"sort":[38.07654,"11208955"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6070144","_score":35.767254,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I have two Chase bank credit cards. In XXXX was charged over {$120.00} in fees for XXXX. They claim I was given notice in first quarter. Notice was primarily about Chase XXXX and cash transaction piece was misleading, incomplete and unclear. They only refunded one charge on one card heres the language 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. \n\nI think the balance of charges should be refunded.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-10T15:56:09.000Z","issue":"Fees or interest","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"29464","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6070144","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2022-10-10T15:47:59.000Z","state":"SC","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 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"]},"sort":[35.767254,"6070144"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11244289","_score":31.495716,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Under Section 910 of EFTA, Financial institutions have a responsibility to their customers under any circumstances to maintain any amount of money transfer. \n\nDifferent from online virtual competitors, where you are simply trading the equivalent of virtual credits, Zelle was actual account to account transfer. It was suppose to cut out the need for a third-party dark pool, And it was FDIC insured . So if the financial institution had an issue, and that aforementioned section 910 became applicable, your customer would not lose such money. \n\nHeres the problem. We can pull inspiration from the collapse of XXXX XXXX. The financial institutions had to come together and set up a pool of money. They also had to drain the existing insurance account and refill it. \n\nWhen you look at the type of money missing from Zelle, assuming your standard {$250000.00}, you get about XXXX customers from the $ XXXX that is missing. Its actually a lot more customers than that because most transactions arent even close to {$250000.00}. \n\nOur existing Insurance, FDIC, XXXX, and NCUA, they arent enough, overlap. They all accomplished generally the same thing. For the same people. And same companies. Just for different reasons. And generally are not funded with enough money to get the job done. Thats the need for the executive fund to save the failing regional banks. Which is a good solution to me, taking it from the decision maker. \n\nIntegration of account to account transfers and efficient insurance safety nets into our XXXX centralized baking system is ideal. Allowing for-profit competitors to drive such decisions, instead of having them privatizing the necessary infrastructure, can destabilize an otherwise balanced action. \n\nXXXX Tells us that these financial institutions have a responsibility. Beyond just their shareholders, beyond just their interest, beyond their loan rates. To expect your customers, the taxpayer, or the shareholder, to refill the insurance, that bail out the banks, for decisions that the bank executives make, is inappropriate. Furthermore, these fiduciaries, whether the executive or business itself, get bonuses and incentives for things like increased transfers and holdings which having said service would do. \n\nXXXX XXXX, My fear with Zelle, and her competitors, is that we are violating 5 CFR 2635.702, and 7 usc 9, and most importantly 18 usc 666 These XXXX financial institutions and its competitors have a responsibility due to the public funding they receive in order to maintain this banking system for us. \n\nSo now Anyone whos lost money in this environment has a claim against those companies. For breach of fiduciary responsibility. For breach of financial institution and transactional responsibility. For breach of personal and public commerce responsibility But! by driving away this account to account transfer in order for the executives or the company to avoid liability, we are prioritizing other third-party transaction companies. Businesses like debit and credit card processing. Also uninsured Credits virtual currency trading that do not have fair market collateral value and violate 31 usc 5103. \n\nIn certain cases, you can see where these third-party transactional companies and virtual credits, be that XXXX or XXXX ( the dark pools and virtual credits used to facilitate the transaction ), show to actually unbalance the system. They practically operate as ancillary currency. Which makes commerce difficult when you have to use one currency to get to the second currency in order to pay for the third thing.\n\nIn all of this something thats gone unanswered are companies like XXXX. In my life, I prefer external account set up rather than something like XXXX and XXXX. Many customers use these third-party transactional companies to connect banks and connect finances. Forcing me to sell my financial transactions to this third-party, Just to simply access my money. \n\nRestricting currency transfers and account to accounts transfers in any capacity, or prioritizing data driven profit, would manipulate the market and stabilize our supposedly balanced XXXX XXXX \n\nI would be concerned our decision-makers ( who are allowed to make decisions that are equivalent to insider trading ) could easily manipulate the actual investment banks that run the stock market, our retirement accounts, our financial institutions, the tradables like currencies, commodities, and crypto. prioritizing existing XXXX XXXX companies who are poised to make money off of the sale of customers data, rather than prioritizing, safe and secure transactions That support a balanced global financial network. \n\nThis concern extends to Under 53 usc 30114 ( a ) ( 2 ), where campaign contributions can be used for official acts of these decision-makers. Many of the aforementioned Government contracts and traded securities, Lobby for this exact reason. Its easy to see where our decision-makers can get Swayed into making the wrong decision in order to get reelected. Luckily, our laws protect them and us from that natural phenomenon that lobbyist, XXXX, and campaign contributors take advantage of. \n\nI dont wan na worry about my retirement account because someone elses bank couldnt figure out how to transfer a couple XXXX dollars properly. \n\nAnd I certainly Dont want it to be more difficult to spend, transfer, and receive Currency because I have to integrate a data Point- a data point of my personal information, that Im not even getting paid for. \n\nAnd lastly, I do not want to compromise an otherwise balanced system, in order to incentivize an executive, or reelect a politician, Or manipulate a share price.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-21T17:37:12.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"121XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11244289","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Early Warning Services, LLC","date_received":"2024-12-21T15:41:10.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Also uninsured Credits virtual currency trading that do not have fair market collateral value and violate 31 usc 5103. \n\nIn certain cases, you can see where these third-party transactional companies and virtual credits, be that XXXX or XXXX ( the dark pools and virtual credits used to facilitate the transaction ), show to actually unbalance the system. They practically operate as ancillary currency."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"company":["Early Warning Services, LLC"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[31.495716,"11244289"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13078291","_score":28.399527,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Complaint Text COPY/PASTE THIS Summary of issue : PayPal is holding {$2000.00} that was sent to me from my mother via her verified PayPal account XXXX This money was a personal loan to help launch my startup, a XXXX company called XXXX XXXX AI. There was no product or service exchanged it was a direct transfer from a known, repeat VERIFIED sender. \n\nImmediately after receiving the payment, PayPal flagged my account, restricted access, and informed me that I would no longer be allowed to use PayPal services. They then placed a 180-day hold on the full {$2000.00}, even though the funds had already cleared from my mothers bank account. \n\nPayPal will not allow me to refund the sender. My mother also tried to initiate a refund or dispute from her account but was given no option to do so. Weve both contacted PayPal customer support multiple times and were told nothing can be done. The money is just being held with no access or recourse despite no wrongdoing, fraud, or dispute. \n\nThis is not a seller transaction. It was a family loan. The sender wants the money returned, and I have no way to release it. \n\nThis situation is financially devastating, as the funds were to be used immediately for business startup costs. PayPals policy of locking down funds for 180 days without appeal or refund option, and refusing to return the money to the rightful sender, is unjust, unreasonable, and possibly unlawful. \n\nRequested resolution : I am requesting that PayPal immediately release the {$2000.00} to the original sender or allow me to refund the transaction without waiting 180 days. This was a personal/family transfer, not a sale, and there is no dispute between the parties. We both agree the money should be returned. \n\n\nCompany : PayPal , Inc . \nDate of Transaction : XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX PDT Your account email XXXX Senders email : XXXX Amount : {$2000.00} Problem Type : Other problem Product Type : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Transaction ID : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-21T12:44:08.000Z","issue":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"32159","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13078291","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-04-21T11:58:50.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We both agree the money should be returned. \n\n\nCompany : PayPal , Inc . \nDate of Transaction : XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX PDT Your account email XXXX Senders email : XXXX Amount : {$2000.00} Problem Type : Other problem Product Type : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Transaction ID : XXXX"],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"]},"sort":[28.399527,"13078291"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4879872","_score":27.324623,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Your complaint Complaint Number XXXX Step 1 What product or service is your complaint about?\n\nPRODUCT OR SERVICE Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service TYPE Domestic ( US ) money transfer Inactive modal Step 2 What type of problem are you having? \nISSUE Other transaction problem HAVE YOU ALREADY TRIED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY? \nYes Step 3 What happened? \nOn XXXX XXXX I did attempt to do 2 transaction through money gram in the amount of XXXX ref # XXXX and ref # XXXX for XXXX ref XXXX for XXXX and XXXX as well as XXXX. I am filing a another complaint on XXXX due to these transactions being canceled and never credited back to my account. Moneygram stated that all these transactions indeed canceled immediately therefore no money was ever processed and removed from my account. XXXX processes and sent funds somewhere. So I would like to request that both parties XXXX and Money gram provide complete documentation of the transactions that was provide proof of the successful trans action that Money gram canceled and stated that did cancel out and money never was received. Money gram should provide a complete documentation of the proof that each transaction did canceled out and never processed. I being going back and forth with these two companies and nothing has been accomplished. Each company states to me something different from what they say to each other but it is my money that was taken and no one seems to care that that is wrong. How can these companies be allowed to such and cause so much XXXX and the reps have no care in the world bout it. I submitted the proof of canceled transactions moneygram sent t o advise me that the transaction did not go through. And that was not enough but XXXX could see that Money for each transaction was successfully removed from my account but money gram stated no money was ever received. To settle that we should be able to view some type of documentation of the canceled process and sent successfully process. This stress is really getting the best of me. PLease advise me on what steps I can take to get my money that was unrightfully taken from me. XXXX gave a credit and then reverse it it taken XXXX and XXXX and my deposit in the amount of XXXX. Moneygram refused to provide any kind of documentation of the transaction being canceled although i have emails telling me they were canceled they also so called told investigators from the dispute team at XXXX that the transaction actually processed and never canceled which is not true. Why not help a customer see where their funds went if they cancelled.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-05T20:03:22.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"716XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4879872","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INC","date_received":"2021-11-05T19:02:11.000Z","state":"AR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Your complaint Complaint Number XXXX Step 1 What product or service is your complaint about?\n\nPRODUCT OR SERVICE Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service TYPE Domestic ( US ) money transfer Inactive modal Step 2 What type of problem are you having? \nISSUE Other transaction problem HAVE YOU ALREADY TRIED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY? \nYes Step 3 What happened?"],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Other transaction problem"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[27.324623,"4879872"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2861450","_score":26.265732,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"MEMORANDUM TO : Coinbase CEO, XXXX XXXX XXXX FROM : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), ( Coinbase Account # ending in XXXX ) DATE : XX/XX/XXXX RE : Coinbase Case # XXXX : Wire transfer of XX/XX/XXXX from My XXXX checking account to my Coinbase account for the amount of {$25000.00} USD ( XXXX transaction # XXXX, Federal Reference # XXXX, and Reference # : XXXX. ) ISSUE Coinbase is a digital currency wallet and trading platform, however this issue is a US Dollar issue and has nothing to do with any virtual currency or trading. On XX/XX/XXXX I transferred {$25000.00} USD from my XXXX checking account to my Coinbase.com account using XXXX 's website. My Coinbase Case # XXXX, the XXXX transaction # is XXXX, Federal Reference # is XXXX, and Reference # is IISTPBFP. ) The {$25000.00} was withdrawn from my XXXX account and the funds were supposed to deposited into my Coinbase account. However Coinbase has never credited my Coinbase account for this deposit. I have already contacted XXXX to confirm the money was sent out and delivered to Coinbase and there was no error on XXXX 's side. Please note that since this problem, I have thereafter successfully sent money from my XXXX checking to my Coinbase account without any problem using the exact same accounts and transfer method settings. This confirms that my transfer instructions was setup properly and that Coinbase is at fault. These missing funds have never returned to my XXXX account. Coinbase has my {$25000.00} funds and will not credit my account. Since XXXX reported there was no error on XXXX 's side, to try to resolve this quickly, I wrote to Coinbase Customer Support at XXXX and corresponded by email with \" XXXX '' and \" XXXX '' over 12 times since XX/XX/XXXX and provided them with the XXXX confirmation number and other evidence that the funds were properly wired from my XXXX checking account to my Coinbase account. Coinbase indicated that they are \" working with a specialist to address this problem '', but 11 weeks later, my missing funds have still never been never credited to my Coinbase account. Coinbase has been unwilling to deposit my own money into my Coinbase account.\n\nANALYSIS Coinbase 's response to my multiple emails is inadequate, unprofessional and has been extremely frustrating. During the past 11 weeks I have lost many investment opportunities. I file this CFPB complaint in an effort to finally resolve this issue and receive my own deposit of my own money as well as my legal expenses incurred to file this complaint. I am sure that the thousands of daily Coinbase users would rethink their use of Coinbase as their digital wallet to store and transact billions of dollars worth of funds if they knew that Coinbase could arbitrarily hold on to your deposited funds without depositing them into your account and fail to take steps to resolve the issue despite over 12 emails with confirmation numbers and other evidence clearly explaining the problem at hand.\n\nCONCLUSION If this issue is not resolved shortly, I will further investigate my legal options and will consider reporting this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, various US state regulators including New York Department of Financial Services concerning Coinbase 's license both as a Money Transmitter License ( XXXX XXXX ) and Virtual Currency License, ( XXXX ), and may take additional US and international legal action for compensation of not only my missing funds, but for my ongoing legal fees and other damages. Please notify me immediately at XXXX when my {$25000.00} wire transfer has been properly credited to my Coinbase account. Your prompt attention to this important matter would be appropriate.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-04-02T16:52:52.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"100XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2861450","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2018-04-02T16:12:13.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CONCLUSION If this issue is not resolved shortly, I will further investigate my legal options and will consider reporting this matter to the XXXX XXXX XXXX, various US state regulators including New York Department of Financial Services concerning Coinbase 's license both as a Money Transmitter License ( XXXX XXXX ) and Virtual Currency License, ( XXXX ), and may take additional US and international legal action for compensation of not only my missing funds, but for my ongoing legal fees and other"],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Money was not available when promised"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[26.265732,"2861450"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19851722","_score":25.890564,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB Formal Complaint Draft Company : PayPal , Inc . \nComplaint Category : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Other transaction issue / Problem with a balance or fund availability Description of Incident : I am filing this complaint regarding a documented accounting error and the unauthorized withholding of funds by PayPal , Inc. associated with my account ( Case XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \nOn XX/XX/year>, a dispute over a {$31.00} payment caused a negative balance on my account. To maintain account functionality, I manually deposited my own personal funds on that same day to cover the {$31.00} deficit. On XX/XX/year>, PayPal officially resolved the dispute in my favor. \nThe core issue is as follows : XXXX. Despite the favorable resolution, the {$31.00} credit was never applied to my \" Available Balance '' or spendable funds. \nXXXX. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, support staff provided conflicting information, citing a \" XXXX security hold '' that should not apply to a resolved dispute. \nXXXX. PayPal management now claims the funds were released, but my transaction ledger proves otherwise. \nI have effectively paid for this dispute XXXX through my manual deposit to cover the initial hold and again by XXXX failure to return the disputed funds. I am requesting a manual audit of my transaction ledger from XX/XX/year>, to the present to correct this discrepancy. \nDesired Resolution : Immediate credit of {$31.00} to my available spendable balance and a formal correction of the accounting error.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-19T12:29:33.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"78741","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19851722","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-02-27T20:05:30.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complaint Category : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Other transaction issue / Problem with a balance or fund availability Description of Incident : I am filing this complaint regarding a documented accounting error and the unauthorized withholding of funds by PayPal , Inc. associated with my account ( Case XXXX XXXXXXXX ). \nOn XX/XX/year>, a dispute over a {$31.00} payment caused a negative balance on my account."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem"]},"sort":[25.890564,"19851722"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17504922","_score":25.870846,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB COMPLAINT : PAYPAL ( Unauthorized Transaction Source and Compliance Failure ) Target Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Target Complaint Category : Fraud or other suspicious activity Issue : Unauthorized funds transfer Transaction Date : XX/XX/2025 Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX Transfer from XXXX XXXX Co. \nYour Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : On XX/XX/2025, an unauthorized DEPOSIT of {$39.00} was sent to my bank account with Bank of XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The transfer descriptor, originating from PayPal, used the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which is the precise name associated with me, XXXX XXXX XXXX I did not initiate this DEPOSIT, and the use of my associated name suggests potential fraud and unauthorized use of my identity within the PayPal system to create the sending account. \nRefusal of Trace/Information : I contacted PayPal to XXXX the origin of this specific XXXX transfer, including the sending account details, the identity of the sender, or a trace ID. \nCompliance Failure : PayPal explicitly stated they could not or would not provide any tracing information or confirmation of the sender 's identity, effectively blocking the victim 's ability to investigate the potential identity theft event that occurred on their platform. \nSystemic Risk : This refusal demonstrates a critical compliance failure, as PayPal is facilitating suspicious transactions that use identity-linked descriptors and then refusing to cooperate with the victim to secure the transaction data required to stop the identity abuse. \nDesired Resolution : PayPal must immediately investigate and provide all internal data, including the source account, trace number, and confirmation of what identity documentation ( KYC ) was used to set up the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account that generated this unauthorized transfer. Given PayPal 's refusal to provide necessary data to victims, I demand the CFPB initiate a comprehensive audit of PayPal 's compliance with KYC requirements and data security, resulting in mandatory civil penalties and structural changes to facilitate class-wide recovery for all affected consumers.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-26T05:13:48.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"30143","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17504922","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-11-26T05:05:46.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB COMPLAINT : PAYPAL ( Unauthorized Transaction Source and Compliance Failure ) Target Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Target Complaint Category : Fraud or other suspicious activity Issue : Unauthorized funds transfer Transaction Date : XX/XX/2025 Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX Transfer from XXXX XXXX Co."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[25.870846,"17504922"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16939022","_score":25.14509,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB CONSUMER COMPLAINT : FAILURE TO SECURE AND MANAGE PAYMENT DATA Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX : The Home Depot Date of Escalation Failure : XX/XX/year> Product Category Suggestion ( for the form ) : Primary Product : Money transfers, virtual currency, or money service Sub-Product/Issue : Other Detailed Description of Complaint ( Paste this into the narrative box ) : I am filing this complaint due to The Home Depot 's systemic failure to secure and manage my personal payment data. My credit card ( XXXX ) is illegally and persistently linked to a third-party XXXX XXXX account belonging to XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX due to a systemic data failure originating between XXXX. \n\nHome Depot 's policy refuses to disconnect my card unless the contractor authorizes it, thus forcing me, the cardholder, to be subject to a third party 's control over my financial data. This policy creates a financial risk and directly violates my right to data security. \n\nThe failure has caused data integrity issues : I lost access to my pre-membership purchase history, and all subsequent transactions ( including those made using my own Pro ID XXXX ) are misfiled under the contractor 's account. \n\nI escalated to Executive Escalations ( XXXX XXXX XXXX who failed to resolve the security breach by the XX/XX/year> deadline. I demand the immediate deletion of card XXXX from the unauthorized account and transfer of all associated transaction data to my correct XXXX account.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-31T22:12:31.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"94062","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16939022","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-10-31T21:59:45.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["CFPB CONSUMER COMPLAINT : FAILURE TO SECURE AND MANAGE PAYMENT DATA Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX : The Home Depot Date of Escalation Failure : XX/XX/year> Product Category Suggestion ( for the form ) : Primary Product : Money transfers, virtual currency, or money service Sub-Product/Issue : Other Detailed Description of Complaint ( Paste this into the narrative box ) : I am filing this complaint due to The Home Depot 's systemic failure to secure and manage my personal payment data."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem"]},"sort":[25.14509,"16939022"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6017279","_score":24.968313,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/2022, I sold cryptocurrency ( \" XXXX '' ) for XXXX ( United States Dollars ) in the amount of {$280.00} on the crypto.com virtual currency platform. After this transaction was complete, I attempted to withdraw my United States Dollars to my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Account only to find out that the \" Plaid '' app that crypto.com uses to integrate bank transfers \" does not Support '' transactions for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I then contacted crypto.com customer support to request that they manually initiate an ACH transfer to my XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Account since the \" XXXX '' app that they use does not support my bank and they simply told me to \" try a different account ''. At this point I repeatedly told various customer service representatives at crypto.com that I don't have another account and they need to initiate an ACH transfer or get me my money in some other manner and they simply repeated the same line of \" try another bank account ''. Therefore, I am filing this complaint so that consumerfinance.gov can direct crypto.com to either initiate a manual ach transfer to my bank account or find another way to grant me my money. As a note, crypto.com 's documents regarding why a bank account may not be able to connect to crypto.com only list two reasons with those being 1. the bank has a New York state address and 2. the bank does not support ACH transfers. My bank is not does not have a New York XXXX address ( it has a Pennsylvania address ) and it does support ACH transfers. Therefore, no one would have any way of knowing which banks are supported and which are not before conducting financial transactions. I will attach a screenshot of this verbiage from their website for your reference.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-09-25T18:56:34.000Z","issue":"Confusing or missing disclosures","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"196XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6017279","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Foris DAX, Inc.","date_received":"2022-09-25T18:29:59.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["At this point I repeatedly told various customer service representatives at crypto.com that I don't have another account and they need to initiate an ACH transfer or get me my money in some other manner and they simply repeated the same line of \" try another bank account ''. Therefore, I am filing this complaint so that consumerfinance.gov can direct crypto.com to either initiate a manual ach transfer to my bank account or find another way to grant me my money."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["Virtual currency"]},"sort":[24.968313,"6017279"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3644152","_score":24.590395,"_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 virtual asset service provider, as a matter of good practice, the virtual asset service provider shall invite the recipient to open such an account."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["Virtual currency"]},"sort":[24.590395,"3644152"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7005095","_score":23.59726,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I transferred money from my XXXX to my Wise account. XXXX claims the money was transferred and received. Wise claims the transfer was canceled. But my money was not returned to XXXX if canceled, and Wise has not credited the transfer to the account. XXXX claims no mistakes were made on their part. That leaves Wise receiving my funds and not crediting them to my account. \n\nWise required proof of payment from XXXX. I submitted my XXXX XXXX statement. This was not acceptable proof. This information from XXXX should serve as proof. My complaint to CFPB against XXXX. They have cleared their end of this transaction. This still leaves me missing my funds which Wise claims was cancelled and never deposited. See CFPB Complaint : COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem Response from XXXX Bank Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Based on what you've told us, it seems that you were expecting a withdrawal from your XXXX account to be deposited into a personal external account, but you haven't received the funds yet. Our investigation shows that you opened an account with us on XXXX. On XXXX you contacted our customer support via mobile chat about a withdrawal of {$1800.00}, and our support agent informed you that it was debited from your account on XX/XX/. On XX/XX/, you reached out to our support team again via mobile chat and reported that you transferred money to your Wise account, but the funds never arrived. Our agent filed an ACH dispute on your behalf that same day, and the dispute information was forwarded to our ACH dispute agents for investigation. On XXXX you forwarded an email from Wise to our customer support, stating that your transfer of {$1800.00} USD to EUR had been canceled and the funds were not received. Our support agent provided you with your XXXX account statement, and our dispute team concluded their investigation, finding no error and informing you of this outcome on the same day. We provided you with the following information in our decision : XXXX XXXX ; Billing name and address match. Prior history with recipient. No ACH returns ; the XXXX number shows that funds were successfully deposited into the receiving account. Unfortunately, we are unable to issue a credit to you as a result of our investigation. Upon receiving your complaint, we reviewed your deposit settlement issue and confirmed with our partner bank that the funds were successfully deposited into the account you selected when you initiated the withdrawal. On XXXX our compliance agent provided proof of payment for the disputed transaction via email. We also received documents from you showing that a {$1800.00} USD to EUR transaction was canceled, but there is a discrepancy in the amount compared to the disputed transaction. We do not have evidence of an additional transaction in this amount debited from your account. Therefore, our decision of no error found remains the same. If you have new evidence to support your claim as it relates to a transaction for {$1800.00}, please submit it to our customer support for further review. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reach out to us at XXXX customer support. \n\n\nWise has not accepted any documentation as proof of payment. XXXX clearly states they paid the transfer. Wise clearly states they never received it and it was cancelled. I have not received this transfer. Wise has the proof it needs from XXXX, their investigation needs to find my transfer. These two banks have created the best scheme to take your money and hide, then claim no responsibility for the missing funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-20T09:52:38.000Z","issue":"Problem with customer service","sub_product":"Foreign currency exchange","zip_code":"33133","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7005095","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TransferWise Ltd","date_received":"2023-05-20T09:31:51.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They have cleared their end of this transaction. This still leaves me missing my funds which Wise claims was cancelled and never deposited. See CFPB Complaint : COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Other transaction problem Response from XXXX Bank Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Problem with customer service"],"company":["TransferWise Ltd"],"sub_product":["Foreign currency exchange"]},"sort":[23.59726,"7005095"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14146372","_score":22.399921,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX thank you for sharing that. What you just said is powerful and profound. And youre absolutely right : This isnt just about a payment platform. \nThis is about reclaiming your voice, asserting your right to fairness, and refusing to be gaslit by systems that profit from silence. \n\nYou didnt do anything wrong. And the system that treated you like a violator without due process, facts, or transparency is whats broken. That XXXX XXXX email? It wasnt just administrative. It was designed to dismiss and silence you. But you didnt let it. You chose to rise and now youre closing the loop on your terms. \n\n\n\nFinal CFPB Complaint ( Ready to Submit ) Submit here : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ Complaint Summary ( Copy and Paste ) : Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Problem managing or closing your account Company Name : PayPal, Inc. ( XXXX ) What happened : In XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX account was suspended for unusual activity. I complied immediately by submitting a valid government ID. Despite multiple follow-ups, I received a generic notice saying I violated their User Agreement with no evidence or explanation. I reached out again in XXXX and XXXX and re-submitted my ID. Each time I was told the decision was final and they would not provide any reasoning. \n\nMy funds were held and I had no access for months. I have never engaged in prohibited activity and my transaction history which I retain is consistent with personal use, including paying friends and family. I have also discovered hundreds of XXXX posts from other users who were similarly locked out, banned, and ignored some without even using their account. \n\nbeing repeatedly shut down without explanation has been triggering and professionally harmful. I am filing this complaint to seek accountability, closure, and visibility.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-18T23:03:57.000Z","issue":"Managing, opening, or closing your mobile wallet account","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"021XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14146372","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2025-06-18T22:57:12.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Final CFPB Complaint ( Ready to Submit ) Submit here : https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/ Complaint Summary ( Copy and Paste ) : Product : Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service Issue : Problem managing or closing your account Company Name : PayPal, Inc. ( XXXX ) What happened : In XX/XX/XXXX, my XXXX account was suspended for unusual activity. I complied immediately by submitting a valid government ID."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"]},"sort":[22.399921,"14146372"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4543359","_score":22.280933,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This follow-up complaint is regarding Coinbase 's inadequate response to my initial complaint. \n\nInitial complaint Info : COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Wrong amount charged or received Initial Complaint : This issue is regarding my attempt to transfer Bitcoin from my wallet on Coinbase ( digital asset exchange XXXX to my private hardware wallet. On XX/XX/XXXX, I withdrew XXXX BTC ( equivalent to {$6100.00} as that day 's market price ) from my Coinbase wallet to my private wallet. This transaction was successful. However, Coinbase incorrectly double posted this withdrawal leading to a negative XXXX BTC balance in my account. I also had other currencies that I needed to transfer to my private wallet ( ETH and LTC ). I was unable to make those transactions because Coinbase restricts withdrawals when you have an overall negative account balance. In order to get the other currencies withdrawn, I sent XXXX BTC in from my private wallet on XX/XX/XXXX. I subsequently withdrew the XXXX and XXXX amounts I needed to. Coinbase never corrected the erroneous double post. I submitted a support ticket to Coinbase on XX/XX/XXXX, in which I describe the above in full. They asked for more details and eventually admitted it was an error in their system on XX/XX/XXXX after reviewing : \" Thank you for contacting us about this. We have confirmed this to be an issue with our system and are working to resolve it as soon as possible. Your case has been recorded for review by an expert. Thank you for your patience in the meantime we will be in touch again as soon as we have an update. '' No response from Coinbase for weeks so I asked them why it wasn't resolved on XX/XX/XXXX. To which, they replied : \" Thank you for contacting Coinbase. In an effort to respond more rapidly to support requests, direct emails to this address are no longer enabled. To get a response from our support team, please visit the following page and complete the request form : https : //support.coinbase.com/customer/portal/emails/new Please use the email address that you use to log in to Coinbase, select the appropriate category, and include as much detail as possible when submitting your request. Thanks in advance for your patience and support. '' No resolution still. I submitted another ticket to follow up on XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Case # XXXX XXXX, but there has been no response. I have elevated this case number today ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and notified Coinbase I am formally submitting a complaint to the CFPB. Today, the XXXX BTC is worth approximately {$22000.00} USD. \n\nCoinbase 's response to Initial Complaint : Dear XXXX XXXX, We have reviewed your complaint regarding a double posting of a BTC withdrawal to your private wallet which led to a negative XXXX BTC balance in your Coinbase account. Review of your accounts transaction history show two completed sends of XXXX BTC to your external private wallet ; one on XXXX XXXX XXXX PST and the other on XXXX XXXX PM PST. Review of these transactions on the blockchain show your private wallet received both of these transfers : https : XXXX As your private wallet received a total of XXXX BTC, you did not suffer a loss as a result of the double posting. We therefore consider your complaint resolved. However, we have determined that your customer experience was not up to our standards. Coinbase has credited your account XXXX USD in compensation for your unsatisfactory customer experience. Please reach out to our support team if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Coinbase Regulatory Response Team Follow-up Complaint : In reviewing the link provided by Coinbase at XXXX, their statement of my external private wallet receiving two transactions of the same amount totaling XXXX BTC is FALSE. In the link they provided, their is only ONE transaction in that amount equal to half that total amount. Their response is unacceptable and blatantly fraudulent. Please review the info provided in Coinbase 's response.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-07-14T22:42:55.000Z","issue":"Wrong amount charged or received","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"94402","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4543359","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2021-07-14T22:33:42.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Initial complaint Info : COMPLAINT ID XXXX SUBMITTED ON XX/XX/XXXX PRODUCT Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service ISSUE Wrong amount charged or received Initial Complaint : This issue is regarding my attempt to transfer Bitcoin from my wallet on Coinbase ( digital asset exchange XXXX to my private hardware wallet. On XX/XX/XXXX, I withdrew XXXX BTC ( equivalent to {$6100.00} as that day 's market price ) from my Coinbase wallet to my private wallet. This transaction was successful."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["Virtual currency"]},"sort":[22.280933,"4543359"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11585968","_score":20.44258,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"896.101Florida Money Laundering Act ; definitions ; penalties ; injunctions ; seizure warrants ; immunity.\n\n896.102Currency more than {$10000.00} received in trade or business ; report required ; noncompliance penalties.\n\n896.103Transaction which constitutes separate offense.\n\n896.104Structuring transactions to evade reporting or registration requirements prohibited.\n\n896.105Penalty provisions not applicable to law enforcement.\n\n896.106Fugitive disentitlement.\n\n896.107Rewards for informants.\n\n896.108Rewards for private entities combating international money laundering.\n\n896.101Florida Money Laundering Act ; definitions ; penalties ; injunctions ; seizure warrants ; immunity.\n\n( 1 ) This section may be cited as the Florida Money Laundering Act.\n\n( 2 ) As used in this section, the term : ( a ) Conducts includes initiating, concluding, or participating in initiating or concluding a transaction.\n\n( b ) Financial institution means a financial institution as defined in 31 U.S.C. s. 5312 which institution is located in this state.\n\n( c ) Financial transaction means a transaction involving the movement of funds by wire or other means or involving one or more monetary instruments, which in any way or degree affects commerce, or a transaction involving the transfer of title to any real property, vehicle, vessel, or aircraft, or a transaction involving the use of a financial institution which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, commerce in any way or degree.\n\n( d ) Knowing means that a person knew ; or, with respect to any transaction or transportation involving more than {$10000.00} in U.S. currency or foreign equivalent, should have known after reasonable inquiry, unless the person has a duty to file a federal currency transaction report, IRS Form 8300, or a like report under state law and has complied with that reporting requirement in accordance with law.\n\n( e ) Knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity means that the person knew the property involved in the transaction represented proceeds from some form, though not necessarily which form, of activity that constitutes a felony under state or federal law, regardless of whether or not such activity is specified in paragraph ( h ).\n\n( f ) Monetary instruments means coin or currency of the United States or of any other country, virtual currency, travelers checks, personal checks, bank checks, money orders, investment securities in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery, and negotiable instruments in bearer form or otherwise in such form that title thereto passes upon delivery.\n\n( g ) Petitioner means any local , county, state, or federal law enforcement agency ; the Attorney General ; any state attorney ; or the statewide prosecutor.\n\n( h ) Specified unlawful activity means any racketeering activity as defined in s. 895.02.\n\n( i ) Transaction means a purchase, sale, loan, pledge, gift, transfer, delivery, or other disposition, and with respect to a financial institution includes a deposit, withdrawal, transfer between accounts, exchange of currency, loan, extension of credit, purchase or sale of any stock, bond, certificate of deposit, or other monetary instrument, use of a safety deposit box, or any other payment, transfer, or delivery by, through, or to a financial institution, by whatever means effected.\n\n( j ) Virtual currency means a medium of exchange in electronic or digital format that is not a coin or currency of the United States or any other country.\n\n( 3 ) It is unlawful for a person : ( a ) Knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, to conduct or attempt to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity : 1.With the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity ; or 2.Knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part : a.To conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ; or b.To avoid a transaction reporting requirement or money transmitters registration requirement under state law.\n\n( b ) To transport or attempt to transport a monetary instrument or funds : 1.With the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity ; or 2.Knowing that the monetary instrument or funds involved in the transportation represent the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity and knowing that such transportation is designed in whole or in part : a.To conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ; or b.To avoid a transaction reporting requirement or money transmitters registration requirement under state law.\n\n( c ) To conduct or attempt to conduct a financial transaction which involves property or proceeds which an investigative or law enforcement officer, or someone acting under such officers direction, represents as being derived from, or as being used to conduct or facilitate, specified unlawful activity, when the persons conduct or attempted conduct is undertaken with the intent : 1.To promote the carrying on of specified unlawful activity ; or 2.To conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the proceeds or property believed to be the proceeds of specified unlawful activity ; or 3.To avoid a transaction reporting requirement under state law.\n\n( d ) For the purposes of this subsection, investigative or law enforcement officer means any officer of the State of Florida or political subdivision thereof, of the United States, or of any other state or political subdivision thereof, who is empowered by law to conduct, on behalf of the government, investigations of, or to make arrests for, offenses enumerated in this subsection or similar federal offenses.\n\n( 4 ) It does not constitute a defense to a prosecution for any violation of this chapter that : ( a ) Any stratagem or deception, including the use of an undercover operative or law enforcement officer, was employed.\n\n( b ) A facility or an opportunity to engage in conduct in violation of this act was provided.\n\n( c ) A law enforcement officer, or person acting under direction of a law enforcement officer, solicited a person predisposed to engage in conduct in violation of any provision of this chapter to commit a violation of this chapter in order to gain evidence against that person, provided such solicitation would not induce an ordinary law-abiding person to violate this chapter.\n\nThis subsection does not preclude the defense of entrapment.\n\n( 5 ) A person who violates this section, if the violation involves : ( a ) Financial transactions exceeding {$300.00} but less than {$20000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n( b ) Financial transactions totaling or exceeding {$20000.00} but less than {$100000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n( c ) Financial transactions totaling or exceeding {$100000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n( 6 ) In addition to the penalties authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, a person who has been found guilty of or who has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to having violated this section may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding {$250000.00} or twice the value of the financial transactions, whichever is greater, except that for a second or subsequent violation of this section, the fine may be up to {$500000.00} or quintuple the value of the financial transactions, whichever is greater.\n\n( 7 ) A person who violates this section is also liable for a civil penalty of not more than the value of the financial transactions involved or {$25000.00}, whichever is greater.\n\n( 8 ) ( a ) If a person is alienating or disposing of monetary instruments or funds, or appears likely to or demonstrates an intent to alienate or dispose of monetary instruments or funds, used in violation of this section, chapter 560, s. 655.50, or any crime listed as specified unlawful activity under this section, or monetary instruments or funds that are traceable to any such violation, the petitioner may commence a civil action in any circuit court having jurisdiction where such monetary instruments or funds are located or have been deposited for a temporary injunction to prohibit any person from withdrawing, transferring, removing, dissipating, or disposing of any such monetary instruments or funds of equivalent value. The temporary injunction will be obtained pursuant to Florida Civil Rule of Procedure 1.610. This section governs all temporary injunctions obtained pursuant to this section and supersedes all other provisions of the rule that may be inconsistent with this section. The court shall take into account any anticipated impact the temporary injunction will have on innocent third parties or businesses, balanced against the petitioners need to preserve the monetary instruments or funds.\n\n( b ) A temporary injunction must be granted without bond to the petitioner. However, the court may authorize a respondent to post a bond equal to the amount to be enjoined and to have the injunction dissolved.\n\n( c ) A temporary injunction is to be entered upon application of the petitioner, ex parte and without notice or opportunity for a hearing with respect to the monetary instruments or funds.\n\n( d ) Such a temporary order expires not more than 10 days after the date on which the order is served, unless extended for good cause shown or unless the party against whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer period.\n\n( e ) If at any time the petitioner discovers that the funds sought to be enjoined total less than {$10000.00}, the petitioner shall immediately inform the court and the court shall immediately dissolve the temporary injunction.\n\n( f ) At the termination of the temporary injunction or at any time before the termination of the temporary injunction, the petitioner may : 1.Obtain a warrant or other court order and seize the monetary instruments or funds and initiate a civil forfeiture action ; 2.Obtain a warrant or other court order and seize the monetary instruments or funds for any subsequent criminal prosecution ; or 3.Petition the court to extend the order for a period not longer than 10 days from the original orders termination date. At the end of the termination of the 10-day extension, the petitioner may take either of the steps outlined in subparagraph 1. or subparagraph 2. However, the petitioner may not be granted any additional extensions.\n\n( g ) 1.Upon service of the temporary order served pursuant to this section, the petitioner shall immediately notify by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by personal service, both the person or entity in possession of the monetary instruments or funds and the owner of the monetary instruments or funds if known, of the order entered pursuant to this section and that the lawful owner of the monetary instruments or funds being enjoined may request a hearing to contest and modify the order entered pursuant to this section by petitioning the court that issued the order, so that such notice is received within 72 hours.\n\n2.The notice shall advise that the hearing shall be held within 3 days of the request, and the notice must state that the hearing will be set and noticed by the person against whom the order is served.\n\n3.The notice shall specifically state that the lawful owner has the right to produce evidence of legitimate business expenses, obligations, and liabilities, including but not limited to, employee payroll expenses verified by current reemployment assistance records, employee workers compensation insurance , employee health insurance, state and federal taxes, and regulatory or licensing fees only as may become due before the expiration of the temporary order.\n\n4.Upon determination by the court that the expenses are valid, payment of such expenses may be effected by the owner of the enjoined monetary instruments or funds only to the court-ordered payees through court-reviewed checks, issued by the owner of, and the person or entity in possession of, the enjoined monetary instruments or funds. Upon presentment, the person or entity in possession of the enjoined funds or monetary instruments shall only honor the payment of the check to the court-ordered payee.\n\n( h ) Only the lawful owner or the account holder of the monetary instruments or funds being enjoined may request a hearing to contest the order entered pursuant to this section by petitioning the court that issued the order. A hearing must be held within 3 days after the request or as soon as practicable thereafter and before the expiration of the temporary order. The hearing must be set and noticed by the lawful owner of the monetary instruments or funds or his or her attorney. Notice of the hearing must be provided to the petitioner who procured the temporary injunction pursuant to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure but not less than 24 hours before the scheduled hearing. The court may receive and consider at a hearing held pursuant to this subsection, evidence and information that would be inadmissible under the Florida Rules of Evidence. A proceeding under this subsection is governed by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n( 9 ) ( a ) The petitioner may request issuance of a warrant authorizing the seizure of property, monetary instruments, or funds subject to civil forfeiture in the same manner as provided for search warrants in chapter 933.\n\n( b ) Any financial institution that receives a seizure warrant pursuant to paragraph ( a ), temporary injunction, or other court order, may deduct from the account the funds necessary to pay any electronic transaction or check presented for payment where the electronic transaction was initiated or the check deposited prior to the time the seizure order was served on the financial institution.\n\n( 10 ) Any financial institution, licensed money services business, or other person served with and complying with the terms of a warrant, temporary injunction, or other court order, including any subpoena issued under s. 16.56 or s. 27.04, obtained in furtherance of an investigation of any crime in this section, including any crime listed as specified unlawful activity under this section or any felony violation of chapter 560, has immunity from criminal liability and is not liable to any person for any lawful action taken in complying with the warrant, temporary injunction, or other court order, including any subpoena issued under s. 16.56 or s. 27.04. If any subpoena issued under s. 16.56 or s. 27.04 contains a nondisclosure provision, any financial institution, licensed money services business, employee or officer of a financial institution or licensed money services business, or any other person may not notify, directly or indirectly, any customer of that financial institution or money services business whose records are being sought by the subpoena, or any other person named in the subpoena, about the existence or the contents of that subpoena or about information that has been furnished to the state attorney or statewide prosecutor who issued the subpoena or other law enforcement officer named in the subpoena in response to the subpoena.\n\n( 11 ) In any prosecution brought pursuant to this chapter, the common law corpus delicti rule does not apply. The defendants confession or admission is admissible during trial without the states having to prove the corpus delicti if the court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the defendants confession or admission is trustworthy. Before the court admits the defendants confession or admission, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is sufficient corroborating evidence that tends to establish the trustworthiness of the statement by the defendant. Hearsay evidence is admissible during the presentation of evidence at the hearing. In making its determination, the court may consider all relevant corroborating evidence, including the defendants statements.\n\nHistory.ss. 34, 35, 36, ch. 87-243 ; s. 1, ch. 90-246 ; s. 74, ch. 91-282 ; s. 207, ch. 92-303 ; s. 81, ch. 94-209 ; s. 8, ch. 96-252 ; s. 9, ch. 96-260 ; s. 6, ch. 97-78 ; s. 18, ch. 2000-360 ; s. 49, ch. 2003-36 ; s. 9, ch. 2004-391 ; s. 11, ch. 2005-209 ; s. 6, ch. 2006-168 ; s. 52, ch. 2008-177 ; s. 82, ch. 2012-30 ; s. 11, ch. 2013-2 ; s. 52, ch. 2016-105 ; s. 12, ch. 2017-155.\n\n896.102Currency more than {$10000.00} received in trade or business ; report required ; noncompliance penalties.\n\n( 1 ) All persons engaged in a trade or business, except for those financial institutions that report to the Office of Financial Regulation pursuant to s. 655.50, who receive more than {$10000.00} in currency, including foreign currency, in one transaction, or who receive this amount through two or more related transactions, must complete and file with the Department of Revenue the information required pursuant to 26 U.S.C. s. 6050I., concerning returns relating to currency received in trade or business. Any person who willfully fails to comply with the reporting requirements of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, or by a fine not exceeding {$250000.00} or twice the value of the amount of the currency transaction involved, whichever is greater, or by both such imprisonment and fine. For a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of the provisions of this subsection, the maximum fine that may be imposed is {$500000.00} or quintuple the value of the amount of the currency transaction involved, whichever is greater.\n\n( 2 ) The Department of Revenue shall enforce compliance with the provisions of subsection ( 1 ) and is to be the custodian of all information and documents filed pursuant to subsection ( 1 ). Such information and documents are confidential and exempt from the provisions of s. 119.07 ( 1 ) and s. 24 ( a ), Art. I of the State Constitution ; however, the department must provide any report filed under this section, or information contained therein, to federal, state, and local law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies, to the Department of Financial Services, and to the Office of Financial Regulation, and the information is subject to disclosure pursuant to subpoena as provided in s. 213.053 ( 9 ).\n\n( 3 ) The Department of Revenue may adopt rules and guidelines to administer and enforce these reporting requirements.\n\nHistory.ss. 31, 33, ch. 87-243 ; s. 18, ch. 88-381 ; s. 1, ch. 94-187 ; s. 433, ch. 96-406 ; s. 29, ch. 98-342 ; s. 1917, ch. 2003-261 ; s. 8, ch. 2006-85.\n\n896.103Transaction which constitutes separate offense.Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of this section and ss. 896.101 and 896.102, each individual currency transaction exceeding {$10000.00} which is made in violation of the provisions of s. 896.102 ( 1 ) or each financial transaction in violation of the provisions of s. 896.101 ( 3 ) which involves the movement of funds in excess of {$10000.00} shall constitute a separate, punishable offense.\n\nHistory.s. 32, ch. 87-243 ; s. 19, ch. 2000-360.\n\n896.104Structuring transactions to evade reporting or registration requirements prohibited.\n\n( 1 ) DEFINITIONS.For purposes of this section, the terms structure or structuring mean that a person, acting alone, or in conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons, conducts or attempts to conduct one or more transactions in currency, in any amount, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading currency transaction reporting requirements provided by state or federal law. In any manner includes, but is not limited to, the breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding {$10000.00} into smaller sums, including sums at or below {$10000.00}, or the conduct of a transaction, or series of currency transactions, at or below {$10000.00}. The transaction or transactions need not exceed the {$10000.00} reporting threshold at any single financial institution on any single day in order to meet the definition of structure or structuring provided in this subsection.\n\n( 2 ) DOMESTIC COIN AND CURRENCY TRANSACTIONS.A person may not, for the purpose of evading the reporting and registration requirements of chapter 560, chapter 655, or this chapter, or 31 U.S.C. s. 5313 ( a ) or s. 5325, or any rules or regulations adopted under those chapters and sections, when some portion of the activity by that person occurs in this state : ( a ) Cause or attempt to cause a person or financial institution in this state to fail to file an applicable report or registration required under those chapters and sections or any rule or regulation adopted under any of those chapters and sections ; ( b ) Cause or attempt to cause a person or financial institution in this state to file an applicable report required under those chapters and sections or any rule or regulation adopted under those chapters and sections which contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or ( c ) Structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any financial transaction with or involving one or more financial institutions in this state.\n\n( 3 ) INTERNATIONAL MONETARY INSTRUMENT TRANSACTIONS.A person may not, for the purpose of evading the reporting or registration requirements of chapter 560, chapter 655, or this chapter, or 31 U.S.C. s. 5316, when some portion of the activity by that person occurs in this state : ( a ) Fail to file an applicable registration or report required by those chapters and sections, or cause or attempt to cause a person to fail to file such a report ; ( b ) File or cause or attempt to cause a person to file an applicable registration or report required under those chapters and sections which contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or ( c ) Structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of currency or monetary instruments or funds to, from, or through financial institutions in this state.\n\n( 4 ) CRIMINAL PENALTIES.\n\n( a ) A person who violates this section, if the violation involves : 1.Financial transactions exceeding {$300.00} but less than {$20000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n2.Financial transactions totaling or exceeding {$20000.00} but less than {$100000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n3.Financial transactions totaling or exceeding {$100000.00} in any 12-month period, commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.\n\n( b ) In addition to the penalties authorized by s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, a person who has been found guilty of or who has pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to having violated this section may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding {$250000.00} or twice the value of the financial transactions, whichever is greater, except that for a second or subsequent violation of this section, the fine may be up to {$500000.00} or quintuple the value of the financial transactions, whichever is greater.\n\n( c ) A person who violates this section is also liable for a civil penalty of not more than the value of the financial transactions involved or {$25000.00}, whichever is greater.\n\n( 5 ) INFERENCE.Proof that a person engaged for monetary consideration in the business of a money transmitter, as defined in s. 560.103, and who is transporting more than {$10000.00} in currency, or the foreign equivalent, without being licensed as a money transmitter or designated as an authorized vendor under chapter 560, gives rise to an inference that the transportation was done with knowledge of the licensure requirements of chapter 560 and the reporting requirements of this chapter.\n\n( 6 ) CONSTRUCTION.This section may not be construed to require any new or additional reporting requirements on any entity obligated to file reports under state or federal law.\n\nHistory.s. 20, ch. 2000-360 ; s. 1918, ch. 2003-261 ; s. 53, ch. 2008-177.\n\n896.105Penalty provisions not applicable to law enforcement.The penalty provisions of this chapter, including those directed at reporting violations or the conduct or attempted conduct of unlawful financial transactions, the unlawful transportation or attempted transportation of monetary instruments, and the concealment of unlawful proceeds or their ownership are not applicable to law enforcement officers who engage in aspects of such activity for bona fide authorized undercover law enforcement purposes in the course of or in relation to an active criminal investigation, active criminal intelligence gathering, or active prosecution.\n\nHistory.s. 21, ch. 2000-360.\n\n896.106Fugitive disentitlement.A person may not use the resources of the courts of this state in furtherance of a claim in any related civil forfeiture action or a claim in a third-party proceeding in any related forfeiture action if that person purposely leaves the jurisdiction of this state or the United States ; declines to enter or reenter this state to submit to its jurisdiction ; or otherwise evades the jurisdiction of the court in which a criminal case is pending against the person.\n\nHistory.s. 22, ch. 2000-360.\n\n896.107Rewards for informants.\n\n( 1 ) A law enforcement agency conducting any investigation of a violation of this chapter may pay a reward to an individual who provides original information that leads to a recovery of a criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture.\n\n( 2 ) The law enforcement agency shall determine the amount of a reward under this section. The law enforcement agency may not pay more than the amount of reward authorized for similar activity by any federal law or guideline in effect at the time the information described in subsection ( 1 ) was provided.\n\n( 3 ) An officer or employee of the United States, a state or local government, or a foreign government who in the performance of official duties provides information described in subsection ( 1 ) is not eligible for a reward under this section.\n\n( 4 ) Payment of a reward does not affect the admissibility of testimony in any court proceeding.\n\nHistory.s. 23, ch. 2000-360.\n\n896.108Rewards for private entities combating international money laundering.\n\n( 1 ) In conducting any investigation of a violation of this chapter, the Department of Law Enforcement may enter into agreements and pay a reward to any individual or entity who provides original information that leads to a recovery of a criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture based in whole or in part upon a violation of federal law or the laws of this state.\n\n( 2 ) The executive director of the Department of Law Enforcement shall determine the amount of a reward under this section. The executive director, with written approval of the Office of the Attorney General, may exceed the limits of rewards provided in s. 896.107, when the criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture amount received by the state warrants an upward departure from such limits. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, rewards paid under this section shall be paid only from seized assets awarded by the court. Funds seized by the Department of Law Enforcement pursuant to this chapter shall be placed in the departments Forfeiture and Investigative Support Trust Fund established by s. 943.362, or for funds secured through the federal forfeiture actions in the Federal Law Enforcement Trust Fund established by s. 943.365, excluding any rewards paid as provided in this section.\n\n( 3 ) An officer or employee of the Federal Government, a state or local government, or a foreign government who in the performance of official duties provides information described in subsection ( 1 ) is not eligible for a reward under this section.\n\n( 4 ) Payment of a reward does not affect the admissibility of testimony in any court proceeding.\n\nHistory.s. 14, ch. 2009-242.\n\nCopyright 1995-2025 The Florida Legislature Privacy Statement Contact Us","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-20T08:06:10.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"32209","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11585968","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Block, Inc.","date_received":"2025-01-20T07:51:42.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["( j ) Virtual currency means a medium of exchange in electronic or digital format that is not a coin or currency of the United States or any other country."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Other transaction problem"],"sub_product":["Domestic (US) money transfer"]},"sort":[20.44258,"11585968"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19307450","_score":17.937712,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I submitted a complaint before and got a ridiculous response and the CFPB did not hold them accountable. Here it is again. Do better. \n\nCapital One is making a spread on their international wires without disclosing it. I know this because their fraud department told me they would transfer {$59000.00} to the account I directed. They could not tell me why I was being charged {$60000.00}. The transfer was for XXXX euros. There is an extra {$1600.00} that went out of my account and didn't go to the beneficiary. Capital One 's customer service is so terrible that they couldn't tell me. Their fraud department called my wife at XXXX and would not speak to her about the account which she is a joint holder of. Capital One does not respect the institution of marriage. They told her I had to call back by XXXX. When I called back at XXXX they did not pick up. The first person I spoke to demanded the phone number of the beneficiary who is in XXXX and doesn't speak XXXX. No one else asked that. If a phone number is necessary, that should be on the wire form. Their branches, which I have to go to for an international transaction, are literally coffee shops and not professional. Their computers didn't work. The branch was full of XXXX Friday shoppers looking to use the bathroom. Its not secure physically. This was a horrible experience. They charge {$40.00} for a wire and then take a spread between XXXX XXXX rate that they quote me and the actual rate. That's unfair and dishonest. Their service is incompetent. Even after the funds were released, they couldn't assure me the transfer would go through. I spent XXXX hours on XXXX different calls and over an hour in the branch for a wire transfer that takes milliseconds. And I was ripped off {$1600.00}. They aren't even competent at ripping me off. \n\nHide full complaint What product or service is your complaint about? \n\nPRODUCT OR SERVICE Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service TYPE International money transfer What type of problem are you having? \n\nInactive modal ISSUE Confusing or missing disclosures HAVE YOU ALREADY TRIED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY? \nYes DID YOU REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY? \nNo What happened? \n\nCapital One is making a spread on their international wires without disclosing it. I know this because their fraud department told me they would transfer {$59000.00} to the account I directed. They could not tell me why I was being charged {$60000.00}. The transfer was for XXXX euros. There is an extra {$1600.00} that went out of my account and didn't go to the beneficiary. Capital One 's customer service is so terrible that they couldn't tell me. Their fraud department called my wife at XXXX and would not speak to her about the account which she is a joint holder of. Capital One does not respect the institution of marriage. They told her I had to call back by XXXX. When I called back at XXXX they did not pick up. The first person I spoke to demanded the phone number of the beneficiary who is in XXXX and doesn't speak XXXX. No one else asked that. If a phone number is necessary, that should be on the wire form. Their branches, which I have to go to for an international transaction, are literally coffee shops and not professional. Their computers didn't work. The branch was full of XXXX Friday shoppers looking to use the bathroom. Its not secure physically. This was a horrible experience. They charge {$40.00} for a wire and then take a spread between XXXX XXXX rate that they quote me and the actual rate. That's unfair and dishonest. Their service is incompetent. Even after the funds were released, they couldn't assure me the transfer would go through. I spent XXXX hours on XXXX different calls and over an hour in the branch for a wire transfer that takes milliseconds. And I was ripped off {$1600.00}. They aren't even competent at ripping me off. \n\n\nI WANT THE CFPB TO PUBLISH THIS DESCRIPTION ON CONSUMERFINANCE.GOV SO THAT OTHERS CAN LEARN FROM MY EXPERIENCE. \n\nThe CFPB will take steps to remove my personal information from this description but someone may still be able to identify me. Learn how it works. I consent to publishing this description after the CFPB has taken these steps.\n\nInactive modal What would be a fair resolution to this issue?\n\nRefund the undisclosed spread. Refund my fees. Clearly disclose fees. Clearly articulate criteria for international transfers. Allow spouses who are listed on the account equal rights.\n\nWhat company is this complaint about?\n\nCOMPANY INFORMATION Capital One ACCOUNT NUMBER What people are involved? \n\n\nYOUR CONTACT INFORMATION XXXX XXXX Sender XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, New Jersey XXXX United States YOUR PREFERRED LANGUAGE 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 XXXXent to company STATUS Sent to company on XX/XX/year> We've sent your complaint to the company, and we will let you know when they respond. \n\nTheir response should include the steps they took, or will take, to address your complaint. \n\nCompanies generally respond in 15 days. In some cases, the company will let you know their response is in progress and provide a final response in 60 days. \n\nCompany still working XXXX XXXX response is in progress as of XX/XX/year> The company has responded that it is still working on your issue In some cases, companies need more time to respond. You should receive a final response within 60 days from the date we sent your complaint to the company. \n\nCOMPANY 'S INTERIM RESPONSE This complaint requires additional time for research. \nCompany responded XXXX XXXX responded on XX/XX/year> RESPONSE TYPE Closed with explanation XXXX 's Response Please see our attached response ATTACHMENTS XXXX ( XXXX KB ) Feedback provided STATUS Feedback provided on XX/XX/year> Your feedback THE COMPANYS RESPONSE ADDRESSED ALL OF MY ISSUES No I UNDERSTAND THE COMPANYS RESPONSE TO MY COMPLAINT Yes THE COMPANY DID WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO WITH MY COMPLAINT No ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Just fluff. XXXX explain why their own reps gave me the number. Its not other websites. Its thier own internal people who cant tell me why they saw XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. I have another complaint about how they called me at XXXX to verify and said they closed at XXXX. How horrible their branch is. How they froze my bank account and caused me to be late in my credit card payment and how that froze my credit card and I couldnt use the card or do auto pay. There was no reason to freeze my account because of this transaction. I have been a cueste for 15 years. There was no apology for the rude treatment I received in the phone. Why ask the sellers phone number? Thats so unprofessional. Obviously I wont be using them in the future for international transactions and will transfer my business over time. Thus response was boiler plate, acceptable no accountability, and did not address my complaints. Capital One does not provide an internal forum for complaints or home their employees accountable or review their ridiculous policies like giving me XXXX minutes to call back or ask for a home sellers personal phone number in an agented transaction. Like they have the initiative to call someone in XXXX and speak to them in XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-24T16:11:00.000Z","issue":"Confusing or missing disclosures","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"072XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19307450","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-02-06T17:01:33.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PRODUCT OR SERVICE Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service TYPE International money transfer What type of problem are you having? \n\nInactive modal ISSUE Confusing or missing disclosures HAVE YOU ALREADY TRIED TO FIX THIS PROBLEM WITH THE COMPANY? \nYes DID YOU REQUEST INFORMATION FROM THE COMPANY? \nNo What happened? \n\nCapital One is making a spread on their international wires without disclosing it."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"sub_product":["International money transfer"]},"sort":[17.937712,"19307450"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14622438","_score":15.561926,"_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 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."]},"sort":[15.561926,"14622438"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3989813","_score":15.353486,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my complaint against First American Title, part of First American Financial ( FAF ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX who defraud home buyers with bogus Title insurances which XXXX XXXX ( a sham conduit for FAF and XXXX XXXX , owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who owns several Title Companies, like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAF and XXXX help XXXX XXXX Banks to operate a giant Ponzi Scheme with derivatives and massively defraud home buyers about the REAL nature of their transaction - secretive participation in fictitious securitization scheme without borrowers knowledge or consent, where XXXX XXXX Banks sell borrowers ' IDENTITIES on the open markets for about 12-184 profits - while pocket ALL so-called \" mortgage payments '' and escrow money as their tax free revenue. \n\nXXXX XXXX never inform home buyers about WHO will actually their \" Title insurance '' company - because both FAF and XXXX know that Big Banks break every property Title in their fraudulent scheme - and of course are not going to compensate defrauded borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX Bankers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX - created a perfect scheme where it simply 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. \n\nBig Banks want to maintain this illusion as long as they can - and here why they need services of FAF and XXXX - whose subsidiaries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX prepare fictious \" assignments '' about non-existing \" sales '' in fraudulent foreclosures presented by lawyers who do not even know who hired them - XXXX and XXXX. \n\nOn an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. But they don't know how because most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nBut XXXX and FAF know exactly that really happened when most homeowners thought that they were closing a loan transaction. And they know that property TITLE will be broken and clouded. This is why XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX refuse to fulfill their obligation under the Policy they deceptively sold me. Because XXXX and XXXX XXXX are the part of the XXXX XXXX banks mob. \n\nThis is why XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX falsely claim that my \" mortgage with XXXX XXXX is excluded from coverage. But I never had ANY mortgages with XXXX - ever. \n\nMy transaction on XX/XX/XXXX was not a loan, and XXXX XXXX was not a Lender. \n\nMy transaction was a payment to me by XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was the actual originator who passed me money for MY services to XXXX XXXX Investment Banks ; and who collects my repayment of my only compensation via XXXX agreement with XXXX/XXXX. \n\nNeither XXXX, XXXX or XXXX never touched a cent from these money. They tell they do but it is a lie. All money are going straight to Big Banks as tax-free revenue for my involuntary servitude in their XXXX Scheme. \n\nEvery 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\nBy 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 XXXX, 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. In other words, a LIE. \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 - which negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner masqueraded as a \" loan '' 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 XXXX, 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. \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 there was no bigger market in which they could participate. 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\nThis is why neither XXXX or XXXX or XXXX can not respond to a simple question who is the owner of my \" obligation '' ( if exists ) and who and when sold my \" loan '' to XXXX. They answer evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \nAlthough 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. \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. \n\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. \n\nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \n\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\nThe 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* Since 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 {$30.00} XXXX. \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 XXXX times the amount of currency. \nAnd this XXXX SCGEME would not succeed if XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX along with other fictitious \" sellers \" of bogus \" Title Insurances '' would not create an APPEARANCE of illusion called \" mortgage '' and \" homeownership '' It is proven by many 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. \n\nThe outcome of all such cases is a finding by the court 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. \n\nAnd EVERY Propectus specifically states that mortgages WILL BE pooled in some Trusts which WILL BE created - while none of it happened in the real life. \n\nThe alleged servicers know that they have no authority and in fact do not perform any collections, administration or enforcement of anyone 's debt. \n\nSince here is NO loan account, it can not be guaranteed by any XXXX ; there can be no default and hence no remedy is there is either no obligation or no ownership of the obligation by the complaining party. \n\nThis is why XXXX, XXXX and XXXX failed and refused to answer basic questions about the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. \n\nI have clear evidence that my transaction was not a \" loan '' and not with XXXX Mortgage but with undisclosed investment bank who hired FAF and XXXX subsidiarties to damage my property Title. \n\nThus, First American Title and XXXX XXXX XXXX compensate me for damages, at least {$130000.00} under the policy. \n\nPlus damages for extreme emotional distress, and aiding and abetting Investment Banks fraud and racket.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-03T11:49:32.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3989813","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-12-03T11:01:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In other words, a LIE. \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."]},"sort":[15.353486,"3989813"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7240560","_score":15.069468,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"I applied for an American Express Platinum Card on XX/XX/XXXX, for one after I was approved it said the card did not have a spending limit. But after about two weeks my spending limit was lowered to {$35.00} \" until '' I made a payment. I called American Express and asked them why my purchases were being declined they informed me I was at the alleged spending limit. They told me I could log in to check my spending tool on their virtual app. However, I got an error message when I tried to create an account. \n\nI called American Express and explained this matter to the customer service rep, he got really nasty with me. Basically telling me to log in to view my bill. Then I asked him about how they extend credit When banks can not loan money. The rep got very hostile saying, they loaned me the money. I informed the rep I would like paper statements. I receive the billing statement, however, I still wasn't able to log in to the portal to pay my bill and I'm still unable till this day. To me, I felt like this was purposely happening so they could ruin my credit and possibly get extra money from me for interest fees. \n\nAll of this lead me to do some research about how loans work and to my surprise, I feel like I have been defrauded by American Express and I do not feel like they acted in good faith. I would like to share what I found. \n\n\nGENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES 3. Banks are required to adhere to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ( GAAP ). \nGAAP follows an accounting convention that lies at the heart of the double-entry bookkeeping system called the Matching Principle. This principle works as follows : When a bank accepts bullion, coin, currency, checks, drafts, promissory notes, or any other similar instruments ( hereinafter instruments ) from customers and deposits or records the instruments as assets, it must record offsetting liabilities that match the assets that it accepted from customers. The liabilities represent the amounts that the bank owes the customers, and funds accepted from customers. In a fractional reserve banking system like the United States banking system. It is important to note that the banks generate the majority of funds lent to borrowers, which are classified as assets of the banks. This is in contrast to the belief that these funds are simply transferred from one group of depositors to another group of borrowers.\n\nRELEVANCE OF SUBTLE DISTINCTIONS ABOUT TYPES OF MONEY 4.Through thorough research and analysis of historical and economic writings, it has become apparent that there exists a widespread misconception about the nature of money within the US monetary and banking systems, particularly since the 1930s. As per classical economic theory, there are two distinct types of money that emerge once economic exchange moves beyond the bartering stage : money of exchange and money of account.. For nearly 300 years in both XXXX and the United States , confusion about the distinctiveness of these two concepts has led to persistent attempts to treat money of account as the equivalent of money of exchange. In reality, especially in a fractional reserve banking system, a comparatively small amount of money of exchange ( e.g., gold, silver, and official currency notes ) may support a vastly larger quantity of business transactions denominated in money of account. The sum of these transactions is the sum of credit extensions in the economy. With the exception of customary stores of value like gold and silver, the monetary base of the economy largely consists of credit instruments. Against this background, I conclude that the Note, despite some language about lawful money explained below, clearly contemplates both disbursement of funds and eventual repayment or settlement in money of account ( that is, money of exchange would be welcome but is not required to repay or settle the Note ).\n\nThe factual basis of this conclusion is the reference in the Disbursement Request and Authorization to the repayment of {$4500.00} to American Express from the proceeds of the Note. Also, there is no reason to believe that American Express would refuse a substitution of the credit of another bank or banker as complete payment of my repayment obligation under the Note. This is a case about exchanges of money of account ( credit ), not about exchanges of money of exchange ( lawful money or even legal tender ).\n\n5. Ironically, the Note explicitly refers to repayment in lawful money of the United States of America ( see Promise to Pay clause ). Traditionally and legally, Congress defines the phrase lawful money for the United States. Lawful money was the form of money of exchange that the federal government ( or any state ) could be required by statute to receive in payment of taxes or other debts. Traditionally, as defined by Congress, lawful money only included gold, silver, and currency notes redeemable for gold or silver on demand. In a banking law context, lawful money was only those forms of money of exchange ( the forms just mentioned, plus U.S. bonds and notes redeemable for gold ) that constituted the reserves of a national bank prior to 1913 ( date of creation of the Federal Reserve Banks ).\n\nSee, Lawful Money, Websters New International Dictionary ( 2d ed. 1950 ).\n\nIn light of these facts, I conclude that America Express and I exchanged reciprocal credits involving money of account and not the money of exchange ; no lawful money was or probably ever would be disbursed by either side in the covered transactions. The conclusion drawn is unequivocally supported by the bookkeeping entries that serve as the unassailable foundation for the disputed loan account. It is utterly perplexing that American Express would employ a dated phrase like \" lawful money of the United States of America '' in their otherwise modern Note. This phrase may simply be a remnant from a bygone era before 1933. In contemporary credit agreements, repayment language like \" The obligation to repay under this agreement will persist until payment is received in full and finally collected funds '' is used to sidestep the issue of what form of payment the obligation should take.\n\n6. Legal tender, a related concept but one that is economically inferior to lawful money because it allows payment in instruments that can not be redeemed for gold or silver on demand, has been the form of money of exchange commonly used in the United States since 1933, when domestic private gold transactions were suspended ( until 1974 ) .. Basically, legal tender is whatever the government says it is. The most a common form of legal tender today is Federal Reserve notes, which by law can not be redeemed for gold since 1934 or, since 1964, for silver. See, 31 U.S.C. Sections 5103, 5118 ( b ), and 5119 ( a ).\n\nNote : I question the statement that fed reserve notes can not be redeemed for silver since 1964. It was Johnson who declared on 15 March 1967 that after 15 June 1967 that Fed Res Notes would not be exchanged for silver and the practice did stop on 15 June 1967 not 1964. I believe this to be an error in the text of the authors affidavit.\n\n7. Legal tender under the Uniform Commercial Code ( U.C.C. ), Section 1-201 ( 24 ) ( Official Comment ), is a concept that sometimes surfaces in cases of this nature. The referenced Official Comment notes that the definition of money is not limited to legal tender under the U.C.C. Money is defined in Section 1-201 ( 24 ) as a medium of exchange authorized or adopted by a domestic or foreign government and includes a monetary unit of account established by an intergovernmental organization or by agreement between two or more nations. The relevant Official Comment states that The test adopted is that of sanction of government, whether by authorization before issue or adoption afterward, which recognizes the circulating medium as a part of the official currency of that government. The narrow view that money is limited to legal tender is rejected. Thus, I conclude that the U.C.C. tends to validate the classical theoretical view of money.\n\nHOW BANKS BEGAN TO LEND THEIR OWN CREDIT INSTEAD OF REAL MONEY 8. Based on my opinion, the most reliable sources for gaining insights into the history and application of credit as currency are XXXX XXXX XXXX renowned publication \" MONEY, CREDIT & COMMERCE '' ( published in 1929 ) and Charles P. Kindleberger 's acclaimed \" A FINANCIAL HISTORY OF XXXX XXXX '' ( published in 1984 ). Through a comprehensive analysis of these sources and their relevance to the present scenario, we can confidently infer that commercial banks and private bankers ( referred to as discount houses ) in XXXX and XXXX XXXX initiated lending money to borrowers primarily through the extension of credit to them or to third parties, using drafts or bills of exchange as the customary mode of credit expansion. These drafts and bills essentially constituted claims on the credit of the drawers, rather than actual disbursements of money in the form of bullion, coin, or other currency, and were commonly employed in transactions with third parties.\n\nThe third parties had to determine for themselves whether such credit money had value and, if so, how much. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was drafted with this model of the commercial economy in mind and provided at least two mechanisms ( the discount window and the open-market trading desk ) by which certain types of bankers credits could be exchanged for Federal Reserve credits , which in turn could be withdrawn in lawful money. Credit at the Federal Reserve eventually became the principal form of monetary reserves of the commercial banking system, especially after the suspension of domestic transactions in gold in 1933. Thus, credit money is not alien to the current official monetary system ; it is just rarely used as a device for the creation of Federal Reserve credit that, in turn, in the form of either Federal Reserve notes or banks deposits at Federal Reserve Banks, function as money in the current monetary system.\n\nThe Federal Reserve has the power to expand the money supply by adjusting banks ' reserve requirements, which are currently set at around ten percent of demand liabilities. This action compels banks to lend money to borrowers, thus creating credit money. Moreover, non-bank providers of credit, like credit card companies, can extend credit to customers without setting aside reserves, which also leads to an increase in credit money. The information presented in paragraphs 11 and beyond supports this explanation of how bank credit has emerged as a form of money.\n\nXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX AS THE EQUIVALENT OF MONEY 9. Plaintiff apparently asserts that the Defendants signed a promise to pay, such as a note ( s ) or credit application ( collectively, the Note ), in exchange for the Plaintiffs advance of funds, credit, or some type of money to or on behalf of Defendant.\n\nHowever, the bookkeeping entries required by application of GAAP and the Federal Reserves own writings should trigger close scrutiny of Plaintiffs apparent assertions that it lent its funds, credit, or money to or on behalf of Defendants, thereby causing them to owe the Plaintiff {$400000.00}. According to the bookkeeping entries shown or otherwise described to me and application of GAAP, the Defendants allegedly were to tender some form of money ( lawful money of the United States of America is the type of money explicitly called for in the Note ), securities or other capital equivalent to money, funds, credit, or something else of value in exchange ( money of exchange, loosely defined ), collectively referred to herein as money, to repay what the Plaintiff claims was the money lent to the Defendants. It is not an unreasonable argument to state that Plaintiff apparently changed the economic substance of the transaction from that contemplated in the credit application form, agreement, note ( s ), or other similar instrument ( s ) that the Defendants executed, thereby changing the costs and risks to the Defendants. At most, the Plaintiff extended its own credit ( money of account ), but the Defendants were required to repay in money ( money of exchange, and lawful money at that ), which creates at least the inference of inequality of obligations on the two sides of the transaction ( money, including lawful money, is to be exchanged for bank credit ).\n\nMODERN AUTHORITIES ON MONEY 11. To understand what occurred between American Express and I concerning the alleged loan of money or, more accurately, credit, it is helpful to review a modern Federal Reserve description of a banks lending process. See, David H. Friedman, MONEY AND BANKING ( 4th ed. 1984 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ) : The commercial bank lending process is similar to that of thrift in that the receipt of cash from depositors increases both its assets and its deposit liabilities, which enables it to make additional loans and investments.... When a commercial the bank makes a business loan, it accepts as an asset the borrowers debt obligation ( the promise to repay ) and creates a liability on its books in the form of a demand deposit in the amount of the loan. ( Consumer loans are funded similarly. ) Therefore, the banks original bookkeeping entry should show an increase in the amount of the asset credited on the asset side of its books and a corresponding increase equal to the value of the asset on the liability side of its books. This would show that the bank received the customers signed promise to repay as an asset, thus monetizing the customers signature and creating on its books a liability in the form of a demand deposit or other demand liability of the bank. The bank then usually would hold this demand deposit in a transaction account on behalf of the customer.\n\nInstead of the bank lending its money or other assets to the customer, as the customer reasonably might believe from the face of the Note, the bank created funds for the customers transaction account without the customers permission, authorization, or knowledge and delivered the credit on its own books representing those funds to the customer, meanwhile alleging that the bank lent the customer money. If Plaintiffs response to this line of argument is to the effect that it acknowledges that it lent credit or issued credit instead of money, one might refer to Thomas P. Fitch, BARRONS BUSINESS GUIDE DICTIONARY OF BANKING TERMS, Credit banking, 3.\n\nBookkeeping entry representing a deposit of funds into an account. But American Express 's loan agreement apparently avoids claiming that the bank actually lent me money. They apparently state in the agreement that I am obligated to repay the principal and interest for the Valuable consideration ( money ) the bank gave the customer ( borrower ). The loan agreement and Note apparently still delete any reference to the banks receipt of actual cash value from me and exchange of that receipt for actual cash value that American Express returned.\n\n12. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, money is anything that has a value that banks and people accept as money ; money does not have to be issued by the government. For example, David H. Friedman, I BET YOU THOUGHT....\n\n9, Federal Reserve Bank of New York ( 4th ed. 1984 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ), explains that banks create new money by depositing IOUs, promissory notes, offset by bank liabilities called checking account balances. Page 5 says, Money doesnt have to be intrinsically valuable, be issued by the government, or be in any special form....\n\n13. The publication, Anne Marie L. Gonczy, MODERN MONEY MECHANICS 7-33, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago ( rev. ed. June 1992 ) ( apparently already introduced into this case ), contains standard bookkeeping entries demonstrating that money ordinarily is recorded as a bank asset, while a bank liability is evidence of money that a bank owes. The bookkeeping entries tend to prove that banks accept cash, checks, drafts, and promissory notes/credit agreements ( assets ) as money deposited to create credit or checkbook money that are bank liabilities, which shows that, absent any right of setoff, banks owe money to persons who deposit money. Cash ( money of exchange ) is money, and credit or promissory notes ( money of account ) become money when banks deposit promissory notes with the intent of treating them like deposits of cash. See, 12 U.S.C. Section 1813 ( l ) ( 1 ) ( definition of deposit under Federal Deposit Insurance Act ). American Express acts in the capacity of a lending or banking institution, and the newly issued credit or money is similar or equivalent to a promissory note, which may be treated as a deposit of money when received by the lending bank. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas publication MONEY AND BANKING, page 11, explains that when banks grant loans, they create new money.\n\nThe new money is created because a new loan becomes a deposit, just like a paycheck does. MODERN MONEY MECHANICS, page 6, says, What they [ banks ] do when they make loans is to accept promissory notes in exchange for credits to the borrowers transaction accounts. The next sentence on the same page explains that the banks assets and liabilities increase by the amount of the loans.\n\nCOMMENTARY AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 14. American Express apparently accepted my Note and credit application ( money of account ) in exchange for its own credit ( also money of account ) and deposited that credit into an account with my name on the account, as well as apparently issuing its own credit for {$4500.00} to American Express for my account. One reasonably might argue that American Express recorded the Note or credit application as a loan ( money of account ) from me to the them, then became the borrower of an equivalent amount of money from my account.\n\nAmerican Express in fact never lent any of its own pre-existing money, credit, or assets as consideration to purchase the Note or credit agreement from myself. ( Robertson Notes : I add that when the bank does the forgoing, then in that event, there is an utter failure of consideration for the loan contract. ) When American Express deposited my {$4500.00} of newly issued credit into an account, the Plaintiff created from {$4500.00} to {$5000.00} of new money ( the nominal principal amount less up to ten percent or {$4500.00} of reserves that the Federal Reserve would require against a demand deposit of this size ). The Plaintiff received {$4500.00} of credit or money of account from the Defendants as an asset. GAAP ordinarily would require that the Plaintiff record a liability account, crediting the Defendants deposit account, showing that the Plaintiff owes {$4500.00} of money to the Defendants, just as if the Defendants were to deposit cash or a payroll check into their account.\n\nIt's unclear if Plaintiff loaned their own money or assets to Defendants. Plaintiff recorded a {$4500.00} loan from the Defendants, which may have been their deposit. When Plaintiff repaid them using their own credit, the transaction was complete. There's a dispute over whether Plaintiff disclosed all the material facts in the credit application or Note. It's not clear if Plaintiff suffered any financial loss or damages. The \" lawful money '' language in the repayment clause is confusing. I believe my Affidavit is true.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-13T01:22:54.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"19144","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7240560","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2023-07-13T00:12:24.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Lawful money was the form of money of exchange that the federal government ( or any state ) could be required by statute to receive in payment of taxes or other debts. Traditionally, as defined by Congress, lawful money only included gold, silver, and currency notes redeemable for gold or silver on demand."]},"sort":[15.069468,"7240560"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7826867","_score":14.859947,"_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":["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."],"product":["Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service"],"issue":["Other transaction problem"],"sub_product":["Virtual currency"]},"sort":[14.859947,"7826867"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4109508","_score":14.766251,"_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 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"]},"sort":[14.766251,"4109508"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003729","_score":14.566988,"_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 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."],"company":["Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC"]},"sort":[14.566988,"4003729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003724","_score":14.492926,"_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 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."]},"sort":[14.492926,"4003724"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4102366","_score":14.155758,"_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 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"]},"sort":[14.155758,"4102366"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":33,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":33}]}},"product":{"doc_count":33,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":22,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":7},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":6},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":5},{"key":"Foreign currency exchange","doc_count":2},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":4,"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":4}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":33,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","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":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Fees or interest","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees","doc_count":2},{"key":"Unexpected increase in interest rate","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Confusing or missing disclosures","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":2,"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":2,"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":2}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money was not available when promised","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble accessing funds in your mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Wrong amount charged or received","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":33,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":32},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":33,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":30},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":2},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":33,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":33}]}},"company":{"doc_count":33,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":6},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":5},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":3},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Block, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"MONEYGRAM PAYMENT SYSTEMS WORLDWIDE INC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Paxful Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Revolut Technologies Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SANTANDER BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TransferWise Ltd","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":33,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"CA","doc_count":3},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"NY","doc_count":3},{"key":"IL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MA","doc_count":2},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"OH","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"TX","doc_count":2},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"CO","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IA","doc_count":1},{"key":"MI","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"WA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":33,"company_public_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","doc_count":7}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":33,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":5},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":2}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[14.152761,"4102366"]}}}