{"took":242,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":111,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8267092","_score":16.109459,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"According to the Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 USC 1681 states \" There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the consumers right to credit and privacy. '' Capital one is a bank holding company specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and savings accounts and I am the Consumer. \n\nCapital one prospectus clearly states, through inadvertence or otherwise, any of the receivables were sold or pledged to another party who purchased ( or received a pledge of ) the receivables in the ordinary course of its business and took possession of the original contracts in tangible form or control of the authoritative copy of the contracts in electronic form ( collectively, chattel paper ) giving rise to the receivables, the purchaser ( or pledgee ) would acquire an interest in the receivables superior to the interests of the issuing entity and the indenture trustee if the purchaser acquired the receivables for value and without knowledge that the purchase ( or pledge ) violates the rights of the issuing entity or the indenture trustee, which could cause investors to suffer losses on their notes. \n\nIt also states that Capital one is bound by regulations and rules, the following is straight from the prospectus, Numerous federal and state consumer protection laws and related regulations impose substantial requirements upon lenders and servicers involved in consumer finance, including requirements regarding the adequate disclosure of contract terms and limitations on contract terms, collection practices and creditor remedies. These laws include the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureaus Regulations B and Z, the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, state adoptions of model consumer protection acts and of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, state motor vehicle retail installment sales acts, consumer lending laws, unfair or deceptive practices acts including requirements regarding the adequate disclosure of contract terms and limitations on contract terms, collection practices and creditor remedies and other similar laws.Liability under the HDC Rule is limited to the amounts paid by the obligor under the receivable, and the holder of the receivable may also be unable to collect any balance remaining due thereunder from the obligor. The HDC Rule is generally duplicated by the Uniform Consumer Credit Code, other state statutes or the common law in some states. However, liability of assignees for claims under state consumer protection laws may differ. \n\nOn your 10 k form on NOTE 5VARIABLE INTEREST ENTITIES AND SECURITIZATIONS, it states, In the normal course of business, we enter into various types of transactions with entities that are considered to be variable interest entities ( VIEs ). Our primary involvement with VIEs is related to our securitization transactions in which we transfer assets to securitization trusts. We primarily securitize credit card and auto loans, which provide a source of funding for us and enable us to transfer a certain portion of the economic risk of the loans or related debt securities to third parties. The entity that has a controlling financial interest in a VIE is referred to as the primary beneficiary and is required to consolidate the VIE. The majority of the VIEs in which we are involved have been consolidated in our financial statements. \n\nOn XX/XX/2024 I sent Capital One a letter in regards that they took my security ( application ) with out giving me compensation for it regardless of what ones credit score looks like .To my knowledge capital one clearly knows what theyre doing, taking our coupons and receivables and turning them over to receivables that are now asset back securities which capital one then sells on the secondary market, benefiting from our applications meanwhile I as a consumer and investor dont get anything in return. As you may be aware it is against federal law in accordance with the equal credit opportunity act to proclaim an adverse action against a consumer .Capital One is to resort to reasonable procedures to rectify this affair and compensate me for the use of MY securities. Otherwise, if not rectified, this would be considered securities fraud since I have received NO BENEFIT","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-01T23:38:45.000Z","issue":"Getting a credit card","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"90745","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8267092","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-02-01T23:31:06.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Application denied"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["superior to the interests of the issuing <em>entity</em> and the indenture trustee if the purchaser acquired the receivables for value and without knowledge that the purchase ( or pledge ) violates the rights of the issuing <em>entity</em> or the indenture trustee, which <em>could</em> cause investors to suffer losses on their notes."]},"sort":[16.109459,"8267092"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"16926974","_score":12.793515,"_source":{"product":"Debt or credit management","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/scrub>XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  RE : Formal Complaint Against Freedom Debt Relief Regarding Unilateral and Predatory Amendment to Debt Resolution Agreement To Whom It May Concern : I am writing to file a formal complaint against Freedom Debt Relief, hereafter \" the Company, '' regarding a unilateral amendment made to my Debt Resolution Agreement ( DRA ). I believe this amendment, dated XX/XX/year>, introduces unfair, deceptive, and abusive terms that severely harm my interests as a consumer and potentially violate consumer protection laws. \n\nOn XXXX about XX/XX/year>, I received a notice that Section XXXX ( f ) of my DRA was being amended. The new clause grants the XXXX the right to assign all of its rights and obligations under our agreement to any third party, at any time, without my prior notice XXXX consent. \n\nThe specific terms of this amendment are profoundly harmful for the following reasons : XXXX. Complete Loss of Consumer Choice and Control : I entered into this agreement with Freedom Debt Relief based on my research and trust in their specific services. This amendment allows them to transfer my entire financial account to an unknown, and potentially less reputable, entity without my permission. I am being forced into a relationship with a company I did not choose and have not vetted. \nXXXX. Erosion of Accountability and Legal Recourse : The amendment states that if the Company assigns the agreement, it is \" released from our obligations to you. '' This is an egregious term that absolves the Company of all responsibility for the service I contracted for. If the new entity provides poor service, acts unethically, XXXX breaches the contract, my ability to seek recourse from the original party I hired is severed. \nXXXX. High Risk of Service Disruption : The transfer of my account between servicers creates a significant risk of administrative errors, loss of progress in negotiations with my creditors, and a breakdown in communication. I may lose the relationship with a dedicated negotiator who understands my case, leading to delays that could cost me more money and worsen my financial situation.\n\n4. Introduction of Undisclosed Third-Party Financial Risk : The clause allowing the Company to pledge my agreement and its right to my fees as collateral for a loan is alarming. It means that a third-party lender, with no obligation to me, could acquire a financial interest in my debt resolution plan. If the Company defaults on its loan, my sensitive financial agreement could be seized by a bank, adding a layer of risk I never agreed to.\n\nThis amendment fundamentally alters the nature of our agreement from a service contract into a transferable financial instrument, solely for the Company 's benefit. It strips me of my rights as a consumer and exposes me to substantial financial and legal harm. The minor provision to notify me of a servicer change after the fact is entirely inadequate and does not mitigate the severe risks imposed. \n\nI believe these practices are unfair and deceptive. I entered into a contract in good faith, and this unilateral change destroys the foundation of that agreement. \n\nI am requesting that the Consumer Protection Bureau : Investigate Freedom Debt Reliefs use of these unilateral amendment practices.\n\nDetermine whether these clauses violate consumer financial protection laws regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices ( UDAAP ). \nTake appropriate action to halt the use of these predatory clauses and protect me and other consumers from these harmful terms. \nI have attached a copy of the amendment notice and my original Debt Resolution Agreement for your review. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. I can be reached at the phone number or address above if you require any further information. \n\nSincerely, X Signature Enclosures : Copy of Amendment Notice dated XX/XX/year> : Amendment to Debt Resolution Agreement Last updated : XX/XX/year> Section XXXX ( f ) of your Debt Resolution Agreement is amended to add the following to Section XXXX ( f ) : We may assign all or any portion of our rights and obligations under this Agreement to any person or entity. This may happen at any time and without notice to you. If we assign all of our rights and obligations under this Agreement, we will be replaced as a party to this Agreement by that person or entity and released from our obligations to you. In that case, we will continue to provide the debt relief services described in this Agreement as a servicer on behalf of the person or entity that we assign to, unless we are unable to do so or are terminated as servicer. If we are unable to provide services or are terminated as servicer, the person or entity that we assign to will seek to appoint a different provider to service your Agreement. You will be notified of the name, address, and telephone number of the new provider within fifteen ( 15 ) days of any such change in servicer. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Subsection 7 ( f ), we may at any time pledge or grant a security interest in all or any portion of our rights ( including rights to payment of our fees ) under this Agreement to secure our obligations, including, but not limited to, any pledge or security interest granted to ( i ) a collateral agent, collateral trustee or indenture trustee and ( ii ) a Federal Reserve Bank, without notice to you or your consent.\n\nCopy of Original Debt Resolution Agreement FACTS WHAT DOES FREEDOM DEBT RELIEF , LLC ( \" FREEDOM '' ) DO WITH YOUR PERSONAL INFORMATION?\n\nwhy Financial companies choose how they share your personal information. Federal law gives consumers the right to limit some but not all sharing. Federal law also requires us to tell you how we collect, share, and protect your personal information. Please read this notice carefully to understand what we do. \n\nWhat? \nThe types of personal information we collect and share depend on the product XXXX service you have with us. \nThis information can include : Social Security number, XXXX XXXX, credit card, XXXX other debts Name and contact information, account balances and transaction history Income and employment information How? \nAll financial companies need to share customers ' personal information to run their everyday business. In the section below, we list the reasons financial companies can share their customers ' personal information ; the reasons Freedom chooses to share ; and whether you can limit this sharing. \nReasons we can share your personal information Does Freedom share?\n\nCan you limit this sharing?\n\nFor our everyday business purposes such as to process your transactions, maintain your account ( XXXX ), respond to court orders and legal investigations, XXXX report to credit bureaus Yes No For our marketing purposes to offer our products and services to you Yes No For joint marketing with other financial companies Yes No For our affiliates everyday business purposes information about your transactions and experiences Yes No For our affiliates everyday business purposes information about your creditworthiness Yes Yes For our affiliates to market to you Yes Yes For nonaffiliates to market to you Yes Yes To limit our sharing Call XXXX ; XXXX, Complete the form online : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. \nPlease note : If you are a new customer, for those types of information where you have a right to limit our sharing, we can begin sharing your information 30 days from the date we sent this notice. When you are no longer a customer, we continue to share your information as described in this notice. \nHowever, you can contact us at any time to limit our sharing. \nQuestions? Please contact us as noted above XXXX visit XXXX online at https : //www.freedomdebtrelief.com/freedom-debt-relief- Who we are Who is providing this notice? Freedom Debt Relief , LLC ( Freedom ) What we do How does Freedom protect my personal information? \nTo protect your personal information from unauthorized access and use, we use security measures that comply with federal law. These measures include computer safeguards and secured files and buildings. \nHow does Freedom collect my personal information? \nWe collect your personal information, for example, when you Fill out an application XXXX provide lead information XXXX an account XXXX give us your income information Provide account information XXXX provide employment information Give us your contact information We also collect your personal information from others, such as credit bureaus, affiliates XXXX other companies. \nWhy can't I limit all sharing? \nFederal law gives you the right to limit only Sharing for affiliates ' everyday business purposesinformation about your creditworthiness Affiliates from using your information to market to you Sharing for nonaffiliates to market to you State laws and individual companies may give you additional rights to limit sharing.\n\nWhat happens when I limit sharing for an account I hold jointly with someone else?\n\nYour choices will apply to everyone on your account.\n\nDefinitions Affiliates Companies related by common ownership XXXX control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. Our affiliates include XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Freedom Debt Relief , LLC ( dba XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \nNonaffiliates Companies not related by common ownership XXXX control. They can be financial and nonfinancial companies. \nNonaffiliates we share with include direct marketing companies, service providers, insurance companies, and broker/dealers. \nJoint marketing A formal agreement between nonaffiliated financial companies that together market financial products XXXX services to you. \nOur joint marketing partners include : financial institutions, lead generators, and ^ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * For Nevada Residents We are providing you this notice pursuant to state law. You may be placed on our internal \" do not call '' list by calling or complete the online form using the information provided at the bottom of this page. You may also contact the Bureau of Consumer Protection, Office of the Nevada Attorney General, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nFor Vermont Residents In accordance with Vermont law, we will not share information we collect about Vermont residents with companies who are not affiliates, except as permitted by law, such as with your consent XXXX to service your accounts. We will not share information about your creditworthiness with our affiliates without your authorization XXXX consent but we XXXX share information about our transactions XXXX experiences with you with our affiliates without your consent. \n\nFor Montana Residents In accordance with Montana law, we will not disclose your name XXXX personal information to anyone other than your enrolled creditors XXXX our agents, affiliates, XXXX contractors and other third party providers as necessary to conduct business. \n\nFor California Residents In accordance with California law, we will not share information we collect about you with nonaffiliates, except as allowed by law. \nFor example, we may share information with your consent or to service your accounts. You may also have additional rights to limit the disclosure of your personal information under the California Consumer Protection Act ( CCPA ).\n\nSee below for your right to limit our sharing among our affiliates. \nYour Rights You have the following rights to restrict the sharing of personal and financial information with our affiliates ( companies we own XXXX control ) and outside companies that we do business with. Nothing in this form prohibits the sharing of information necessary for us to follow the law, as permitted by law, XXXX to give you the best service on your accounts with us. This includes sending you information about some other products XXXX services. \nYour Choices Restrict Information Sharing With Companies We Own XXXX Control ( Affiliates ) : Unless you opt-out we XXXX share personal and financial information about you with our affiliated companies. \nRestrict Information Sharing With Other Companies We Do Business With To Provide Financial Products And Services : Unless you opt-out we XXXX share personal and financial information about you with outside companies we contract with to provide financial products and services to you. \nTime Sensitive Reply You XXXX make your privacy choice ( XXXX ) at any time. However, if we do not hear from you we XXXX share some of your information with affiliated companies and other companies with whom we have contracts to provide products and services. \nTo exercise your choices, do XXXX of the following : Call XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX the form online : XXXX XXXX XXXX \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Copy of Notice by Freedom Debt Relief of XX/XX/year> : Your Annual Privacy Notice and Update to Your Debt Resolution Agreement Reply to : XXXX To : XXXX Date : XX/XX/year>, at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/year> We want to notify you of our current privacy practices and of new terms to your debt resolution agreement with Freedom Debt Relief There is no action needed from you today, but if you would like to learn more, please visit the following links for our current Privacy Notice ( available HERE ) and the new terms to your debt resolution agreement ( available HERE ). \n\nThe current terms of your debt resolution agreement remain unchanged, and the new terms described in the above link will take effect in fifteen ( XXXX ) days. \n\nIf you have any questions XXXX concerns, please contact us at XXXX. Thank you for being a valued client of XXXX. \n\nXXXX Freedom Debt Relief XXXX Customer Service XXXX XXXX Client Dashboard","date_sent_to_company":"2025-10-30T15:26:22.000Z","issue":"Problem with customer service","sub_product":"Debt settlement","zip_code":"53913","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"16926974","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK","date_received":"2025-10-30T14:43:26.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Complete Loss of Consumer Choice and <em>Control</em> : I <em>entered</em> into this agreement with Freedom Debt Relief based on my research and trust in their specific services. This amendment allows them to transfer my entire financial account to an unknown, and potentially less reputable, <em>entity</em> without my permission. I am being forced into a relationship with a company I did not choose and have not vetted. \nXXXX."]},"sort":[12.793515,"16926974"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4096478","_score":9.862832,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my complaint against PennyMac Loan Servicing, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX., XXXX  XXXX XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX and other hidden behind the scheme con artists like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, eat who massively defraud home buyers, other borrowers and investors from trillions of dollars under their fraudulent scheme called securitization XXXX XXXX XXXX created a myth called securitization where they do not securitize ANYTHING except borrowers DATA akaidentity theft not backed by any assets. Nobody sell any loans or any parts of loans. Nobody lend any money to homebuyers. \n\nMoney for closing and all other lending are coming from Investors who lend to XXXX XXXX XXXX  via short term credit used by XXXX XXXX XXXX  to fund ALL loans via fictitious parties who call themselves Lenders  - These money are not related by ANY homeowners transaction in in fact related to sales of securities backed by borrowers identities to other investors. Thus, the original creditors are investors who lent money to XXXX XXXX XXXX  and who receive their advances after securities backed by borrowers data are sold to another groups of investors in form of bets. \n\nSo, when PennyMac say they purchased my loan they lied to defraud me an authorities, which is proven many times. Nobody sold any mortgages to PennyMac who was transformed by XXXX XXXX into a biggest lender and servicer via PR coup. PennyMac an XXXX ( former XXXX XXXX XXXX NEVER funded any loans and NEVER serviced them. XXXX is receiving a fee for acting as a Trustee for non-existing Trusts who also nee er had any relationship to anyones mortgages. Nobody confirmed they sold my loan to PennyMac.XXXX  always claims that my complaints do not belong to them - while PennyMac lies that they give my mortgage payments to Trustees who distribute them to investors. LIR, LIE, LIE. \n\nBut since this lie is promoted by the Government ( resent sale of XXXX  bonds to Federal Reserve is just another scam to defraud homeowners and investors ) PennyMac feels completely confident that the Government will cover for XXXX XXXX crimes, like they did in XXXX with fake Cease and Desist orders and bogus Settlement. \n\nMost homeowners, including myself, sign documents at closing because they believe their intentions are properly presented in those documents.We were all wrong. We were not borrowing any money from fake XXXX. We CREATED money for XXXX XXXX XXXX  when we submitted an application which was used as a back up for lines of credits from investors or from Federal Reserve. After than we were not dealing with repayment of any debt since it did not exist from the beginning ( the initial investors were paid after XXXX XXXX sold certificates to another group of investors ) thus we were dealing with a concealed scheme by XXXX XXXX Stockbrokers which is in part a direct fraud on homebuyers ; in part giant Ponzi Scheme ; gigantic Bucket Shop on investors and other illegal practice. \n\nStockbrokers do not have an interest other than a profit from the sale of securities. These brokers on XXXX XXXX have tried to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators and investors so that they still appear to be XXXX when in fact they are the only principal. \n\nAll XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX debt buyers are merely a part of this giant mystification. The result has always been, without exception, catastrophic for everyone except the brokers who use a common theme : You cant punish us with producing apocalyptic results for finance, and your society. As a society, we are still buying into that threat. It isnt true and never was true. And so it goes. \n\nXXXX XXXX lawyers are drafting prospectuses and agreements for Initial Public Offerings, with the guiding principles to bury anything negative under an avalanche of words. And because nobody wants to admit they did anything XXXX or foolish, investors tend to think and insist they knew what they were doing. And that is the essence of successful con jobs. The con only works if the mark ( i.e., XXXX ) adopts it as their own. People con themselves. Take XXXX XXXX XXXX for example, successfully sold XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX. XXXX used various names as a con man, including XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, Mr. XXXX and Mr. XXXX. Compare XXXX XXXX banks tactics to use various names of XXXX, PennyMac and other actors-f0r-hire to pose as lenders and Servicers. \nXXXX had multiple methods for making his sales. When he sold XXXX  XXXX, he would often pose as the generals grandson, and he set up a fake office to handle his real estate swindles. He produced convincing forged documents as evidence to suggest that he was the legal owner of whatever property he was selling. \n\nLike the mortgage meltdown ( which continues through the writing of this Complant ), in many cases, XXXX targeted people fresh off the boat who understood little English or American Culture. So they relied upon what he told them and then they imagined the rest. Some people were forced off the XXXX XXXX when they started erecting toll booths, as the new owners. \n\nIn every con job the paperwork generally has the look and feel of real documents and says, in the beginning, what people expect it to say. They are conning themselves. And the perpetrators will often point to the content of what was signed by the layman as providing that the very thing that punished the consumer was disclosed in some fine print wording buried deep within all of the documents that were signed. \n\nFor example, a loan in XXXX would always refer to the loan and would recite that the Lender was XXXX who was giving a loan of money to the borrower who was a borrower, receipt of which loan was acknowledged. That is and was the basic language for any loan for centuries until around XXXX. \n\nThat is when the reference to a loan was dropped and the documents signed by the homeowners started to change merely referred to the execution of a note and the execution and recording of a mortgage. The loan was implied because what else could it be? The success of this sleight of hand is well-known. Trillions of dollars poured through the hands of securities brokers who prospered during the worst crash since the Great Depression plus receiving trillions of dollars in bailouts and bond purchases. Everything else was reduced to rubble. \n\nThe expectation of the homeowner, including myself, was that he/she was a borrower in a loan transaction. I thought that the application for a loan was submitted to a lender and was underwritten by someone with a risk of loss i.e. a stake in the success of the transaction as a loan. I had a reasonable belief that as a loan transaction the party receiving the loan application and the party underwriting the transaction were both governed by Federal and State lending laws. As such, the responsibility for the viability of the loan, accuracy of the loan appraisal, and risk of loss was squarely on the lender. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  did what they do the separated out functions so that only the part that looked like a loan was shown to the homeowner. For the most part, applications for loans were submitted through intermediaries who presented themselves as loan brokers and sometimes misrepresented themselves as lenders ( simply because they had a license to act as a lender ). In some cases, the parties accepting the applications did not legally exist. They were just names but that did not matter to XXXX XXXX brokers because they were not really making loans. \n\nThe underwriters were aggregators of data providing a service ( e.g. XXXX, now XXXX who was the one who actually processed my application under glimpse of XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ) ) i.e. laundering data to make it look like a pool of loans was being created for tranches ( layers ) of fictitious entities. This service was provided to the brokers through entities totally under the control of the brokers for purposes of their real business selling securities to investors. ( Does anyone really think that XXXX XXXX banks ever had any interest in lending money? ) The aggregators arranged the data in reports that gave information on thousands of transactions. They never said they were loans and they never said they owned them. But that is what everyone assumes. We are conning ourselves because we cant imagine what else it could be. \n\nThe XXXX XXXX stock brokerage firm calling itself an investment bank borrows {$1.00} XXXX on short-term credit for example using expected sales of securities as collateral. Thus these money are generated by borrowerss intent to borrow money used by XXXX XXXX XXXX as collateral. The broker then sells the securities to investors and repays the loans. In the interim, the money from the loan is used to fund, on average, around {$700.00} XXXX in transactions with homeowners. Bear to repeat, these money have XXXX to do with anyones mortgage. \n\nThe other {$300.00} XXXX is concealed trading profit. These fictitious profits occur when the broker shows a sale ( only on its own books ) of {$700.00} XXXX face value of notes for {$1.00} XXXX. That false sale occurs between a depositor who does not own the debt, note, or security agreement and a trust that legally does not exist because it has nothing in trust that was entrusted to the named trustee. the trustee has no right, title or interest in the transactions, nor any right or obligation to seek or receive any information about the nonexistent contents of thetrust or any activities undertaken in the name of the trust. ( In other words, it is not a trustee ). XXXX merely lies to homeowners, Judges and investors about its role as Trustee All entities are owned or controlled 100 % by the broker. This is the holy grail of investment banking. Selling securities without being required to turn the proceeds of the sale ( money ) over to any issuing entity because in substance the issuing entity is the broker. The extra {$300.00} XXXX trading profit is usually performed in a transaction that is both offshore and off-balance sheet so there is no report of it until the broker wants to show an increase in profits to bolster the apparent value of its own common stock trading in the marketplace. \n\nRecent reports from the big banks that are in reality failing, indicate significant trading profits that are simply repatriating the money they stole from investors. The most notorious lie is XXXX  XXXX XXXX organic growth when they repurchase its own bonds from investors - in fact investors demanded their money back due to XXXX fraud - bit this information is carefully concealed from the public, specially homeowners who XXXX is prepared to rob though the Court for additional profits. \n\nInvestors were never told all of their money would be used for the origination or acquisition of loans. They just assumed it despite concealed language in the prospectus that did not quite promise anything other than a potential, discretionary revenue stream from the broker that was often disclosed as unsecured and expressly unrelated to any obligation owed by any homeowner. Investors made this assumption because after all the brokerage firm was a broker, not a principal. They were conning themselves. Investors were NOT beneficiaries of any trust, real or imagined but they thought they were because they assumed they were. \n\nIt was later when investors ( e.g. pension funds ) discovered that the broker had no interest in underwriting loans, no interest or intent of having a risk of loss or no intent for complying with any lending statutes, rules, or even custom and practice in the lending industry ; investors were rudely awakened to the fact that they had no legal interest in enforcing anything against anyone. They had, as in every con, conned themselves with an assist from the con men XXXX XXXX brokers. \n\nInvestors were left with a Security that was virtually worthless because it was discretionary, unsecured, and based upon reports that the payor ( broker ) could issue in its sole discretion. But if they admitted all of that, they would be required to show the loss of value of the certificates ( securities ) that they had purchased which would result in devaluing the entire pension fund, which in turn would probably lead to dismissal of the fund manager. \n\nSo they sued the depositors or sellers for bad underwriting even though there was virtually no underwriting involved. The more savvy investors with more savvy lawyers received larger settlements without ever saying the whole thing as a scam because they were being paid to keep silent about the true nature of this scheme. The smaller, more unsophisticated investors with lawyers who were not well versed in investment banking and securities brokerage received as little as XXXX cents for each dollar they invested. That is what caused small banks to fail. They were trapped by the con. They too had been investors seeking a higher return. \n\nThe truth is that most pension funds are over-reporting the value of their assets. That means that at some time in the future, the ability to fulfill pension payments will be correspondingly reduced. Only by that time, it is highly likely that nobody will make the connection to securitization debt that never occurred. Even worse, the beneficiaries of pension funds and other stable managed funds still wont realize that if they are faced with foreclosure, and they all away, they are not just giving up the largest investment of their life ; they are also undermining the value of the fund that feeds them. \n\nIn the XXXX loan, the Lender had an entry on its ledger that was a reduction of cash to pay for the loan. In double-entry bookkeeping, this was followed by an increase in loan receivables by the exact same amount. And that is how the loan account receivable is created. It serves as the legal basis for asserting the existence of the loan and the account history for debits and credits throughout the life of the loan. \n\nAfter XXXX no such account was ever created. If those ledger entries had been made, then the brokers would have actually securitized loans by selling off pieces of each loan to multiple investors. But that would have limited the brokers to selling the loans only once. If they sold loans more than once it would have been a fraudulent scheme bearing criminal accountability. So they didnt sell them and that means they didnt securitize homeowner transactions, which were not loans in the first place. \n\nThe brokers paid homeowners money. That much is generally true ( although questionable in refis ). But the brokers wanted no part of losing money if the homeowner failed or refused to make a scheduled payment. They had no risk of loss. They had no loan account. But by concealing the true nature of the business scheme i.e. the creation, issuance, sale, and trading of securities and using the homeowners knowledge against him/her, they convinced everyone that the execution of the promissory note was one exchange for the nonexistent loan. The securities were based upon the illusion of a loan transaction but certainly not the reality of a loan transaction. \n\nAdding insult to injury then, the homeowner having played a crucial role in the illusion of a loan is then tricked into giving back the only reason why he/she entered the transaction in the first place the receipt of money. \n\nIn short, that is a return of the only consideration for involuntary participation in a securities scheme about which the homeowner knew absolutely nothing. Worse yet, the homeowner believed it was a loan and so agreed to pay interest and fees on top of returning the only consideration for the deal. This left the homeowner with negative consideration for the deal, plus concealed risks in the form of unmarketable loans, inflated appraisals, and the complete inability to reach anyone with ownership or authority of the transaction to work out arrangements that were necessary to correct the situation. \n\nWith no loan account that could be presented without committing perjury and fraud, the brokers hit upon the scheme of using still more intermediaries who were called servicers. The servicers did virtually nothing. All receipts are collected via third-party vendors who are completely controlled by the brokers. The servicers are hired to interface with homeowners, reassure them that their loan is under management, and present a payment history about which they know nothing because they never collected a dime from the homeowner. \n\nServicers are always thinly capitalized entities that can be thrown under the bus for accounting or servicing or collection irregularities. They hire employees or contract employees who know less than the servicer. These people are presented as witnesses in foreclosure proceedings. Such people are the only witnesses at trial in foreclosure cases. Theyre not legally competent and travel along a very thin line between deception and perjury. \n\nThe payment history is actually printout from a data record prepared for enforcement only by third-party vendors who process payments from homeowners. \n\nThose payments are scheduled, but not due since they are paying off a loan account that does not exist. You will never find any payment history that purports to be the ledger of any creditor i.e., the party who is named as claimant, beneficiary, or plaintiff in foreclosure. That is because no such ledger exists. \n\n\nThis was 20 years ago when the Federal Reserve skipped regulation in the mistaken belief that market forces would make any needed corrections. XXXX XXXX who was head of the Fed has admitted that was a mistake. It is now up to homeowners and their attorneys to fight these foreclosures at every turn and win. This task will be made far easier if changes in the administration in Washington DC result in an acknowledgment of the obvious facts : the money paid to homeowners was not a loan. It was compensation for involuntary participation in a business scheme. Market forces dictated the amount of that payment. Brokers have no right to recover it. \n\nInvestors and homeowners are in the same boat. the intention of both was a lending transaction. Neither one of them got what they intended. Current brokers and servicers should be forced out of the picture and regulators should stop pretending that REMICs exist or that the securities issued were unregulated mortgage-backed bonds or certificates. They were never mortgage-backed. There were no mortgage loans. Those mortgages secured a promissory note that was issued without the homeowner receiving consideration. \nThe only deal that was completed was the business scheme of creation, issuance, selling, and trading securities. Homeowners were already paid for that. Nobody was ever legally entitled to seek or receive payments that returned that compensation. If that compensation is too high, then let the brokers come to court and file a reformation action. \n\nI again demand to provide me the name of the SELLER of my loan to PennyMac ; a PROOF pot payment of value by PennyMac ; the name of the Company who hired PennyMac as a Servicer and whom they servicing. XXXX  number for Trust th purportedly servicing ; Pay me 20 % royalties from all traded and compensation for all damages, including emotional distress. \n\nTotal {$50.00} XXXX in damages, or more","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-26T11:26:23.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4096478","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","date_received":"2021-01-26T11:22:33.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX merely lies to homeowners, Judges and investors about its role as Trustee All <em>entities</em> are owned or <em>controlled</em> 100 % by the broker. This is the holy grail of investment banking. Selling securities without being required to turn the proceeds of the sale ( money ) over to any issuing <em>entity</em> because in substance the issuing <em>entity</em> is the broker."]},"sort":[9.862832,"4096478"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18206861","_score":9.757039,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX. XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney. Pursuant to Maryland Estates & Trusts 17-113, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. \nAlly Financial Inc. is a creditor and furnisher as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. Ally Financial Inc. is the current holder and assignee of a Retail Installment Sale Contract executed by XXXX XXXX. XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX for the purchase of a XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX : XXXX ) from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX ). The contract reflects an Amount Financed of {$67000.00}, a Finance Charge of {$41000.00}, a Total of Payments of {$100000.00}, and 72 monthly payments of {$1500.00} beginning XX/XX/XXXX. Ally Financial Inc. reports this account to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nCURRENT FURNISHING ACTIVITY As of the date of this complaint, Ally Financial Inc. is actively furnishing Account No. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  to consumer reporting agencies. The tradeline is reported with a current balance of {$44000.00}, a past-due amount of {$4000.00}, and a payment status of \" Late 90 Days. '' The most recent XXXX XXXX transmission occurred on or about XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nThe Retail Installment Sale Contract contains the mandatory FTC Holder Rule notice required by 16 C.F.R. 433.2, which states : \" NOTICE : ANY HOLDER OF THIS CONSUMER CREDIT CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ALL CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WHICH THE DEBTOR COULD ASSERT AGAINST THE SELLER OF GOODS OR SERVICES OBTAINED PURSUANT HERETO OR WITH THE PROCEEDS HEREOF. '' This notice preserves all consumer defenses against Ally Financial Inc. as assignee.\n\nDEALER MISCONDUCT AND ORIGINATION CONTAMINATION The XX/XX/XXXX Retail Installment Sale Contract was originated as a consumer sale, not a loan. Under Virginia retail installment sales law and the Federal Trade Commission Holder Rule, the seller 's conduct at origination is determinative of the contract 's legal validity and enforceability, and any assignee takes the contract subject to all claims and defenses arising from that conduct. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as seller-creditor, did not independently determine creditworthiness, pricing, or approval terms. Instead, the Dealer relied upon XXXX or XXXX credit scores generated through third-party credit reporting infrastructure to approve the transaction, assign a risk tier, and establish the finance charge and total cost of credit reflected in the contract. \nThose credit scores were not neutral informational tools. They were revenue-producing derivative products created through the monetization of the buyer 's personal identifying information and sold to merchants and finance companies for underwriting purposes. The Dealer 's use of those scores constituted a material component of the transaction and directly controlled whether the sale would occur and on what terms. \nAs detailed below, the XXXX and XXXX scoring systems were derived from contracts executed by legally nonexistent entities and were therefore void ab initio. The Dealer 's reliance on those scores rendered the underwriting process unlawful at inception and caused the Dealer to present and execute a Retail Installment Sale Contract whose approval, pricing, and disclosures were based on identity-derived data generated without lawful authority.\n\nBecause the underwriting defect occurred at the point of sale, it is non-curable. No subsequent assignment, servicing, payment history, or performance can remedy an origination defect rooted in unlawful identity monetization and void scoring infrastructure. The resulting contract was never lawfully underwritten as a consumer credit obligation. \nAlly Financial Inc., as assignee, acquired no greater rights than the Dealer possessed. Under the FTC Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R. 433.2, and Virginia law governing retail installment sales, Ally Financial Inc. took the contract subject to all claims and defenses arising from the Dealer 's misconduct, including the unlawful use of void credit scoring systems to originate the transaction. \nAccordingly, Ally Financial Inc. can not lawfully enforce, service, collect upon, or furnish information relating to a Retail Installment Sale Contract whose approval and pricing were contaminated at inception by identity theft and void underwriting infrastructure.\n\nTHE EVIDENCE OF NULLITY The Retail Installment Sale Contract is void ab initio as a consumer credit obligation. The original contract was underwritten using XXXX or XXXX credit scoringinfrastructure derived from void contracts with a legally defunct corporation. The evidence is as follows : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name \" XXXX XXXX XXXX' with the Georgia Secretary of Statea preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX was incorporated in Georgia as a separate entitya deliberate act by Retail Credit Company to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for RCC 's later filings. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, Retail Credit Company amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name \" XXXX XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. \nOn the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( the separate entity incorporated 11 months earlier ) changed its name to \" Retail Credit Company. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created two conflicting corporate identities existing in tandemfor a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX entities were both called \" XXXX XXXX XXXX  simultaneouslyan unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of Georgia Business Corporation Code 22-301 ( c ) ( XXXX ), which required that corporate names \" be distinguishable upon the records of the Secretary of State from the name of any other corporation. '' Both filings falsely certified under 22-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( 1975 ) that the name was \" available for use. '' Under 22-504 ( a ) ( 1975 ), any charter \" issued or any action taken by the Secretary of State in reliance upon any false, misleading or fraudulent statement or certificate filed with him shall be null and void ab initio . '' The Secretary of State accepted both amendments. Both charters became null and void ab initio the instant the second filing was accepted. From December 30, 1975 forward, there has been no lawful Georgia entity named \" XXXX XXXX '' capable of entering contracts. Under 22-1421 ( a ) ( now recodified as O.C.G.A. 14-2-401 and 14-2-501 ), a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. \nOn XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXd XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the Analytic Products and Services Master Contract ( Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX XXXX  credit bureau database. The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX XXXX entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. \nThe defect : By XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. There was no lawful Georgia entity named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX capable of entering contracts. The XXXX agreement was XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nIn XXXX, XXXX XXXX unveiled the generic credit bureau model that became the industry standardseparately branded as Beacon for XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX risk rankings into numbers ranging from XXXX to XXXX. This deployment propagated the void XXXX contract across all three major credit reporting agencies, establishing the XXXX scoring range as the universal standard for consumer creditworthiness assessment. Every lender, every auto dealer, every finance company adopted this scoring system derived from XXXX XXXX XXXX 's void XXXX contract with the legally defunct XXXX XXXX \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX major credit reporting agencies created XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX File Number XXXX ) with XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ) as owners. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, OLDE 's formation was void ab initio because XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX not legally exist. XXXX serves as the managing entity for e-XXXX  the centralized platform processing all consumer disputes under FCRA. \nOn XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX formed XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Delaware File Number XXXX ). XXXX 's third purported owner, \" XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX never lawfully existed. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, an LLC must be formed by valid members. XXXX 's formation was void ab initio.\n\nThe acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's personal identifiersSocial Security number, legal name, address, and historical payment datafor the purpose of generating and selling XXXX and XXXX credit scores constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to create a thing of value. This conduct meets the definition of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). XXXX XXXX. XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrument that continues to generate revenue through monthly payments, interest charges, and potential securitization cash flows.\n\nDOCUMENT PRESERVATION AND RESTITUTION NOTICE Ally Financial Inc. is directed to preserve, without alteration, all records, communications, metadata, origination documentation, underwriting files, credit scoring data, assignment documentation from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, payment histories, collection activity logs, and chain-of-custody materials relating to this contract and any credit reporting furnished to consumer reporting agencies. \nUnder Virginia Code 8.01-243.1 and principles of unjust enrichment, when a contract is void ab initio due to fraudulent underwriting, all payments made under that void obligation are recoverable. The buyer is entitled to complete restitution of all funds paidprincipal, interest, fees, and penaltiesduring the period Ally Financial Inc. has held this void instrument.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-12-21T17:47:11.000Z","issue":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"20019","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18206861","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","date_received":"2025-12-21T17:05:14.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with paying off the loan"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There was no lawful Georgia <em>entity</em> named XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX capable of <em>entering</em> contracts. The XXXX agreement was XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nIn XXXX, XXXX XXXX unveiled the generic credit bureau model that became the industry standardseparately branded as Beacon for XXXX XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX <em>risk</em> rankings into numbers ranging from XXXX to XXXX."]},"sort":[9.757039,"18206861"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003724","_score":9.754312,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer Wells Fargo whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and Wells Fargoto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX Trust XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka SLAVERY ) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that XXXX XXXX  Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had XXXX in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world.\n\nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the XXXX XXXX banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was XXXX a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b XXXX to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years. \nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nXXXX XXXX Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of Glass-Steagall in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was zero. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the XXXX, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than XXXX days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy XXXX XXXX bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-22T11:38:01.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003724","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:30:36.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["But the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank <em>could</em> issue a new security from a fictional <em>entity</em> and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they <em>could</em> receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission."]},"sort":[9.754312,"4003724"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4003729","_score":9.750835,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my follow up Complaint against XXXX XXXX who stole my property and my money though the chain of fictitious intermediaries who posed as Lenders ( XXXX ), XXXX XXXX XXXX and fake Servicer XXXX XXXX whose employees very professionally lie to Federal Authorities and defrauded by XXXX XXXX XXXX homeowners. \nI demand XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXto provide me accounting for the money proceeds from the sale and PROOF that these money were entrusted to XXXX XXXX as Trustee and Board of Directors ; and deposited in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account. \nI also demand a copy of releases of ANY liens after the sale since I became a victim of another racketeering activity by fake Servicer Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC who tried to collect from me on behalf of non-disclosed creditor AFTER my stolen property was illegally sold by XXXX XXXX who did not even knew who was his clients since all instructions were provided by the same XXXX XXXX XXXX system who hired lawyers to commit fraud upon the Court and perjuries. \nUnder the law, EVEN IF the real default happened, the supposed creditor still must provide proof of any damages as well as satisfaction of the debt. None of it was ever provided to me. Not even purportedly original Note ( forged by XXXX XXXX ) Thus far, the banks have been selling property and then depositing the cash into an account controlled by a concealed investment bank notwithstanding the naming of the sham conduit claimant in whose name the foreclosure process was started. \nMy transaction with XXXX XXXX was not a loan. It was a singe-time payment for me to PERFORM SERVICES to the wit issue a Promissory Note which XXXX XXXX indefinitely sold as DATA to investors who placed BETS not backed by ANY collateral. \nI was expected to return my compensation, with interest ( involuntary servitude aka XX/XX/XXXX) plus return the property ( theft ) back to XXXX XXXX so they can defraud another homebuyer who is not in possession of stolen from me property. \nIt is not a secret anymore that Wall Street Banks operate a giant criminal scheme, which created XXXX Crash which resulted in over {$31.00} XXXX bailouts for non-damaged parties ( like {$50.00} XXXX bailout to XXXX which in fact went to XXXX XXXX as a pure profit ) and millions of illegal foreclosures by Big Banks as additional revenue. Now they collapsed the economy again - and nobody on the Government level is even talking about it. \nThe banks have been siphoning off trillions of dollars from the US economy for over 20 years. The level of Mayhem generated by the banks is virtually beyond human comprehension. But as a reference point for the scope of their illegal activities, consider this : there is about XXXX XXXX in XXXX currency worldwide. that is all the money there is. But the shadow banking market, which had zero in XXXX, now is estimated by most analysts to be in excess of {$1.00} quadrillion more than 15 times all the money in the world. \nThat makes the banks who make a market in this nominal stuff ( but treated as cash equivalents ) in a position far beyond the ability of anyone who wants to regulate them or otherwise keep their abuses in check. And the fact that much of the money that was siphoned out of the US economy is sitting in various off-shore locations makes control over the banks virtually impossible across political borders. \nWith no control, the banks will not just do the same, they will escalate because that is what they do. It is already apparent that the availability of credit has lured workers into allowing their wages to be replaced by debt. At this point, the Wall Street banks are in a position where they could and no doubt will find ways to present incentives for US consumers to take on more debt that in actuality is a wage for services rendered. The service rendered by consumers is issuing the necessary paperwork to establish a reference data point against which investors can place bets. The revenue from selling such bets is literally infinite. \nMeanwhile, the consumer who was lured into such transactions without knowledge of the real transaction is stuck with overpriced assets and is lured into strategies that create the illusion of delinquency, default, judgment, and sale of the property encumbered by liens. \nAll of this happens because consumers believe they are taking on loans went in fact they have become partners in a business scheme in which consumers receive none of the profits and assume all of the risk of loss. \nYet, Banks lawyer appear in the Courts when they try to get the money back that they paid to homeowners in exchange for starting a series of transactions in which unregulated securities were sold, on an infinite basis, to investors who were betting on future announcements of data performance by the issuer doing business under the name of a legally nonexistent trust because nothing had actually been entrusted to the named trustee of the named trust and LIE non-stop while none of the lawyers do not even know who is their actual clients all instructions are provided by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX XXXX. \nIn plain language all such assertions were false and all evidence of default was equally false. Such sales and the orders and judgments that permitted them were and remain void for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. Such court actions are ultra vires. \n\nThese illegal acts do not ripen with time. They are still void. It is the same with any wild deed. The money proceeds from such sales were paid to parties who neither intended nor received the money to reduce any debt owed by the homeowner ( s ). This was a for profit venture that succeeded by deceit, camouflage, manipulation and fabrication of documents, and false testimony. \n\nThe courts have permitted this false securitization venture and false foreclosure venture to continue under the erroneous belief that the proceeds of foreclosure sales would eventually find their way into the hands of someone who had a loss arising from the failure or refusal of homeowners to make scheduled payments in accordance with a promissory note that was executed at the time of the closing of the transaction with the homeowners. This assumption was and remains completely and utterly false. \n\nNeither the debt nor the owner of any debt owed by the homeowner existed at the time of the foreclosure. The filing of such foreclosures was a malicious attempt to cover up a fraudulent scheme that was part direct fraud on investors and homeowners, and part Ponzi scheme. \n\nThe goal of foreclosure was ( a ) to perpetuate the illusion of an existing established loan account receivable on the books and records of a valid legal creditor and ( b ) to generate funds for the foreclosure players including but not limited to some of the securitization players. In effect, each such foreclosure was a bonus lawsuit i.e., where the proceeds were used to pay bonuses and other compensation to people and companies who assisted in the scheme. \n\nLike other institutionalized practices in this countrys history that were eventually revoked and abandoned as abhorrent to simple notions of decency, law, justice and equity, the time has come for the courts to exercise their independence from executive policy and to apply the laws as they have existed for hundreds of years.\n\nYet, Big Banks lawyers continue to present FALSE statements ( Lies and Perjuries ) to the Courts, along with forged documents, and in 99 % walk away with someones stolen home and all the money when they reinforce the myth that the debts exist and that there is a creditor who owns the debt. In fact, the process referred to as securitization is a process of liquidating any entry on the ledger of any company on which a receivable had appeared. \nThe money never goes to the named claimant where the alleged claim was based upon securitization of the debt because the loan, debt, note, and mortgage were never securitized. ( Securitization means breaking up an asset into component parts that are sold to investors in pro-rata shares. Such sales never occurred. Securities were sold but they did not represent an ownership interest in any asset. ) Thus, Federal Reserves unlimited purchases of Mortgage Backed Securities ( over {$2.00} XXXX ) is another lie to keep this myth floating through the Courts. XXXX, XXXX and XXXX did not purchased any loans simply because here was no one who can sell them. All their Prospectuses are based on forward-looking statements such as we will, we shall but never we did. Moreover, GSEs and other Propsectuses specifically state that their securities are not related to mortgages. \nAll so-called mortgages ( data about borrowers identity ) is processed via Federal Reserve Depository Trust Corporation who assign them to XXXX XXXX XXXX Big Banks sell BETS on performance of DATA which they control without any supervision. \nWall Street Transactions with Homeowners and other borrowers are Not Loans. \nIt is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \nNone of this seems to make sense. Yet on an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. The reason for this disconnect is that most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nFirst, every investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a fictional entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBut as youll see below, by disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities indefinitely without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors ), which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information and a great deal has been written on these pages and by many other authors. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner. While this probably negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner, nobody was any the wiser. \n\nAs shown below, the initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed Chairman, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks a mistake that XXXX later acknowledged. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nAnd this brings us to the strategies to be employed by homeowners in contesting foreclosures and evictions based on foreclosures. Based upon my participation in review of thousands of cases it is always true that any question regarding the existence and ownership of the alleged obligation is treated evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \n\nIn court, the failure to respond to such questions that are posed in proper form and in a timely manner is the foundation for the victory of the homeowner. Although there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. Such cases usually ( not always ) result in either judgment for the homeowner or settlement with the homeowner on very favorable terms. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n* As I have described in some detail in other articles on this blog, with the help of some contributors, the actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n\nSince there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$3.00} XXXX. In my opinion, the amount is much larger than that. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around 15-20 times the amount of currency.\n\nIn the final analysis, if the truth was fully revealed, each foreclosure involves a foreclosure lawyer who does not have any idea whose interest he/she is representing. They may know that they are being paid from an account titled in the name of the self-proclaimed servicer. And because of that, they will often saying that they represent the servicer. They are pretty careful about not specifically saying that the named plaintiff in a judicial foreclosure or the named beneficiary in a nonjudicial foreclosure is their client. That is because they have no retainer agreement or even a relationship with the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. Such lawyers have generally never spoken with anyone employed by the named plaintiff or the named beneficiary. \n\nWhen such lawyers and self-proclaimed servicers go to court-ordered mediation, neither one has the authority to do anything except show up. Proving that the lawyer does not actually represent the named trustee of the fictitious trust can be very challenging. \n\nIf you find the cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors meaning that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. For purposes of the foreclosure, it can not be a named party either much less the client of the attorney, behind whom the securitization players are hiding because of a judicial doctrine called judicial immunity. \n\nIf you ask whether the lawyer who shows up is representing for example XXXX XXXX. Or you might ask whether XXXX XXXX is the client of the lawyer. The answer might surprise you. In some cases, the lawyer insisted that they represented XXXX or some other self-proclaimed servicer. \n\nI am writing to you because In less than 2o days, most moratoriums on foreclosures will expire, unless they are extended. That means that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of foreclosures will be filed or completed over the next year. And just like the XXXX meltdown, the securities brokerage firms that call themselves investment banks will be swarming like maggots over the carcass of millions of lives for demand back money received by homeowners was an inducement to enter into a concealed transaction in which the homeowner was not intended to receive any benefits. \n\nBorrowers asked for a loan but never received a loan. It was not part of a loan agreement because the money was received from players who had no intention of being lenders subject to statute and who had no intention of maintaining a loan account receivable against which payments could be received and posted. \nThe attempt to get payment from homeowners is a concealed attempt to zero out the consideration paid to the homeowner for the concealed transaction. \nIn short, the homeowner was attempting to purchase a loan with the note and mortgage but didnt get it. And the money paid to the homeowner was only temporary consideration for a concealed transaction in which the players received all the benefit and the homeowner took all the concealed risks. \nAnd just like the XXXX crash, the impact of the new wave of foreclosures and evictions based on such foreclosures will be felt for years to come. The full impact of the COVID pandemic wont be known for a long time. It could result in many more people falling into the grasp of greedy Wall Street bankers.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-01-05T13:22:44.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"606XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4003729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","date_received":"2020-12-10T07:39:23.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["But the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank <em>could</em> issue a new security from a fictional <em>entity</em> and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they <em>could</em> receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission."]},"sort":[9.750835,"4003729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"3989813","_score":9.681361,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB, Please find my complaint against First American Title, part of First American Financial ( FAF ) XXXX, XXXX and XXXX XXXX who defraud home buyers with bogus Title insurances which XXXX XXXX  ( a sham conduit for FAF and XXXX XXXX , owned by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who owns several Title Companies, like XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX FAF and XXXX help XXXX XXXX Banks to operate a giant Ponzi  Scheme with derivatives and massively defraud home buyers about the REAL nature of their transaction - secretive participation in fictitious securitization scheme without borrowers knowledge or consent, where XXXX XXXX Banks sell borrowers ' IDENTITIES on the open markets for about 12-184 profits - while pocket ALL so-called \" mortgage payments '' and escrow money as their tax free revenue. \n\nXXXX XXXX never inform home buyers about WHO will actually their \" Title insurance '' company - because both FAF and XXXX know that Big Banks break every property Title in their fraudulent scheme - and of course are not going to compensate defrauded borrowers. \n\nXXXX XXXX Bankers ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX - created a perfect scheme where it simply is incomprehensible to most people how they could get a loan and then not owe it. It is even more incomprehensible that there could be no creditor that could enforce any alleged obligation of the homeowner. After all, the homeowner signed a note which by itself creates an obligation. \n\nBig Banks want to maintain this illusion as long as they can - and here why they need services of FAF and XXXX - whose subsidiaries XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX prepare fictious \" assignments '' about non-existing \" sales '' in fraudulent foreclosures presented by lawyers who do not even know who hired them - XXXX and XXXX. \n\nOn an intuitive level, most people understand that they got screwed in what they thought was a lending process. But they don't know how because most people have no reason to know what happens in the world of investment banking. \n\nBut XXXX and FAF know exactly that really happened when most homeowners thought that they were closing a loan transaction. And they know that property TITLE will be broken and clouded. This is why XXXX  XXXX  XXXX  or XXXX XXXX refuse to fulfill their obligation under the Policy they deceptively sold me. Because XXXX and XXXX XXXX are the part of the XXXX XXXX banks mob. \n\nThis is why XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX falsely claim that my \" mortgage with XXXX XXXX  is excluded from coverage. But I never had ANY mortgages with XXXX - ever. \n\nMy transaction on XX/XX/XXXX was not a loan, and XXXX XXXX was not a Lender. \n\nMy transaction was a payment to me by XXXX XXXX XXXX Banks XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX who was the actual originator who passed me money for MY services to XXXX XXXX Investment Banks ; and who collects my repayment of my only compensation via XXXX agreement with XXXX/XXXX. \n\nNeither XXXX, XXXX or XXXX never touched a cent from these money. They tell they do but it is a lie. All money are going straight to Big Banks as tax-free revenue for my involuntary servitude in their XXXX  Scheme. \n\nEvery investment banker is merely a stockbroker. They do business with investors and other investment bankers. They do not do business with consumers who purchase goods and services or loans. The investment banker is generally not in the business of lending money. The investment banker is in the business of creating capital for new and existing businesses. They make their money by brokering transactions. They make the most money by brokering the sales of new securities including stocks and bonds. \n\nThe compensation received by the investment banker for brokering a transaction varied from as little as 1 % or 2 % to as much as 20 %. The difference is whether they were brokering the sale of existing securities or underwriting new securities. Obviously, they had a very large incentive to broker the sale of new securities for which they would receive 7 to 10 times the compensation of brokering the sale of existing securities. \n\nBut the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank could issue a new security from a FICTIONAL entity and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they could receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission. \n\nBy disconnecting the issuance of securities from the ownership of any perceived obligation from consumers, investment bankers put themselves in a position in which they could issue securities INDEFINITELY without limit and without regard to the amount of the transaction with consumers ( homeowners ) or investors. \n\nIn short, the goal was to make it appear as though loans have been securitized even know they had not been securitized. In order for any asset to have been securitized it would need to have been sold off in parts to investors. What we see in the residential market is that no such sale ever occurred. Under modern law, a sale consists of offer, acceptance, payment, and delivery. So neither the investment bank nor any of the investors to whom they had sold securities, ever received a conveyance of any right, title, or interest to any debt, note, or mortgage from a homeowner. \n\nAt the end of the day, the world was convinced that the homeowner had entered into a loan transaction while the investment banker had assured itself and its investors that it would be free from liability for violation of any lending laws as a lender. \n\nNeither of them maintained a loan account receivable on their own ledgers even though the capital used to pay homeowners originated from banks who loaned money to investment bankers ( based upon sales of certificates to investors XXXX, which was then used to pay homeowners as little as possible from the pool of capital generated by the loans and certificate sales of mortgage-backed bonds. \n\nFrom the perspective of the investment banker, payment was made to the homeowner in exchange for participation in creating the illusion of a loan transaction despite the fact that there was no lender and no loan account. This was covered up by having more intermediaries claim rights as servicers and the creation of payment histories that implied but never asserted the existence or establishment of a loan account. Of course, they would need to dodge any questions relating to the identification of a creditor. That could be no creditor if there was no loan account. This tactic avoided perjury. \n\nOf course, this could only be accomplished through deceit. The consumer or homeowner, government regulators, and the world at large, would need to be convinced that the homeowner had entered into a secured loan transaction, even though no such thing had occurred. From the investment bankers perspective, they were paying the homeowner as little money as possible in order to create the foundation for their illusion. \n\nBy calling it securitization of loans and selling it that way, they were able to create the illusion successfully. They were able to maintain the illusion because only the investment bankers had the information that would show that there was no business entity that maintained a ledger entry showing ownership of any debt, note, or mortgage against which losses and gains could or would be posted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles ( and law ). This is called asymmetry of information. In other words, a LIE. \n\nSince the homeowner had asked for a loan and had received money, it never occurred to any homeowner that he/she was not being paid for a loan or loan documents, but rather was being paid for a service. In order for the transaction to be perceived as a loan obviously, the homeowner had to become obligated to repay the money that had been paid to the homeowner - which negated the consideration paid for the services rendered by the homeowner masqueraded as a \" loan '' The initial sale of the initial certificates was only the beginning of an infinite supply of capital flowing to the investment bank who only had to pay off intermediaries to keep them in the fold. By virtue of the repeal of XXXX in XXXX, none of the certificates were regulated as securities ; so disclosure was a matter of proving fraud ( without any information ) in private actions rather than compliance with any statute. Further, the same investment banks were issuing and trading hedge contracts based upon the performance of the certificates as reported by the investment bank in its sole discretion. \n\nIt was a closed market, free from any free market forces. The theory under which XXXX XXXX, Fed XXXX, was operating was that free-market forces would make any necessary corrections, This blind assumption prevented any further analysis of the concealed business plan of the investment banks. \n\nThere was no free market. Neither homeowners nor investors knew what they were getting themselves into. And based upon the level of litigation that emerged after the crash of XXXX, it is safe to say that the investors and homeowners were deprived of any bargaining position ( because the main aspects for their transition were being misrepresented and concealed ), Both should have received substantially more compensation and would have bargained for it assuming they were willing to even enter into the transaction highly doubtful assumption. \n\nThe investment banks also purchased insurance contracts with extremely rare clauses basically awarding themselves payment for nonexistent losses upon their own declaration of an event relating to the performance of unregulated securities. So between the proceeds from the issuance of certificates and hedge contracts and the proceeds of insurance contracts investment bankers were generally able to generate at least {$12.00} for each {$1.00} that was paid to homeowners and around {$8.00} for each {$1.00} invested by investors in purchasing the certificates. \n\nSo the end result was that the investment banker was able to pay homeowners without any risk of loss on that transaction while at the same time generating capital or revenue far in excess of any payment to the homeowner. Were it not for the need for maintaining the illusion of a loan transaction, the investment banks couldve easily passed on the opportunity to enforce the obligation allegedly due from homeowners. They had already made their money. \n\nThere was no loss to be posted against any account on any ledger of any company if any homeowner decided not to pay the alleged obligation ( which was merely the return of the consideration paid for the homeowners services ). But that did not stop the investment banks from making claims for a bailout and making deals for loss sharing on loans they did not own and never owned. No such losses ever existed. \n\nInvestment bankers first started looking at the consumer lending market back in XXXX there was no bigger market in which they could participate. But there were huge obstacles in doing so. First of all none of them wanted the potential liability for violation of lending laws that had recently been passed on both local and Federal levels ( Truth in Lending Act et al. ) So they needed to avoid classification as a lender. They achieved this goal in 2 ways. First, they did not directly do business of any kind with any consumer or homeowner. They operated strictly through intermediaries that were either real or fictional. If the intermediary was real, it was a sham conduit a company with virtually no balance sheet or income statement that could be collapsed and disappeared if the scheme ever collapsed or just hit a bump in the road. \n\nEither way, the intermediary was not really a party to the transaction with the consumer or homeowner. It did not pay the homeowner nor did it receive payments from the homeowner. It did not own any obligations from the homeowner, according to modern law, because it had never paid value for the obligation. \n\nUnder modern law, the transfer or conveyance of an interest in a mortgage without a contemporaneous transfer of ownership of the underlying obligation is a legal nullity in all states of the union. So transfers from the originator who posed as a virtual creditor do not exist in the eyes of the law if they are shown to be lacking in consideration paid for the underlying obligation, as per Article 9 203 Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all 50 states. The transfers were merely part of the illusion of maintaining the apparent existence of the loan transaction with homeowners. \n\nThis is why neither XXXX or XXXX or XXXX can not respond to a simple question who is the owner of my \" obligation '' ( if exists ) and who and when sold my \" loan '' to XXXX. They answer evasively because the obligation does not exist and can not be owned. \nAlthough there is a presumption of ownership derived from claims of delivery and possession of the note, the proponent of that presumption may not avail itself of that presumption if it fails to answer questions relating to rebutting the presumption of existence and ownership of the underlying obligation. \n\nThe homeowner is not getting away with anything or getting a free house as the investment banks have managed to insert into public discourse. \n\nThey are receiving just compensation for their participation in this game in which they were drafted without their knowledge or consent. Considering the 1200 % gain enjoyed by the investment banks which was enabled by the homeowners participation, the 8 % payment to the homeowner seems only fair. Further, if somehow the homeowners apparent obligation to pay the investment bank survives, it is subject to reformation, accounting, and computation as to the true balance and whether it is secured or not. \n\nThe obligation to repay the consideration paid by the investment bank ( through intermediaries ) seems to be a negation of the consideration paid. If that is true, then there is neither a loan contract nor a securities contract. There is no contract because in all cases the offer and acceptance were based upon different terms ( and different deliveries ) without either consideration or execution of the terns expected by the homeowner under the advertised loan contract. \n\nPayments By Homeowners Do Not Reduce Loan Accounts. Each time that a homeowner makes a payment, he or she is perpetuating the myth that they are part of an enforceable loan agreement. There is no loan agreement if there was no intention for anyone to be a lender and if no loan account receivable was established on the books of any business. The same result applies when a loan is originated in the traditional way but then acquired by a successor. The funding is the same as what is described above. The loan account receivable in the acquisition scenario is eliminated. \n\nOnce the transaction is entered as a reference data point for securitization it no longer exists in form or substance. \n\nFor the past 20 years, most homeowners have been making payments to companies that said they were servicers. Even at the point of a judicial gun ( court order ) these companies will fail or refuse to disclose what they do with the money after receipt. Because of lockbox contracts, these companies rarely have any access to pools of money that were generated through payments from homeowners. \n\nLike their counterparts in the origination of transactions with homeowners, they are sham conduits. Like the originators, they are built to be thrown under the bus when the scheme implodes. They will not report to you the identity of the party to whom they forward payments that they have received from homeowners because they have not received the payments from homeowners and they dont know where the money goes. \n\nThe actual accounting for payments received from homeowners is performed by third-party vendors, mostly under the control of XXXX XXXX. Through a series of sham conduit transfers, the pool of money ends up in companies controlled by the investment bank. Some of the money is retained domestically while some is recorded as an offshore off-balance-sheet transaction. \n\nIn order to maintain an active market in which new certificates can be sold to investors, discretionary payments are made to investors who purchase the certificates. The money comes from two main sources. \n\nOne source is payments made by homeowners and the other source is payments made by the investment bank regardless of whether or not they receive payments from the homeowners. The latter payments are referred to as servicer advances. Those payments come from a reserve pool established at the time of sale of the certificates to the investors, consisting of their own money, plus contributions from the investment bank funded by the sales of new certificates. They are not servicer advances. They are neither in advance nor did they come from a servicer. \n* Since there is no loan account receivable owned by anyone, payments received from homeowners are not posted to such an account nor to the benefit of any owner of such an account ( or the underlying obligation ). Instead, accounting for such payments are either reported as return of capital or trading profits. In fact, such payments are neither return of capital nor trading profit. Since the investment bank has already zeroed out any potential loan account receivable, the only correct treatment of the payment for accounting purposes would be revenue. This includes the indirect receipt of proceeds from the forced sale of property in alleged foreclosures. \n\nBy retaining total control over the accounting treatment for receipt of money from investors and homeowners, the investment bank retains total control over how much taxable income it reports. At present, most of the money that was received by the investment bank as part of this revenue scheme is still sitting offshore in various accounts and controlled companies. It is repatriated as needed for the purpose of reporting revenue and net income for investment banks whose stock is traded on the open market. By some fairly reliable estimates, the amount of money held by investment banks offshore is at least {$30.00} XXXX. \n\nAs a baseline for corroboration of some of the estimates and projections contained in this article and many others, we should consider the difference between the current amount of all the fiat money in the world and the number and dollar amount of cash-equivalents in the shadow banking market. In XXXX, the number and dollar amount of such cash equivalents was XXXX. Today it is {$1.00} quadrillion around XXXX times the amount of currency. \nAnd this XXXX  SCGEME would not succeed if XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX along with other fictitious \" sellers \" of bogus \" Title Insurances '' would not create an APPEARANCE of illusion called \" mortgage '' and \" homeownership '' It is proven by many cases in which investors have sued the named trustee of the alleged XXXX trust for failure to take action that wouldve protected the interest of the investors. \n\nThe outcome of all such cases is a finding by the court that the trustee does not represent the investors, the investors are not beneficiaries of the Trust, and that the trustee has no authority, right, title, or interest over any transaction with homeowners. Since the named trustee has no powers of a trustee to administer the affairs of any active trust with assets or a business operating, it is by definition not a trustee. \n\nAnd EVERY Propectus specifically states that mortgages WILL BE pooled in some Trusts which WILL BE created - while none of it happened in the real life. \n\nThe alleged servicers know that they have no authority and in fact do not perform any collections, administration or enforcement of anyone 's debt. \n\nSince here is NO loan account, it can not be guaranteed by any XXXX  ; there can be no default and hence no remedy is there is either no obligation or no ownership of the obligation by the complaining party. \n\nThis is why XXXX, XXXX and XXXX failed and refused to answer basic questions about the establishment, existence, and ownership of the alleged underlying obligation. \n\nI have clear evidence that my transaction was not a \" loan '' and not with XXXX Mortgage but with undisclosed investment bank who hired FAF and XXXX subsidiarties to damage my property Title. \n\nThus, First American Title and XXXX XXXX XXXX compensate me for damages, at least {$130000.00} under the policy. \n\nPlus damages for extreme emotional distress, and aiding and abetting Investment Banks fraud and racket.","date_sent_to_company":"2020-12-03T11:49:32.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"3989813","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2020-12-03T11:01:04.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["But the Holy Grail of investment banking was devising some system in which the investment bank <em>could</em> issue a new security from a FICTIONAL <em>entity</em> and receive the entire proceeds of the offering. This is what happened in residential lending. And this way, they <em>could</em> receive 100 % of the offering instead of a brokerage commission."]},"sort":[9.681361,"3989813"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7511177","_score":9.478241,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T17:56:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"18017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7511177","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2023-09-06T17:56:36.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.478241,"7511177"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7510891","_score":9.478241,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title. \n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T17:56:14.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"18017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7510891","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2023-09-06T17:08:25.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.478241,"7510891"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5004524","_score":9.475544,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX Complaints Manager, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX Date : XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Email : XXXX Tel : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CC : Branch Manager XXXX Bank of America Financial Center , XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX XXXX. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Customer Assistance, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Texas XXXX and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, Iowa XXXX Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing in reference to an Automatic Push Payment fraud of XXXX that took place on my XXXX bank account in XXXX XXXX ( a/c number XXXX sort XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX where I was made to transfer monies to a woman 's account called XXXX XXXX in Bank Of America. \n\nHer account details are as follows ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, Bank Bank of America, Bank Address XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, MNXXXX ( XXXX ) Home address XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, MN XXXX, A/C No. XXXX, Routing no ; XXXX Sort code ; XXXX Swift code ( foreign ) XXXX XXXX. \n\nThe money went outside of the XXXX jurisdiction to the XXXX, XXXX XXXX account ; XXXX XXXX in a Bank of America XXXX branch that was a front for the criminal who was operating it. I was instructed by the man who alleged he was XXXX XXXX the lead singer from XXXX to send XXXX through this account and the account operated as a front to launder the money he stole from me. \n\nThe definition of Money laundering is the process by which the proceeds of crime are processed ( 'washed ' ) through the financial system to disguise their illegal origin. Money laundering involves : an underlying, profit-making crime ( e.g., tax evasion, fraud, theft, organised crime, drug trafficking, embezzlement ) ; an act to conceal, transfer or convert the proceeds of crime ; and the person involved knows or ought to have known that the property is the proceeds of crime. \n\nThis fraudster alleged he was XXXX XXXX the lead singer from a band called XXXX. I undertook due diligence and got a copy of a passport and drivers licence from this man, but they turned out to be fake. I could not determine that until the XXXX reviewed them and told me they were fake. I also got a solicitor ( Lawyer ) in XXXX where I live, to draft a loan agreement/contract between me and XXXX XXXX to protect myself, but the XXXX have advised me the fraudster falsified XXXX XXXX signature therefore this agreement is null and void. I would have given the bank a copy of this document if they wanted to review it for anti-money laundering legislation and check the address, he supplied on his drivers licence which, when it was later checked turned out to be an office building and not a residential address. \n\nAn XXXX XXXX the XXXX police are currently investigating this case and will be liasing with the XXXX police through XXXX shortly. This man who alleged he was XXXX XXXX led me on for several months, sent me fake XXXX drivers licences, passports and images and also he video called me in XXXX and it was the real XXXX XXXX in the video call and asked me to give him this loan of the XXXX as he was having financial difficulties and he needed the loan for a private project of production of a film he was developing that the record label would not finance. He alleged XXXX XXXX was a woman his manager trusted and I thought she was linked to the record label. I was completely duped into believing this was XXXX XXXX from XXXX but I had the sense to get a solicitor in XXXX to draft a loan agreement. \n\nAs I said the fraudster did live incoming video phone calls with me and it was XXXX XXXX from XXXX in the video calls, but the XXXX have informed me the scammers edited the video which they ripped from XXXX XXXX extensive social media cache. He also sent me multiple images of XXXX XXXX, his family and he sent me audio recordings of XXXX XXXX singing. The fraudster ripped all this data from social media and the internet. \n\nUnder XXXX and XXXX law banks operate as designated persons XXXX Bank as a designated person/institution is required to comply with The Criminal Justice and Money Laundering and Financing Terrorism Act XXXX to XXXX. The obligations of designated persons are that they must ; Carry out risk assessments in respect to their business ; Apply customer due diligence ( for example, identify customers or beneficial owners ), Report suspicious transactions to A XXXX XXXX ( the Financial Intelligence Unit ) and the Revenue Commissioners, and have specific procedures in place to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. They must do customer due diligence on incoming and outgoing transactions to stop money laundering. They must check the end destination of funds if the funds are going out of the jurisdiction. \nI want to know what checks Bank of America had in place to stop international money laundering. \n\nThe transfer of a large amount of money {$25.00} XXXX when converted from euros from a random woman in XXXX did not flag any suspicious markers on the account. I contacted XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX when I finally realised this man was a fraudster and that he had stolen my money. They contacted Bank of America XXXX branch but I am informed that your bank advised them that you could not get the money back as this woman XXXX XXXX had come into the branch and closed her account and withdrawn ALL the stolen money. \n\nI want to know how the Bank of America bank teller did not question this activity as being suspicious when they could see the transfer had come in from XXXX and that this was a large amount of money to be closing the account and then withdrawing in cash and then reverse the transaction back to the XXXX account. \n\nAnything over XXXX is meant to be examined in XXXX and XXXX law. Please explain to me how Bank of America failed to stop this money going out of this money launderers account and that she was allowed to close the account without questions asked and withdraw the monies in cash. \n\nI would like to know what the laws in XXXX and the XXXX are at a national level in terms of countering and deterring money laundering. I want to know what risk assessment Bank of America did on this woman XXXX XXXX when they opened her account and were the documents she supplied to open the account and proof of address genuine and authentic or were they fake? \n\nThe XXXX legal Framework on anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism states ; It is essential that gatekeepers ( banks and other obliged entities ) apply measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. Traceability of financial information has an important deterrent effect. The XXXX XXXX adopted the first anti-money laundering Directive in XXXX to prevent the misuse of the financial system for the purpose of money laundering. \n\nIt provides that obliged entities shall apply customer due diligence requirements when entering a business relationship ( i.e. identify and verify the identity of clients, monitor transactions and report suspicious transactions ). This legislation has been constantly revised to mitigate risks relating to money laundering and terrorist financing. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Under XXXX & XXXX law the bank teller in XXXX Bank XXXX also failed her duties to stop money laundering as she was a designated person and The Act places obligations on designated persons to guard against their businesses being used for money laundering or terrorist financing purposes. Section XXXX of the XXXX Act defines the term designated person as any person working in XXXX in any of the following capacities : A credit or a financial institution ( this includes funds and fund service providers, money lenders, insurance companies, money transmission or bureaux de change businesses, An Post and virtual asset service providers ) unless specifically excepted. \n\nI now have a complaint in with The Financial Ombudsman in XXXX to investigate what XXXX XXXX did wrong and I have reported this matter to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX but I believe Bank of America is also culpable and liable in this matter. I am at a loss of XXXX. \n\nUnless the XXXX XXXX ( XXXX police ) can work with the XXXX police and track this woman XXXX XXXX down through Bank of America giving the police access to her personal data and identity and proof of address documents and then track this fraudster through her my money is effectively gone. I dont accept that. Both banks, Bank of America and XXXX XXXX have to review this matter and refund my losses as quickly as possible please. This was an Automatic Push Payment scam in XXXX and the XXXX banks have signed up to an APP code since XXXX. Please advise what codes Bank of America follows in regard to Automatic Push Payments scams/fraud or whatever you call it in the XXXX. \n\nFurthermore, The XXXX anti-money laundering framework was further strengthened by the Criminal Justice Act in XXXX which amended the Criminal Justice ( Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing ) Act XXXX giving rise to changes in a number of areas including, among others and banks are required to follow and apply the following ; Customer Due Diligence ( CDD ), Requirements for enhanced policies and procedures for detecting and preventing money laundering, and Requirements for the retention of documentation overseas ( subject to specified conditions ). \n\nXXXX XXXX did not ask me for any of the documents I had received from this fraudster including a falsely signed loan agreement in XXXX XXXX name, fake passport in XXXX XXXX name, and fake XXXX drivers in XXXX XXXX name so they could retain these documents even though he was overseas. \n\nBoth XXXX XXXX and Bank of America bank tellers and bank staff in the anti money laundering unit are supposed to be professionals. They are meant to undertake due diligence in regard to anti money laundering and the fraud unit in Bank of America and XXXX XXXX should have picked up on this in the XXXX days they had between the transfer of the money from XXXX to the XXXX. \n\nHad the fraud units in Bank of America and XXXX XXXXXXXX probed this transfer and phoned me like my XXXX bank regularly does when checking for fraud on high amount transfers I would have explained I did not know this woman and had met this man who identified as being XXXX XXXX online and who asked me to give him the loan and transfer the money to XXXX XXXX account as he alleged she was a woman he trusted who worked for the record label and as he was a celebrity he could not give me his account details. \n\nIn their professional capacity as a bank teller, I expect Bank of America to also protect me and to do proper checks on transfers and extrapolation of large sums of money in cash. The teller did not do this and has failed her duty of care and by asking XXXX XXXX more questions she also was professionally negligent. \n\nXXXX bank did not ask for any evidence or proof of what a large amount of money of XXXX was going from an XXXX  account to a XXXX account for and how I knew this woman or who she was but nor did Bank of America ask questions of XXXX XXXX as to who I was, XXXX XXXX a random woman from XXXX that transferred {$26000.00} to her account. \n\nHad the banks asked I would have advised I was giving a loan to a man, and this was an account belonging to a woman ( XXXXrd party ) he asked me to transfer the money into. That would have set off alarms for the bank as being money laundering. \n\nI want to know what fraud checks Bank of America did before they released this money in cash to XXXX XXXX. How did the bank teller not question a large sum of money coming into the account from a random woman in XXXX and then all of a sudden XXXX XXXX was closing her account and withdrawing cash. \n\nThe Bank of America teller should have asked for proof of what the money was being used for and what the source was in line with anti-money laundering legislation and were obliged to ask for more information in relation to the source of the funds and what the money was used for over a certain amount. The risk level of each bank determines it, and I am pretty sure Bank of America have risk levels in place in their anti-money laundering unit. \n\nI would like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in the XXXX to please determine what are Bank of Americas policies in terms of risk assessment and managing risks around money laundering and what due diligence/controls their staff are meant to undertake in regard to fraud and complying with the anti-money laundering legislation. What compliance framework/policies did Bank of America have in place and what controls to prevent this type of activity occurring. \n\nThis was an Automatic Payment Scam were I was made transfer money from my account in XXXX to an account in Bank of America owned by XXXX XXXX in XXXX, XXXX which was an account operating as a front for this scammer. This was a big amount of money going out of the account in XXXX transaction and it should have raised red flags. \n\nNo checks were done on who I was by Bank of America when I was in XXXX. The bank teller did not ask XXXX XXXX how she knew XXXX XXXX a random woman in XXXX or who I was. \n\nI trust the bank tellers and bank to be aware and be professional and flag fraud checks they are the ones with the knowledge, and they did not do enough to stop this random payment being flagged and going out of the account from XXXX or thereafter from the XXXX account in a large closing down withdrawal of cash it was money laundering how did Bank of America staff not get suspicious and stop this transaction happening when she tried to withdraw {$26000.00} in cash. \n\nAs I have stated The XXXX XXXX ( XXXX police ) in XXXX are now investigating the criminal aspect of this matter and are working through XXXX to liaise with XXXX police. I trust that Bank of America will comply and assist this investigation and give the police the bank account details. Proof of address and identity documents and anything else they have on her, of XXXX XXXX quickly, as we have already lost a lot of time. I have only identified XXXX woman on XXXX who goes under the name of XXXX XXXX and she is a XXXX XXXX XXXX. Please can you confirm if this is the same woman you have records for in Bank of America so that the police can move quickly. \n\nAs it stands The Financial Ombudsman of XXXX is now investigating this monetary aspect of this matter but I believe that Bank of America also needs to take joint responsibility for this matter. They should have reversed the incoming monies back to XXXX or checked it more succinctly to confirm it was not money laundering. I am at a loss of XXXX please do the right thing and come to some agreement with XXXX XXXX in XXXX to jointly refund me my monies due to your failures as banks to apply money laundering laws effectively. \n\nI await your reply. Please feel free to send me your response via both post and my email address as I understand it is more quick then post. \n\n\n________________ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2021-12-13T21:25:24.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5004524","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2021-12-13T21:09:43.000Z","state":null,"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":["It provides that obliged <em>entities</em> shall apply customer due diligence requirements when <em>entering</em> a business relationship ( i.e. identify and verify the identity of clients, monitor transactions and report suspicious transactions ). This legislation has been constantly revised to mitigate <em>risks</em> relating to money laundering and terrorist financing."]},"sort":[9.475544,"5004524"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7509745","_score":9.469547,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with sectio\n\nn 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T21:23:45.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Store credit card","zip_code":"07087","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7509745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-09-06T21:17:38.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.469547,"7509745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7509729","_score":9.469547,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third p\narty unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T21:17:19.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"07087","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7509729","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"DISCOVER BANK","date_received":"2023-09-06T20:50:04.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.469547,"7509729"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7511160","_score":9.448673,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T17:56:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"18017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7511160","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2023-09-06T17:56:36.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.448673,"7511160"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7509105","_score":9.4482155,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate.\n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T17:56:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"18017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7509105","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2023-09-06T17:56:36.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.4482155,"7509105"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7511001","_score":9.44779,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"I have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. \n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. \n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.\n\n15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. \n\n( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-06T18:12:02.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"18017","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7511001","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","date_received":"2023-09-06T17:57:45.000Z","state":"PA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.44779,"7511001"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7616640","_score":9.030134,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT This dispute is In regards to XXXX Mile Up card account ending in XXXX and Citi/XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. \nI have asked this company to remove my financial information from my consumer reports and they denied it. Because of this, they have defamed my character and caused me damages. I could not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with sectio n 6803 of this title. ( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. ( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. ( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. ( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. ( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law. 15 U.S. Code 1681a - Definitions ; rules of construction ( 2 ) Exclusions.Except as provided in paragraph ( 3 ), the term consumer report does not include ( A ) subject to section 1681s3 of this title, any ( i ) report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report ; ( ii ) communication of that information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control ; or ( iii ) communication of other information among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons ; ( B ) any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device ; ( C ) any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and such person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 1681m of this title ; or ( D ) a communication described in subsection ( o ) or ( x ) 15 U.S. Code 1681s2 - Responsibilities of furnishers of information to consumer reporting agencies ( a ) Duty of furnishers of information to provide accurate information ( 1 ) Prohibition ( A ) Reporting information with actual knowledge of errors A person shall not furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information is inaccurate. ( B ) Reporting information after notice and confirmation of errors A person shall not furnish information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if ( i ) the person has been notified by the consumer, at the address specified by the person for such notices, that specific information is inaccurate; and ( ii ) the information is, in fact, inaccurate. The company has authorization from me to proceed with the complaint.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-09-29T13:54:24.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"322XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7616640","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIBANK, N.A.","date_received":"2023-09-29T13:42:06.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I <em>could</em> not purchase a home or get approved for another credit card. I demand that this company complies with federal law because they have violated both my privacy and FCRA laws 15 U.S."]},"sort":[9.030134,"7616640"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"12075093","_score":8.433289,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"Notice to Principals is Notice to Agents, Notice to Agents is Notice to Principals To whom it may concern at XXXX investigating the dispute case XXXX, Pursuant to Amex chargeback reason codes and Visa Chargeback Codes. 13.5 Misrepresentation. This code applies when the goods or services are not as advertised or described, leading to the cardholder feeling deceived This applies when the merchant 's advertising or sales materials significantly misrepresent the product or service, deceiving the cardholder. This could include false claims about quality, features, or benefits. 13.3 Services Not As Described, this code is used when the received goods or services do not match the agreed-upon terms or quality. 13.1 Services Not Received. This code is applicable when the cardholder did not receive the goods or services they paid for. This applies when the cardholder did not receive the goods or services they paid for at all. This could be due to non-delivery, order cancellation, or service failure. According to Amex and Visa 's terms of service, card issuers encourage merchants to maintain high ethical standards and comply with Amex and Visa 's rules and regulations. I am politely requesting these charges be disputed. I am requesting a full reversal of the misrepresented transactions. The Merchant has stopped communicating with me and makes no effort to provide services to me. \n\nI am requesting claims and defenses under Federal law 15 USC 1666i. This section specifies the cardholder 's liability is the value of the disputed transactions when the issuer is notified. Regulation Z, specifically 1026.12 of the TILA contains special credit card provisions that limit my liability. According to California Financial Code Section 2102, 17000 and Federal law principles. I reserve the right to refund. Consumers should be protected from financial loss and disputed transactions. In fact, the Fair Credit Billing Act safeguards consumers from fraud or charges on their credit card accounts. I am requesting a reversal of multiple transactions due to material misrepresentation perpetrated by the merchant. I hereby notify the card issuer and representative investigating the case, that I am withholding payment on the disputed charge ( s ). However, to be a loyal consumer I will continue the minimum payments under duress and fear that withheld payments will negatively impact to my credit report and reputation.\n\nPlease grant me an exception for missing the 60-day dispute window because I was unaware I was defrauded until the dispute window passed, at that time I was still gathering evidence and confidence to dispute the multiple transactions. I had to educate myself about these consumer laws, financial concepts, interest rates, and credit card disputes. I was fearful of retaliation by the scammer which delayed my actions. On a personal note, my mother was hospitalized during this period and much of my attention had been focused on communicating with Doctors. Additionally, I was recently diagnosed with XXXX which impaired my judgment and reaction time. Additionally, during this period I received news my wife was XXXX and she would be leaving the United States to return to her home country of XXXX. This required my attention to relocate her. Please grant me a reversal of transactions for my peace of mind and financial stability. Please altruistically consider my circumstances. Your assistance is appreciated.\n\nThe following sections of the Uniform Commercial Code can be applied to consumer transactions, and consumer protection laws often provide additional protections, such as specific disclosure requirements, cooling-off periods, and remedies for deceptive practices.\n\nUCC 2-313 : Express Warranties : This section deals with express warranties, which are created by a seller 's affirmations of fact or promises about the goods. This can be relevant to consumer protection laws, as deceptive advertising or false promises can be considered a breach of express warranty. \nXXXX XXXX money-making opportunity, advice, and scheme used deceptive business practices to influence my decision-making process. His contract and practice is not lawful.\n\nUCC 2-302 : Unconscionable Contract or Clause This section allows courts to refuse to enforce or limit the application of unconscionable contract terms. This can be particularly relevant in consumer contracts where there may be a significant imbalance of bargaining power between the parties. \nXXXX XXXX money-making opportunity, advice, and scheme contract portray a significant balance of bargaining power between us there for is unconscionable. Because the contract is meant to scare me from disputing my charge under duress and fear of financial harm.\n\nUCC 2-315 : Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose : This section implies a warranty that services are fit for a particular purpose if the seller knows of the buyer 's specific needs. \nXXXX XXXX money-making opportunity, advice, and scheme, did not benefit me. He perpetrated fraud and deceit. \nThis can be relevant to consumer protection laws, as it can protect consumers from purchasing products that are not suitable for their intended use. \nThis is the XXXX XXXX XXXX high-yield investment scam timeline that took advantage of my trust and the reason for my distress. \n\nXX/XX/XXXX I responded to an email from XXXX soliciting to invest in an online XXXX XXXX XXXX type company. The company name is XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX registered as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  The owner is XXXX XXXX also known as XXXX XXXX. The website is XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX advertisements promise to build a {$50000.00} - $ XXXX digital asset generating passive income. His advertisements for XXXX per month in 4 months, let alone the {$50000.00} per year advertisements were false and misleading. Unfortunately for me, XXXX never delivered on his service or promises of wealth and prosperity. XXXX XXXX promised a return on the investment in XXXX more months XX/XX/XXXX on our XXXX channel. Which means the estimated date of delivery was XX/XX/XXXX. Hence my delayed suspicion and call to dispute these transactions. \nLittle did I know he was willfully misleading me and scamming every cent from me. Unfortunately, I anticipated ethical conduct, fair reciprocation, and financial transparency. These transactions with XXXX XXXX ultimately frustrated me financially and scared me to dispute earlier. Unfortunately, I suffered from economic hardship via the sudden loss of my job and indebtedness to my creditors. My financial frustration contributed to my gullibility and desperation to believe in XXXX get-rich-quick scheme. \n\nI was unfairly misled by false promises and deceptive marketing tactics to transfer funds using XXXX XXXX stripe account on the following dates : XX/XX/XXXX {$11000.00} from XXXX Refund Granted XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$7000.00} from XXXX Refund Granted XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$7800.00} from Amex Dispute open Ref. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$1000.00} from Amex Dispute open Ref. XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$4900.00} from Amex Dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$19000.00} from XXXX Refund Granted XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX I requested a full refund of XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX refused to refund me. While under duress, fear of retaliation, and loss of the entire investment. XXXX coerced me to invest more with him requesting more time to deliver his service. My signature is not valid for any agreement with XXXX. I received no benefit and am a victim of cybercrime and extortion. Other credit card issuers such as XXXX have sided with me and I trust Amex will align with me. Thank you for your continued service and dedication to protecting customers. \nAdditionally, XXXX XXXX advertisements do not follow FTC requirements. The FTC requires that any ad claiming a specific income amount must also disclose : The number of previous purchasers who earned the claimed income. The percentage of previous purchasers who earned the claimed income. It is important to bear in mind that disclaimers are not always effective and are not a defense if the net impression is still misleading. The FTC has determined that the following acts and practices are deceptive or unfair, and unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act : Misrepresenting that purchasing a money-making opportunity is risk-free or involves little risk. Falsely claiming an endorsement by a third party ; misrepresenting that an endorser is an actual user, a current user, or a recent user ; misrepresenting that an endorsement represents the experience, views, or opinions of users or purported users ; using an endorsement to make deceptive performance claims; failing to disclose an unexpected material connection with an endorser ; and misrepresenting that the experience of endorsers represents consumers typical or ordinary experience. Note that positive consumer reviews are a type of endorsement, so such reviews can be unlawful, e.g., when they are fake or when a material connection is not adequately disclosed. \nIt is an unfair or deceptive trade practice for an advertiser to use testimonials to make unsubstantiated or otherwise deceptive performance claims even if such testimonials are genuine. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to fail to disclose a connection between an endorser and the seller of an advertised product or service if such a connection might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement and if the connection would not be reasonably expected by consumers. It is an unfair or deceptive trade practice to misrepresent explicitly or implicitly through the use of testimonials that the experience described by endorsers of a product or service represents the typical or ordinary experience of users of the product or service. \nHere is a depository of fake testimonies anyone can use for marketing. \nhttps : XXXX? usp=sharing XXXX uses unfair business practices with misleading representations, fake promises, and failure to disclose material facts that would be important to a consumer 's decision-making process. Such as using sensationalized headlines to entice potential customers. engaged in deceptive marketing practices to manipulate my decision-making process, including the use of clickbait advertising and false promises of rapid XXXX growth. These tactics, combined with the failure to disclose potential risks, such as copyright infringement and algorithm penalties, constitute fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionable behavior. By withholding critical information such as the risk of copyright violations and algorithmic penalties XXXX XXXX omitted material facts and induced me to enter into a contract that was unfair and detrimental to my interests. These practices harm consumers and undermine fair market practices. \n\nMoreover, copyright Infringement and algorithm penalties were not previously discussed and purposely omitted from the decision-making process before entering into a contract would make it void. Using copyrighted content without permission can lead to legal action and channel demonetization. Algorithm Penalties : YouTube 's algorithm is designed to identify and penalize low-quality, spammy, or deceptive content. This makes the written agreement invalid, unconscionable, immoral, unfair, illegal, and unenforceable because XXXX XXXX fraudulently gained my confidence and psychologically manipulated me to invest with enticing false metrics promising the safety of an unethical and illicit investment scheme fueled by his greed with no conscience to my benefit. The agreement unfairly assigns 100 % of the risk for failure to launch on me. Leading to my financial frustration. If I were proficient with reading contracts I would have rejected his solicitation. He shows no concern for delivering on his service for XXXX more months communicated on XX/XX/XXXX on his preferred messaging platform SLACK. This means the estimated date of delivery was XX/XX/XXXX. I made him fully aware I was borrowing currency from creditors to finance this option, I needed accurate projections from him and relied on his financial advice and misleading opinion. \nXXXX is actively targeting the California market with a virtual presence, without registering as a California entity to transact international business. Which Goes against the California Corporations Code Section 2105 : This section outlines the requirement for foreign corporations to obtain a certificate of qualification from the Secretary of State before transacting intrastate business in California. The California Corporations Code sections 2105, 15909.02, 16959, 17708.02 ,191 ( a ), 15901.02, 17708.03. All of these relate to the requirement for foreign entities to register with the California Secretary of State if they conduct \" intrastate business '' within California. XXXX XXXX abuses international commerce laws. He uses XXXX registered company and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Companies within XXXX Free Zones are generally restricted to operations within the designated free zone area. The California XXXX XXXX aims to regulate and control the activities of foreign entities within the state. XXXX XXXX Zones are established to attract foreign investment, promote trade, and facilitate international business. Therefore XXXX is illegally transacting with Californian residents like myself and others who are targets of Mr.Sudas clickbait marketing making is contracts void.\n\nUnfortunately, I am a victim of elaborate fraud, psychological games and unsuspectedly transferred money to a professional scammer. Please grant me a reversal of all transactions with the credit card issuer bank and XXXX XXXX. \nThere is a public forum dedicated to warning unsuspecting victims about XXXX scam https : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is registered and physically based at XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX - XXXX XXXX Email XXXX The alternative address listed on the transaction is XXXX - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX I reject all types of solicitation offers from XXXX XXXX, I cancel all contracts without prejudice and without recourse. \nI object to the criminality thaXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) PRIVATE LIMIT perpetrated by misrepresenting money-making opportunities as beneficial to clients ' financial well-being. \nI object to the unlawful behavior perpetrated by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX PRIVATE LIMIT by violating the following consumer protection codes : electronic solicitor code 4719.01, signed written confirmation of sales code 4719.07, Investment advisers act ( IAA ), Section 5 of the FTC Act, and California Corporations Code Section 17150. \nI have requested XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  PRIVATE LIMIT and its agents to be investigated by the local police department ( s ), the California Department of Financial Innovation and Protection, the California Department of Justice, the California Department of Consumer Affairs, the XXXX XXXX XXXX, SEC, the Internet Crime Complaint Center, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network ( ICPEN ) California Privacy Protection Agency and the Federal Trade Commission. While these agencies may have different jurisdictions and specific mandates, they share common goals of protecting consumers like myself. Deceptive marketing practices can have serious legal implications. They violate federal and state consumer protection laws, including the Federal Trade Commission Act. By misleading consumers and inducing them into unfair contracts, these practices harm consumers and undermine fair market practices.\n\nDeceptive marketing practices can have serious legal implications. They violate federal and state consumer protection laws. By misleading consumers and inducing them into unfair contracts, these practices harm consumers and undermine fair market practices. \n\nFTC Report Number XXXX / XXXX FTC Identity Theft Report XXXXXXXX XXXX  Report number XXXX / XXXX CFPB Complaint Sent to XXXX XXXX  XXXX Econsumer.gov report ID XXXX / XXXX SEC Complaint XXXX / XXXX CFPB Complaint Sent to American Express Company XXXX Office of the Comptroller of Currency Compalin sent to American Express CFPB ID FOR COMPLAINT SENT TO AMERICAN EXPRESS NATIONAL BANK XXXX With clean hands and good faith, XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Websites : https XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-20T20:18:48.000Z","issue":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"89139","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"12075093","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","date_received":"2025-02-13T06:39:56.000Z","state":"NV","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["All of these relate to the requirement for foreign <em>entities</em> to register with the California Secretary of State if they conduct \" intrastate business '' within California. XXXX XXXX abuses international commerce laws. He uses XXXX registered company and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : Companies within XXXX Free Zones are generally restricted to operations within the designated free zone area. The California XXXX XXXX aims to regulate and <em>control</em> the activities of foreign <em>entities</em> within the state."]},"sort":[8.433289,"12075093"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6556672","_score":8.106066,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX have mailed Notice, emailed Notice and gave notice verbally to opt out of sharing per USC law to Great Lakes and US Department of Education . Great Lakes agent stated documents were not in account when I show they were received. The phone call XX/XX/XXXX was considered the 3rd notice to stop sharing my information, payment history, credit worthiness, etc with any agencies and non-affiliates of department of education and Great Lakes. They have ignored every notice since XX/XX/XXXX, 2nd notice sent XX/XX/XXXX verbal ignored as well. They asked that I email the documents that were sent which I did. They responded that the could not validate my account and need my last 4 of my social which I gave my full social in the notice, my birth date and Great lakes account. This account was resolved many years ago and because it was proven XXXX and XXXX has removed Great lakes department of education from my credit report or it shows as closed. XXXX continues to report it despite the account showing as closed or not at all with the other two agencies. XXXX is also in violation for reporting inaccurate information on my report that is to be removed, closed or suppressed. \n\nThey are currently in violation of : The privacy act of 1974 15 USC 6802 20 USC 1232G 5 USC 522A 15 USC 1681 Violation of 15 USC 1681a ( 2 ) ( a ) ( 1 ) Violation of 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 2 ) Violation of 15 USC 1681 ( a ) ( 4 ) Violation of 15 USC 1681 ( b ) ( c ) Violation of 15 USC 1681 ( b ) Violation of 15 USC 1692 ( f ) Violation of 15 USC 1681n Violation of 15 USC 1681s-2 ( a ) ( B ) ( i ) ( ii ) Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( F.C.R.A. ) Violation of the F.D.C.P.A Defamation of character ( a ) NOTICE REQUIREMENTS Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) OPT OUT ( 1 ) IN GENERALA financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \n( 2 ) EXCEPTION This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. \n( c ) LIMITS ON REUSE OF INFORMATION Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. \n( d ) LIMITATIONS ON THE SHARING OF ACCOUNT NUMBER INFORMATION FOR MARKETING PURPOSES A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. \n( e ) GENERAL EXCEPTIONSSubsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-02-10T14:41:38.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"281XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6556672","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2023-02-10T13:58:32.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the"]},"sort":[8.106066,"6556672"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9104100","_score":8.084845,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Transunion, XXXX, & XXXX continue to report incorrect information on the account listed as XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that have not been properly verified as accurate and neither co XXXX XXXX provided me with the evidence they used to prove I was indeed late. \n\nTransunion XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX These late payments are also report three different ways which means they could not have been provided with any proof because this account can not report three different ways.\n\n( a ) Time to make payments A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date.\n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge.\n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:57:42.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9104100","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:50:21.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the"]},"sort":[8.084845,"9104100"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11818811","_score":8.084845,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Since XXXX I have been disputing incorrect information and the sharing of my non-public private information via consumer reports with the XXXX major consumer reporting agencies as well as agencies such as XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX. More so recently I wrote to the consumer agencies as well as my financial institutions ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) to opt out of sharing of my non-public private information and they responded that the information they have has been validated as accurate without providing any proof of the accuracy and that they are allowed to share my information. \n\nAt this point I have no idea what to do as all of my efforts to correct the information and to enforce my rights in regards to credit reporting had been ignored by all of these institutions. \n\nAccording to the FCRA I have the right to dispute any incorrect information and to OPT out of the sharing of my non-public private information. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - Protection of nonpublic personal information ( a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the XXXX that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. \n\n( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( XXXX ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( XXXX ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( XXXX ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. \n\n15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information XXXX XXXX Notes XXXX | next ( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section XXXX of this title. \n\n( b ) Opt out ( XXXX ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section XXXX of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. \n( XXXX ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between XXXX or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section XXXX of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. \n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. \n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. \n\n( XXXX ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( XXXX ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( XXXX ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( XXXX ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( XXXX ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( XXXX ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, XXXX, and auditors ; ( XXXX ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of XXXX [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter XXXX of chapter XXXX of title XXXX, and chapter XXXX of title I of Public Law XXXX ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a XXXX insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( XXXX ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( XXXX ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( XXXX ) to comply with XXXX, XXXX, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by XXXX, XXXX, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-01-28T19:21:14.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Other personal consumer report","zip_code":"53218","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11818811","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2025-01-28T18:04:13.000Z","state":"WI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( XXXX ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( XXXX ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating"]},"sort":[8.084845,"11818811"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9104145","_score":8.083923,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX, XXXX, & Equifax continue to report incorrect information on the account listed as XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that have not been properly verified as accurate and neither XXXX XXXX XXXX provided me with the evidence they used to prove I was indeed late. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Equifax XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX These late payments are also report three different ways which means they could not have been provided with any proof because this account can not report three different ways.\n\n( a ) Time to make payments A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date.\n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge.\n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:57:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9104145","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"EQUIFAX, INC.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:57:48.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the"]},"sort":[8.083923,"9104145"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9104144","_score":8.083923,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX, Experian, & XXXX continue to report incorrect information on the account listed as XXXX Account # XXXX there are several late payments that have not been properly verified as accurate and neither XXXX XXXX XXXX provided me with the evidence they used to prove I was indeed late. \n\nXXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Experian XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX These late payments are also report three different ways which means they could not have been provided with any proof because this account can not report three different ways.\n\n( a ) Time to make payments A creditor may not treat a payment on a credit card account under an open end consumer credit plan as late for any purpose, unless the creditor has adopted reasonable procedures designed to ensure that each periodic statement including the information required by section 1637 ( b ) of this title is mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the payment due date.\n\n( b ) Grace period If an open end consumer credit plan provides a time period within which an obligor may repay any portion of the credit extended without incurring an additional finance charge, such additional finance charge may not be imposed with respect to such portion of the credit extended for the billing cycle of which such period is a part, unless a statement which includes the amount upon which the finance charge for the period is based was mailed or delivered to the consumer not later than 21 days before the date specified in the statement by which payment must be made in order to avoid imposition of that finance charge.\n\n( a ) Notice requirements Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a financial institution may not, directly or through any affiliate, disclose to a nonaffiliated third party any nonpublic personal information, unless such financial institution provides or has provided to the consumer a notice that complies with section 6803 of this title.\n\n( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option.\n\n( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information.\n\n( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution.\n\n( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer.\n\n( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; ( 5 ) to the extent specifically permitted or required under other provisions of law and in accordance with the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 [ 12 U.S.C. 3401 et seq. ], to law enforcement agencies ( including the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection [ 1 ] a Federal functional regulator, the Secretary of the Treasury with respect to subchapter II of chapter 53 of title 31, and chapter 2 of title I of Public Law 91508 ( 12 U.S.C. 19511959 ), a State insurance authority, or the Federal Trade Commission ), self-regulatory organizations, or for an investigation on a matter related to public safety ; ( 6 ) ( A ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act [ 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. ], or ( B ) from a consumer report reported by a consumer reporting agency ; ( 7 ) in connection with a proposed or actual sale, merger, transfer, or exchange of all or a portion of a business or operating unit if the disclosure of nonpublic personal information concerns solely consumers of such business or unit; or ( 8 ) to comply with Federal, State, or local laws, rules, and other applicable legal requirements ; to comply with a properly authorized civil, criminal, or regulatory investigation or subpoena or summons by Federal, State, or local authorities ; or to respond to judicial process or government regulatory authorities having jurisdiction over the financial institution for examination, compliance, or other purposes as authorized by law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-05-28T04:57:50.000Z","issue":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"33647","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9104144","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-05-28T04:57:48.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the"]},"sort":[8.083923,"9104144"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9387647","_score":7.8653316,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Per the FRCA as a Federal protected consumer. I am opting out of any authorization I may have given to you verbal, nonverbal, written, non written per 15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information U.S. Code ( a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. ( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( 1 ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( 2 ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( 3 ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. ( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. ( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. About LII Get the law Lawyer directory Legal encyclopedia Help out LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations ( e-CFR ) Title 16Commercial Practices CHAPTER IFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER CREGULATIONS UNDER SPECIFIC ACTS OF CONGRESS PART 313PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION Subpart APrivacy and Opt Out Notices 313.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. CFR prev | next 313.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the ( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. ( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; 16 CFR 433.3 - Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/year> from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). CFR prev | next 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/year> from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XX/XX/year>, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( 3 ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( 4 ) Contract which does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses : A consumer credit contract which does not constitute or contain a negotiable instrument, or contain any waiver, limitation, term, or condition which has the effect of limiting a consumer 's right to assert against any holder of the contract all legally sufficient claims and defenses which the consumer could assert against the seller of goods or services purchased pursuant to the contract.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-01T03:35:17.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9387647","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2024-07-01T03:35:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies"]},"sort":[7.8653316,"9387647"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9387648","_score":7.8458076,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Per the FRCA as a Federal protected consumer. I am opting out of any authorization I may have given to you verbal, nonverbal, written, non written per 15 U.S. Code 6801 - Protection of nonpublic personal information U.S. Code ( a ) Privacy obligation policy It is the policy of the Congress that each financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers nonpublic personal information. ( b ) Financial institutions safeguards In furtherance of the policy in subsection ( a ), each agency or authority described in section 6805 ( a ) of this title, other than the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, shall establish appropriate standards for the financial institutions subject to their jurisdiction relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards ( 1 ) to insure the security and confidentiality of customer records and information ; ( 2 ) to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to the security or integrity of such records ; and ( 3 ) to protect against unauthorized access to or use of such records or information which could result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any customer. 15 U.S. Code 6802 - Obligations with respect to disclosures of personal information ( b ) Opt out ( 1 ) In general A financial institution may not disclose nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party unless ( A ) such financial institution clearly and conspicuously discloses to the consumer, in writing or in electronic form or other form permitted by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, that such information may be disclosed to such third party ; ( B ) the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that such information is initially disclosed, to direct that such information not be disclosed to such third party ; and ( C ) the consumer is given an explanation of how the consumer can exercise that nondisclosure option. ( 2 ) Exception This subsection shall not prevent a financial institution from providing nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party to perform services for or functions on behalf of the financial institution, including marketing of the financial institutions own products or services, or financial products or services offered pursuant to joint agreements between two or more financial institutions that comply with the requirements imposed by the regulations prescribed under section 6804 of this title, if the financial institution fully discloses the providing of such information and enters into a contractual agreement with the third party that requires the third party to maintain the confidentiality of such information. ( c ) Limits on reuse of information Except as otherwise provided in this subchapter, a nonaffiliated third party that receives from a financial institution nonpublic personal information under this section shall not, directly or through an affiliate of such receiving third party, disclose such information to any other person that is a nonaffiliated third party of both the financial institution and such receiving third party, unless such disclosure would be lawful if made directly to such other person by the financial institution. 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. About LII Get the law Lawyer directory Legal encyclopedia Help out LII Electronic Code of Federal Regulations ( e-CFR ) Title 16Commercial Practices CHAPTER IFEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION SUBCHAPTER CREGULATIONS UNDER SPECIFIC ACTS OF CONGRESS PART 313PRIVACY OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL INFORMATION Subpart APrivacy and Opt Out Notices 313.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. 16 CFR 313.7 - Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. CFR prev | next 313.7 Form of opt out notice to consumers ; opt out methods. ( a ) ( 1 ) Form of opt out notice. If you are required to provide an opt out notice under 313.10 ( a ), you must provide a clear and conspicuous notice to each of your consumers that accurately explains the right to opt out under that section. The notice must state : ( i ) That you disclose or reserve the right to disclose nonpublic personal information about your consumer to a nonaffiliated third party ; ( ii ) That the consumer has the right to opt out of that disclosure; and ( iii ) A reasonable means by which the consumer may exercise the ( d ) Limitations on the sharing of account number information for marketing purposes A financial institution shall not disclose, other than to a consumer reporting agency, an account number or similar form of access number or access code for a credit card account, deposit account, or transaction account of a consumer to any nonaffiliated third party for use in telemarketing, direct mail marketing, or other marketing through electronic mail to the consumer. ( e ) General exceptions Subsections ( a ) and ( b ) shall not prohibit the disclosure of nonpublic personal information ( 1 ) as necessary to effect, administer, or enforce a transaction requested or authorized by the consumer, or in connection with ( A ) servicing or processing a financial product or service requested or authorized by the consumer ; ( B ) maintaining or servicing the consumers account with the financial institution, or with another entity as part of a private label credit card program or other extension of credit on behalf of such entity ; or ( C ) a proposed or actual securitization, secondary market sale ( including sales of servicing rights ), or similar transaction related to a transaction of the consumer ; ( 2 ) with the consent or at the direction of the consumer ; ( 3 ) ( A ) to protect the confidentiality or security of the financial institutions records pertaining to the consumer, the service or product, or the transaction therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional risk control, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, applicable rating agencies of the financial institution, persons assessing the institutions compliance with industry standards, and the institutions attorneys, accountants, and auditors ; 16 CFR 433.3 - Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/year> from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). CFR prev | next 433.3 Exemption of sellers taking or receiving open end consumer credit contracts before XX/XX/year> from requirements of 433.2 ( a ). ( a ) Any seller who has taken or received an open end consumer credit contract before XX/XX/year>, shall be exempt from the requirements of 16 CFR part 433 with respect to such contract provided the contract does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses. ( b ) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this exemption : ( 1 ) All pertinent definitions contained in 16 CFR 433.1. ( 2 ) Open end consumer credit contract : a consumer credit contract pursuant to which open end credit is extended. ( 3 ) Open end credit : consumer credit extended on an account pursuant to a plan under which a creditor may permit an applicant to make purchases or make loans, from time to time, directly from the creditor or indirectly by use of a credit card, check, or other device, as the plan may provide. The term does not include negotiated advances under an open-end real estate mortgage or a letter of credit. ( 4 ) Contract which does not cut off consumers ' claims and defenses : A consumer credit contract which does not constitute or contain a negotiable instrument, or contain any waiver, limitation, term, or condition which has the effect of limiting a consumer 's right to assert against any holder of the contract all legally sufficient claims and defenses which the consumer could assert against the seller of goods or services purchased pursuant to the contract.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-01T03:35:17.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"92411","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9387648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2024-07-01T03:35:15.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["therein ; ( B ) to protect against or prevent actual or potential fraud, unauthorized transactions, claims, or other liability ; ( C ) for required institutional <em>risk</em> <em>control</em>, or for resolving customer disputes or inquiries ; ( D ) to persons holding a legal or beneficial interest relating to the consumer ; or ( E ) to persons acting in a fiduciary or representative capacity on behalf of the consumer ; ( 4 ) to provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies"]},"sort":[7.8458076,"9387648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4295794","_score":7.770385,"_source":{"product":"Debt collection","complaint_what_happened":"Dear CFPB Please find my complaint against Nationwide Title Clearing Inc. for illegal and fraudulent transfer of my property to fake \" servicer '' XXXX Loan Servicing, XXXX, and fatal damages to my property Title. \n\nI am a victim of XXXX XXXX Banks and their sham conduits who pose as \" Lenders '' and \" Servicers '' illegal activities. It is not a secret that XXXX XXXX Banks ( Stockbrokers ) operate a giant Ponzi Scheme where they pass borrowed from other companies money which they masquerade as a \" loan '' via sham conduits who pose as \" Lenders ''. \n\nAs soon as borrowers sign a Promissory Note and a Mortgage, Big Banks scan this data and place in their depository company - XXXX XXXX - while Mortgages and Notes are intentionally destroyed to preserve XXXX XXXX Banks ability to sell BETS to investors on INFORMATION about \" loans '', on indefinite basis. Nobody sell any loans, this is a lie to defraud borrowers and investors. Nobody maintain any accounts receivable for \" loans ''. See details below. \n\nI became seriously concerned about my life and well-being, so I had to file a police report when a stranger appeared on my property yesterday and left me a very suspicious note to in \" urgently call my Servicer '', after another shady company, registered in Delaware and located in XXXX XXXX, sent me an offer to buy my home for cash ( which based public records, this company obviously does not have ). When I emailed this company and asked who provided them my information, they never responded. \n\nAll of it happened about a week after I submitted my second request to Senator XXXX  to contact XXXX XXXX and verify who was the Seller of my \" loan '' to XXXX and which XXXX XXXX XXXX has my \" loan '' as an asset on their account receivable. \n\nXXXX XXXX has no idea about my loan ; and during all time in question was not able to produce a singe document about ownership of my loan ; as well as about reported transactions. \n\nWhen I went to a police station to file a report, I also decided to check Deed Recorders ' office to see if here are any suspicious activities. \n\nOf course I found it. \n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX ( or more that 1 year after XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX appeared as a \" Servicer '' on XX/XX/XXXX, and lied non-stop, Nationwide Title Clearing, a company that creates tens of thousands of assignments as a third-party contractor, created a fraudulent \" assignment '' to PennyMac from MERS - without ANY disclosures in which capacity PennyMac received this \" assignment '', The Assignment also failed to disclose which rights had MERS to assign anything on behalf of XXXX since XXXX has no corporate registration to conduct business in the State of Michigan ( source : XXXX Michigan ) ; and no agency relationship with XXXX XXXX to transfer anything to XXXX in XXXX. \n\nXXXX  only servers their members and XXXX  are not members of XXXX. I doubt if XXXX Mortgage which is defunct since XXXX, also was a member of MERS. \n\nAll while someone assigned my \" loan '' to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX former XXXX XXXX via collateral shipper XXXX XXXX who prepared an Allonge on XX/XX/XXXX, which was my closing day. \n\nXXXX initially claimed to be an \" owner '' of my \" loan '', but later said they are merely \" Servicers '' - but never were explain WHOM XXXX is servicing and who appointed them as a Servicer. \n\nAccording to XXXX, the owner is XXXX XXXX - who has no idea about my loan ; and who purportedly dumped their \" mortgage backed '' securities to Federal Reserve in XXXX, without any notices to homeowners. \n\nWhich created a reasonable question - under which authority XXXX acted as a \" Servicer '' for my \" loan '' for more than 12 months, and pretended that they \" collect '' my mortgage payments while it was all done by XXXX XXXX via XXXX agreements with XXXX, XXXX and their branch XXXX, XXXX. \n\nAll my money are pocketed by XXXX XXXX XXXX while property taxes and insurances are paid by XXXX XXXX now XXXX XXXX XXXX. \n\nXXXX failed to explain how they obtained any rights to collect from me ; and who sold them my loan - while the fraudulent \" assignment '' was prepared by FL corporation Nationwide Title Clearing Inc and \" Vice President '' of XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX in Florida and recorded in XXXX XXXX - who apparently does not care who file essential documents in their records and which rights these people have to prepare and file such documents - which fatally damage property Titles. \n\nXXXX was a part of mass document forgery along with XXXX XXXX ( former Lender 's Processing Services/DocX, LLC ) and subject of legal actions by Attorney Generals. \n\nMortgage assignment reflects a change in creditor ownership, while the sale of servicing rights from servicer to servicer are entirely different matters. \n\nXXXX appeared as a \" Servicer '' in XX/XX/XXXX and lied that they \" purchased '' my loan from someone. However, nobody confirmed ANY sales of my \" loan \" to XXXX ; and nobody disclosed whom XXXX is servicing and who appointed them as a Servicer. XXXX lied that my \" loan '' was \" pooled '' in some XXXX XXXX security where Trustee is XXXX. However, XXXX XXXX and XXXX have no records of any security where my \" loan '' is purportedly pooled. \n\nNobody disclosed who is XXXX XXXX who transferred my \" loan '' to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX renamed XXXX, who was another sham conduit for XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, which was my closing day. XXXX Mortgage, who was posing as a \" Lender '' - also can not explain how and when XXXX obtained servicing rights. \n\nIn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX was sued by XXXX XXXX for theft of their trade secrets. Since XXXX XXXX and XXXX work together and share a platforms, so here are possible loopholes to for fake Servicers to make some money on the side. \n\n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XXXX offered XXXX {$7.00} XXXX to purchase them even though XXXX rejected. But XXXX took over anyway, in an urgent manner, which means here was some reason for such rush - centralize all data in one hands. \n\n\n\nMoney for this purchase were \" borrowed '' from XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX. XXXX XXXX ( co- '' buyer '' with XXXX XXXX XXXX is operated by XXXX XXXX  banker XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX collects all my money. In other words, Bank XXXX XXXX purchased XXXX via XXXX XXXX, to prevent decentralization of data. \n\n\nOn XX/XX/XXXX MERS, who have no legal registration to conduct business in Michigan ; and no agency relationship with XXXX since XXXX  is only serving their members, acted as a nominee for XXXX Mortgage and \" assigned '' my \" mortgage '' to XXXX. \n\nI truly doubt if XXXX which is dissolved two years ago, was MERS member to appoint XXXX as a \" nominee '' and even IF XXXX was a member, they still have no legal right to assign XXXX as a \" mortgagee '' for many reasons. \n\n\nThe Assignment ( enclosed ) - did not mentioned in which capacity XXXX is acting to lawfully accept my loan. \n\n\n\nXXXX, Florida XXXX, who also has no corporate registration to conduct business in Michigan although they file assignments all over the place, also has no agency relationship with XXXX XXXX to rightfully assign my \" loan '' to XXXX. \n\nYet, XXXX fabricate fake \" assignments '' to fake \" Servicers '' like XXXX. \n\n\nAccording to XXXX, XXXX and XXXX, my \" loan '' is in XXXX XXXX \" pooled securitiy '' where BONY is a Trustee. \n\n\n\nThus, IF someone might have a legal right to accept my \" loan '' after they paid VALUE for it ( purchased ) is BONY as an Agent for the Trust. But apparently XXXX is not going to lend their name anymore as a Trustee, so Assignments are randomly done to anyone who somehow fit into their role. \n\nThe simple truth is that XXXX bought nothing as it relates to my loan. They may have succeeded to servicing rights but servicing rights do not exist in a vacuum. Servicing rights ONLY exist when the owner of the underlying debt grants authority to administer, collect or enforce the underlying obligation as evidenced by the promissory note. \n\n\n\nWithout that connection, the servicer is not serving anyone. But by pretending to be the servicing through the publication of self-serving correspondence, statements, and notices, the use of the servicers name creates an opportunity to collect scheduled payments from homeowners even though they are not being collected on behalf of anyone who owns the underlying debt. \n\nXXXX XXXX CONTROL OFF TRACK BETTING In order to retain apparent control over everything without actually being in legal control, the XXXX XXXX brokers had to do two things. First, they had to make sure that none of the placeholders - XXXX, servicers or trustees ever touched any money except that which was paid to them through a convoluted series of conduits. Second, they had to make certain that none of the placeholders actually did anything. \n\n\n\nXXXX was an electronic placeholder with insecure access so that foreclosure players could manipulate data and apparent chains of title without ever recording those changes which were an illusion. \n\n\n\nServicers were electronic placeholders often acting as the face for XXXX XXXX and sometimes other entities who controlled lockbox addresses to which all payments were forwarded. Those checks or payments were deposited into accounts controlled by a conduit for the XXXX XXXX broker. Accounting is automated so servicers could produce reports and then servicers send in robo witnesses ( usually contract employees ) to attest to the records being within the hearsay exemption as business records. \n\n\n\nTrustees were electronic placeholders whose only role was to rent their name out, same as MERS and Servicers, but they play absolutely no role in any administration, collection, or enforcement of any debt, note, or mortgage. \n\n\n\nThe grant of rights, duties, or obligations from one who does not own or control them is a legal nullity. But a piece of paper saying that such a grant was made, raises inferences, assumptions or presumptions from the document A servicer is an agent of a principal. In this case, the principal would be the owner of the underlying debt. In our system you can only get to own something upon the occurrence of one of two events in the real world you buy it or it is a gift. There are no other ways to own any asset. \n\n\n\nPURCHASE OF A DEBT MUST INCLUDE PAYMENT In the case of a purchase, there would be easily confirmable supporting documents that show proof of payment along with an entry on the accounting ledger of the buyer showing a decrease in one asset category ( e.eg. Cash ) and a corresponding increase in another category of assets ( e.g. loans receivable or loan account receivable ). \n\n\n\nNo such documents or ledger entries occur in the world of securitization. \nXXXX XXXX is spreading this type of disinformation to his clientele, and is basically encouraging clients of Nationwide Title Clearing to commit fraud by fabricating documents to fill in the blanks and perfect defective Chain of Titles.\n\nNationwide Title Clearing is promoting its Assignment Verification Report service to compare the records filed in the county with the purported document file the servicer received from a prior servicer- while knowing that most mortgages are defective and can cause real issues in a court of law. \nUnfortunately for Nationwide Title Clearing and its clients, a paper assignment can not ratify an event that never occurred. The event is the purchase of a loan or many loans. The proof is not the assignment but the payment for the assignment. Document fabricating companies, servicers and the Courts are wrong when they say the assignment could be theoretically ratified/corrected and then concluding that therefore the ( fabricated ) assignment is voidable not void.\n\nNTC believe if someone is looking at an assignment that they should conclude that there must have been a transaction if there was an assignment. Nationwide Title Clearing is very aware of the fraud in the documents and the fraud it is attempting to white wash.\n\nNationwide Title Clearing is selling the concept that if they forge, fabricate and robosign a document at a nominal cost for the servicer that they can make the assignment ( or note ) valid. The proper way to look at it would be for Nationwide Title Clearing to actually investigate that there was a transaction and then proceed knowing the assignment could be valid and could therefore be legally ratified. If there is no transaction, there is nothing to ratify and therefore the assignment is void, not voidablE Nationwide Title Clearing is selling an illusion, and likely committing fraud by creating documents in which they are attempting to validate a transaction ( the assignment of a loan ) that never occurred. This is akin to Nationwide Clearing deciding to create car titles for debt collection agencies that never purchased the loans for value in the first place, but need the title to create the appearance of ownership/legitimacy. XXXX is very aware that there is an issue with the transfer of mortgages and uses fear to sell his service. He says, Try convincing an auditor that you didnt have a great process in place for loans you previously purchased or loans that have any sort of modification activity or default activity involved. He also uses the threat of CFPB compliance and investigations and warns, It is essential that the assignment is accurate, but fails to inform the reader that Nationwide Title Clearings process does little to make any part of the defective or missing assignment accurate.\n\nIf there are issues with a loan, Nationwide Title Clearing has a product to correct the deficiency.\n\nBut in my situation it is a pure fraud and illegal cloud on my Title. \nI respectfully request XXXX XXXX Recorder to REMOVE all illegal liens ; and conduct full investigation to this matter, starting with and MERS ' legal authority to conduct business in Michigan without State registration ; and assign any rights for GSEs \" loans '' - without any agency relationship. As well as to identify the Company who has my \" loan '' recorded as an asset on their ledger on their account receivable. So far nobody was able to find such company. \nBest regards, XXXX XXXX How XXXX XXXX Banks defraud homeowners and Investors, in details : This is a whole new level of securitization. And it was brought to us by XXXX XXXX brokers. They were not satisfied by finding undervalued bonds that would pay out 3-4 times the price on the bond market. They were not satisfied by the creation of junk bonds in which value was created out of nothing with the near certainty that the acquired companies would fail. The brokers next generations scheme was to bring forth a cloud of smoke and mirrors in which there was no value and there were no losses for the broker and they named it derivative. \n\nSo they invented certificates that would be called mortgage bonds. They were issued not by any lender but by the brokers themselves in the name of a brand name bank, as trustee for a nonexistent trust. \nThe purchaser of the certificates received discretionary promises from the broker that they would receive some regular payment not from the trustee bank who was guaranteed and indemnified against any claims or losses by the brokers. \nThe investors were told that the money to pay them would come from homeowners who were putting up their homes as collateral for a loan deal. The homeowners, of course, had no idea the investors, the brokers, the trustee or the trust was named or existed. \nThe homeowner thought that he/she was dealing with a company that was lending them money. That company would become known as the originator. \nBut they were not given any right to collect that money. They only received a promise from the investment bank that the scheduled payments to investors would be made. Investors received no right, title or interest in any transaction, obligation, debt, note or mortgage from homeowners. And buried within the prospectus was the disclosure that the payments might come from the money the investors had advanced and not from homeowners. It might even come from investors in other deals. And any analysis by any competent securities analyst would have and did reveal that this was a Ponzi scheme. \n\nMeanwhile, the brokers took part of the money from the investors and paid homeowners to execute the note and mortgage. But the brokers never took ownership of the transaction, debt, note, or mortgage. The brokers started trading securities as if they owned the stock ( or loan ) but not really owning it. But the brokers took it one step further. They instructed companies to pose as loan servicers who in turn would hire attorneys to foreclose on the loans that were not owned by any of the designated parties. \n\nThe linchpin problem in foreclosures is simple. \nThe brokers had borrowed money from lenders like XXXX XXXX against the sale of certificates to investors, the proceeds of which were used to pay off the lenders. \nThe borrowed money was what was used to pay homeowners. So the investors purchase of certificates was in no way linked to funding any transaction with homeowners. \nThis meant that nobody owned the loan and nobody had ever made an entry on any general ledger on which any loan account receivable was ever started. It also meant that nobody had a loss arising from a missed scheduled payment from the homeowner. And since nobody in the chain had ever paid for ownership of a loan, no loan was created, despite the homeowners belief that they had applied for and received a loan. \n\nSince the money for the homeowner transaction came from a third party loan to the brokers, and since that loan was satisfied by the sale of certificates XXXX mortgage bonds ) there was no possible transaction in real life in which anyone could legally transfer ownership of the loan. \nSuch a transfer could only ( a ) come from someone who owned it and ( b ) be effective upon payment of value for the underlying debt of the homeowner.\n\nSo they faked it. And nearly all foreclosures in all U.S. jurisdictions arise out of the transaction described above. And that means that nearly all of them were fraudulent organized schemes to defraud homeowners, investors, and all related people. When homeowners agreed to pay money to the originator and its assigns and successors, they had no idea that there was no reason to pay any money to anyone under this scenario. \n\nWhen the homeowner issued the note and mortgage, he/she did so with the contractual intent to enter into a loan agreement that never materialized. There would never be anything more than a payment history if the homeowner started making scheduled payments. there would never be a loan account a loss arising from performance on the loan, and there would never be compliance with federal and state lending statutes, rules, and regulations. \n\nHomeowners didnt know it and they had no way of knowing that they were not involved in a loan that would be owned by anyone. They were paid a fee ranging from 2 % -10 % of the total amount of revenue generated from the fake securitization of their loan. They had no reason to return that fee without their specific and explicit contractual assent to the arrangement. \n\nBut what homeowner would have entered into such a transaction where there was no risk of loss by a real lender, complying with the law? What homeowner would have wanted to be part of any securitizations scheme? What homeowner would not have sought professional help from advisers? What homeowner would not have been advised that the incentives for this transaction, were not to profit from payments of interest, but rather to profit from the sale of securities? What homeowner would not have been advised that the appraisals produced for the Closing were merely made as instructed and did not represent actual value? What homeowner would have signed a deal where the securities stood to gain windfalls of money if the loan failed? \n\n\nToday we are still living with the myth that the transactions with homeowners were loans, that the concealed risks absorbed by homeowners should not be compensated, and that administration, collection, and enforcement of nonexistent accounts receivable should be allowed. We can all change that by being open to the idea that maybe it isnt the way that XXXX XXXX is selling it.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-04-13T11:11:16.000Z","issue":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","sub_product":"Mortgage debt","zip_code":"490XX","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4295794","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nationwide Title Clearing, Inc.","date_received":"2021-04-13T11:03:09.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Debt was result of identity theft"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["XXXX was an electronic placeholder with insecure access so that foreclosure players <em>could</em> manipulate data and apparent chains of title without ever recording those changes which were an illusion. \n\n\n\nServicers were electronic placeholders often acting as the face for XXXX XXXX and sometimes other <em>entities</em> who <em>controlled</em> lockbox addresses to which all payments were forwarded. Those checks or payments were deposited into accounts <em>controlled</em> by a conduit for the XXXX XXXX broker."]},"sort":[7.770385,"4295794"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":111,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":111}]}},"product":{"doc_count":111,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":73,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":72},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":12,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":12}]}},{"key":"Debt collection","doc_count":10,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Mortgage debt","doc_count":5},{"key":"I do not know","doc_count":2},{"key":"Auto debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit card debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Rental debt","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":5,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":4},{"key":"Store credit card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":4,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":3},{"key":"Lease","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":3,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"FHA mortgage","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","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":"Debt settlement","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":111,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":43,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":40},{"key":"Report provided to employer without your written authorization","doc_count":3}]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":31,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":31}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":10,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":6},{"key":"Personal information incorrect","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Attempts to collect debt not owed","doc_count":7,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Debt was result of identity theft","doc_count":5},{"key":"Debt is not yours","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Problem with a credit reporting company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Their investigation did not fix an error on your report","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problems at the end of the loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with paying off the loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Trying to communicate with the company to fix an issue related to modification, forbearance, short sale, deed-in-lieu, bankruptcy, or foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Written notification about debt","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Didn't receive enough information to verify debt","doc_count":1},{"key":"Didn't receive notice of right to dispute","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Can't close your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Getting a credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Application denied","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with fees charged","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with a purchase shown on your statement","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Problem with customer service","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Lender trying to repossess or disable the vehicle","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Took or threatened to take negative or legal action","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Seized or attempted to seize your property","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"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}]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":111,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":111}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":111,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":63},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":47},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":111,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":111}]}},"company":{"doc_count":111,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":29},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":24},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":20},{"key":"CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":3},{"key":"CITIBANK, N.A.","doc_count":3},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":3},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE COMPANY LLC","doc_count":2},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"ALLY FINANCIAL INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY","doc_count":1},{"key":"Aldridge Pite, LLP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Byrider Franchising, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"Credit International Corporation","doc_count":1},{"key":"DISCOVER BANK","doc_count":1},{"key":"Early Warning Services, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST AMERICAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"FREEDOM FINANCIAL NETWORK","doc_count":1},{"key":"GOLDMAN SACHS BANK USA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Grain Technology, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"National Account Systems of Omaha, LLC","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":"PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Southern Auto Finance Co","doc_count":1},{"key":"Specialized Loan Servicing Holdings LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"T.S. Holdings","doc_count":1},{"key":"Westlake Services, LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":111,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"PA","doc_count":23},{"key":"IL","doc_count":12},{"key":"GA","doc_count":11},{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"FL","doc_count":7},{"key":"OH","doc_count":7},{"key":"MI","doc_count":6},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":6},{"key":"VA","doc_count":6},{"key":"TX","doc_count":5},{"key":"KY","doc_count":4},{"key":"WA","doc_count":4},{"key":"NC","doc_count":3},{"key":"NV","doc_count":2},{"key":"WI","doc_count":2},{"key":"AR","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"MO","doc_count":1},{"key":"NE","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":111,"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":65},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":3}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":111,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":7},{"key":"Older American","doc_count":5},{"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":[7.7702913,"4295794"],"3":[5.3069153,"8328849"],"4":[4.5136313,"8503624"],"5":[3.4019632,"8893108"]}}}