{"took":192,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":73,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4761328","_score":18.703611,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not return all of the recalled funds after XXXX initiated the recall process. This case is related to the investment scam reported on XX/XX/2021, referenced to cfbp complaint # XXXX. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK stated that there are no more funds left in the fraudulent account and did not pursue to follow the money to recall outgoing funds from their fraudulently opened account ( s ) to assist in the recovery of these funds. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK showed deficiency in following KYC compliance program requirements and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the KYC related risks that existed or that were related to the customers or accounts that shall have been viewed as high risk allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud. JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs management was ineffective in overseeing JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs day-to-day compliance with the KYC regulations and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs KYC-related deficiencies demonstrate that JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs compliance program was ineffective, did not comply with the regulations, and was insufficient to ensure identification of and monitoring for suspicious activities. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not detect or investigate suspicious activities to determine whether XXXX filings were appropriate. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to investigate suspicious activities occurring in their customer accounts related to money inflow and outflow activities. Bank did not adequately monitor for suspicious cash, wire, or monetary instrument transactions. In particular, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to identify or to monitor potentially suspicious activity pertaining to incoming wire transfers and their immediate outgoing wire transfers structured to move the money quickly out of the accounts indicating fraudulent activities. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to know their customer 's financial affairs in terms of source of income. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to undertake sufficient due diligence regarding the source of funds being deposited into their customer account ( s ) as well as the outflow of the funds from their accounts. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not collect or maintain sufficient information about its banking customers.\n\nIn conclusion, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK engaged in violations of XXXX, know your customer financial affairs, and Suspicious Activity Reporting. \n\nThe Bank 's failure to comply with these regulations caused substantial distress for the unaware customers falling into the investment scam operated by the Banks customers. \n\nJPM Chase Bank responded to XXXX handling the recall of my funds wired out from my XXXX account into two JPM Chase Banks customer fraudulent accounts returning only {$100000.00} out of {$230000.00} as follows : 1. The Bank recognized the problem returning partially {$100000.00} out of {$200000.00} wire transferred to JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA-XXXX  Account XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that the rest of the funds are gone. \n\n2. The Bank stated that there are no funds available in the JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA account XXXX for XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX where I wire transferred {$39000.00} ; therefore, the Bank refused to return lost funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-28T20:04:18.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"601XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4761328","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2021-09-28T19:52:43.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the KYC <em>related</em> <em>risks</em> that <em>existed</em> or that <em>were</em> <em>related</em> to the <em>customers</em> or accounts that shall have been viewed as high <em>risk</em> allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud."]},"sort":[18.703611,"4761328"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4761489","_score":18.655107,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not return all of the recalled funds after XXXX initiated the recall process. This case is related to the investment scam reported on XX/XX/2021, referenced to cfbp complaint # XXXX. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK stated that there are no more funds left in the fraudulent account and did not pursue to follow the money to recall outgoing funds from their fraudulently opened account ( s ) to assist in the recovery of these funds. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK showed deficiency in following XXXX  compliance program requirements and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the XXXX  related risks that existed or that were related to the customers or accounts that shall have been viewed as high risk allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud. XXXXPMORGAN CHASE BANKs management was ineffective in overseeing JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs day-to-day compliance with the XXXX  regulations and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs XXXX-related deficiencies demonstrate that JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs compliance program was ineffective, did not comply with the regulations, and was insufficient to ensure identification of and monitoring for suspicious activities. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not detect or investigate suspicious activities to determine whether XXXX filings were appropriate. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to investigate suspicious activities occurring in their customer accounts related to money inflow and outflow activities. Bank did not adequately monitor for suspicious cash, wire, or monetary instrument transactions. In particular, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to identify or to monitor potentially suspicious activity pertaining to incoming wire transfers and their immediate outgoing wire transfers structured to move the money quickly out of the accounts indicating fraudulent activities. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to know their customer 's financial affairs in terms of source of income. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK failed to undertake sufficient due diligence regarding the source of funds being deposited into their customer account ( s ) as well as the outflow of the funds from their accounts. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK did not collect or maintain sufficient information about its banking customers. \nIn conclusion, JPMORGAN CHASE BANK engaged in violations of XXXX, know your customer financial affairs, and Suspicious Activity Reporting. \nThe Bank 's failure to comply with these regulations caused substantial distress for the unaware customers falling into the investment scam operated by the Banks customers. \nJPM Chase Bank responded to XXXX handling the recall of my funds wired out from my XXXX account into two JPM Chase Banks customer fraudulent accounts returning only {$100000.00} out of {$230000.00} as follows : 1. The Bank recognized the problem returning partially {$100000.00} out of {$200000.00} wire transferred to JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, NA-3669 Account XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX stating that the rest of the funds are gone. \n\nXXXX. The Bank stated that there are no funds available in the XXXX CHASE BANK, NA account XXXX for XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX, FL XXXX where I wire transferred {$39000.00} ; therefore, the Bank refused to return lost funds.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-28T21:30:50.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"601XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4761489","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2021-09-28T21:25:44.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["JPMORGAN CHASE BANKs system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the XXXX  <em>related</em> <em>risks</em> that <em>existed</em> or that <em>were</em> <em>related</em> to the <em>customers</em> or accounts that shall have been viewed as high <em>risk</em> allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud."]},"sort":[18.655107,"4761489"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4761427","_score":18.376684,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX did not return recalled funds after XXXX initiated the recall process. This case is related to the investment scam reported on XX/XX/2021, referenced to cfpb complaint # XXXX. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX stated that there are no funds left in the fraudulent account and did not pursue to follow the money to recall outgoing funds from their fraudulently opened account ( s ) to assist in the recovery of these funds. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX showed deficiency in following KYC compliance program requirements and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the XXXX  related risks that existed or that were related to the customers or accounts that shall have been viewed as high risk allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX management was ineffective in overseeing PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX day-to-day compliance with the KYC regulations and knowing their customer 's financial affairs. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX XXXX-related deficiencies demonstrate that PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION XXXX XXXX compliance program was ineffective, did not comply with the regulations, and was insufficient to ensure identification of and monitoring for suspicious activities. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX did not detect or investigate suspicious activities to determine whether SAR filings were appropriate. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX failed to investigate suspicious activities occurring in their customer accounts related to money inflow and outflow activities. Bank did not adequately monitor for suspicious cash, wire, or monetary instrument transactions. In particular, PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX failed to identify or to monitor potentially suspicious activity pertaining to incoming wire transfers and their immediate outgoing wire transfers structured to move the money quickly out of the accounts indicating fraudulent activities. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX failed to know their customer 's financial affairs in terms of source of income. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX failed to undertake sufficient due diligence regarding the source of funds being deposited into their customer account ( s ) as well as the outflow of the funds from their accounts. PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX did not collect or maintain sufficient information about its banking customers. \nIn conclusion, PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX engaged in violations of XXXX, know your customer financial affairs, and Suspicious Activity Reporting. \n\nPNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX responded to XXXX handling the recall of my funds that there are no funds available in the account from {$60000.00} wired out of my XXXX account into PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX, account XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, DE XXXX.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-09-28T21:56:02.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"601XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4761427","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PNC Bank N.A.","date_received":"2021-09-28T21:51:32.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PNC BANK , NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION - XXXX system of internal controls did not effectively identify or address the XXXX  <em>related</em> <em>risks</em> that <em>existed</em> or that <em>were</em> <em>related</em> to the <em>customers</em> or accounts that shall have been viewed as high <em>risk</em> allowing fraudsters to open accounts and operate fraudulent activities and processing in/outgoing wire transfers using Banks accounts as a media to facilitate fraud."]},"sort":[18.376684,"4761427"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18257162","_score":18.364378,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Synchrony Bank improperly closed multiple credit card accounts based on erroneous fraud-related information that was reported to my credit report due to identity theft. That information has since been investigated and removed from my credit reports, yet the accounts were still closed using outdated and inaccurate data. \nI contacted Synchrony Bank to dispute the closures. Representatives for several of my Synchrony cards agreed to submit my case to the back-office team for review. However, XXXX departments refused to escalate or submit the review, despite my explanation that the fraud had already been resolved. \nOn XX/XX/year>, a fraud supervisor named XXXX and a customer service agent named XXXX both refused to submit the matter for back-office review, unlike other Synchrony representatives who agreed to do so for my other accounts. \nThe closures were justified as high risk of failure to pay, which is inaccurate and appears to rely on credit information that no longer exists. Synchrony failed to conduct a reasonable review using current, accurate credit data, resulting in financial harm and credit damage.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-23T20:31:48.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"77433","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18257162","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","date_received":"2025-12-23T20:24:20.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["On XX/XX/year>, a fraud supervisor named XXXX and a <em>customer</em> service agent named XXXX both refused to submit the matter for back-office review, unlike other Synchrony representatives who agreed to do so for my other accounts. \nThe closures <em>were</em> justified as high <em>risk</em> of failure to pay, which is inaccurate and appears to rely on credit information that no longer <em>exists</em>."]},"sort":[18.364378,"18257162"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19342169","_score":17.376713,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/year>, I attempted to purchase a round-trip XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX for travel dates XXXX XXXX XXXX using Affirm. The purchase price was {$440.00}, and with interest the total loan amount was {$460.00}. \n\nI never received a booking confirmation, ticket number, XXXX, or boarding pass. The flight does not appear in my XXXX XXXX account, and XXXX XXXX has confirmed through customer service chats and a formal written response to a Department of Transportation ( DOT ) complaint that no booking or ticket exists in my name and that no payment was received on their end. \n\nI filed disputes with Affirm for non-delivery of services. The loan was split into two portions ; one portion was resolved in my favor based on non-delivery, while the XXXX XXXX portion was denied despite XXXX  written confirmation that no booking exists. I requested supervisor review, but the dispute was reopened and then denied again without confirmation that a supervisor reviewed the evidence. \n\nAffirm has maintained that the XXXX transaction was successfully processed, relying on payment authorization rather than service fulfillment, despite merchant confirmation that no flight or ticket was ever issued. \n\nAs a result of the unresolved dispute, the account is now approximately 75 days overdue, creating risk of credit harm for a charge related to services that were never delivered. I am requesting a compliance-level review of XXXX dispute handling and correction of this billing error based on merchant non-fulfillment.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-02-08T20:36:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"29210","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19342169","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-02-08T20:07:11.000Z","state":"SC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a result of the unresolved dispute, the account is now approximately 75 days overdue, creating <em>risk</em> of credit harm for a charge <em>related</em> to services that <em>were</em> never delivered. I am requesting a compliance-level review of XXXX dispute handling and correction of this billing error based on merchant non-fulfillment."]},"sort":[17.376713,"19342169"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19040389","_score":15.258408,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"I am filing this complaint regarding incorrect and inconsistent funds-availability information provided by Citibank, which has caused financial harm. \n\nOn Friday, XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Citibank customer service regarding a deposited check. I was told by a customer service representative that the funds would be available on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX. During that call, I explicitly informed the representative that the check had already cleared the issuing bank on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn Monday, XX/XX/XXXX, the funds were still not available. I then contacted the Citibank XXXX branch and spoke with a representative named XXXX, who stated that if Monday was considered the third business day, the funds would be available on Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn Tuesday, XX/XX/XXXX, the funds were still unavailable. I contacted Citibank customer service again and was told that the funds were not available until XX/XX/XXXX, which again proved incorrect. I informed the representative that I had made financial arrangements and scheduled bill payments based on the availability dates Citibank had provided. Because of this information, I scheduled and authorized payments totaling {$550.00}, relying on Citibanks representations that the funds would be available. \n\nI requested to speak with a supervisor. The supervisor, XXXX, stated that Citibank did not extend the hold and that the issuing bank had extended the hold until XX/XX/XXXX, and that Citibank could not release the funds because the issuing bank had not done so. Their hands are tied. \n\nBecause this explanation conflicted with earlier statements, I contacted the issuing bank directly. XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) confirmed that the check was fully cashed and settled on XX/XX/XXXX and that no holds were placed or extended on the funds at any time. \n\nI then contacted Citibank again to report that the issuing bank confirmed no hold existed and that the funds had been fully released. I asked why Citibank had provided incorrect information and specifically why a supervisor attributed the delay to the issuing bank when that information was false. I spoke to another supervisor, XXXX and I requested a courtesy credit due to the financial harm caused by this misinformation. Citibank stated that they could not provide any courtesy credit. \n\nAs a result of Citibanks repeated misinformation, shifting availability dates, and misattribution of the hold to the issuing bank, I have experienced cash-flow harm and am now at risk of returned payments, fees, and additional financial consequences related due to my paycheck in the amount of {$2200.00} not being released.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-27T17:00:07.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Savings account","zip_code":"92595","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19040389","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2026-01-27T16:29:00.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As a result of Citibanks repeated misinformation, shifting availability dates, and misattribution of the hold to the issuing bank, I have experienced cash-flow harm and am now at <em>risk</em> of returned payments, fees, and additional financial consequences <em>related</em> due to my paycheck in the amount of {$2200.00} not being released."]},"sort":[15.258408,"19040389"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20023225","_score":13.141148,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint regarding inconsistent account servicing, unclear identity verification handling, and an unexplained disruption of established account eligibility patterns with Affirm. \n\nI have maintained an Affirm account for approximately XXXX years with a perfect payment history. I have never missed or made a late payment and have never requested a payment extension. Over this period, my purchasing power increased steadily and predictably in response to consistent on-time payments and responsible account use, creating a stable pattern tied to demonstrated repayment behavior. \n\nDuring a recent purchase attempt on XX/XX/year>, I received a can not verify identity denial without any explanation of what information could not be verified or what corrective action was required. Shortly afterward, a loan was approved on the same account without any additional verification, updated personal information, or confirmation that my identity status had changed. This created uncertainty regarding whether my identity was considered verified and how verification determinations are applied. \n\nImmediately following these events, my purchasing power dropped overnight from more than {$11000.00} to approximately {$750.00} a reduction exceeding {$10000.00}. This was not a gradual adjustment or proportional change related to spending or repayment activity, but a sudden deviation from a two-year pattern of stable and increasing eligibility despite a flawless payment record and no negative credit events. A change of this magnitude reasonably appears to be a red flag requiring explanation rather than a normal fluctuation. \n\nWhen I contacted customer support, a supervisor stated there were no flags or restrictions on my account and advised waiting approximately XXXX days for the system to recalculate naturally. I followed this guidance ; however, after the full period elapsed, purchasing power increased by only about {$20.00}, confirming that the change was not a temporary recalculation as described. \n\nIn attempting to obtain clarification, I was repeatedly transferred between representatives and departments with no clear escalation path or ownership of the matter. I was initially told identity verification could be requested, but later representatives including a supervisor stated verification was not required and therefore could not be initiated. At another point I was told my email required verification, yet subsequent representatives could not confirm or resolve this. No representative could clearly explain my verification status or the reason for the sudden eligibility change. \n\nI have since learned that other consumers have reported similar situations in which significant purchasing power reductions following identity-related denials were resolved through identity verification. Despite this, I have been unable to obtain verification or a clear explanation of my account status. \n\nMy concern is that Affirms servicing practices provide inconsistent and conflicting information regarding identity verification and eligibility determinations, leaving consumers unable to understand significant account changes that directly affect financial decision-making. \n\nI am requesting : XXXX. Written clarification of my identity verification status. \nXXXX. A clear explanation for the sudden reduction of more than {$10000.00} in purchasing power. \nXXXX. Confirmation of whether any internal identity or risk review occurred. \nXXXX. Restoration of purchasing power consistent with my established account history if no adverse information or unresolved verification issue exists. \nXXXX. Clarification of Affirms escalation procedures when customer support can not resolve account-status concerns.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-06T01:24:58.000Z","issue":"Getting the loan","sub_product":"Installment loan","zip_code":"14215","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20023225","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-03-06T01:11:33.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Confirmation of whether any internal identity or <em>risk</em> review occurred. \nXXXX. Restoration of purchasing power consistent with my established account history if no adverse information or unresolved verification issue <em>exists</em>. \nXXXX. Clarification of Affirms escalation procedures when <em>customer</em> support can not resolve account-status concerns."]},"sort":[13.141148,"20023225"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12835054","_score":12.83151,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) Navy Federal Credit Union Re : Case # XXXX Date : XX/XX/year> From : XXXX XXXX Formal Rebuttal to Navy Federal Credit Unions Response Wire Transfer of {$730000.00} I am writing to formally dispute Navy Federal Credit Unions response submitted to the CFPB on XX/XX/year>, regarding the {$730000.00} wire transfer received into my business account ending in XXXX on XX/XX/year>. \n\nNavy Federals response is unacceptable. It lacks transparency, provides no documented justification for its actions, and fails to address the seriousness of what amounts to the improper restriction of my account and wrongful return of funds. I demand a full and lawful explanationnot vague language about risk. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Funds Were Deposited and Used Before Action Was Taken The wire transfer was received and fully accessible on XX/XX/year>. I began using those funds immediately for legitimate business purposes. Navy Federal did not restrict the account until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days later. This timeline makes it clear that no immediate concern existed and suggests poor oversight, reactionary behavior, or miscommunication with the originating bank. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Hold Harmless Letter ( HHL ) Is Not Legal Justification Navy Federal states that an XXXX  from XXXX was received on XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXafter the funds were already accessed. An XXXX is not a legal instrument ; it does not confirm fraud or error. It merely attempts to shift liability from the requesting bank. Navy Federals acceptance of this letter without legal compulsion or independent verification is highly concerning and inappropriate. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Violations of Federal Regulations and Consumer Protection Laws Navy Federals conduct violates several federal banking and consumer protection laws, including : 12 CFR 1005 Regulation E ( Electronic Fund Transfers Act ) Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5531 Prohibition of Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Breach of contractual and fiduciary duty by restricting access without notice, without evidence, and without due process. \n\nI was never given the opportunity to dispute or appeal the restriction and return of funds, and no formal findings or documentation were ever shared. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Intent to Pursue Legal Action I am in the process of retaining legal counsel and will be initiating a lawsuit against Navy Federal Credit Union for : Wrongful deprivation of funds, Breach of fiduciary duty, Violations of federal consumer protection laws, Damages from business interruption, reputational harm, and emotional distress, And any other applicable legal claims. \n\nThis situation was mishandled at multiple levels, and I intend to pursue full accountability in court if it is not resolved immediately. \n\n\n\nXXXX. Final Demand : Full Disclosure and Direct Legal Contact Let me be clear : I do not want to be redirected to your legal department or customer service supervisors. \nI am demanding the name, title, and direct contact information ( email and phone ) of the attorney handling this matter on behalf of Navy Federal Credit Union. Stonewalling this request or continuing to provide generic responses will only escalate this matter further and expose Navy Federal to additional liability. \n\nAdditionally, I am requesting the following immediately : A full written explanation of the banks actions, A copy of the Hold Harmless Letter received from XXXX, All internal communications related to the restriction and return of funds, Copies of all internal risk policies used to justify the actions taken against my account, Names and departments of Navy Federal personnel involved. \n\n\n\nConclusion I am giving Navy Federal one final opportunity to resolve this issue professionally and with transparency. If that does not happen, I will proceed with litigation and seek maximum damages for your institutions mishandling of this matter. This is no longer a customer service issueit is now a legal one. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-04-05T09:22:29.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"44105","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12835054","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2025-04-05T09:11:00.000Z","state":"OH","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This is no longer a <em>customer</em> service issueit is now a legal one. \n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX"]},"sort":[12.83151,"12835054"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21132796","_score":12.376506,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I have been a PayPal account holder for approximately 20 years and have used the platform in recent years for digital service-related work. \n\nApproximately 120 days ago ( around XXXX XXXX ), my account was permanently limited following a dispute filed by a payer. The payer is not a traditional buyer, but rather a store that reimburses me for products and compensates me for digital services, including product feedback related to shipping, manuals, and overall product experience. The claim alleged that I failed to provide shoes, which is inaccurate, as I do not sell or ship physical goods and have never agreed to do so. \n\nDuring the dispute process, the claimant did not provide sufficient identifying information, such as an order confirmation, product details, or relevant correspondence. Because of this, I was unable to determine which transaction was being disputed and therefore could not provide accurate documentation of my completed services. I requested this information on multiple occasions but did not receive it.\n\nPayPal required me to provide documentation to support my position ; however, because the claim was framed as a physical goods transaction, I was asked to provide materials such as shipping or order confirmation details that do not exist for my type of work. Without the claimant identifying the specific transaction or service in question, I was unable to provide documentation that could reasonably be tied to the dispute without risking submitting inaccurate or misleading information.\n\nAt the time, I contacted PayPal customer support multiple times via phone and chat while attempting to dispute the claim and regain access to my funds. While I do not have exact dates, these communications occurred throughout the initial limitation period approximately 120 days ago. During these interactions, PayPal representatives acknowledged that additional identifying information from the claimant would typically be necessary for me to respond fully. \n\nDespite this, the dispute was resolved in a manner that did not allow me to provide complete documentation, and my account remained permanently limited. \n\nDuring the limitation period ( approximately XX/XX/XXXX through early XX/XX/XXXX ), I was unable to receive payments. This caused significant disruption to my work, as I rely on receiving reimbursement payments for completed digital services. Because clients were unable to send payments to my PayPal account, I lost multiple payment opportunities, resulting in an estimated {$500.00} in lost income. In many cases, communication with clients ceased because the payment issue was outside of their control and PayPal was the agreed-upon payment method.\n\nIn addition, the disputed transaction amount ( under {$100.00} ) was refunded, and I was charged a dispute-related fee.\n\nAfter approximately 120 days, I was able to withdraw the remaining balance from my account ; however, the account remains permanently limited and unusable.\n\nI believe this situation resulted from : - A dispute being accepted and processed without sufficient supporting evidence from the claimant - My inability to respond fully due to lack of identifying transaction details - A permanent limitation being applied without a reasonable opportunity to provide complete documentation Given the relatively small disputed amount and the significant resulting impact, including loss of income and inability to conduct business, I am requesting : - A full and fair review of the limitation decision - Reconsideration and removal of the permanent account limitation, or a clear explanation of the basis for this decision - Reimbursement of the disputed transaction amount, associated dispute fee, and consideration of the financial losses incurred due to the inability to receive payments ( and or to figure out a means to debit those transactions as if they were to go through to this date ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-10T16:33:26.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"65202","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21132796","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","date_received":"2026-04-10T16:02:58.000Z","state":"MO","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["PayPal required me to provide documentation to support my position ; however, because the claim was framed as a physical goods transaction, I was asked to provide materials such as shipping or order confirmation details that do not <em>exist</em> for my type of work. Without the claimant identifying the specific transaction or service in question, I was unable to provide documentation that could reasonably be tied to the dispute without <em>risking</em> submitting inaccurate or misleading information."]},"sort":[12.376506,"21132796"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15536250","_score":12.337502,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, My name is XXXX XXXX, Founder and CEO of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. We operate a compliant, XXXX on-ramp that lets customers fund their balances with cash and other rails to buy bitcoin. We maintain corporate custodial wallets with qualified providers to meet customer orders, manage liquidity, and protect operating funds. \n\nThis complaint concerns XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their freezing and continued withholding of our corporate custodial assets without a lawful or contractual basis, causing material business harm and downstream consumer risk. \n\nI am not attaching our counsels demand letter at this time. Instead I am providing a detailed, chronological account and will produce the letter and supporting records upon request. \n\nWho we are Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Role : XXXX cash-to-bitcoin on-ramp serving XXXX users nationwide Use of XXXX : Corporate custodial wallets and related services to receive, store, and transfer crypto needed to fulfill customer purchases and manage treasury Timeline and what happened XXXX. Onboarding and normal operations We completed XXXX onboarding, XXXX, KYB, and compliance reviews. We provided corporate documents, XXXX program materials, officer IDs, beneficial ownership info, and ongoing updates upon request. \nFor a period, operations were normal. XXXX processed our transfers and withdrawals. We relied on XXXX as a qualified custodian for corporate assets used to fulfill customer orders. \nXXXX. Escalation and information requests In early XX/XX/year>, XXXX began flagging activity and requested additional documents and clarifications. We responded promptly each time. We furnished transaction detail, counterparties where applicable, explanations of our business model, compliance policies, officer information, and proof of lawful activity. \nXXXX. Account immobilization without notice Around May 1013, 2025, XXXX immobilized our corporate wallets. Outbound transfers were blocked. No lawful hold order, subpoena, or court directive was provided to us. \nWe asked for the basis of the freeze and requested copies of any legal process. XXXX did not produce any legal order or clear policy justification. Explanations shifted and were inconsistent. \nXXXX. Formal demand to return our assets On XX/XX/year>, through counsel, we sent a Demand for Return of Cryptocurrency or Equivalent Funds, XXXX XXXX, Cease and Desist to XXXX legal addresses in XXXX XXXX, SD and by email. The demand set out : That BitGo was holding XXXX XXXX XXXX corporate custodial funds without a lawful basis. \nThat no court order, subpoena, or regulator directive had been provided. \nThat BitGo must immediately release our funds or remit an equivalent fiat amount.\n\nThat BitGo must preserve all evidence and cease actions that impair our ability to operate. \nXXXX. Ongoing withholding and harm After our demand, XXXX continued to withhold our corporate custodial assets. \nTo protect our customers and meet obligations, we covered liquidity from other sources and migrated operations to alternative custody at our own expense. This created measurable damages : Emergency liquidity costs and trading slippage to fulfill orders Operational disruption and engineering work to re-route flows Legal and compliance costs responding to shifting requests Reputational damage and lost business opportunities XXXX still has not provided a lawful hold order, clear contractual basis, or a consistent, verifiable explanation. Funds remain immobilized. \n\nWhy this is improper No lawful hold produced. XXXX has not provided a subpoena, court order, or law-enforcement hold that would justify immobilizing our corporate custodial assets. \nContract and trust obligations. As a trust company and custodial provider, XXXX has obligations to safeguard and return a clients assets absent lawful restraint. Unilateral immobilization with no legal process and no timely notice breaches those duties. \nUnfair and abusive conduct. Freezing and withholding a corporate clients working assets without basis, after accepting and using our business for months, is an unfair and abusive practice. It imposes substantial injury not reasonably avoidable by the client and without countervailing benefits to consumers. \nConsumer risk. Our product directly serves retail users. Immobilizing our corporate custodial wallets created avoidable stress on order fulfillment and consumer confidence. We shielded our users by absorbing the costs, but that does not reduce the underlying risk XXXX created. \n\nWhat we can provide to the Bureau We can promptly produce the following upon request : The full XX/XX/year> demand letter sent to BitGo Trust Company , Inc . \nXXXX XXXX records, compliance submissions, and correspondence Detailed transaction logs, wallet addresses, and reconciliation showing the specific balances that XXXX immobilized Timestamped support tickets and emails showing our repeated requests for a lawful basis and BitGos responses Evidence of costs and damages incurred due to XXXX actions Our XXXX XXXX XXXX and proof of ongoing compliance What we are asking the CFPB to do Open a formal investigation into BitGos freezing and withholding practices as they affect covered clients and downstream consumers. \nXXXX XXXX to release our corporate custodial assets or remit equivalent funds absent a valid legal restraint, and to provide any legal process if one exists. \nRequire policy and process changes so that any immobilization is supported by timely notice, verifiable legal process, clear escalation paths, and prompt return once conditions are met. \nOrder restitution for demonstrable damages caused by XXXX actions. \n\nContact Please acknowledge receipt and advise next steps.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-08-26T13:57:18.000Z","issue":"Money was not available when promised","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"60423","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15536250","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BitGo Holdings, Inc.","date_received":"2025-08-26T13:38:22.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["We operate a compliant, XXXX on-ramp that lets <em>customers</em> fund their balances with cash and other rails to buy bitcoin. We maintain corporate custodial wallets with qualified providers to meet <em>customer</em> orders, manage liquidity, and protect operating funds. \n\nThis complaint concerns XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and their freezing and continued withholding of our corporate custodial assets without a lawful or contractual basis, causing material business harm and downstream consumer <em>risk</em>."]},"sort":[12.337502,"15536250"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18427406","_score":11.842961,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"This email serves as formal notice of Bank of Americas deceptive practices, predatory account-retention mechanisms, and deliberate obstruction of lawful account closure. What follows is not a customer service complaint. It is a record of systemic misconduct. \nBank of Americas rewards system displayed a balance of {$390.00} associated with my Visa Signature card. That figure was presented as real, available value. Any reasonable consumer would understand this to represent transferable funds. Acting on that representation, I opened a checking account for the sole purpose of accessing what Bank of Americas own interface indicated I possessed. \nOnly after the account was opened did the truth emerge : the {$390.00} figure was illusory. The actual balance was XXXX reward points, effectively worthless. This is not a misunderstanding. It is a deceptive presentation of value embedded in your systems. Had Bank of America accurately represented the nature of those rewards, the checking account would never have been opened. \nWhat followed escalates this from deception to coercion. \nBank of America has constructed its systems so that a checking account can not be closed through any normal, modern channel. Closure is impossible via the mobile app, desktop banking, chatbot, or email. Customers are forced into only two options : visiting a physical branch or calling by phone. \nThere are no Bank of America branches in Oregon. \nPhone access, meanwhile, is functionally denied. I have now spent over five hours across multiple days attempting to reach a human being. Calls related to account closure are routed into endless hold loops, dead air, or abandoned queues. No callback is offered. No written alternative exists. The conclusion is unavoidable : this is intentional. \nWhile trapped on hold, customers are subjected to repetitive, intrusive marketing scripts, broadcast at a volume that cuts through even when call volume is lowered. This is not passive hold music. It is aggressive upselling that hijacks a callers environment. Many customers, myself included, are calling from work or public spaces. This design creates professional risk and social pressure, clearly intended to force customers to hang up rather than persist. \nThis is not inconvenience. \nThis is psychological pressure engineered into your retention system. \nFurther, Bank of America provides no accessible written channel for account closure. There is no public email address. The so-called secure message system is inconsistently available and inaccessible to many users. This is a deliberate elimination of paper trails and accountability. \nThis is not my first encounter with these tactics. I previously attempted to close a savings account and experienced the same obstruction. Complaints were filed at that time. The continuation of these practices demonstrates a pattern of behavior, not an isolated failure. \nLet me be clear about what is being demanded : Immediate closure of this checking account without further obstruction Written confirmation of closure and a XXXX balance A written explanation of why Bank of America denies customers the ability to close accounts through standard digital or written means A formal compliance review of your rewards representations and account-closure policies This matter is being documented with federal and state regulators and will be shared publicly. I am no longer seeking assistance. I am creating a record. \nAdditionally, after remaining on hold for approximately four hours, I was explicitly told that a supervisor would call me back. No call ever occurred. This was not a missed call ; there was no attempt made. Providing a promised callback and then failing to follow through is a known tactic used to end consumer persistence without resolving the issue. This constitutes further obstruction and misrepresentation and reinforces that Bank of Americas systems are designed to delay and exhaust customers rather than provide lawful account closure. \nI also want to document a recurring tactic used by Bank of America during prior and current escalation attempts. After extended time on hold, I have been told that a supervisor would call me back. In practice, Bank of America has previously placed a single voicemail instructing me to call back, which is then logged internally as a successful contact attempt. When the customer calls back, they are routed into the same inaccessible phone system, effectively resetting the obstruction while allowing the bank to claim it attempted resolution. This is not a genuine callback and should not be represented as one. I am documenting this in advance to prevent any such mischaracterization in this case. \nSincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX, Oregon XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-02T20:03:51.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"973XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18427406","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2026-01-02T19:43:51.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Can't close your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["<em>Customers</em> are forced into only two options : visiting a physical branch or calling by phone. \nThere are no Bank of America branches in Oregon. \nPhone access, meanwhile, is functionally denied. I have now spent over five hours across multiple days attempting to reach a human being. Calls <em>related</em> to account closure are routed into endless hold loops, dead air, or abandoned queues. No callback is offered. No written alternative <em>exists</em>. The conclusion is unavoidable : this is intentional."]},"sort":[11.842961,"18427406"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2138320","_score":11.627942,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Please sanction Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. As I approached the end of my Mortgage Obligation, including a point when the funds in \" Our '' escrow account were sufficient to retire the Principal ( including any related \" nuisance '' interest for whatever number of days of interest Wells Fargo Home Mortgage could conjure for its administrative delays ) -- yet, payment demand continued. Then, with a final insult of a colloquially-known \" Loan Payoff '' form letter from Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, it adds the audacity of \" we require the loan to be paid in full. '' This despite the fact that this same form letter shows a dollar figure of \" Your Escrow Balance '' -- as in \" my '' ( \" my money '' ) which pays not only what was demanded therein but would 've covered the principal pay-off, accumulated interest, and associated conjured fees from the statement preceding. Yes, this likely only happens for a borrower one time in a loans ' lifecycle -- but, I neither have any control or recourse. It is only \" my '' Escrow Balance when it is convenient for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage to label it as such. Instead to the very end, I am supposed to pay-in on a deadline with consequence, while the return of the Escrow Balance when all is done and said will take its time and will be at no risk of consequence in the event of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage delay or error. I submit this first-off to get a Case Number, so that a record of some sort exists when Wells Fargo Home Mortgage fails to perform what they indicated will be done, which is to apply monies from the Escrow to close-out the Mortgage Loan, before sending the balance of unused Escrow to me. \n\nIn the larger sense, I ask why, would not the forward calculations be made to automatically apply the Escrow Account balance when the Principal, Interest, and pending or anticipated Escrow-covered-disbursements net to zero -- send that as a notification ( perhaps even with a pending period equivalent to whatever policy-based delay the Mortgage Lenders currently have built-in before returning \" unused '' Escrow Funds ). In this way, administrative overhead for the Mortgage Lender, and Customer inconvenience of arranging pay-off would be effectively eliminated. XXXX imagine that, ... the Mortgage just ends saving at least two unnecessary exchanges-of-funds. Recall that the Mortgage Lender has all of the information and control -- all I get is the \" of course '' when something is screwed-up!","date_sent_to_company":"2016-09-29T16:50:46.000Z","issue":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","sub_product":"FHA mortgage","zip_code":"85226","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2138320","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2016-09-29T16:50:45.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["As I approached the end of my Mortgage Obligation, including a point when the funds in \" Our '' escrow account <em>were</em> sufficient to retire the Principal ( including any <em>related</em> \" nuisance '' interest for whatever number of days of interest Wells Fargo Home Mortgage could conjure for its administrative delays ) -- yet, payment demand continued."]},"sort":[11.627942,"2138320"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"13935906","_score":11.322931,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Regarding : Deceptive Practices and Unfair Billing related to Early Lease Termination Company : XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) Account # : XXXX VIN : XXXX Product/Service : Auto Lease ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) I am filing this complaint against XXXX XXXX regarding deceptive practices and unfair billing related to the early termination of my auto lease.\n\nThe decision to terminate this lease was not voluntary, but became necessary due to severe and persistent safety-related defects with the vehicle. Since acquiring the vehicle, it exhibited numerous manufacturer-related issues, including a recent instance on XX/XX/XXXX, where the vehicle completely shut off while driving without warning, posing a significant safety hazard one week after I was assured it was safe to drive. I brought the vehicle in for repairs multiple times, but this critical issue remained unresolved. XXXX 's own engineers acknowledged this defect with no known solution nor do they have a timeline of when a remedy could become available. They suspect that it is software related and made worse by the remedy for the XXXX recall which was performed earlier in XXXX. In addition, I had asked XXXX to buy back the vehicle which they denied immediately within 24 hours. XXXX Customer Care was also limited in what they could provide me ; I had requested that they provide me with a letter stating the car was not to be given back to me until this software issue was fixed. My case manager was unable to do so and confirmed this is not something they can do with his direct supervisor. \n\nGiven the inherent safety risks and the inability to repair the vehicle, I was compelled to terminate the lease early. To do so, I proceeded to XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase a new vehicle. As part of this transaction, XXXX XXXX XXXX requested the lease payoff amount directly from XXXX XXXXl to facilitate the return of the XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I returned the vehicle in excellent physical condition and well under the mileage allowance. At the initial payoff request, I was present for the conversation with my salesman XXXX XXXX. The agent briefly spoke with me and told me I'd be responsible for any damages to the vehicle beyond normal wear and tear- which I agreed to and acknowledged. My sales XXXX, XXXX XXXX, was informed by XXXX  XXXX  that I'd be responsible for a disposition fee. He made me aware of this although I knew I would immediately contest it as this was not a normal lease termination. This dispute was sent to XXXX XXXX and XXXX Customer Care by certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nPrior to, during this termination process, and after I received explicit assurances from XXXX XXXX regarding my final financial obligations : I possess written chat logs from XXXX XXXX representatives explicitly stating that my final bill would be {$490.00} ( a standard disposition fee ) with \" no additional auction fees. '' Furthermore, on XX/XX/XXXX, after the remaining lease payments ( {$7700.00} ) were processed via a direct \" Payoff Information '' quote provided by XXXX  XXXX  to the dealership, my XXXX XXXX account internally reflected a {$0.00} balance, clearly indicating that all my contractual obligations were fulfilled. \n\nDespite these clear assurances and a confirmed {$0.00} balance, XXXX  XXXX is now unjustly attempting to bill me an additional unknown amount for \" auction losses '' and other charges that directly contradict their prior guarantees. I was made aware of this discrepancy on XX/XX/XXXX by mail. I contacted XXXX XXXX by phone and was told that what the person had told me on chat was \" incorrect '' and I was going to owe more than the {$490.00} but no one could tell me how much. I immediately asked to be connected to a supervisor. This supervisor was apologetic for the \" misunderstanding '' and offered me to escalate this to the internal escalation team. I proceeded with that escalation. When contacted by their escalation team on XX/XX/XXXX, they dismissed their own promises and records as \" human error '' and refused to take accountability, attempting to shift blame to the dealership, XXXX, and on anyone but themselves. They admittedly said that their employees gave myself and XXXX the incorrect information BUT I was still to be held liable for that. I immediately denied all and any errors made by their employees and maintained that none of that is my responsibility. \n\nI firmly maintain that I am not responsible for additional charges resulting from XXXX XXXX XXXX  internal errors or misleading statements. I relied on their explicit representations when making my decision to return the vehicle under these circumstances, which were forced by the vehicle 's unreliability. Their refusal to honor their own commitments and records constitutes a clear failure to accurately disclose final lease termination liabilities as required by the federal Consumer Leasing Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1667-1667f and Regulation M ) and also constitutes deceptive trade practices under Pennsylvania law XXXX \n\nThis case highlights how misleading information and a refusal to honor documented commitments, even when admitted as 'human error, ' can unjustly burden consumers. Federal consumer protection laws, including the Consumer Leasing Act, exist precisely to hold corporations accountable for such deceptive practices and to ensure accurate disclosures in consumer transactions. I urge the CFPB to enforce these vital protections.\n\nI have already briefly discussed this matter with legal counsel, who advised me that I am not responsible for these unjust charges. Once a formal bill is sent to me claiming I owe more than what was explicitly promised by a XXXX XXXX employee ( {$490.00} ), legal counsel will officially be retained and proceed with official engagement.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-06T23:21:19.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Lease","zip_code":"19320","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"13935906","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","date_received":"2025-06-06T22:42:25.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Termination fees or other problem when ending the lease early"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This dispute was sent to XXXX XXXX and XXXX <em>Customer</em> Care by certified mail on XX/XX/XXXX."]},"sort":[11.322931,"13935906"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"20014912","_score":10.534789,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this rebuttal regarding the response provided by Wells Fargo concerning the credit card account they claim belongs to me. \n\nAfter reviewing Wells Fargos response and the documents they provided, it is clear that the bank has failed to verify that I opened, authorized, or benefited from this account. Instead of providing the documentation I requested, Wells Fargo continues to submit transaction histories, which are not proof of identity or authorization. \n\nTransactions Are Not Proof of Account Ownership Wells Fargo continues to provide only transaction histories from the account. Transaction records only show that activity occurred on an account ; they do not verify who opened the account or who authorized it. \n\nTransactions are not proof that I applied for, opened, or authorized this account. \n\nDespite my requests, Wells Fargo has failed to provide : The original signed credit application Any verified electronic signature Identification used to open the account Identity verification documentation IP address or device authentication records used during the application Card activation records Proof that I received the credit card Because Wells Fargo has failed to produce these records, it appears the documentation verifying the identity of the person who opened this account does not exist. \n\nIncorrect Address Used on the Application The application information Wells Fargo provided lists the address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC This address has never been my residence and has never been associated with me. My residence during XXXX was : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC Wells Fargo has provided no documentation showing that the address used on the application belongs to me or has ever been connected to my identity. \n\nAdditionally, the address listed appears to be associated with a residential community commonly known as XXXX XXXX, which includes housing for elderly residents. This raises further concern that the address may be used by multiple residents and that anyone could have used that location when applying for credit. \n\nIf Wells Fargo approved a credit card using an address that was not verified as belonging to me, this demonstrates a failure in their identity verification procedures. \n\nSavings Account Wells Fargo Claims Is Mine Wells Fargo also claims that a payment was made from a Wells Fargo savings account ending in XXXX. I have never opened or maintained any Wells Fargo bank accounts. If Wells Fargo believes this account belongs to me, they must provide documentation proving that my identity was verified when that account was opened. \n\nFailure to Conduct a Reasonable Investigation The documentation Wells Fargo provided suggests that their fraud review and internal investigation occurred within an extremely short timeframe, effectively a one-day internal review, before concluding the account belonged to me. \n\nA one-day review based only on internal transaction records does not constitute a reasonable investigation. \n\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act, companies must conduct a reasonable investigation and ensure the accuracy of information they report. \n\nHistory of Regulatory Violations It is also important to note that Wells Fargo has previously faced enforcement actions related to unauthorized accounts and improper banking practices. \n\nFor example : In XXXX, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fined Wells Fargo {$180.00} XXXX after discovering millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts were opened without customer consent. \nIn XXXX, the Federal Reserve imposed an asset cap on Wells Fargo due to widespread consumer abuses and risk management failures. \nIn XXXX, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$3.00} XXXX to resolve investigations related to opening accounts without customer authorization. \nIn XXXX, the CFPB ordered Wells Fargo to pay {$3.00} XXXX in penalties and consumer redress for widespread consumer harm. \n\nThese enforcement actions demonstrate a documented history of improper account practices and unauthorized accounts. \n\nRequested Resolution Because Wells Fargo has failed to provide the requested documentation verifying that I opened or authorized this account, and because the address used on the application has never belonged to me, I request that Wells Fargo : XXXX. Immediately remove this account from all consumer credit reporting agencies, or XXXX. Provide full documentation verifying the identity of the individual who opened the account, including identification used during the application process and proof that the application address was associated with me. \n\nAt this time, Wells Fargo has not provided any credible evidence linking this account to me. \n\nThank you for your review","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-05T21:00:52.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Credit card debt","zip_code":"27701","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"20014912","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-03-05T20:46:29.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In XXXX, the Federal Reserve imposed an asset cap on Wells Fargo due to widespread consumer abuses and <em>risk</em> management failures. \nIn XXXX, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Wells Fargo agreed to pay {$3.00} XXXX to resolve investigations <em>related</em> to opening accounts without <em>customer</em> authorization. \nIn XXXX, the CFPB ordered Wells Fargo to pay {$3.00} XXXX in penalties and consumer redress for widespread consumer harm."]},"sort":[10.534789,"20014912"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"2917662","_score":10.383856,"_source":{"product":"Credit card or prepaid card","complaint_what_happened":"On XX/XX/XXXX my grandmother XXXX unexpectedly due to a XXXX XXXX at the same time that her husband, an American Express cardholder, was recovering in the hospital from XXXX XXXX. I was notified and upon receiving the news drove from my location in the Great Lakes region to the Southwest a total distance of around 2000 miles in each direction. I believe that I notified American Express of my travel so that I would not be locked out of either of my American Express charge cards. \n\nMy monthly payment became due on XX/XX/XXXX, however due to my mitigating circumstances I was not able to make the payment on-time. Around XX/XX/XXXX I I received a phone call from American Express inquiring as to why my payment was late. I informed them that Id just lost one grandparent and that the other grandparent was not doing well in the hospital with recovery. I also informed them that because of the way my accounts are set up for ACH transaction between my checking accounts, I wouldnt be able to transfer money for another week and a half, due to the way in which my employer was depositing my compensation over the holiday period. \n\nThe American Express representative informed me that she needed to schedule a payment by XX/XX/XXXX so that my relationship with American Express was not adversely impacted. I told her that the money would not be in my account by that time she was persistent. She cajoled me into authorizing the transactions to maintain my relationship with American Express. I asked the representative whether I would be able to wire a payment to American Express if the payment was returned and whether I would be able to wire additional payments if I faced another emergency situation that took me away from my banking institutions. \n\nShe gave me the bank wire routing number : XXXX. Additionally, she gave me an account number that corresponded to my American Express account. The related address for the bank wire was XXXX XXXX American Express XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX NY XXXX I authorized a wire transfer on XX/XX/XXXX from my brokerage account with XXXX XXXX to the American Express wire account as identified above. Within an hour of authorizing the wire, I was notified by XXXX XXXX that the wire had been processed, and received a subsequent notification from the Department of Treasury that my wire payment had cleared the Federal Reserve. American Express lost the bank wire payment. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I contacted both XXXX XXXX and American Express inquiring the status of the wire. XXXX XXXX again confirmed that the wire transfer had been sent and received by American Express. However, when I contacted American Express, American Express had no record of having received the payment. \n\nAfter returning to the Great Lakes region on XX/XX/XXXX, I again called American Express. I inquired about the status of the wire payment. American Express again indicated that they had no record of receiving the wire payment. The call was concluded. I called again a few days later, informed the representative about the situation and my concern. In particular, I asked the representative how this situation would be handled with the bank, since there was a transaction history from XXXX XXXX and the Federal Reserve indicating that American Express had received a wire payment for XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe representative I spoke with deflected stating that even though American Express lost the payment, my concern should be with the XX/XX/XXXX payment that was now due. I asked the representative how or even why I should be responsible for a XX/XX/XXXX payment, if the bank had already lost my XX/XX/XXXX payment had had not offered to compensate me for the two-thousand dollar loss. It took two additional representatives, all of whom were based in XXXX, to even offer to file an investigation regarding the lost XX/XX/XXXX payment. \n\nOnce I was satisfied that the lost payment was being investigated I remitted the XX/XX/XXXX payment this took place around XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of XXXX. Shortly thereafter, the lost XX/XX/XXXX payment was found but applied retroactively with a data of XX/XX/XXXX, instead of the XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX I paid an additional XXXX dollars to cover the XX/XX/XXXX payment. On XX/XX/XXXX I paid an additional XXXX dollars. On XX/XX/XXXX I paid an additional XXXX dollars. On XX/XX/XXXX I paid an additional XXXX dollars. On XX/XX/XXXX I paid an additional XXXX dollars. Over the sum total of the payments made to my American Express account totaled around XXXX dollars, which was in excess of my minimum payment obligations including both my pay over time and charge balance from the period of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. Yet American Express marked my payments since XX/XX/XXXX as Late. \n\nIn early XX/XX/XXXX American express contacted me indicating that a XX/XX/XXXX payment had been returned and as such my account was under Financial Review. I asked the representative what the impact of the review might be and he stated it could be a downgrade in risk exposure ( line of credit ) and or a cancellation of the card. My risk exposure limit was reduced after the financial review, after Id made a XXXX dollar payment. In this instance the risk exposure limit was lowered beyond the current balance of the card, making the card unusable until I made a subsequent payment. American Express subsequently canceled not only the card referenced here, but my additional elite status card a week later. \n\nAccording to American Express own analytics, my monthly spending for the period of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX was below the level over the previous year. In fact, it was only around half of the previous year. Furthermore, my six month statement balance was reduced over a six-month period from at the risk exposure limit to approximately five ( 5 ) thousand dollars below the risk exposure limit. Despite this pattern of maintaining my financial obligations and conducting myself in accordance with responsible lending, American Express stated that the reason my accounts had been canceled was because of financial review and the fact that Id been late for ALL months in the past five ( 5 ) consecutive months. When I asked the Representative how the review was conducted and who within the Responsible Lending area had conducted the review, the representative explained to me that the process was conducted by a machine and that no individual had actually reviewed the file. \n\nUpon being transferred to a Responsible Lending team in XXXX, I was told that unless I agreed to ACH transactions for the XX/XX/XXXX payment, the same system that deemed me to be a risk to American Express for lending was subject to send my accounts for external collection. I inquired about the amount the bank would be trying to collect on the representative couldnt tell me. When I asked why the bank would seek to collect BEFORE considering the outstanding balance to be a loss and charging-off the balance, the representative could not answer. After speaking with a supervisor, the representative returned stating that the process the bank uses to collect funds is at their discretion. \n\nMy payments were in excess of my obligations per my statements from XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX. Furthermore, my charging history was below what it was for the same period a year prior. And, my average balance for each month from the period of XX/XX/XXXX thru XX/XX/XXXX was below 2000 dollars per month with the exception of XX/XX/XXXX. In fact, my overall spending on the card over the aforementioned period was similar to the spending habits when I first obtained the card nearly four years ago. Yet, American express continued to bill me in excess of 2000 dollars for those particular months. \n\nAmerican Express Therefore, it would appear that America Express ' back-end analytics target members in a way that maximizes their profit while minimizing their risk exposure by purposely targeting accounts for closure. American Express ' analytics system seems to rely on the assumption that a member with a non-zero pay-over-time balance would be incapable of paying the balance in full at time of cancellation. The scheme appears to be such that if a pay over time balance exists on the account, under any indication of an inability to pay, the analytics system will close the accounts, such that no future charges may be made, but future profits can be made because there exists a nonzero pay-over-time balance on the account. Furthermore, the analytics system also seems to reduce risk exposure limits below a certain amount that makes the card unusalbe immediately after payments have been applied to the account to meet alleged outstanding payment obligations. \n\nOverall, I lost my grandmother, an American Express card member. At the same time I nearly lost her husband, my grandfather, also an American Express card member for over three decades. The only reason I even have an American Express card is because I saw them with theirs and the presumed success it embodied, and what I thought was a quality banking institution with good customer service. Unfortunately, despite attempting to maintain a good relationship with American Express, I have been penalized for bank transfer errors, payment accounting errors, and insensitive representatives seeking to schedule a payment during a time of grieving and loss. In essence, I got trapped in between accounting irregularities, computer bugs, and poor customer service that is outsourced to XXXX. \n\nThe sad thing is that when I told my grandfather about the experience I had, my grandfathers response was that he, again a card member for decades, had been subject to similar experiences such that while he still has the card, he no longer uses it.","date_sent_to_company":"2018-05-25T20:01:53.000Z","issue":"Problem when making payments","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"48108","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"2917662","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2018-05-25T18:38:38.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem during payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The scheme appears to be such that if a pay over time balance <em>exists</em> on the account, under any indication of an inability to pay, the analytics system will close the accounts, such that no future charges may be made, but future profits can be made because there <em>exists</em> a nonzero pay-over-time balance on the account."]},"sort":[10.383856,"2917662"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"23298662","_score":9.9440155,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX. Unsolicited Loan Modification During the XXXX Pandemic ( XX/XX/XXXX ) In or about XX/XX/XXXX, I was offered a loan modification by the mortgage servicer, NewRez/XXXX, despite the fact that I had not applied for or requested XXXX. This occurred during the earliest months of the XXXX pandemic. \n\nAt that time, I was employed in New York XXXX, but my employer was completely shut down as a result of the pandemic. I was left without income and was denied unemployment benefits. Because of those circumstances, I was unable to take advantage of the offered loan modification. \n\nIn addition, the servicer did not place the loan into any pandemic-related forbearance program. Instead, interest, late fees, and other charges continued to accrue. I only recently became aware that the loan balance may have been improperly inflated as a result. \n\nI raise this issue because, during subsequent attempts to obtain a loan modification, I was repeatedly informed that I had already used my XXXX opportunity for a loan modification. That statement is incomplete and misleading. The XXXX modification was unsolicited, was offered during a period of unprecedented economic hardship, and was not realistically available to me under the circumstances. \n\nBased upon these facts, I believe a review and adjustment of the loan balance is warranted. \n\nXXXX. CFPB Complaint, Servicer Day Modification, and XX/XX/XXXX Property Disaster In XX/XX/XXXX, I filed a complaint with the CFPB. That complaint remains open. I recently reviewed XXXX XXXX response and was surprised to see XXXX claim that it was not the proper party to address the issues raised, despite the fact that XXXX had been servicing my mortgage since approximately XXXX. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX, my attorney received an unsolicited call advising that my loan had been selected for a program referred to as \" XXXX XXXX. '' During that call, representatives specifically asked what amount I could afford to pay and when I could begin making payments. \n\nI advised that I could afford approximately {$24000.00} and could begin making payments on XX/XX/XXXX, although it would be difficult to begin sooner due to my ongoing divorce proceedings. The representative responded, \" Okay, '' and no further discussion occurred. \n\nAfter that conversation, neither my attorney nor I received any further communication until XX/XX/XXXX. On that date, my attorney received a letter by email. No correspondence was sent directly to me, to the property, or to any alternate address. \n\nThe communication referenced a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, stating that a loan modification had been approved with a monthly payment of approximately {$2900.00} and that the first payment was due XX/XX/XXXX. However, neither my attorney nor I actually received notice of this modification until XX/XX/XXXX, after the stated due date had already passed. \n\nOnly XXXX days later, on XX/XX/XXXX, a catastrophic plumbing failure occurred at my property and throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Approximately XXXX homes were affected. Due to extremely cold temperatures, reportedly the coldest XXXX experienced in over XXXX XXXX years in this area of New York, the plumbing failure caused a pressurized sewer backup that forced sewage into my basement. \n\nThe damage was so severe that the home was effectively rendered uninhabitable. \n\nMy mother and I were forced to obtain a high-interest loan and spend approximately {$24000.00} to mitigate the damage. At the time, I believed hazard insurance was in place. However, the insurance company would not process the claim and would not clearly explain why. \n\nDespite these circumstances, I remained prepared to make the XXXX payment required under the modification. Beginning on XX/XX/XXXX, and continuing through XX/XX/XXXX, I repeatedly contacted XXXX in an effort to make payment. \n\nDuring each call, I was told that the account was not set up to receive payments. I was informed that payment could not be accepted through the website, by phone, or through ordinary servicing channels. Representatives repeatedly transferred me to various departments and indicated that the account required research. \n\nAlthough I was actively attempting to make the required payment, the servicer ultimately closed the loan modification on or about XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nI do not understand how I could have complied with the modification terms when the servicer 's own systems would not accept payment. Based upon my experience, it appeared that I was placed into a modification program while simultaneously being denied a practical means of making the required payments. \n\nAdditionally, I have identified federal guidance indicating that homeowners affected by natural disasters may be entitled to forbearance or other mortgage assistance. Given the catastrophic plumbing and sewer event that rendered my home uninhabitable, I do not understand why no similar accommodation was offered or applied in my case. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Missing Insurance Coverage For many years, approximately {$4300.00} per year has been advanced through my escrow account for hazard insurance on this property. \n\nThe loan servicing has since transferred from XXXX to Shellpoint, although NewRez continues to appear throughout the account records and customer portal. I do not fully understand NewRez 's continuing role, as documents continue to appear as having been transferred or forwarded from a prior servicer. \n\nUpon reviewing the insurance records available through the customer portal, I discovered that there appear to be no hazard insurance binders or policy records after XXXX. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted Shellpoint 's insurance department directly. During that conversation, I was advised that the company had confirmed there had been no active hazard insurance policy on the property since XXXX. I was further advised that Shellpoint was placing a policy effective XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nThe representative also advised that I should seek a balance adjustment for escrow funds that had been collected and advanced for hazard insurance during the years in which no policy appears to have existed. I was instructed to address that issue with the servicing department. \n\nBecause an auction sale is currently scheduled, I have not yet been able to fully address this issue with servicing. \n\nXXXX. Discrepancies in the Loan Balance and Foreclosure Judgment For years, XXXX represented that I owed substantially more than the amount that now appears to be reflected in the servicing records. \n\nThe amount claimed in the foreclosure action has never appeared mathematically accurate to me. As recently as approximately XXXX month ago, I was being told that more than {$570000.00} was owed. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, I requested a payoff statement from Shellpoint. During that process, I was informed that the balance transferred from the prior servicer and reflected as the amount due in full was approximately {$290000.00}. \n\nThis discrepancy raises serious concerns. \n\nIf the actual balance is approximately {$290000.00} rather than more than {$570000.00}, then the foreclosure judgment may have been calculated using incorrect figures. It also means that substantial equity exists in the property and that refinancing opportunities may have been available long before the foreclosure reached its current stage. \n\nHad accurate balance information been provided, I would have pursued available options to resolve the default and preserve the property. \n\nI respectfully request a full accounting and reconciliation of the loan balance, the foreclosure judgment amount, escrow advances, fees, and all servicing transfers. \n\nXXXX. Active Loss Mitigation and Pending Foreclosure Sale When I log into the customer portal and navigate to the Loss Mitigation section, a prominent notice states that I have an active loan workout package in place. \n\nDespite that representation, the current servicer, Shellpoint, and the foreclosing attorneys have refused to cancel the foreclosure auction, which is currently scheduled to occur in approximately XXXX days. \n\nI have repeatedly raised concerns that this situation constitutes impermissible dual tracking. \n\nAdditionally, I have received correspondence from the prior servicer confirming that my application was accepted for review, that valuation was being ordered, and that the review process remained active. \n\nFurther supporting this point, the appraisal associated with the loss mitigation review was uploaded into the current servicer 's portal on Monday of this week. \n\nNevertheless, supervisors at Shellpoint have repeatedly stated that there is \" not enough time '' to cancel the foreclosure sale. \n\nThe continued pursuit of foreclosure while the customer portal reflects an active workout package, while loss mitigation documents remain under review, and while appraisal activity continues raises serious concerns regarding compliance with applicable mortgage servicing and loss mitigation requirements. \n\nI am requesting an immediate review of these issues and an immediate suspension of the scheduled foreclosure sale while the account is properly audited and all pending loss mitigation matters are resolved.REQUEST FOR RELIEF Based upon the facts outlined above, I respectfully request that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department XXXX XXXX XXXX, the Office of the Attorney General, and any other appropriate regulatory or oversight agencies conduct a full investigation into the servicing, loss mitigation, escrow administration, insurance administration, and foreclosure practices associated with this loan. \n\nSpecifically, I request the following relief : XXXX. Immediate Suspension of Foreclosure XXXX I request the immediate postponement, cancellation, or suspension of the foreclosure auction currently scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX, pending a full review of the servicing history, loss mitigation history, escrow accounting, insurance accounting, and payoff calculations associated with this loan. \n\nGiven the existence of an active workout package reflected in the servicer 's own customer portal, the recent appraisal activity associated with loss mitigation review, and the unresolved disputes concerning the loan balance and escrow administration, allowing the foreclosure sale to proceed before these issues are investigated would create the risk of irreparable harm. \n\nXXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX I request a complete loan-level accounting from the date servicing began through the present, including but not limited to : - All principal balances. \n- All interest accruals. \n- All late fees. \n- All corporate advances. \n- All escrow advances. \n- All attorney fees and foreclosure costs. \n- All property inspection fees. \n- All broker price opinion fees. \n- All appraisal fees. \n- All suspense account activity. \n- All unapplied funds. \n- All servicing transfer adjustments. \n- All force-placed insurance charges. \n- All escrow analyses. \n- All loss mitigation calculations. \n\nI further request that the servicer identify every adjustment made to the account following each servicing transfer and explain any discrepancies between balances reported by prior servicers and balances reported by the current servicer. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the XXXX Loan Modification and XXXX XXXX XXXX I request an investigation into the unsolicited loan modification offered in XX/XX/XXXX during the earliest months of the XXXX pandemic. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination as to : - Why a loan modification was offered without an application. \n- Whether any pandemic-related relief options should have been offered or applied. \n- Whether any XXXX XXXX or pandemic-era protections were available but not implemented. \n- Whether interest, fees, and charges continued to accrue in a manner inconsistent with available relief programs. \n- Whether the XXXX modification was later used improperly to deny or limit my eligibility for future loan modifications. \n\nIf errors occurred during this period, I request that the account be corrected and any improperly assessed amounts be removed. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the XX/XX/XXXX Through XX/XX/XXXX Loss Mitigation Process I request an investigation into the loan modification process initiated after the XX/XX/XXXX \" Servicer Day '' communication. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Why communications were directed to my attorney rather than to me. \n- Why the XX/XX/XXXX modification notice was not received until XX/XX/XXXX, after the first payment due date had already passed. \n- Whether proper notice requirements were satisfied. \n- Whether the servicer provided a reasonable opportunity to accept and perform under the modification. \n- Why the account allegedly could not accept payments when I repeatedly attempted to make them between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n- Whether the modification was improperly terminated despite my documented attempts to perform. \n\nIf it is determined that the modification was improperly denied, improperly closed, or otherwise mishandled, I request that the servicer be required to restore the modification review process and correct any resulting damage to the account. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of XXXX XXXX XXXX Charges and Missing Coverage I request a complete investigation into the collection and disbursement of hazard insurance escrow funds. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Whether hazard insurance actually existed on the property between XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. \n- What policies, if any, were in force during that period. \n- Who received the escrow disbursements collected for hazard insurance. \n- Whether premiums were paid. \n- Whether any policies were canceled, expired, or never procured. \n- Whether escrow funds were improperly collected or disbursed. \n\nIf it is determined that hazard insurance did not exist during periods in which escrow funds were collected for that purpose, I request a complete accounting and reimbursement of all improperly charged amounts, together with any corresponding interest, fees, and charges that were assessed as a result. \n\nXXXX. Investigation of the Reported Loan Balance and Foreclosure Judgment Amount I request an investigation into the substantial discrepancy between the amounts reported by the servicer over the years and the balance recently provided by the current servicer. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - Why balances exceeding approximately {$570000.00} were repeatedly represented as owed. \n- How the current transferred balance due in full is reported as approximately {$290000.00}.\n\n- Whether errors exist in the foreclosure judgment calculations.\n\n- Whether escrow advances, fees, costs, or other charges were improperly assessed.\n\n- Whether inaccurate payoff information prevented me from pursuing available refinancing, settlement, reinstatement, or repayment options. \n\nIf errors are identified, I request that all records be corrected and that any foreclosure judgment obtained using inaccurate figures be reviewed and adjusted accordingly. \n\nXXXX Review of Potential XXXX XXXX Violations I request an investigation into whether the servicer and foreclosure counsel violated federal mortgage servicing regulations by continuing foreclosure activity while loss mitigation activity remained pending. \n\nSpecifically, I request a determination regarding : - The active workout package reflected in the customer portal. \n- The recent appraisal activity associated with loss mitigation review. \n- Prior correspondence confirming that the application had been accepted for review. \n- The decision to continue foreclosure activity despite ongoing review activity. \n\nIf violations are identified, I request that all foreclosure activity be halted until the loss mitigation process is fully completed and any resulting servicing errors are corrected. \n\nXXXX Review of Disaster-Related Assistance Eligibility I request a determination as to whether the catastrophic XX/XX/XXXX sewer and plumbing event qualified me for any disaster-related mortgage relief, forbearance, loss mitigation protections, or other homeowner assistance programs. \n\nIf such protections were available and were not offered or applied, I request that the servicer be required to review and correct the account accordingly. \n\nXXXX. Preservation of Records Finally, I request that all servicing records, call recordings, account notes, payment histories, loss mitigation records, escrow records, insurance records, foreclosure records, correspondence logs, servicing transfer records, appraisal records, and internal communications relating to this loan be preserved pending investigation. \n\nGiven the number of servicing transfers, disputed balances, and unresolved issues identified above, preservation of these records is necessary to ensure a complete and accurate review.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-06-17T15:14:16.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"11793","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"23298662","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","date_received":"2026-06-17T14:53:34.000Z","state":"NY","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Loan sold or transferred to another company"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX Review of Disaster-<em>Related</em> Assistance Eligibility I request a determination as to whether the catastrophic XX/XX/XXXX sewer and plumbing event qualified me for any disaster-<em>related</em> mortgage relief, forbearance, loss mitigation protections, or other homeowner assistance programs. \n\nIf such protections <em>were</em> available and <em>were</em> not offered or applied, I request that the servicer be required to review and correct the account accordingly. \n\nXXXX."]},"sort":[9.9440155,"23298662"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14925346","_score":9.677197,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"TO : Discover Financial Services Executive Office of Customer Advocacy XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, DE XXXX AND XXXX XXXX Attn : Legal and Compliance Department XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, PA XXXX -- - RE : Joint Notice of Conditional Acceptance and Demand for Full Disclosure of Reporting, Registration, and Securities Activity Related to Discover Account Ending in XXXX REFERENCE : CFPB Case No. XXXX -- - To Whom It May Concern : This communication serves as a joint Notice of Conditional Acceptance addressed to both Discover Financial Services and XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX credit reporting, data monetization, and possible securities-related use of the Discover account ending in XXXX. While each party has responded or participated in the CFPB proceedings referenced above, I hereby conditionally accept all claims, reporting actions, and adverse determinations made by either party, only upon full disclosure and verified documentation as demanded below.\n\nThis Notice is issued under the authority of : The Securities Act of 1933, The Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ), The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ), The Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), UCC 1-308, and General principles of fiduciary and statutory duty, with the intent of preserving all rights, claims, and defenses available at law and equity.\n\n-- - I. DEMAND FOR VERIFIED DISCLOSURE OF REGISTRATION, REPORTING & SECURITIZATION You are hereby required to provide a certified, sworn, or legally binding response to the following material questions regarding the Discover account ending in XXXX and its treatment by both parties : 1. SEC Registration Has the above-referenced credit account, or any receivable, obligation, or data entry derived from it, been registered as a security with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933? If so, provide full registration numbers, prospectus documents, and the name ( s ) of any underlying asset-backed securities, CUSIPs, or entities involved.\n\n2. Securitization or Asset Pooling Has this account, or any receivable associated with it, been pooled, securitized, hypothecated, pledged, or monetized through derivatives, credit facilities, trust structures, investor portfolios, or any financial instrumentdirectly or indirectly?\n\n3. Investor Use and Derivative Instruments Has this account been used in any capacity within : Collateralized debt obligations ( CDOs ), Structured investment vehicles ( SIVs ), Credit default swaps ( CDS ), or Private equity-backed debt trading platforms? \n\n\n\n4. Reporting for Commercial Gain Has XXXX XXXXXXXX received any financial consideration, licensing fees, or indirect profit related to : The use of my account data in risk models or scoring systems, The resale or syndication of credit data to lenders, data aggregators, or XXXX platforms? \n\n\n\n5. Proof of Legal Authority Provide all documents showing that either Discover or TransUnion has been lawfully authorized by signed, bilateral contract to report, trade, or distribute my private financial information. If such consent does not exist, explain the statutory authority under which these actions were performed. \n\n\nXXXX. Factual Basis for Adverse Action Explain, with specificity, how a credit limit denial by Discover, citing INSUFFICIENT EXPERIENCE WITH CURRENT CREDIT LIMIT, was made in good faith, free of discrimination, and whether it concealed any underlying commercial activitysuch as investor monetization of the accountby suppressing my eligibility for higher credit tiers.\n\n-- - II. DEMAND FOR RELIEF In light of the disclosures requested above, I hereby demand the following actions be taken : 1. Immediate correction and removal of all adverse or inaccurate data reported to TransUnion and any other reporting agency ; 2. Conversion of the account to an unrestricted, revolving open credit line with no arbitrary limitations ; 3. Equitable restitution and compensation for any profits, interest, investment returns, or gains derived from the commercial use or securitization of this account ; 4. Delivery of all records reflecting reporting activity, third-party transmission, securitization entries, or financial valuation related to the above account.\n\n-- - III. DEADLINE & NOTICE OF LIABILITY You are hereby given fifteen ( 15 ) calendar days from the date of receipt of this Notice to provide the requested information in full.\n\nFailure to respond timely and in good faith shall be deemed : A tacit admission that the Discover account has been monetized, securitized, or reported without lawful authority or disclosure ; A waiver of all defenses to claims arising under the Securities Act of 1933, TILA, FCRA, and related laws ; Grounds for the initiation of legal proceedings, civil complaints, and demands for monetary compensation not less than {$150000.00}, plus punitive damages and regulatory referral.\n\n-- - IV. PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS This correspondence is issued without prejudice, and with full reservation of rights under : UCC 1-308, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 ( b ) ( 1 ) - ( 6 ), All statutory, constitutional, and equitable protections afforded to me as the rightful holder and authorized agent of the referenced account.\n\nThis Notice is also being entered into the record of the active CFPB case, and may be submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and U.S. Department of Justice, as warranted.\n\nCopies of this Notice have been sent on this date to : Discover Financial Services XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and Compliance Department Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-28T19:35:11.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"37128","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14925346","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2025-07-28T19:16:25.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with personal statement of dispute"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Reporting for Commercial Gain Has XXXX XXXXXXXX received any financial consideration, licensing fees, or indirect profit <em>related</em> to : The use of my account data in <em>risk</em> models or scoring systems, The resale or syndication of credit data to lenders, data aggregators, or XXXX platforms? \n\n\n\n5."]},"sort":[9.677197,"14925346"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"22658961","_score":9.604483,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"As a long-time Wells Fargo credit card customer, I unexpectedly found myself facing serious financial complications over the past three months. \nIn early XX/XX/year>, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), a registered business in New York, approached me regarding a XXXX XXXX XXXX position. As part of a two-week trial period, I was instructed to purchase products using my personal Wells Fargo credit card. XXXX XXXX assured me that they would reimburse all purchases through their XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX account. They also stated that if reimbursement was not received, I could simply return the products before shipment, meaning I would not be exposed to financial risk. \nFollowing these instructions, I used my Wells Fargo credit card to make the purchases. XXXX XXXX successfully reimbursed the charges through their XXXX  XXXX XXXX account during the trial period. Since Wells Fargo approved and processed all transactions without any warning or fraud alerts, I continued the purchasing activities until the trial period ended. \nHowever, in late XX/XX/year>, Wells Fargo suddenly suspended my credit card and closed my account, even though all related balances had already been paid by XXXX XXXX. This unexpected action left me confused regarding both the account status and the legitimacy of the transactions. \nShortly afterward, I checked my Wells Fargo mobile app and discovered that my closed credit card account suddenly showed a large outstanding balance. I immediately visited a local Wells Fargo branch and reported the matter as fraud. Wells Fargo representatives opened a fraud investigation case ( Case ID : XXXX ) and informed me that they would contact me within two weeks. \nIn XX/XX/year>, I began receiving phone calls from Wells Fargo representatives regarding the investigation. Initially, Wells Fargo claimed that I was not authorized to receive funds from the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account used for reimbursement. In response, I provided them with the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account statement showing that I had authorization, which likely explains why all reimbursement transactions were successfully processed during XXXX and XXXX. \nLater, Wells Fargo changed its position and stated that the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account did not exist. Concerned by this contradiction, I visited a local XXXX  XXXX XXXX branch and presented the XXXX XXXX bank statement. A XXXX  XXXX XXXX associate informed me that the account had been inactive for a long period and advised me to file a police report. I subsequently filed a police report and also submitted a complaint to the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center ( IC3 Complaint ID : XXXX ). \nI then contacted Wells Fargo representative XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ext. XXXX ) and shared the findings provided by XXXX  XXXX XXXX. \nOn XX/XX/year>, after Wells Fargo refused to restore my credit card account to its previous XXXX balance status, I filed a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX ). \nThe following day, XX/XX/year>, a Wells Fargo representative, XXXX XXXX, contacted me and stated that the matter would be reviewed and that I would receive a response within 10 business days. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX informed me that Wells Fargo had determined this was not a fraud case and that no fraud had occurred on Wells Fargos side. \nThis conclusion is deeply troubling and difficult to understand. \nWhen I originally reported that a large outstanding balance had suddenly appeared on my already closed credit card account, Wells Fargo itself classified the matter as a fraud investigation. According to Wells Fargo representatives, the reimbursement funds from the XXXX XXXX XXXX savings account could not be collected, so Wells Fargo reversed those payments and reapplied the balances to my closed credit card account without my authorization or prior notice. \nIn addition, Wells Fargo added late fees and penalties to the closed account. \nOn XX/XX/year>, I responded to Wells Fargo with three key facts : My credit card account had been closed with a XXXX balance. \nNo additional transactions were made by me after the account closure. \nWells Fargo shifted the financial burden back onto a former cardholder despite the account already being closed. \nBased on these events, I believe Wells Fargos credit card processing and dispute-handling procedures contain serious flaws, or that the system was handled in a way that unfairly victimized a former credit card customer.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-05-28T15:33:31.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"77459","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"22658961","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-05-28T15:17:02.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["In response, I provided them with the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account statement showing that I had authorization, which likely explains why all reimbursement transactions <em>were</em> successfully processed during XXXX and XXXX. \nLater, Wells Fargo changed its position and stated that the XXXX  XXXX XXXX account did not <em>exist</em>. Concerned by this contradiction, I visited a local XXXX  XXXX XXXX branch and presented the XXXX XXXX bank statement."]},"sort":[9.604483,"22658961"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5468870","_score":9.39554,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"In XX/XX/XXXX, I was the victim of fraud committed via a phishing attack. A bad actor impersonating my boss emailed me and then texted me, directing me to purchase items ( gift cards ) for what were purportedly business-related expenses, with the promise that I would be reimbursed for these charges. I purchased these gift cards using my Bank of American ATM card ( approximately {$4900.00} ) and my Bank of America credit card ( approximately {$7900.00} ). At the bad actor 's request, I provided the gift card numbers to the bad actor, who used the gift cards for his/her own purpose. I received no benefit from the gift cards, and was not reimbursed for them. Nor were these transactions \" authorized '' because they benefited a stranger ( not my employer/boss ) and I was not reimbursed for them as I expected. During the course of this conduct, I also provided the individual who I thought was my boss with my bank account number and routing number so I could be reimbursed for these charges ; the bad actor requested and used this information to help perpetrate the fraud. As soon as a I realized what had occurred, I called Bank of America and explained what occurred ; the Bank of America representative said these charges were \" fraudulent '', placed a hold on my accounts, and told me to got to a branch office the next day- which I did. I also reported these occurrences to the police department ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ) ; the officer referred to this occurrence as a \" fraud. '' When I went to the Bank of America branch in XXXX XXXX, Washington DC, I was directed to a Bank of America employee named XXXX XXXX. I described what happened and how the charges were placed on my debit and credit card and my bank account number/routing number had been provided to the bad actor ; XXXX XXXX said these charges were \" fraudulent '' and that I would not be liable for them. We also discussed closing my existing bank account since the numbers had been compromised and opening a new bank account. XXXX XXXX agreed this was the correct approach and said that I would \" probably not '' be charged for checks to open the new account/that I would be reimbursed for these checks because I was a \" fraud victim. '' ( In fact, I was charged {$40.00} for these checks and not reimbursed ). \nApproximately 10 days later, I received a letter from Bank of America saying that I was liable for these charges. When I called the number Bank of America provided on the letter, she said I was liable because I was the victim of a \" scam '' not a fraud. She did not dispute any of the facts as I described them to her and as they are set forth above. Nor did she explain how these charges were \" authorized. '' This \" scam '' versus \" fraud '' argument is legally irrelevant and is not a real distinction. First, Bank of America 's customer/banking agreement that I signed and its own website say that customers are not liable for fraudulent charges/fraud. They do not distinguish \" XXXX '' from \" scams '' or say that customers are not protected in the event of a \" scam. '' Bank of America drafted these materials and if they wanted to distinguish the concept of fraud from the concept of a scam, and the protections afforded to clients who were the victim of each, Bank of America could have done so- but it did not. Second, the events that occurred were referred to as \" Fraud '' or \" Fraudulent '' by Bank of America 's own personnel ( XXXX XXXX ) and by the police officer who completed the police report. Moreover, the definition/concept of \" fraud '' and \" scam '' are interchangeable : XXXX 's Online dictionary defines \" scam '' as a \" fraudulent act '' and says that \" scam '' is a synonym of \" fraud. '' Finally, under the CFPB 's interpretation of Regulation XXXX, this is an unauthorized transaction, for which a consumer is not liable : Comment, 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) -3 and 1005.2 ( m ) -4 : \" Access device obtained through robbery or fraud. An unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud. '' Bank of America has not given me an opportunity to appeal it decision that I was liable for these charges. Rather, it has engaged in dilatory tactics where it sends me letters saying the documents that formed the basis for its decision are attached - but they are not actually attached - and that I can request copies of these documents. I have made numerous requests to Bank of America, both by phone and in writing, for the documents it used to reach its decision that I was liable for these charges. The first two times I made this request by phone, and the Bank of America representative said there were documents that it used to make its decision and that they would provide those documents to me. I told them that I needed those documents so I could appeal its purported decision that I was liable for these fraudulent charges. However, Bank of America never sent these documents, so in XX/XX/XXXX I made a written request for these documents. When I finally spoke to a Bank of America representative in XX/XX/XXXX, she told me that my dispute was closed. I told her her that I had been waiting for the documents that Bank of America used to resolve my dispute to submit my appeal and that it was wrong to close my case when I was still waiting for the documents that Bank of America promised. She then transferred me to a supervisor, who said there were documents but that I need a subpoena to get them ; I pointed out that prior letters that Bank of America sent me said I could request those documents and that Bank of America representatives said I was entitled to these documents. The manager told me that was incorrect. After submitting another written request to Bank of America requesting these documents and attempting to appeal the decision, I called Bank of America again in XX/XX/XXXX. When I requested the documents that Bank of America used to make its decision, as referenced in the letters from Bank of America, I was initially told that no documents exist. I then asked how Bank of America made the decision to deny my claim/dispute without any documents, at which point she said that documents were used but that I can't have them, but she would not confirm this in writing. \nIt appears that Bank of America never investigated what occurred, never intended to consider my appeal/dispute, never gave me a chance to present my case, and made the dispute process as Kafka-esque as possible in an attempt to obfuscate, delay, and ultimately wear me down into accepting its decision which was contrary to numerous representations made to me. Bank of America 's letters regarding the fraudulent charges on my credit card are similarly flawed ; for example, one of these letters refers to a disputed \" transaction '' with a merchant even though there were multiple transactions with three separate merchants. \nBank of America has also refused to close my bank account that was compromised by the fraudulent actor, even though I directed that account closed at the meeting with XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( nd she agreed to do so ) and in numerous subsequent written communications. Rather, Bank of America unilaterally reversed my instructions to close the account and refused to reconsider. Keeping this account open exposes me to further risk of fraud, and also increases the risk that one of my bank accounts may be overdrawn and increases Bank of America 's banking fees/revenues and reportable open accounts. \nBy initially telling me that I was not liable for these charges but then paying the chares to the merchant without prior notice, Bank of America foreclosed me from meaningfully challenging these transactions with the merchants or taking other remedial measures. \nIt should be noted that I also incurred charges as a result of this fraud on an ATM card and a credit card issued by other financial institutions, both of which covered/did not hold my liable for these charges.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-04-20T04:05:22.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"20814","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5468870","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2022-04-20T02:45:47.000Z","state":"MD","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Problem using a debit or ATM card"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Nor did she explain how these charges <em>were</em> \" authorized. '' This \" scam '' versus \" fraud '' argument is legally irrelevant and is not a real distinction. First, Bank of America 's <em>customer</em>/banking agreement that I signed and its own website say that <em>customers</em> are not liable for fraudulent charges/fraud."]},"sort":[9.39554,"5468870"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7231909","_score":9.091185,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"To try and HELP BANK OF AMERICA LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE DEPT UNDERSTAND CONSUMER RIGHTS- to help them STOP FARTHER INCRIMINATING THEMSELVES IVE LISTED JUST A FEW THAT DIRECTLY APPLY TO BANKS AND OR COVERED BANKS.\n\nCFPB I DEMAND BANK OF AMERICA BEGIN RE READING ALL PORTAL REQUEST PER FEDERAL LAWS- AND BEGIN TO ALLOW THE CFPB & Me as the CFPB STATED MONTHS AGO- ( FEDERALLY REQUIRED ACCEPTABLE ANSWERS. ) I allege BANK OF AMERICA CAN NOT BE SO IGNORANT TO NOT UNDERSTAND THE POSITION THEY PUT THEMSELVES IN BY TO MANY NON FRIVOLOUS CHARGES TO STATE HERE. \n\nTAKING THE 5th by using the ( this appears to be a duplicate- will has TURNED ON WHOMEVER KEEPS DEFYING THE CFPB AND BANKING LAWS FOR EXPLICITLY WRITTEN LEGIBLE UNDERSTANDING FEDERALLY REQUIRED ANSWERS NOW OR IN COURT DEMANDS PER INTERROGATIONAL MOTIONS AND DEPOSITIONS. \n\nAgain as from THE CFPB 1st approach STOP LOOK AND HEAR AND READ. \n\nIN THIS POTAL ALONE, I allege by common sense by the forced admissions, the 2 letter I received from Bank of America and compliance officer XXXX XXXX, ( See downloaded messages- read all carefully as XXXX XXXX claimed ( after CAREFUL REVIEW ) read dates, admission & omissions- in the generalized way BOA compliance had boxed themselves in, per their own illegal admitted per se, by the we are NOT DENYING mishandling XXXX XXXX & HIS GOV BENEFITS MONEY AND ACCOUNTS. \nYet refuse by all but taking the 5th on apox XXXX - request for federal lawful required answers in expected by many federal laws, pertaining to any account more-so in my case- my federal protected direct deposit gov Benifits accounts. \nI need not Tell them how. \nThey need to explicitly explain the mishandling by federal laws- in total honesty as the mishandling began- only hours after a BOA manager XXXX EXILED ) XXXX XXXX tried to help a bank consumer be allowed a ( sworn statement contractual recorded fraud investigation on XX/XX/XXXX. IT TOOK HOURS FOR XXXX XXXX ( using my evidence ) to set all in contractual formate. Yet only a hour FOR BOA COMPLIANCE TO INSTANTANEOUSLY- 1- illegally freeze ( per ( EXILED NOW ) BOA manager ALL XXXX XXXX MONEY ACCESS TO EVEN BLACKED OUT XXXX XXXX ABILITY TO VIEW HIS ONLINE ACCOUNTS- ( ALL WENT BLACK ) THEN- It took ( my evidence ) it took me proving to the CFPB, upon the CFPB, 1st inquiry with BOA COMPLIANCE- to prove BOA COMPLIANCE WAS NOT JUST ACCIDENTALLY FORGETTING, THEY KNEW ME ALL TO WELL- THE BOA COMPLIANCE FLAT OUT LIED, in a 2nd attempt to subvert administration of justice. /THE 1st being the all but ADMITTED, serious UNWARRANTED threatening LETTER TO XXXX XXXX XXXX using the us postal services, IN CONTEMPORARIES ORDER- ( OF ALL THE WAYS THEY MAY illegally, Totally knowingly unwarrantably - take THESE ACTIONS- 1- DESTROY XXXX XXXX REPUTATION, then, also KNOWINGLY WRONGFULLY, turning him into the SOME EARLY WARNING SYSTEM- explaining to XXXX  XXXX this would STOP HIM FROM BEING ABLE TO EVEN OPEN A CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR 5 YEARS, ANYWHERE AT ANY BANK. \nTHEY WENT FARTHER, STATING THEY ALSO Could & MAY turn him into XXXX XXXX. This letter sent in haste to wrongfully intimidate, to defraud, to cause XXXX  XXXX to fear INFORMING PROPER AGENCIES OF PURE ABUSE IN POWER. \n\nThis threat was RECIEVED in us mail XX/XX/XXXX XXXX only 1-1/2 DAYS INTO THE INTENTIONAL Mis handling of XXXX XXXX XXXX protected gov Benifits accounts. \n\nIT TOOK MY EVIDENCES TO THE CFPB TO ALLOW THE TO REPROACH THE BOA COMPLIANCE DEPT- and all but say- WE READ THE EXPLICITLY WRITTEN DETAILED CERTIFIED LETTER BOA COMPLIANCE- just RECENTLY RECIEVED, from XXXX XXXX so start EXPLAINING- THEN BOXED IN YET \" more than obviously aware '' yet BOA HAD TO PRETEXT OUT SOMETHING PER LIES. \n\nSO, read the intentional generalized, LETTER XXXX XXXX WAS FORCED, TO WRITE \" SOMETHING ANY THING. in XXXX ADMITTING \" we are not denying lying \" i guess we got busted so we write AFTER CAREFUL REVIEWING. WE MIS HANDLED IT ALL. \nyea XXXX XXXX. \n\nIT THEN TOOK UNTIL XX/XX/XXXX & XXXX XXXX TO ALLOW XXXX  XXXX TO KNOW- they indeed NEVER TOOK THE FRAUDULENT THREATENING ACTIONS TO FARTHER DESTROY HIS FINACIALLY LIFE AND CREDIT- \" they just did it anyway HOW? BY WHAT THEY CALL THE \" MISHANDLING '' of XXXX  XXXX 's MONEY ACCOUNTS AND XXXX XXXX AND FAMILY BY STARVING THEM OUT- almost 2 full months by additional illegally abuse in power im to many ways to explain in legal terms here. \nAS its WILL all BE IN THE EXPLICITLY EXPLAINED LEGAL SUIT- unless BANK OF AMERICA FINALLY DECIDES ( HELPING XXXX- XXXX GET THEIR WAY- WAS ILLEGAL AND BY XXXX XXXX & more-so CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE- per exact date 's, documents- BOA MANAGER XXXX XXXX STATEMENTS- Actions & inactions there of- SAYING AGAIN, DOING AGAIN, more than have time to explain A RECORDING WILL DO FINE. \n\n\n\n\nMaterially interfering with consumers understanding of terms and conditions The first abusiveness prohibition concerns situations where an entity16 materially interferes with the ability of a consumer to understand a term or condition of a consumer financial product or service.17 Material interference can be shown when an act or omission is intended to impede consumers ability to understand terms or conditions, has the natural consequence of impeding consumers ability to understand, or actually impedes understanding. \nActs or omissions Material interference may include actions or omissions that obscure, withhold, de-emphasize, render confusing, or hide information relevant to the ability of a consumer to understand terms and conditions. Interference can take numerous forms, such as buried disclosures, physical or digital interference, overshadowing, and various other means of manipulating consumers understanding. \nBuried disclosures include disclosures that limit peoples comprehension of a term or condition, including but not limited to, through the use of fine print, complex language, jargon, or the timing of the disclosure.18 Entities can also interfere with understanding by omitting material terms or conditions.19 Physical interference can include any physical conduct that impedes a persons ability to see, hear, or understand the terms and conditions, including but not limited to physically hiding or withholding notices.20 Digital interference can include impediments to a persons ability to see, hear, or understand the terms and conditions when they are presented to someone in electronic or virtual format. This form of interference includes but is not limited to user interface and user experience manipulations such as the use of pop-up or drop-down boxes, multiple click-throughs, or other actions or dark patterns21 that have the effect of making the terms and conditions materially less accessible or salient. \nOvershadowing includes the prominent placement of certain content that interferes with the comprehension of other content, including terms and conditions.22 Material interference There are a number of methods to prove material interference with a consumers ability to understand terms or conditions, including but not limited to those described below. First, while intent is not a required element to show material interference, it is reasonable to infer that an act or omission materially interferes with consumers ability to understand a term or condition when the entity intends it to interfere.23 Second, material interference can be established with evidence that the natural consequence of the act or omission would be to impede consumers ability to understand. And third, material interference can also be shown with evidence that the act or omission did in fact impede consumers actual understanding. While evidence of intent would provide a basis for inferring material interference under the first method, it is not a required element to show material interference. \nCertain terms of a transaction are so consequential that when they are not conveyed to people prominently or clearly, it may be reasonable to presume that the entity engaged in acts or omissions that materially interfere with consumers ability to understand. That information includes, but is not limited to, pricing or costs, limitations on the persons ability to use or benefit from the product or service, and contractually specified consequences of default. \nAdditionally, an entitys provision of a product or service may interfere with consumers ability to understand if the product or service is so complicated that material information about it can not be sufficiently explained or if the entitys business model functions in a manner that is inconsistent with its products or services apparent terms. \nTaking unreasonable advantage The second form of abusiveness under the CFPA prohibits entities from taking unreasonable advantage of certain circumstances.24 Congress determined that it is an abusive act or practice when an entity takes unreasonable advantage of three particular circumstances.25 The circumstances are : 1. A lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service.26 This circumstance concerns gaps in understanding affecting consumer decision-making.\n\n2. The inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.27 This circumstance concerns unequal bargaining power where, for example, consumers lack the practical ability to switch providers, seek more favorable terms, or make other decisions to protect their interests.\n\n3. The reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer.28 This circumstance concerns consumer reliance on an entity, including when consumers reasonably rely on an entity to make a decision for them or advise them on how to make a decision. \nUnder the CFPA, it is illegal for an entity to take unreasonable advantage of one of these three circumstances, even if the condition was not created by the entity.29 The ordinary meaning of the phrase take advantage of is generally to make use of for ones own benefit.30 An advantage can include a variety of monetary and non-monetary benefits to the entity or its affiliates or partners, including but not limited to increased market share, revenue, cost savings, profits,31 reputational benefits, and other operational benefits to the entity. \nThe CFPA prohibits taking unreasonable advantage of the specified statutory circumstances. The term reasonable means [ f ] air, proper, or moderate under the circumstances,32 and conversely, unreasonable means exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation.33 In crafting the abusiveness prohibition, Congress identified categories of practices that distort the market and ultimately harm consumers. Therefore, unlike unfairness, government enforcers do not need to independently prove that an act or practice caused substantial injury in order to establish liability under the abusiveness prohibition.34 Evaluating unreasonable advantage involves an evaluation of the facts and circumstances that may affect the nature of the advantage and the question of whether the advantage-taking was unreasonable under the circumstances.35 Such an evaluation does not require an inquiry into whether advantage-taking is typical or not.36 And even a relatively small advantage may be abusive if it is unreasonable. There are also a number of analytical methods, including but not limited to those described below, that can be used to evaluate unreasonable advantage-taking. \nFirst, when Congress formulated the CFPA, one of its main concerns was financial products and services that may be set up to fail. Before the XXXX financial crisis, mortgage lenders were willing to make loans on terms that people could not afford in part due to the ability to off-load default risk into the secondary market. This led to significant harm to the household sector, which was ultimately transmitted to the broader financial system. \nThe CFPAs legislative history explains that, had the CFPB existed, the CFPB would have been able to see and take action against the proliferation of poorly underwritten mortgages with abusive terms.37 Partly in response to the financial crisis, Congress prohibited certain abusive business models and other acts or practices thatcontrary to many consumer finance relationships where the company benefits from consumer successmisalign incentives and generate benefit for a company when people are harmed.38 In many circumstances, it is unreasonable for an entity to benefit from, or be indifferent to, negative consumer outcomes resulting from one of the circumstances identified by Congress. \nSecond, the CFPAs legislative history emphasized that, as a result of CFPB oversight, a consumer can shop and compare products based on quality, price, and convenience without having to worry about getting trapped by fine print into an abusive deal.39 Unreasonable advantage-taking includes using the statutory circumstances to acquire particular leverage over people or deprive consumers of legal rights.40 Relatedly, advantage-taking may be unreasonable when an entity caused one of the circumstances described in CFPA section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) .41 One may also assess whether entities are obtaining an unreasonable advantage by considering whether they are reaping more benefits as a consequence of the statutorily identified circumstances, or whether the benefit to the entity would have existed if the circumstance did not exist.42 In other words, entities should not get a windfall due to a gap in understanding, unequal bargaining power, or consumer reliance. Having said that, section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) does not require an investigative accounting of costs and benefits or other form of quantification to make a finding. Instead, one may rely on qualitative assessment to determine whether an entity takes an unreasonable advantage.\n\nLack of Understanding The first circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the material risks, costs, or conditions of the product or service.43 When there are gaps in understanding regarding the material risks, costs, or conditions of the entitys product or service, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of that gap. Such gaps could include those between an entity and a consumer. Certain types of gaps in understanding can create circumstances where transactions are exploitative.\n\nGaps in understanding as to risks encompass a wide range of potential consumer harms. Risks include but are not limited to the consequences or likelihood of default44 and the loss of future benefits.45 Gaps in understanding related to costs include any monetary charge to a person as well as non-monetary costs such as lost time, loss of use, or reputational harm.46 And gaps in understanding with respect to conditions include any circumstance, context, or attribute of a product or service, whether express or implicit.47 For example, conditions could include the length of time it would take a person to realize the benefits of a financial product or service,48 the relationship between the entity and the consumers creditors,49 the fact a debt is not legally enforceable,50 or the processes that determine when fees will be assessed.51 While acts or omissions by an entity can be relevant in determining whether people lack understanding,52 the prohibition in section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) does not require that the entity caused the persons lack of understanding through untruthful statements or other actions or omissions.53 Under the text of section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ), the consumers lack of understanding, regardless of how it arose, is sufficient. If people lack understanding, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of that lack of understanding. The lack of understanding can be caused by third parties and can exist even when there is no contractual relationship between the person and the entity that takes unreasonable advantage of the persons lack of understanding.54 The statutory text of the prohibition does not require that the consumers lack of understanding was reasonable to demonstrate abusive conduct.55 Similarly, the prohibition does not require proof that some threshold number of people lacked understanding to establish that an act or practice was abusive.\n\nA person may lack understanding of risks, costs, or conditions, even if they have an awareness that it is in the realm of possibility that a particular negative consequence may follow or a particular cost may be incurred as a result of using the product or service.56 But consumers generally do not expect companies to benefit from or be indifferent to certain negative consequences, including but not limited to default. Moreover, consumers may not understand that a risk is very likely to happen or thatthough relatively rarethe impact of a particular risk would be severe.57 The inquiry under section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) is whether some consumers in question have a lack of understanding, not all consumers or even most consumers. Since there can be differences among consumers in the risks, costs, and conditions they face and in their understanding of them, there may be a violation with respect to some consumers even if other consumers do not lack understanding.\n\nLastly, one can demonstrate a persons lack of understanding in a number of ways. For example, direct evidence of lack of understanding, including but not limited to complaints and consumer testimony, can suffice. Evidence or analysis showing that reasonable consumers were not likely to understand can likewise be used to establish lack of understanding. One can also demonstrate lack of understanding by considering course of conduct and likely consequences. For example, if a transaction would entail material risks or costs and people would likely derive minimal or no benefit from the transaction, it is generally reasonable to infer that people who nonetheless went ahead with the transaction did not understand those material risks or costs.58 Inability of Consumers to Protect their Interests The second circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns the inability of the consumer to protect the interests of the consumer in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.59 When people are unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service, they can lack autonomy. In these situations, there is a risk that entities will take unreasonable advantage of the unequal bargaining power.60 Thus, Congress has outlawed taking unreasonable advantage of circumstances where people lack sufficient bargaining power to protect their interests. Such circumstances may occur at the time of, or prior to, the person selecting the product or service, during their use of the product or service, or both.\n\nThe consumer interests contemplated in section 1031 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( B ) include monetary and non-monetary interests, including but not limited to property, privacy, or reputational interests.61 People also have interests in limiting the amount of time or effort necessary to obtain consumer financial products or services or remedy problems related to those products or services. This includes, but is not limited to, the time spent trying to obtain customer support assistance.62 A consumers inability to protect their interests includes situations when it is impractical for them to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service.63 For example, when the steps a person would need to take to protect their interests are unknown to the person64 or are especially onerous,65 they are likely unable to protect their interest. Furthermore, people who do not have monetary means may be unable to protect their interests if the only practical method for doing so requires payment of money.66 Of course, merely serving people without monetary means is not abusive. However, it may be abusive to take unreasonable advantage of a persons lack of monetary means to protect their interests.67 The nature of the customer relationship may also render consumers unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service. People are often unable to protect their interests when they do not elect to enter into a relationship with an entity and can not elect to instead enter into a relationship with a competitor. These consumer relationships, including but not limited to those with credit reporting companies, debt collectors, and third-party loan servicers, are generally structured such that people can not exercise meaningful choice in the selection or use of any particular entity as a provider. In these circumstances, people can not protect their interests by choosing an alternative provider either upfront ( i.e., they have no ability to select the provider to begin with ) or during the course of the customer relationship ( i.e., they have no competitive recourse if they encounter difficulty with the entity while using the product or service ). Obviously, such relationships are not per se abusive ; however, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of the absence of choice in these types of relationships.68 In addition, entities may not take unreasonable advantage of the fact that they are the only source for important information or services.69 Consumers may also lack power to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service when entities use form contracts, where contractual provisions are not subject to a consumer choice.70 Similarly, where the person is unable to bargain over a clause because it is non-negotiable, they may be deprived of the ability to protect their interests.71 Consumers are often unable to protect their interests in selecting or using a consumer financial product or service where companies have outsized market power. When an entitys market share, the concentration in a market more broadly, or the market structure prevents people from protecting their interests by choosing an entity that offers competitive pricing, entities may not use their market power to their unreasonable advantage.72 In addition, people are often unable to protect their interests in using a product or service if they face high transaction costs to exit the relationship. For example, the time, effort, cost, or risks associated with extricating oneself from a relationship with entities may effectively lock people into the relationship.\n\nReasonable Reliance The third circumstance, of which entities can not take unreasonable advantage, as defined in the CFPA, concerns the reasonable reliance by the consumer on a covered person to act in the interests of the consumer.73 This basis for finding abusiveness recognizes that sometimes people are in a position in which they have a reasonable expectation that an entity will act in their interest to make decisions for them, or to advise them on how to make a decision. Where people reasonably expect that a covered entity will make decisions or provide advice in the persons interest, there is potential for betrayal or exploitation of the persons trust. Therefore, Congress prohibited taking unreasonable advantage of reasonable consumer reliance. There are a number of ways to establish reasonable reliance, including but not limited to the two described below.\n\nFirst, reasonable reliance may exist where an entity communicates to a person or the public that it will act in its customers best interest, or otherwise holds itself out as acting in the persons best interest. Where an entity communicates to people that it will act in their best interest, or otherwise holds itself out as doing so, including through statements, advertising, or any other means, it is generally reasonable for people to rely on the entitys explicit or implicit representations to that effect.74 People reasonably assume entities are telling the truth. The entity in these situations creates an expectation of trust and the conditions for people to rely on the entity to act in their best interest.\n\nSecond, reasonable reliance may also exist where an entity assumes the role of acting on behalf of consumers or helping them to select providers in the market. In certain circumstances entities assume the role of acting on behalf of people as their agents or representatives, and people should be able to rely on those entities to act on their behalf. In other circumstances entities often act as intermediaries to help people navigate marketplaces for consumer financial products or services.75 In these situations, the entity, acting as an intermediary, can function as a broker or other trusted source that the person uses in selecting, negotiating for, or otherwise facilitating the procurement of consumer financial products or services provided by third parties. Where the entitys role in the marketplace is to perform these kinds of intermediary functions, people should be able to rely on the entity to do so in a manner that is free of manipulation.76 In both circumstances, entities that engage in certain forms of steering or self-dealing may be taking unreasonable advantage of the consumers reasonable reliance.77 Footnotes 1. CFPA section 1036 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ), 12 U.S.C.5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ). In CFPA section 1031, Congress prohibited covered persons and services providers from committing or engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with the offering or provision of\nconsumer financial products or services. CFPA section 1031 ( d ) sets forth the general standard for determining whether an act or practice is abusive. See 12 U.S.C. 5531 ( d ). \n2. See, e.g., FTC v. Standard Educ. Socy,\n\n86 F.2d 692, 696 ( 2d Cir. 1936 ), revd in part on other grounds, 302 U.S. 112, 116 ( 1937 ) ( describing the congressional prohibitions intended to regulate methods of fair dealing in the marketplace ). Certain other Federal consumer financial laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act ( HOEPA ), reference either the term abusive or abuse. See 15 U.S.C. 1692d ( FDCPA ), 15 U.S.C. 1639 ( p ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( HOEPA ). The Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act also directed the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) to prescribe rules prohibiting deceptive telemarketing acts or practices and other abusive telemarketing acts or practices. 15 U.S.C. 6102 ( a ) ( 1 ).\n\n3. In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, which declared as unlawful unfair methods of competition but did not define the term unfair. Act of Sept. 26, 1914, ch. 311, sec. 5 ( a ), 38 Stat. 717, 719 ( codified at 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ). Congress intended that this prohibition would capture conduct that caused competitive harm yet remain flexible enough to allow the law to develop and avoid circumvention. As the Supreme Court explained in 1934, [ n ] either the language nor the history of the Act suggests that Congress intended to confine the forbidden methods to fixed and unyielding categories, and Congress, in defining the powers of the FTC, advisedly adopted a phrase which... does not admit of precise definition, but the meaning and application of which must be arrived at by... the gradual process of judicial inclusion and exclusion. FTC v. R.F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304, 310, 312 ( 1934 ) ( internal quotation marks omitted ). \n4. In 1938, in the Wheeler-Lea Act, Congress amended the FTC Act to declare as unlawful unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Wheeler-Lea Act, ch. 49, sec. 3, 52 Stat. 111, 111-14 ( 1938 ) ; 15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ). As it had done previously with unfair methods of competition, Congress did not define this term, instead intending for it to be developed over time. See Am. Fin. Servs. Assn v. FTC, 767 F.2d 957, 978 ( D.C. Cir. 1985 ) ( AFSA ) ( [ N ] either Congress nor the FTC has seen fit to delineate the specific kinds of practices which will be deemed unfair.... Instead the FTC has adhered to its established convention, envisioned by Congress, of developing and refining its unfair practice criteria on a progressive, incremental basis. ).","date_sent_to_company":"2023-07-10T14:30:35.000Z","issue":"Managing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"78664","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7231909","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-07-10T14:10:10.000Z","state":"TX","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Deposits and withdrawals"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["First, reasonable reliance may <em>exist</em> where an entity communicates to a person or the public that it will act in its <em>customers</em> best interest, or otherwise holds itself out as acting in the persons best interest."]},"sort":[9.091185,"7231909"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9140686","_score":9.005302,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"To, CFPB Ombudsman : Unresolved dispute with Bank of America transfer to a FRAUD SCAM Brokers : XXXX XXXX XXXX name : AnthonyTricoci Amount : {$140000.00} Reference : XXXX XXXX ( The company ) Dear Sir/Madam, I want to draw your attention to a significant issue I've encountered involving Bank of America . I've fallen victim to a sophisticated scam orchestrated by the company operating under the name '' XXXX XXXX '' referred to as \" The Company. '' Funds totaling {$140000.00} weretransferred from myBankofAmericaaccountdirectlytothefraudster. \nAs I stated I fell victim to an Online trading company, misrepresenting themselves as legitimate brokerages o ering me to make great returns onso-calledOnlinetradingwith little to no risk. \nIn XX/XX/year>, I received a connection request from XXXX XXXX, a professional in finance and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( CRO ). Being intrigued by her extensive background in finance, I connected with her. Our initial interaction took place on the XXXX platform, but XXXX suggested moving our conversation to XXXX for enhanced privacy and encryption. Despite my background being in engineering and management, XXXX expressed interest in my lengthy career and experience with U.S. financial issues during my early years. \nOur regular conversations delved into personal topics, such as hobbies and lifestyles. XXXX revealed her interest in trading XXXX XXXX, a skill taught by her uncle, a prominent figure at XXXX in New York. As our discussions progressed, we shared details about our private lives, including XXXX 's marital status ( divorced with no children ), age ( XXXX ), and residence in the XXXX XXXX area. I, too, disclosed being married, retired, XXXX XXXX XXXX, with hobbies in working on old cars and traveling. \nMy interest in XXXX 's successful XXXX XXXX trading prompted her to introduce me to the XXXX XXXX app. After demonstrating how to use the app in demo mode, XXXX encouraged me to invest real money. I started with a {$5000.00} transfer, and under her guidance, we experienced some initial success. As XXXX insisted on increasing capital, I transferred an additional {$40000.00} from my savings, and with a total of {$45000.00}, our trading flourished. XXXX proposed leveraging more funds and inquiring about my financial resources, including pensions, Social Security, and trust money. \nAs XXXX persistently pressed for additional funds, she became more affectionate, using terms like \" honey, '' \" dear, '' and \" darling. '' Despite my reluctance to involve trust money, XXXX expressed interest in a non-escalating annuity. She assured me that if any losses occurred, she would cover them. She showcased her trading profits, and I eventually cashed in the annuity, transferring the funds to my XXXX Account. Our profits reached {$150000.00}, and XXXX, seemingly enamored, proposed an all-expenses-paid trip to XXXX and urged me to access the trust funds. \nHowever, my apprehensions grew, especially as XXXX discouraged withdrawals, citing the need to gradually withdraw for tax payments. When I proposed a withdrawal to purchase an XXXX phone and remodel a bathroom, XXXX insisted on a {$3000.00} payment to maintain high capital levels. As I navigated the account freeze issue, it became evident that it was a scam. The {$160000.00} they claimed I owed was the initial capital I had invested, and by paying it, they promised to double it and return the amount, effectively paying off the loan. \nI thought Iwasgoingonalegitimateinvestmenttrack, andIwouldliketomentionthattheir methods were illegal, manipulative, against regulation, and very questionable. I have tried on several occasions to resolve matters directly with Bank of America However, they are ignoring me and trying to brush me o. I requested to file adisputeregardingthemerchant and asked that Bank of America assist me inrecoveringthefundsbacktomyaccountforthe following reasons : XXXX XXXX XXXX Questionable Merchant Activity Furthermore, I do consider that the actions committed by Bank of America 's XXXX XXXX to the USlegislation. \nI have not managed to retrieve any of my funds, and I see no prospect of recovering them from \" XXXX XXXX ''. I urge Bank of America to acknowledge its share of responsibility in neglecting to adequately caution customers engaging with a disreputable entity. Those of us not well-versed in financial matters lack the tools to protect ourselves against a sophisticated and practiced deceiver. \nIt is a shattering blow to have what e ectivelywasmylasthopeofprovidingformypension in evenasmallway. \nTheBanks negligence : As previously highlighted, I have never received any notification from Bank of America 's sta, despite the transactions made to \" XXXX XXXX '' being deemed \" unusually large and complex, '' as well as contradictory to mypasttransaction history. It's important to note that these transactions occurred in rapid succession, leaving no room for oversight from Bank of America. Therefore, I consider this oversight to indicate negligence on the part of Bank of America. \nI have accepted Bank of America Terms and Conditions- with thepagescoveringAML/CTF policies they seemed to be credible enough. It turned out that Bank of America, which, de jure, has pages covered with XXXX, has, defacto, totally disregarded the US attempts to prevent/stop and combat money laundering, terrorism sponsorship, and other illegal, immoral, and unethical activities. \nI have emphasized that while XXXX XXXX might be involved in illegal activity ( money laundering, terrorism sponsorship, etc. ), Bank of America 's reputation could face significant damage due to their decision not only to transfer funds to XXXX XXXX but also to refuse to reverse the transactions. \nTherefore, I consider that by transferring my hard-earned funds, Bank of America allowed this fraud ( directly or indirectly ) to occur. I would like to emphasize that I am an ordinary citizen, I was never told about financial regulators and authorities, nor do I have any experience in the financial field- it is only the painful and devastating experience I faced that made me fully examine the key principles of AML/CTF and KYC policies the banks should fully implement. \nNevertheless, I would like to emphasize that financial institutions must update their database to ensure their clients` security. Unfortunately, ordinary people do not possess enough knowledge and technological facilities and, as a consequence, they could be deceived- and, in fact, they are! However, theydorelyontheirbanks, andifsuchsophisticated fraud occurs, it means that : -wearedealingwithsophisticated scammersand-Thebankdidnotdoitsjobproperly. \nOrdinary citizens, who do not possess cyber-security tools, could be deceived- however, it is impossible to deceive the security infrastructures and systems. \nI would like to kindly draw the attention of the CFPB Ombudsman to the fact that I have never received any warnings from the banks ' sides- even though the transactions I was making should have raised red flags for Bank of America and Bank of America as I have never transferred money to XXXX before. I have never received any adequate warning/alert from the banks sides- and I do consider that it definitely indicates gross negligence from BankofAmerica'sside.\n\nFurthermore, please note that I contacted Bank of America right after I realized that I was sophisticatedly deceived- however, I have received neither assistance nor have my funds been recalled/retrieved. Therefore, I do consider that Bank of America has never acted in the client 's best interest and now are trying to simply get rid of me. \nI was never told by Bank of America'semployeesthatsendingmoneytoXXXX risky. Since my trusted financial institution didn't warn me or explain the risks involved, I was under the impression that I was proceeding on a legitimate path. Had my bank alerted me, Iwouldhaveimmediatelyceasedtransferring funds to thescammers. \nOnce again, I would like to emphasize that I am an ordinary citizen- however, I have revealed that the USA is seriously combating moneylaundering issues. \nI doubt how professional and reliable Bank of Americas services are if their employees can not provide their clients with the relevant information concerning the risk of making certain transactions. \nI do consider that Bank of America has committed gross negligence while transferring money to XXXX XXXX as it has not only disregarded the vulnerable circumstances I face but has not fully implemented XXXX and XXXX regulations ( such as ongoing monitoring of clients` transactions in order to determine unusually large or complex ones as well as those which run counter to clients` profiles, committing XXXX searches, sanctions XXXX, etc. ), which made mefall into such asophisticated scam. \nDespite regularly transferring substantial sums of money, I have never received any alerts or warnings from bank employees. This leads me to believe that Bank of America has failed to monitor my transactions or implement enhanced customer due diligence.Hadtheydoneso, they wouldhaverealized that these transactions do not align with my client profile. \nCASESUMMARY : 1. Bank of America has not stopped/blocked the transactions made to the fraudulent company. As those transactions have been authorized and executed by Bank of America this meansBankofAmericaisdirectly involved in fraud.\n\n2. The destination of my hard-earned funds was never checked by Bank of Americas employees , which indicates an absolute disregard for their own Terms and Conditions, as well as for the US anti-moneylaunderinglegislation .\n\n3. Bank of America has not implemented enhanced customer due diligence, showing little concern regarding the potential money laundering, terrorism sponsorship, and other illegal activities ; 4. Bank of America has disregarded its responsibilities regarding the clients` funds security and clients treatment. My financial condition has been strongly a ected and I carried enormous losses due to the fraud- none of these vulnerable circumstances was taken into consideration by the Bank`s employees. \n5. TheBankhasnotfullyimplementeditsownTermsandConditions.\n\nDESIREDOUTCOME : BankofAmericahastoconfirmthatIhavefallenvictimtofraud. \nBank of America has to promptly initiate a full recall of these payments totaling {$140000.00}. This action includes conducting a thorough investigation into my case and identifying any companies or banks potentially involved in the fraudulent activity.\n\nBank of America has to act in the best interest of their clients ( as stated above ) and if the funds can not be recalled, I expect Bank of America to compose a reimbursement for the reasons mentionedpreviously. \nBank of Americahastoupdateitsdatabasetopreventthesamefraudulentandaggravating cases such as minefromrecurring. \nBank of America has to provide me with additional financial compensation for my mental andphysical health was jeopardized by the Banks employees. \nI amlookingforwardtoreceiving aresponsefromyou.Thankyouforyourassistance. \nRespectfully, AnthonyTricoci Attachments : XX/XX/XXXX XXXX To, Bank of America- Appeal letter XXXX name : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX I am a loyal, long-term Client of Bank of XXXX. \nThis letter is to inform Bank of America about fraudulent activity that has been committed on my Bank of America account since XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year>, and then I have revealed that I was sophisticatedly scammed and the Merchants I was dealing with- the Company called XXXX XXXXhadnoregulations and offer fake services on their website. \nPlease note that the total amount of XXXX USD was transferred from my bank account to XXXX XXXX. \nI have been a member of XXXX for two decades, utilizing this business and employment-focused social media platform both through its website and mobile applications. \nIn XX/XX/year>, I received a connection request from XXXX XXXX, a professional in finance and XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( CRO ). XXXX intrigued by her extensive background in finance, I connected with her. Our initial interaction took place on the XXXX platform, but XXXX suggested moving our conversation to XXXX for enhanced privacy and encryption. Despite my background being in engineering and management, XXXX expressed interest in my lengthy career and experience with U.S. financial issues during my early years. \nOur regular conversations delved into personal topics, such as hobbies and lifestyles. XXXX revealed her interest in trading XXXX XXXX, a skill taught by her uncle, a prominent figure at XXXX in New York. As our discussions progressed, we shared details about our private lives, including XXXX 's marital status ( divorced with no children ), age ( XXXX ), and residence in the XXXX XXXX area. I, too, disclosed being married, retired, XXXX XXXX XXXX, with hobbies in working on old cars and traveling. \nMy interest in XXXX 's successful XXXX XXXX trading prompted her to introduce me to the XXXX XXXX app. Afterdemonstrating how to use the app in demo mode, XXXX encouraged me to invest real money. I started with a {$5000.00} transfer, and under her guidance, we experienced some initial success. As XXXX insisted on increasing capital, I transferred an additional {$40000.00} from my savings, and with a total of {$45000.00}, our trading flourished. XXXX proposed leveraging more funds and inquiring about my financial resources, including pensions, Social Security, and trust money. \nAs XXXX persistently pressed for additional funds, she became more affectionate, using terms like \" honey, '' \" dear, '' and \" darling. '' Despite my reluctance to involve trust money, XXXX expressed interest in a non-escalating annuity. She assured me that if any losses occurred, she would cover them. She showcased her trading profits, and I eventually cashed in the annuity, transferring the funds to my XXXX Account. Our profits reached {$150000.00}, and XXXX, seemingly enamored, proposed an all-expenses-paid trip to XXXX and urged me XXXX access the trust funds. \nHowever, my apprehensions grew, especially as XXXX discouraged withdrawals, citing the need to gradually withdraw for tax payments. When I proposed a withdrawal to purchase an XXXX phone and remodel a bathroom, XXXX insisted on a {$3000.00} payment to maintain high capital levels. As I navigated the account freeze issue, it became evident that it was a scam. The {$160000.00} they claimed I owed was the initial capital I had invested, and by paying it, they promised to double it and return the amount, effectively paying off the loan. \nI was convinced that the company was legitimate and had billions of assets. It did look professional and genuine and I could not have even imagined that the company was fraudulent and counterfeit. Nevertheless, the Company turned out to be professional in pushing its Clients to invest more and more funds- I was urged to invest money so my trading account could grow and I would receive higher returns. \nI was instructed to start with a small investment- however, right after depositing funds, I observed my trading account growing ; things looked very good- and my trust was caught by these manipulative tricks. Please note that I have never had any experience in the financial field, and, therefore, my lack of experience and trust were sophisticatedly misused by the fraudsters. \nI was pushed to owe money, and the whole process of trading was done under pretenses and permanent high-pressure sales techniques. The Company has committed a deliberate misrepresentation, pretending to be legitimate and licensed brokerages- neither their product nor real service has ever existed. I was misguided and misinformed early, falling victim to a sophisticated financial fraud. \nTHEBANK`SRESPONSIBILITY : Please note that you have never provided me with a plain and understandable explanation of the risks related to such types of transactions. \nI have come through severe phone harassment and unethical sales techniques, and, as a result, fell victim to financial abuse. I firmly believe that Bank of America could have prevented this fraud from occurring if you had promptly identified the red flags of financial fraud and/or financial abuse. \nAn enormous amount of money was transferred from my bank account to XXXX XXXX, which should have alerted your concerns. I request you to note that the whole process of trading was done under the Company 's guidelines and false pretenses-taking into account, that those transactions had no business/logical purposes, you should have examined their nature to ensure that being a loyal Client of yours, I am not misguided/deceived by the fraudulent Merchants. \nI request you to take into consideration that in the case of XXXX XXXX : Theproduct that was described to me did not match reality, meaning the product was misdescribed and I was misinformed. \nBased onthe above, I couldnt make a conscious decision as I was misinformed from the start as to the nature of the fraudulent company, meaning I couldnt have known that these transactions were risky.- However, the Bank, XXXX HAVE KNOWN. \nI have never dealt with trading/investment companies before- therefore, those transactions should have raised so-called red flags, as they run counter to my previous client`s history Besides, I need to state that I was never told that the trading process is risky itself while the transfers made to XXXX XXXX should raise red flags for the financial institutions- because the transaction does not correspond to my previous client`s history, and, inter alia, taking into account how questionable the reputation of XXXX XXXX. \nSummarising the above-mentioned, I would like to point out that : * I was deliberately misinformed, and the Company committed fraud and/or willful misrepresentation. XXXX XXXX created a false, misleading impression that the Company 's services were genuine, legitimate, and in full accordance with XXXX legislation. \n* The Company turned out to be a fraudulent, unlicensed entity and was aggressively pushing me to invest my life savings. As I revealed later, the numbers they were showing in my trading account were just smoke and mirrors and never really existed. \nAll the above-mentioned facts and arguments indicate that XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in a sophisticated fraud. The Merchants have Misrepresented themselves and their services ( pretending to be reliable and trustworthy ). \nThus, I firmly believe that the Bank should have taken proactive actions to ensure that I would not fall victim to a financial scam and/or financial abuse. During the process of these transactions, I was asked about the purpose of transferring the money. However, I am confused as to why these transactions were not flagged or prevented, considering the potential risks involved. As a customer, I rely on the expertise and vigilance of the bank 's employees to ensure the security and integrity of my account. \nI would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarification on this matter. Were your employees aware of the risks associated with these transactions? If so, why were they not prevented? I believe it is crucial to understand the reasons behind this to maintain trust and confidence in the bank 's services. \nIn other words, Bank of America had failed to notify me and had failed to do its due diligence regarding monitoring suspicious transactions- as it could be seen from my bank statements, my funds went to the Merchant which appear irregular in comparison to mydaily transaction history. \nOrdinary citizens, who do not possess cyber-security tools, could be deceived ; however, it is impossible to deceive the security infrastructures and systems- the ongoing monitoring of transactions, ( enhanced ) customer due diligence, and the assessment of geographical risk could never be misled. \nAs an ordinary citizen, who did not possess any previous trading experience, I could not even imagine how sophisticated financial scams could be. I was NOT asked whether I was pushed or instructed by the third party, nor I was inquired whether I was promised any unrealistic returns for such an investment. Most importantly, I have not explained the risks related to such transactions, nor I was told that the number of investment scams increased drastically and there were thousands of other US citizens being maliciously targeted by fraudsters.\n\nI have transferred thousands of Dollars- however, you never intended to fully understand the nature of the transaction. \nLet me assure you that the prudent Bank employee would have been able to identify unusual patterns in my transactions meaning that in case XXXX had been fulfilled by the Bank, the red flags would have been immediately raised. \nNevertheless, my genuine willingness is to resolve this dispute and continue our cooperation, as I have always been satisfied with your services. \nI expect Bank of Americatoinvestigate mycase, contact all the recipient financial institutions with the request to recall/reverse the transactions for the total amountof {$140000.00}, and/or reimburse meaccordingly","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-30T20:01:41.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"85044","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9140686","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-05-30T19:46:01.000Z","state":"AZ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["However, I am confused as to why these transactions <em>were</em> not flagged or prevented, considering the potential <em>risks</em> involved. As a <em>customer</em>, I rely on the expertise and vigilance of the bank 's employees to ensure the security and integrity of my account. \nI would appreciate it if you could provide me with some clarification on this matter. <em>Were</em> your employees aware of the <em>risks</em> associated with these transactions? If so, why <em>were</em> they not prevented?"]},"sort":[9.005302,"9140686"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19958676","_score":8.8846245,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"American Express cancelled my XXXX XXXX XXXX credit card account on XX/XX/year>. I did not receive prior notice or a specific written explanation of the reason for closure, nor an opportunity to address the concerns before the account was terminated. The characterization that I filed disputes \" not in good faith '' appears inconsistent with American Express 's own records, which show the company investigated those same disputes, requested evidence from me, and issued credits in my favor. Throughout multiple calls, representatives provided inconsistent explanations, refused to identify the specific transactions at issue, and directed me to call back for a reinstatement process that did not exist. Despite escalation to the XXXX 's office, the decision was confirmed final on XX/XX/year>. \n\nOn the morning of XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email stating my account had been cancelled after a recent review, with no specific reason given. I had no prior warning that my account activity was under review or at risk of cancellation. I called American Express XXXX XXXX immediately. Over the course of that call, I was transferred to multiple representatives : XXXX, XXXX, and supervisor XXXX, and then to XXXX colleague XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX stated the account was cancelled because the disputes were not valid. \n\nXXXX XXXX stated the account was cancelled because \" recent disputes were not made in good faith, '' but acknowledged that neither she nor the system could provide specifics on which transactions were flagged. She also stated I had the option of getting a new American Express card. \n\nXXXX XXXX provided a different explanation, that the account was closed due to the frequency of disputes, which differed from XXXX 's stated reason. \nXXXX identified the disputed merchants as XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), XXXX, and XXXX. \n\nWhen I asked whether the Card Member Agreement contained specific language regarding dispute-related cancellation, the XXXX  referenced only the general discretionary closure clause. \n\nXXXX confirmed that no warning or notification was sent to me prior to the closure. He stated : \" It looks like no, sir, we did not, '' after I asked whether American Express had sent any warning letter or notification before the sudden closure. XXXX told me to call back during business hours to speak with a XXXX XXXX XXXX and pursue a reinstatement process, and stated he would leave notes on my account. \n\nXXXX XXXX explicitly promised a full refund of the {$350.00} annual fee, stating it would be credited back to my account by XX/XX/year>. I was instead offered only a prorated refund of {$300.00}, contradicting what I was told. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX Eastern Standard Time, I called to verify that XXXX 's notes from XX/XX/XXXX were on record. XXXX XXXX confirmed the notes existed, timestamped XX/XX/year> at XXXX XXXX Mountain Standard Time. The internal notes described the closure reason as \" unfair billing dispute practices, '' yet another characterization that conflicted with the cancellation email, which provided no reason at all, and with the explanations provided verbally by multiple representatives. \n\nWhen I called back on XX/XX/XXXX as directed, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX 's notes were visible. She stated the account was \" permanently closed '' and XXXX for reinstatement. This contradicted the assurances I received from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, who told me a reinstatement process existed and instructed me to call back specifically to pursue it. \n\nDuring this call, I raised a significant contradiction : American Express 's own dispute investigation team had reviewed the same transactions in question and issued credits in my favor, with account records stating : \" As a result of our investigation, we have credited your account. '' Yet American Express then closed my account for filing those same disputes. XXXX acknowledged this dynamic but could not explain it. \n\nI also clarified the record regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX. During the XX/XX/XXXX call, I described my disputes broadly as XXXX while under XXXX. The XXXX XXXX XXXX disputes involved XXXX merchandise at a XXXX XXXX XXXX that was not as described on the company 's website, and the merchant refused to issue a refund. American Express conducted a formal investigation of these disputes, requested supporting evidence from me, reviewed that evidence, and ruled in my favor by issuing a credit to my account. Given that outcome, I am seeking clarification as to how those disputes were later characterized as not made in good faith. \n\nAlso on XX/XX/XXXX, I sent a XXXX reconsideration request directly to American Express XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX responded promptly, stating he would have someone in his office look into the matter. In my letter, I acknowledged my dispute frequency, offered to pay back approximately {$320.00} in disputed amounts as a XXXX gesture, and requested even a XXXX reinstatement. On XX/XX/year>, a XXXX named XXXX from the XXXX XXXX called me to inform me that the decision is final and will not be reversed. No reason was provided for the final determination. \n\nAfter exhausting all internal escalation paths, including a final denial from the XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/year>, I am submitting this complaint for independent review and requesting CFPB assistance in resolving the following concerns : First, American Express did not provide a specific written reason for the adverse action at the time of cancellation. The cancellation email stated only that the account was cancelled \" after a recent review '' and directed me to log into an account that had been simultaneously locked. As of XX/XX/year>, the message center continues to display : \" This message is unavailable. Because this account has been closed, we are unable to load some account information. Please check to see if you also received a mailed copy of this message. '' I have not received any mailed correspondence. No accessible written explanation of the specific reasons for this adverse action has been provided to me through any channel. I am concerned this may not meet applicable requirements for providing clear and specific reasons for XXXX adverse actions. \n\nSecond, the explanations provided verbally were materially inconsistent. Representative XXXX cited invalid disputes. Representative XXXX cited disputes \" not made in good faith. '' XXXX XXXX cited dispute frequency. Internal notes retrieved on XX/XX/XXXX cited \" unfair billing dispute practices. '' These are XXXX meaningfully different characterizations. None of them were included in any written notice provided to me. \n\nThird, the characterization that my disputes were \" not made in good faith '' is difficult to reconcile with American Express 's own records. American Express investigated those disputes, requested evidence from me, and credited my account. Their own records state : \" As a result of our investigation, we have credited your account. '' I am seeking clarification as to how that characterization was reached, given that American Express 's own investigation concluded in my favor. The cardholder agreement itself explicitly describes the dispute process and grants cardholders the right to dispute charges. I exercised that right in the manner the agreement prescribes. \n\nFourth, regarding the annual fee : the cardholder agreement 's non-refundable fee policy applies to voluntary account closures by the customer after XXXX days. My account was closed unilaterally by American Express. I respectfully request review of the annual fee refund in light of the fact that the closure was XXXXXXXX and I was explicitly informed on the day of closure that a full refund of {$350.00} would be provided.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-04T09:56:53.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"30296","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19958676","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2026-03-04T08:38:55.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I had no prior warning that my account activity was under review or at <em>risk</em> of cancellation. I called American Express XXXX XXXX immediately. Over the course of that call, I was transferred to multiple representatives : XXXX, XXXX, and supervisor XXXX, and then to XXXX colleague XXXX. \n\nXXXX XXXX stated the account was cancelled because the disputes <em>were</em> not valid."]},"sort":[8.8846245,"19958676"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12603111","_score":8.862386,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"At some date unknown to me Citibank opened a new card in my name. ( According to them ) they sent a card physical card to an address I do not live at and have never lived at. They supposedly sent paper statements to this address. I did not know about the card. \n\nI had had a credit card with Citibank that I did not use, but when I called to close the account the customer support person convinced me not to do that because it would negatively impact my credit ( maybe around XXXX ). I left the account open for several years, but did not charge anything to the card. I did have a automatic payment set up on the card to avoid late fees, but I was not using the card. \n\nIn XXXX of XXXX I had to find an old email and so I opened an old email account that I had set up in the XXXX and was surprised to see communication from Citibank about a past due balance. I logged on to this old account and saw that there was a new card associated with my login information. I never signed up for this card, never consented to them opening a new card in my name. I had never seen this card before and did not recognize the card number. The account had a past due balance. It card had one charge on it which I did recognize as a charge I made with my XXXX account mistaking it for my active credit card ( coincidentally the last XXXX digits used to identify this card are almost identical to an active chase card I use ). However, I never provided XXXX with this card number, because I never knew this card existed. I have no idea how this information was passed from Citibank to XXXX without my consent or involvement. I immediately called Citibank to ask what was going on. \n\nThey referred me to a fraud line, which I was resistant to because I did not think this was a case of third-party fraud, I thought this was a case of citibank perpetuating fraud against me and I was skeptical that their internal audit would find citibank at fault. However they assured me this was the only way they could address what was going on with my account. I asked if I would continue to have late fees assessed on the account while it was being investigated ( they told me the so-called \" investigation '' would take 6-8 weeks, which would mean at least one more late charge ). They said I would not be responsible for additional late charges. \n\nI explained the situation to the support person who asked a lot of questions about where I lived ( not at the address on file ). What my phone number was ( not the phone number on file ). He did not ask about my attempts to close the account. He did not offer to close the account for me. I repeatedly explained I had no knowledge of the card and had never consented to the account being opened. \n\nAbout a week later another investigator called and asked me very similar questions, and I responded in the same was as I had when I opened my initial complaint. Both times I declined to give them my current address for fear it would be used to open more cards in my name fraudulently. \n\nThey just sent me the \" findings '' of their investigation ( XX/XX/XXXX ). That I am 100 % responsible. With no evidence of their conclusions. \n\nThey stated ( erroneously ) that \" Cards were mailed to an address that belongs to you. '' Absolutely not. \nThey stated ( erroneously ) that \" Statements were mailed to an address that belongs to you. '' Absolutely not. \nThey stated ( correctly ) that \" You received benefit from a transaction or payments made on the account. '' I have never disputed this. \nThey stated ( erroneously ) that \" You were aware of the account and did not take action to close the account. '' Absolutely not. I never knew about this account until the day I contacted them and had no way of knowing. \n\nCuriously, this was sent to my actual current mailing address, which I never provided to them, demonstrating that all along they could have found my current contact information and had been sending me updates about this card to my actual address. They chose not to do so and instead use contact info that was verifiably not my correct address. Contact info that I had never provided to them. \n\nThe lack of charges to this account or my \" related '' account for YEARS surely can be verified and is consistent with my explanation of what has happened. There should also be a record of my attempt to close the \" related '' account years ago. \n\nThey insist I am responsible for all charges and fees. And threatened to report me to credit reporting agencies if I don't pay. This is really rich because it was their representative who convinced me to keep the card, despite the risk of identity theft because it was going to negatively impact my credit score if I closed it. So with Citibank keeping their card or closing their card is damaging to my credit score. Cool!\n\nThey are lying to avoid culpability for their deceptive and illegal practice of opening accounts on behalf of people who never asked for them, using decades old contact info so that they can avoid run up fraudulent charges before being detected by the people who have had these cards opened on their behalf. Dispiciable.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-03-21T23:07:31.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"94609","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12603111","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2025-03-21T22:16:40.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Card opened without my consent or knowledge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["They stated ( erroneously ) that \" Cards <em>were</em> mailed to an address that belongs to you. '' Absolutely not. \nThey stated ( erroneously ) that \" Statements <em>were</em> mailed to an address that belongs to you. '' Absolutely not. \nThey stated ( correctly ) that \" You received benefit from a transaction or payments made on the account. '' I have never disputed this. \nThey stated ( erroneously ) that \" You <em>were</em> aware of the account and did not take action to close the account. '' Absolutely not."]},"sort":[8.862386,"12603111"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18940483","_score":8.84723,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"I am submitting this complaint to formally dispute a Self Financial account, issued through Lead Bank, that was opened fraudulently in my name as a result of identity theft. I do not own this account, I did not apply for it, and I never authorized its creation, use, or reporting. Any balance, payment history, or activity associated with this account is fraudulent and the result of unauthorized use of my personal information.\n\nThe Self Financial/ Lead Bank account in question was opened in or around XX/XX/year> and reflects a balance of approximately {$190.00}. I did not submit any applicationonline, electronic, written, or otherwiseto Self Financial or Lead Bank during this time period. I did not consent to the opening of a credit-builder loan, installment account, or any related financial product offered by Self Financial. I did not authorize any third party to act on my behalf, nor did I provide permission for my personal identifying information to be used for this purpose. \n\nI first became aware of this account after reviewing my credit information and discovering unfamiliar accounts that I did not recognize. The presence of a Self Financial / Lead Bank account immediately raised concern, as it did not align with my financial activity, credit behavior, or authorization history. I have never knowingly had a legitimate customer relationship with Self Financial or Lead Bank for the account being reported. \n\nI did not receive any welcome materials, loan disclosures, repayment schedules, account agreements, or communications at the time the account was allegedly opened. I did not set up or authorize any linked bank account, automatic payments, or funding source associated with this account. Any such setup that may exist was done by an unknown third party without my knowledge or consent.\n\nUpon discovering this unauthorized account, I took immediate steps to protect myself and to document the fraud. I confirmed that I did not open or authorize this Self Financial/ Lead Bank account and that my identity had been compromised. As a result, I filed an official Identity Theft Report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), affirming under penalty of perjury that this account is not mine and was opened through identity theft. This FTC Identity Theft Report establishes my status as a victim of identity theft and triggers specific protections under federal law, including the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ).\n\nDespite filing an FTC Identity Theft Report and disputing the account, this Self Financial / Lead Bank account continues to be associated with my identity and credit profile. The continued presence of this account is inaccurate, misleading, and harmful. Identity theft does not become invalid simply because an account balance is relatively small. The issue is not the amountit is the fact that the account itself was fraudulently created and falsely attributed to me.\n\nI did not sign any contract, promissory note, electronic agreement, or authorization permitting Self Financial or Lead Bank to open this account. I did not complete any identity verification steps, such as selfie verification, document upload, multi-factor authentication, or electronic consent. Any verification process that may appear in Self Financials systems was exploited, bypassed, or fraudulently completed by an unknown individual.\n\nSelf Financial and Lead Bank, as a fintech lender and regulated financial institution, have a duty to ensure that credit products are issued only to consumers who knowingly and willingly apply for them. The successful opening of this account in my name without my authorization demonstrates a failure in identity verification and fraud prevention procedures. That failure should not be transferred onto me as the victim. \n\nTo date, I have not been provided with any original documentation proving that I opened or authorized this account. I have not received a signed application, a valid electronic consent record, IP address data, device identifiers, geolocation information, or any other objective evidence linking me to the creation of this account. Without such documentation, there is no factual or legal basis for Self Financial or Lead Bank to continue associating this account with me.\n\nThis fraudulent account has required me to spend a significant amount of time reviewing my credit reports, monitoring my financial information, filing identity theft reports, submitting disputes, and now filing this complaint. These efforts are burdensome and stressful, especially considering that I did nothing to cause this situation. The burden of correcting fraud should not rest on the victim once proper documentationsuch as an FTC Identity Theft Reporthas been provided.\n\nAdditionally, the nature of Self Financials product as a credit-builder loan makes the presence of a fraudulent account particularly concerning. These products are designed to report payment activity to consumer reporting agencies. Even minor inaccuracies can have outsized effects on a consumers credit profile. I should not be forced to tolerate inaccurate reporting, risk of future negative reporting, or internal risk flags tied to an account that never belonged to me.\n\nI am not refusing to pay a legitimate obligation. I am asserting that no legitimate obligation exists. I never entered into a contractual relationship with Self Financial or Lead Bank. I did not receive loan proceeds, credit benefits, or services associated with this account. Any payments that may have been made were not made by me and do not constitute acknowledgment, ratification, or acceptance of the account.\n\nUnder the Fair Credit Reporting Act, once a consumer submits a valid Identity Theft Report, furnishers and financial institutions are required to block and remove information resulting from identity theft. Continuing to report or maintain this account after receiving notice of identity theft is inconsistent with those obligations. \n\nThe continued association of my identity with this account exposes me to ongoing risk, including the possibility of future misreporting, internal account screening issues, or adverse decisions by other financial institutions relying on inaccurate data. Identity theft issues often persist when institutions fail to fully correct internal records, even after external reporting is addressed. \n\nI am requesting that Self Financial and Lead Bank acknowledge that this account was opened fraudulently and as a result of identity theft. I am also requesting that the account be permanently closed, fully removed from my credit file, and completely disassociated from my identity across all internal and external systems.\n\nI further request that Self Financial and Lead Bank conduct a thorough internal investigation into how this account was opened, including a review of the application process, identity verification methods, and any third-party services involved. While I am not responsible for identifying the individual who committed the fraud, it is important that corrective action be taken to prevent similar incidents affecting other consumers. \n\nI am also requesting written confirmation that : The account has been permanently closed I have no financial, legal, or contractual liability for the account The account has been removed from all consumer reporting agencies The account will not be reinserted, reactivated, or transferred My identity has been fully disassociated from the account internally This experience has caused unnecessary stress, inconvenience, and loss of time. I have taken all appropriate steps required of an identity theft victim, including filing an FTC Identity Theft Report and disputing the account. I should not be required to continue defending myself against a fraudulent account that was never mine. \n\nIn summary, the Self Financial/ Lead Bank account opened in or around XX/XX/year> with a reported balance of approximately {$190.00} is fraudulent. I do not own this account. I did not authorize it. I did not benefit from it. I have filed an FTC Identity Theft Report documenting this fraud. I am requesting immediate and permanent corrective action to remove this account and ensure full compliance with applicable consumer protection laws.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-01-23T00:02:22.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"I do not know","zip_code":"20002","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18940483","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Self Financial Inc.","date_received":"2026-01-22T23:57:20.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt is not yours"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I should not be forced to tolerate inaccurate reporting, <em>risk</em> of future negative reporting, or internal <em>risk</em> flags tied to an account that never belonged to me.\n\nI am not refusing to pay a legitimate obligation. I am asserting that no legitimate obligation <em>exists</em>. I never entered into a contractual relationship with Self Financial or Lead Bank. I did not receive loan proceeds, credit benefits, or services associated with this account."]},"sort":[8.84723,"18940483"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14079791","_score":8.652031,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX To : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Dear CFPB, Re : RESPONSE TO J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANKS STATEMENT REGARDING CFPB COMPLAINT I write to respectfully but urgently dispute the wholly inadequate and disingenuous response submitted by JPMorgan Chase Bank , N.A . ( Chase ) concerning my CFPB complaint. Chase 's response fails to address serious issues of elder financial abuse, institutional negligence, and compliance failures under both federal guidelines and Californias Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act ( EADACPA ), which imposes heightened duties on financial institutions interacting with XXXX \nChases blanket assertion that this matter involved only customer-initiated transactions is a dangerous oversimplification of what federal regulators and California law recognize as a growing epidemic of elder financial exploitation, often masked by the victims own unwitting involvement under manipulation by bad actors. EADACPA explicitly defines such exploitation, where property is obtained from an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, as financial abuse ( XXXX ), irrespective of superficial \" authorization '' obtained through deception. \nBelow are several compelling legal and regulatory deficiencies in Chases handling of this matter, warranting immediate regulatory scrutiny : 1. Failure to Act on Clear Warning Signs in Violation of Interagency Guidance JPMorgan Chase 's assertion that these were merely \" customer-initiated transactions '' dangerously ignores the critical obligations financial institutions owe under federal guidelines and EADACPAs imposition of a heightened \" duty of care '' for businesses interacting with XXXX, especially when serving vulnerable populations such as XXXX  clients. The XXXX Interagency Guidance on Privacy Laws and Reporting Financial Abuse of Older Adults, issued jointly by the CFPB, Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and other federal regulators, provides specific expectations for financial institutions when encountering signs of elder financial exploitation. This includes unusual transaction patterns, sudden changes in banking activity, or other behavior that deviates markedly from a customers established history. \nIn this case, Chase was not only presented with multiple warning signs but failed to escalate them appropriately. As a long-standing Chase customer, my banking behavior prior to Fall XXXX showed no pattern of large, repeated transfers. Suddenly, and without precedent, I began initiating high-value transfers totaling more than {$200000.00} to multiple recipients. This stark deviation from my historical activity constituted clear undue influence and wrongful use of funds under EADACPA 15610.30 and should have triggered Chases fraud detection systems or, at minimum, internal review. \nThe fact that I am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  citizen, and that these transactions were allegedly conducted with unfamiliar entities for opaque business purposes, only reinforces the necessity for elevated scrutiny under federal elder financial protection protocols and EADACPAs mandate to protect elders from precisely this form of exploitation. These red flags are precisely the scenarios envisioned by the Interagency Guidance and EADACPA, which stress that even customer-permitted transactions may constitute exploitation when the elder is manipulated by external bad actors.\n\nBy not investigating these anomalies thoroughly or escalating them to a higher level of scrutiny, Chase failed in its duty to follow regulatory best practices and breached its statutory duty of care under EADACPA. In fact, Chases failure to act on these irregularities may reflect systemic deficiencies in its internal compliance and elder protection protocols. The CFPB has emphasized that financial institutions are on the front lines of identifying and stopping fraud before irreversible harm occurs. In this instance, Chase not only failed to prevent harm, but it also enabled it through passivity and noncompliance. \nThis is not merely a matter of hindsight. The Interagency Guidance was published over a decade ago, and EADACPA has imposed clear duties on institutions since its enactment. Chase, as one of the largest banks in the country, can not credibly claim ignorance. The banks negligence created the perfect environment for the fraud to proceed unchecked. If Chase had intervened when the anomalies first emergedas their federal obligations requirethe ensuing financial devastation could have been mitigated or entirely prevented.\n\nI therefore urge the CFPB to investigate whether Chase has violated the Interagency Guidance standards, failed to uphold its fiduciary responsibilities and EADACPA duties, and whether these systemic failures represent a pattern of institutional neglect toward elder clients vulnerable to financial exploitation. Enforcement action is warranted to compel Chase to adopt necessary corrective measures and redress the harm caused by its inaction. \n\n2. Violation of California Law ( Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ) The State of California has some of the strongest protections in the country against elder abuse, including financial exploitation. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( d ) ( 1 ) provides as follows : Any mandated reporter of suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult who has direct contact with the elder or dependent adult or who reviews or approves the elder or dependent adult 's financial documents, records, or transactions, in connection with providing financial services with respect to an elder or dependent adult, and who, within the scope of his or her employment or professional practice, has observed or has knowledge of an incident, that is directly related to the transaction or matter that is within that scope of employment or professional practice, that reasonably appears to be financial abuse, or who reasonably suspects that abuse, based solely on the information before him or her at the time of reviewing or approving the document, record, or transaction in the case of mandated reporters who do not have direct contact with the elder or dependent adult, shall report the known or suspected instance of financial abuse by telephone or through a confidential Internet reporting tool, as authorized pursuant to Section XXXX, immediately, or as soon as practicably possible. If reported by telephone, a written report shall be sent, or an Internet report shall be made through the confidential Internet reporting tool established in Section XXXX, within XXXX working days to the local adult protective services agency or the local law enforcement agency. \n\nUnder Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1, financial institutions are required to report suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult immediately, or as soon as practically possible, by telephone, followed by a written report within two working days. Critically, this duty to report is mandatory, not discretionary, and applies even when the elder customer denies being defrauded, as many victims of manipulation often do. Furthermore, EADACPA provides a civil cause of action against entities that \" take, secrete, appropriate, or retain property for a wrongful use '' ( 15610.30 ) or fail in their duty to prevent such exploitation. Chases failure to report and intervene exposed it to liability under both statutes.\n\nIn this case, Chase Bank has already acknowledged that at least one branch-level employee questioned me about the nature of the high-value transactions. The bank alleges that I confirmed the transactions were business-related. However, the statute does not require certainty or confirmation of abuse to mandate reporting. It only requires reasonable suspicion. The law specifically anticipates scenarios where an elder may not recognizeor may even denythat they are being exploited, due to manipulation, shame, or lack of full understanding. EADACPA expressly recognizes that financial abuse occurs when an elder is deceived into \" voluntarily '' surrendering assets through undue influence, fraud, or coercion ( 15610.30 ( a ) ( 3 ) ).\n\nChase failed to act when it mattered most. If their employee had enough concern to question me, then they had more than enough basis to initiate a mandatory report under California law. Instead, Chase did not report the activity until well after my funds were depleted, and only after it became too late to protect me. This dereliction of duty directly enabled the continuation of fraudulent withdrawals and significantly contributed to my financial devastation. This failure constitutes per se negligence under EADACPA, potentially entitling me to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, and court costs ( XXXX  ). \nMoreover, Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ( c ) explicitly mandates training for bank employees to recognize warning signs of XXXX abuse and to act on them without hesitation. The failure by Chase to recognize the red flags, despite a clear deviation from my account history, repeated high-value transfers, and XXXX status, reflects a systemic breakdown in their compliance and training programs. Chases late reporting, after the damage was done, further confirms the banks disregard for its statutory duties and its breach of EADACPAs duty of care. \nIt is especially troubling that this failure occurred in multiple branches and over a sustained period. This indicates a lack of internal checks, oversight, or escalation protocolseach of which is expected under Californias regulatory framework. When one branch fails to act, it may be negligence. When multiple locations enable suspicious conduct repeatedly over months, it suggests institutional noncompliance warranting punitive damages under EADACPA XXXX for recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice. \nFurthermore, Chases failure to report extended to a separate XX/XX/XXXX incident where I was defrauded through a XXXX business loan scam. In my attempt to meet the scammers demands, I paid approximately {$5000.00} to fraudulent agents and made XXXX payments via Chase to XXXX XXXX ( {$1300.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$1700.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, {$250.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, and {$1000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ). \nI reported this fraud in person to a Chase official named XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, CA ) branch on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX. No action was taken, and XXXX was not notified as required. In a XX/XX/XXXX call, Chase confirmed these visits and my contact with XXXX but admitted no notes were taken. \nEven worse, Chase delayed reporting to XXXX for months, only acting after I filed this CFPB complaint. XXXX agent XXXX XXXX received a referral ( bank unnamed ) on XX/XX/XXXX, and visited my home on XX/XX/XXXX, weeks after my final fraudulent transfer ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and only after regulatory pressure. This pattern of belated reporting underscores institutional disregard for statutory duties. \nChases failure to act upon observable patterns of exploitation violates not only state law but also undermines the very intent of elder financial protection policies. The consequence of this failure has left me financially destitute, emotionally distressed, and physically vulnerable. \n\nXXXX. Failure to Follow Its Own Risk Controls and Duty of Care JPMorgan Chase Banks handling of the transactions at issue reflects a deep institutional failure to uphold its fiduciary duty, adhere to its own internal risk controls, and apply industry-standard safeguards for elder clients in violation of EADACPAs imposition of a duty of care ( XXXX ). As one of the largest financial institutions in the United States, Chase has long touted its robust fraud detection systems, Know Your Customer ( KYC ) protocols, and customer-first policies. However, none of these safeguards were applied meaningfully in my case. \nAs a Chase customer for many years, my account had established, predictable activity : modest, consistent monthly balances and no history of high-volume business-to-business wire transfers. Beginning in Fall XXXX, I initiated large, repeated transfers to unfamiliar recipients. These transactions totaled over {$200000.00} and represented a XXXX departure from my historical activity. Chases internal fraud systems, which are designed to flag anomalous behavior, failed to detect or act on these changes. This failure constitutes a breach of its duty of care to a vulnerable elder under XXXX XXXX. \nBanking institutions are not passive conduits of customer will. They have both a legal and operational obligation to assess the legitimacy of unusual financial activity, particularly when the customer is XXXX. This is not an abstract or novel standard. It is enshrined in federal anti-fraud frameworks and industry best practices. Chase had both the technology and the duty to identify the fraud scheme in progress. Its failure to do so demonstrates a systemic breakdown or a negligent disregard for customer protection. \nThe duty of care is heightened when the bank is dealing with an elderly, long-term account holder showing signs of financial irregularity. Even according to Chases own XXXX Account XXXX ( XXXX ), which encourages customers to review statements for irregular activity, the bank still retains the right and responsibility to block, investigate, or flag suspicious transactions. Chase did none of those things. Its inaction facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, meeting XXXX 's definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nChases excuse that the transactions were customer-initiated ignores the regulatory and ethical requirement to investigate when multiple high-risk markers are triggered. This includes ( XXXX ) account holder age, ( XXXX ) sudden transaction volume spikes, ( XXXX ) recipient accounts newly added, ( XXXX ) opaque business purposes, and ( XXXX ) known fraud patterns such as pig butchering scams. Had any of these markers alone been investigated, the fraud might have been interrupted. In combination, they formed an unmistakable profile of financial exploitation requiring intervention under XXXX. \nAdditionally, no XXXX ever required additional verification or approval, despite the fact that these transactions were not typical for my account and would have represented high-risk events under even the most lenient fraud detection models. This suggests that Chase either failed to employ such models or chose not to act on the information they produced. \nThe impact of this failure is not theoretical, it is quantifiable, deeply personal, and devastating. I have lost my savings, my credit is in ruins, and I am now facing mortgage pressure and potential bankruptcy. Chases indifference in the face of its own data, policy obligations, and duty of care can not be excused and warrants the full range of remedies available under XXXX, including restitution, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees. \nThe CFPB should treat this matter as a demonstration of Chases systemic noncompliance and evaluate whether their risk control protocols meet federal expectations for fraud mitigation, especially when elder exploitation is at stake. A failure to investigate and act must result in institutional accountability. \n\nXXXX. Obfuscating Liability Through XXXX Chase Banks core defense that the fraudulent transactions in question were customer-initiated and therefore not subject to reimbursement grossly misrepresents the legal and regulatory landscape concerning authorized fraud and elder financial exploitation. This defense reflects not only a misapplication of fraud classifications but also an intentional obfuscation of Chases institutional responsibilities in preventing scam-induced transactions, especially when the customer is elderly and vulnerable. \nThe banks position relies on a narrow, self-serving interpretation of what constitutes fraud. While it is true that under Regulation XXXX of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, unauthorized transactions typically trigger reimbursement requirements, this case does not fall cleanly into that framework. Instead, it concerns a scenario the CFPB has extensively documented and warned the public about : scams involving social engineering and psychological manipulation that lead victims to \" authorize '' their own financial ruin. These are widely recognized as authorized fraud cases, where the transaction is technically permitted by the account holder, but only because the customer has been deceived, coerced, or manipulated. \nIn this situation, I was targeted through a pig butchering scheme that gradually manipulated me into believing I was entering a legitimate business venture. Like thousands of similarly situated scam victims, I was coaxed into making large transfers to what I believed were authentic business recipients. The banks involved, including Chase, facilitated these transactions without adequate internal scrutiny or protective friction, even when my transactional activity drastically diverged from my prior account history. \nImportantly, Chases claim that these were voluntary transactions and thus beyond its responsibility is not supported by federal guidance on elder financial abuse. The CFPB, XXXX, and the FTC all recognize that elders are uniquely susceptible to XXXX  exploitation and often do not recognize fraud until it is too late. It is precisely for this reason that financial institutions are held to higher standards of vigilance and intervention when sudden, anomalous activity arises in an elder customers account. \nFurthermore, Chases own fraud protection policies in other jurisdictions undermine its defense here. As I previously noted, Chase XXXX offers fraud protection for authorized fraud transactions, recognizing the ethical and reputational harm in allowing vulnerable customers to be financially destroyed while the bank takes no responsibility. That Chase XXXX disclaims this obligation, despite operating under the same brand, ethos, and customer trust, highlights a troubling inconsistency that must be addressed by U.S. regulators. \nChase can not escape liability by hiding behind contract language and technical definitions of authorization. When its fraud detection systems fail, when its staff observe but do not act upon irregularities, and when its customer is an elderly individual experiencing manipulation, the bank has crossed from neutrality into complicity. These are not merely business decisionsthey are failures of care, compliance, and conscience. \nThe CFPB should treat this definitional shell game for what it is : a regulatory avoidance strategy. It must be rejected. Chase must not be allowed to benefit from its refusal to modernize its fraud protections in light of emerging scam typologies, especially those that exploit XXXX \n\n5. Institutional Liability for Enabling Fraud Infrastructure JPMorgan Chase Banks role in this case goes beyond passive negligence, it actively enabled the infrastructure that allowed this fraud scheme to succeed. By approving and maintaining multiple recipient business accounts that received illicit transfers from my account, Chase facilitated the operation of a pig butchering scam targeting a vulnerable XXXX The presence of this infrastructure within the banks own system exposes it to institutional liability for allowing its platform to be used in the commission of financial elder abuse. \nPig butchering scams often rely on a network of recipient accounts created for the sole purpose of laundering funds extracted from victims. These accounts are typically opened under legitimate-sounding business names, but their true purpose is fraudulent. In my case, I was instructed to transfer funds from my Chase business account to other Chase business accounts allegedly belonging to parties involved in an herbal product supply agreement. I later learned these accounts were set up under false pretenses and were used to funnel money to international actors as part of a fraud ring. Chases facilitation of these transfers constitutes \" aiding and abetting '' the financial abuse of an elder under EADACPA principles. \nAt no point did Chase question the legitimacy of these recipient accounts, despite the fact that they were receiving large and sudden transfers from a XXXX customer with no prior history of high-volume transactions. It is the responsibility of financial institutions to monitor not only outgoing transactions but also inbound flows to newly created accounts, especially when they fit well-documented fraud profiles. This failure reflects a reckless disregard for its duty to prevent exploitation under EADACPA XXXX\n\nMoreover, many of the recipient accounts receiving these transfers were opened at different Chase branches across the U.S., suggesting a broader pattern that should have triggered internal fraud alerts. This activity is precisely what modern anti-money laundering ( AML ) systems are designed to detect, yet Chase failed to act. If one Chase branch is enabling high-volume deposits into a newly opened business account, and another Chase branch is facilitating suspicious outgoing transfers to it from an elderly customer, the banks systems should correlate these events and escalate for review. That did not happen here. This systemic failure makes Chase liable for permitting the financial abuse to occur. \nChases failure to flag and investigate the destination accounts makes it more than a bystanderit became a conduit. As courts have increasingly recognized, when banks provide the financial rails used by fraudsters and fail to take preventive action despite obvious red flags, they may be liable for aiding and abetting or negligently enabling fraud. This is particularly true when the victim is part of a protected class, such as an elderly consumer under California law.\n\nAdditionally, the lack of any meaningful Know Your Customer ( KYC ) due diligence in approving these accounts further supports institutional liability. Chase has never explained what steps, if any, it took to verify the legitimacy of the recipient entities or to track the outflow and inflow of substantial sums across its business customer network. This lack of diligence directly facilitated the \" taking '' and \" wrongful use '' of my property, satisfying EADACPAs definition of financial abuse ( XXXX ). \nI respectfully request that the CFPB investigate Chases onboarding, monitoring, and internal control procedures for business accounts involved in this and similar elder-targeting scams. If one victim like me can be exploited through Chases network of accounts, there are likely others. This matter demands systemic review, and Chase must be held accountable for enabling financial exploitation through its own commercial platform.\n\n6. Ongoing Harm, Distress, and Financial Ruin What distinguishes XXXX financial abuse from other forms of fraud is not just the monetary lossit is the cascading and often permanent damage to the victims emotional, physical, and financial well-being. In my case, the unchecked and unchallenged fraud facilitated by JPMorgan Chase Bank has left me not only destitute but also psychologically traumatized, on the brink of bankruptcy, and living with the grim consequences of a breach of trust by the very institution tasked with safeguarding my assets. EADACPA exists precisely to address such devastating outcomes and provides for comprehensive remedies, including compensatory damages for economic losses and emotional distress, punitive damages for reckless conduct, attorneys fees, and costs ( XXXX  ). \nI am a XXXXXXXX XXXX  who lived a financially modest but stable life. I was targeted not just because I had money, but because I was perceived, accurately, as someone vulnerable to manipulation. The fraud scheme I fell victim to was not an isolated incident ; it was part of a larger pattern of what experts now classify as pig butchering scams. These scams deliberately isolate victims, use social and professional deception, and create the illusion of opportunity. They are especially dangerous to older adults, who often trust authority and may lack the digital literacy to identify spoofed communications or fake platforms.\n\nAs a direct result of this fraud, enabled by Chases inaction, I have lost over {$200000.00}. The financial devastation is only the beginning. I now face mounting debt obligations, including mortgage pressures that threaten my housing stability. My credit rating has been irreparably harmed, impacting my ability to finance essentials or obtain emergency resources. The emotional fallout has been no less severe. The shame, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX stemming from this exploitation have become part of my daily reality. Compounding this, Chase Bank has closed my account due to fraud, making it impossible to independently assess the full transaction history or quantify the total losses. \nAccording to studies cited in the Interagency Guidance on XXXX  abuse, victims of financial exploitation are three times more likely to die prematurely than similarly situated individuals. This is not an exaggeration, it is a warning rooted in public health data.\n\nWorse still, Chase has offered no meaningful recourse. The bank 's response not only denied reimbursement but also ignored the evident trauma I have endured. Its refusal to acknowledge its role in facilitating the abuse and in failing to act when warning signs were visible, has added to my distress. Instead of being treated as a client in crisis, I was treated as a procedural burden. \nI have also experienced a lack of empathy and urgency from Chase 's internal systems. It was only after the damage was complete that Chase filed a delayed report to Adult Protective Services, resulting in a home visit from XXXX  last week. But that action came far too late to prevent my financial ruin. This delay underscores the very problem I have outlined throughout this complaint : Chase had opportunities to act earlier but chose not to.\n\nThe CFPB has repeatedly acknowledged the seriousness of XXXX  financial abuse and its societal toll. This case is a vivid example of the damage that results when a major banks duty of care collapses under the weight of procedural shortcuts, profit priorities, or regulatory complacency. I implore the Bureau not to treat this as an individual complaint but as a test case for broader enforcement. If this can happen to me, it can happen to countless others. \nOnly meaningful regulatory pressure, penalties, and structural reforms will restore trust, and only full restitution will begin to repair the damage I have suffered. In consideration of the foregoing, I respectfully urge the CFPB to exercise its regulatory oversight and : a. Formally investigate Chase Banks conduct in this matter for possible violations of elder protection laws and failure to adhere to CFPB-endorsed Interagency Guidelines ; b. Assess whether Chase violated the spirit or letter of Californias mandatory elder abuse reporting law, particularly Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 15630.1 ; c. Mandate that Chase reimburse the fraudulently induced transfers, given its admitted failure to report suspected abuse and its violation of the duty of care ; d. Mandate that Chase reopen my bank account and grant me unfettered access to my account ; and e. Issue supervisory guidance or public enforcement actions aimed at improving institutional response to pig butchering and similar elder-targeted scams. \n\n\nRespectfully, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX, CA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-06-14T19:59:19.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"92026","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14079791","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2025-06-14T19:48:39.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Chases excuse that the transactions <em>were</em> <em>customer</em>-initiated ignores the regulatory and ethical requirement to investigate when multiple high-<em>risk</em> markers are triggered. This includes ( XXXX ) account holder age, ( XXXX ) sudden transaction volume spikes, ( XXXX ) recipient accounts newly added, ( XXXX ) opaque business purposes, and ( XXXX ) known fraud patterns such as pig butchering scams. Had any of these markers alone been investigated, the fraud might have been interrupted."]},"sort":[8.652031,"14079791"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":73,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":73}]}},"product":{"doc_count":73,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":16,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":14},{"key":"Other banking product or service","doc_count":1},{"key":"Savings account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":13,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":13}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":6},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Other debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":7},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":8,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":6},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":1},{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":7,"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":6},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card or prepaid card","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1},{"key":"Loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Installment loan","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":73,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":6},{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":3},{"key":"Debt was paid","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing an account","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Deposits and withdrawals","doc_count":5},{"key":"Problem using a debit or ATM card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Problem making or receiving payments","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":6,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":6}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":3},{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Closing on a mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem when making payments","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem during payment process","doc_count":2},{"key":"You never received your bill or did not know a payment was due","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Investigation took more than 30 days","doc_count":2},{"key":"Problem with personal statement of dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan sold or transferred to another company","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Credit monitoring or identity theft protection services","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing dispute for services","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a lender or other company charging your account","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't stop withdrawals from your account","doc_count":1},{"key":"Transaction was not authorized","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase 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":"Dealing with your lender or servicer","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trouble with how payments are being handled","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Card opened without my consent or knowledge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting the loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Loan servicing, payments, escrow account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","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":"Other features, terms, or problems","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Termination fees or other problem when ending the lease early","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized transactions or other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":73,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":73}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":73,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":56},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":9},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":8}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":73,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":73}]}},"company":{"doc_count":73,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":7},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":6},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":5},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":4},{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":4},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"Affirm Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"Paypal Holdings, Inc","doc_count":2},{"key":"SANTANDER HOLDINGS USA, INC.","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge PIte Haan, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Atlantic Union Bankshares, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"BitGo Holdings, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Central Research Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Chime Financial Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"Click n' Close, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"DRB-40, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Law Offices of Les Zieve","doc_count":1},{"key":"MARINER FINANCE, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ocwen Financial Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"PNC Bank N.A.","doc_count":1},{"key":"RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL","doc_count":1},{"key":"Self Financial Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Shellpoint Partners, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TD BANK US HOLDING COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"United Collection Bureau, Inc.","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":73,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TX","doc_count":9},{"key":"CA","doc_count":8},{"key":"FL","doc_count":6},{"key":"GA","doc_count":5},{"key":"IL","doc_count":5},{"key":"MD","doc_count":5},{"key":"MI","doc_count":5},{"key":"NY","doc_count":5},{"key":"DC","doc_count":4},{"key":"NM","doc_count":3},{"key":"AZ","doc_count":2},{"key":"MN","doc_count":2},{"key":"PA","doc_count":2},{"key":"TN","doc_count":2},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":1},{"key":"OH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":73,"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":27},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":73,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":10},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":7},{"key":"Older American, Servicemember","doc_count":1}]}}},"_meta":{"license":"CC0","last_updated":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","last_indexed":"2026-07-14T12:00:00-05:00","total_record_count":16441818,"is_data_stale":false,"has_data_issue":false,"break_points":{"2":[8.651597,"14079791"],"3":[6.4953537,"8043830"]}}}