{"took":369,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":46,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8557210","_score":12.13098,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"During the process of applying for a home loan mortgage assumption through Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ), I encountered the following issues with NFCU and its representatives ( namely, XXXX XXXX, a Collateral Risk Examiner II within the XXXX XXXX Operation Support office XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ) : XXXX lied about the expected length of time from application to closing at multiple points throughout the process ; XXXX and her colleagues within her office misrepresented what was required to close and where in the approval process I was ; XXXX did not communicate in a timely manner especially when it was clear that she was missing deadlines required in order for myself and my partner to close on the house that we were purchasing. She also ignored requests to confirm receipt of emails. \nOn numerous occasions across multiple days, XXXX lied about requesting for my application to be expedited and when pushed would consistently claim to have put the request in that day. \nAt multiple stages in the assumption process, XXXX would misrepresent what the NFCU requirements were. For example, she would insist only one type of document was required ( such as an email confirming my rental status from my landlord ) only to then retract her guidance to request a different version of the document. \nBetween XXXX and the NFCU Underwriting Department, they requested documents that my bank ( XXXX XXXX ) does not provide ( such as day-to-day end-of-day statements for my brokerage account ). \nAdditionally, they ( XXXX and the Underwriting Department ) required documents from my partner ( such as her banking statements ) only to then refuse her direct participation in the home purchase per internal NFCU rules ( not in accordance with Veteran Administration requirements ), meaning that NFCU received sensitive documents that they did not require. \nIn the week leading up to our closing and the required clear to close window, XXXX told us every day that our application would be fully reviewed and approved the next day. \nDue to lengthy delays in the closing process, XXXX would request expedited documents via email, meaning sensitive documents were sent via a non-secured method instead of the dedicated NFCU secure portal. \n\nUltimately, NFCU caused us to miss our initial financial contingency deadline in the sales contract despite assuring us that the deadline would be met. We then had to delay the date of the closing from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX through multiple amended sales contracts as NFCU could not clearly communicate where I was in the process. This caused my partner to miss multiple workdays. Additionally, my partner had already given notice at her apartment because for a month, NFCU had indicated our original sales contract date was fine. This forced us to absorb hundreds of dollars in additional costs as we had to pay for storage for her belongings as well as renting moving equipment and paying movers. \n\nFor the detailed explanation see below : On XX/XX/XXXX, I applied for a mortgage assumption through NFCU. The immediate response on XX/XX/XXXX said that an examiner would be assigned within seven business days and would schedule a phone application appointment. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was connected with XXXX XXXX, a Collateral Risk Examiner II within the XXXXXXXX XXXX Operation Support office ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and we had our initial phone application appointment. \n\nDuring this appointment, XXXX confirmed that I had submitted all of the required paperwork to begin processing the assumption. I also specifically asked her if the purchase contracts closing date of XX/XX/XXXX, was doable given that previously, a NFCU representative had told my realtor on the phone that it could take up to 45 days. XXXX assured me that the 45-day timeframe was inaccurate, and that the process began the day that my submitted application was acknowledged, and that XX/XX/XXXX was doable and there was no need to amend the sales contract. Finally, she also said that meeting the financing contingency date of XX/XX/XXXX would be no issue for NFCU. \n\nOver the course of the next few weeks, XXXX assured me that everything was running smoothly via near bi-weekly check-ins, including on XX/XX/XXXX. However, there were miscommunications about how the down payment for the house could be provided as XXXX stated on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX that my partner could provide the funds directly despite not being on the assumption application as would be joint tenants on the houses deed. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX said that NFCU would not be able to clear the financing contingency as their policies actually required that my partner deposit her share of the down payment in my bank account and not send it directly to the title company ( despite my partner having previously paid the earnest money deposit from her account ). XXXX then confirmed though on XX/XX/XXXX in writing to both myself and my realtor that we would still be able to close on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nHowever, on XX/XX/XXXX, for the first time, XXXX indicated that we may not be able to close by XX/XX/XXXX. I then requested to be connected to XXXX supervisor as it was in the afternoon on the XXXX that she for the first time said we would not be able to close on XX/XX/XXXX. This request was initially ignored and then denied. When I insisted, I was told a supervisor would contact me within 24 hours. Instead, I was contacted by another non-supervisory employee who gave me further incorrect information on XX/XX/XXXX. Eventually, XXXX supervisor, XXXX XXXX became available on XX/XX/XXXX, but only after our initial closing date had been missed as the Clear to Close would have had to be issued by XX/XX/XXXX. It was only on XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX admitted that we would not close on XX/XX/XXXX and it was then for the first time that I was told directly that NFCUs timelines for an assumption application is 45 days and that XXXX had been in the wrong the entire time for telling us anything short of that timeframe would work. \n\nDuring the final week preceding the new target closing date XXXX and the Underwriting department made serial errors in requesting documents that either could not be provided, were out of the scope of the underwriting process, or were not in fact suitable. Of particular concern was the request for landlord verification letters. Initially, on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX told me these would not be required after I specifically asked. Later, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that an email from both my current and previous landlord was required and that emails could be sent to me and forward to XXXX. These were sent to me and forwarded directly to XXXX that day. On XX/XX/XXXX she then told me that these were no longer acceptable and Navy Fed required the landlords directly email filled PDFs to XXXX, further delaying this process and inconveniencing my current and former landlord during their workdays with a last minute, redundant, request. \n\nIn addition, during and after the occasion of the above issues, XXXX repeatedly blamed other departments and claimed there is no cooperation and minimal communication available to manage the loan application process. In particular, she highlighted the Underwriting Department as a problem and accused the underwriter assigned to my application of going on a powertrip. XXXX also said that the underwriter was requesting excessive documents as a form of retaliation for her attempts to expedite the process following our missed closing date. Furthermore, according to the loan officer, this underwriter refused to approve the loan despite all the requested documentation until multiple supervisors had contacted the underwriting supervisor, who then directly intervened and personally inspected and approved the provided documentation the morning of our rescheduled closing ( XX/XX/XXXX ), one week after I had been conditionally approved ( XX/XX/XXXX ). Per our loan officer the typical delay between conditional approval and final approval was 2.5 days, again supported by her insistence on Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, that we would be cleared to close on Monday, XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFor the duration of our contact with NFCU through this assumption process, there was no sense of professionalism and XXXX recognition of the burdens ( both financial and emotional ) that NFCU 's mistakes caused myself and my partner as well as the sellers and both sets of realtors to endure. After the many delays and significant efforts expended to meet my initial closing, and then following that failure the effort to meet the updated closing, my eventual closing occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, one business day before the 45 day mark from our XX/XX/XXXX initial approval, and 50 days from our initial application on XX/XX/XXXX. \n\nFinally, during this application we were also misled by a separate loan officer, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ) on XX/XX/XXXX, as to the process for applying to secure a mortgage assumption through Navy Fed, leading to a redundant credit check that dropped my credit rating, and delayed the start of the actual assumption process unnecessarily. Although this was not the fault of the assumptions department, it highlights Navy Feds lack of professionalism, dearth of basic institutional knowledge, and absence of policies focused on security, preventing redundancy, and providing actual services for clients, as well as a culture that is either unwilling or unable to communicate. \n\nThis is further evidenced by the delay in creating an accessible mortgage account available through the Navy Fed banking portal, which is still inaccessible as of XX/XX/XXXX, despite closing on the assumption on XX/XX/XXXX. Upon calling NFCU customer service on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told that they had no way of knowing when it would be created, and was told to call back on XX/XX/XXXX when the assumptions department is open. I did so and once the customer service representative reached out directly to the assumptions department, I was told not to expect access to my mortgage account until XX/XX/XXXX, delaying any attempts to set up payments for the mortgage, and again highlighting the lack of transparency, accountability, and communication that seem to define the mortgage assumption process at NFCU.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-03-15T21:39:59.000Z","issue":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","sub_product":"VA mortgage","zip_code":"20011","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8557210","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2024-03-15T21:15:19.000Z","state":"DC","company_public_response":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","sub_issue":"Delays in the application process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The immediate response on XX/XX/XXXX said that an <em>examiner</em> would be assigned <em>within</em> seven business days and would schedule a phone application appointment. On XX/XX/XXXX, I was connected with XXXX XXXX, a Collateral <em>Risk</em> <em>Examiner</em> II <em>within</em> the XXXXXXXX XXXX <em>Operation</em> <em>Support</em> office ( XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ), and we had our initial phone application appointment. \n\nDuring this appointment, XXXX confirmed that I had submitted all of the required paperwork to begin processing the assumption."]},"sort":[12.13098,"8557210"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6060493","_score":9.7657795,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the San Diego County Credit Union ( SDCCU ). \n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of SDCCU to use your organizations service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with SDCCU. \n\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to SDCCU respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analyzing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \n\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of SDCCU to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \n\nDuring the complaints process with SDCCU, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by Ice Investments which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX  from my SDCCU account to these fraudulent investment companies. \n\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following : ( i ) whether SDCCU did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of SDCCUs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether SDCCU promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether SDCCU was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether SDCCU owed duties to me, what the scope of those duties was, and whether SDCCU did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether SDCCUs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether SDCCU has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXXXXXX XXXX to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, SDCCU must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that SDCCU did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. \n\n\nSDCCUs  Position : On XX/XX/2022, SDCCU wrote in a letter as your financial institutions we sent the funds at your request and as you specifically authorized to the beneficiaries you provided. \n\nRefuting SDCCUs arguments from a purely logical perspective : SDCCUs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \n\nIn SDCCUs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely on ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make SDCCU morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if SDCCU encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as SDCCU. \n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by SDCCU carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \n\nIt is perfectly obvious that SDCCU, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \n\nIt is SDCCU here, that has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that SDCCU adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is SDCCU that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with SDCCUs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, SDCCUs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a XXXX and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all SDCCU has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, such as the FCA, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nSDCCU is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of the real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. suddenly increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. a financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \n\nSDCCU are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \n\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability SDCCU adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by SDCCU in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \n\nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \n\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that SDCCUs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. SDCCUs  non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \n\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that SDCCU pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \n\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-25T18:32:26.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"92108","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6060493","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION","date_received":"2022-10-07T14:13:42.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/2022, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam <em>operations</em> run by Ice Investments which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX  from my SDCCU account to these fraudulent investment companies."]},"sort":[9.7657795,"6060493"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5998914","_score":9.747453,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX DC XXXX XX/XX/2022 This is to complain against the Coinbase Inc XXXX \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XXXX XXXX, 2022, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Coinbase account to these fraudulent investment company. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following : ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXX eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : Coinbase did not provide us with a response even if we sent out several letters to them. \nRefuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : Coinbases position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. \nIt is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a XXXX and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, such as the FCA, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. \nIf you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that despite being shown that Coinbases business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Coinbases non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Coinbase pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-09-20T17:54:50.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"90241","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5998914","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-09-20T17:43:52.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : Commencing on or around XXXX XXXX, 2022, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam <em>operation</em> run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Coinbase account to these fraudulent investment company."]},"sort":[9.747453,"5998914"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5337030","_score":9.525881,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the XXXX has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of XXXX as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX DBA XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Coinbase account to these fraudulent investment companies. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following : ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Coinbase wrote in a letter By their very nature, all cryptocurrency transactions that are completed on the blockchain are irreversible. Similarly, because of the nature of blockchain transactions, Coinbase can not verify who owns blockchain addresses and, in the terms of sends, there is no way for Coinbase to cancel, reverse, or recover the cryptocurrency sent. \nWe have reviewed your Coinbase account records, and checked the circumstances surrounding your sends. You properly accessed your account, verified your authorisation by correctly submitting the required two factor identification code, entered the recipients blockchain address, and completed the send. Coinbase accurately processed sends in accordance with your instructions. \nCoinbase has no relationship with the third-party whom you state owns the blockchain address to which your USDC and ETH were sent when you authorised your sends. If you have a dispute with a third-party you should resolve the dispute directly with that third party. \nRefuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : Coinbases position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, such as the FCA, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nTaking into consideration that vast experience of Coinbase, their knowledge of applicable regulations and good industry practices in the XXXX, I am quoting herein the British Standards Institutions code of practice ( BSI : PAS 2017 17271 ) as I believe Coinbase should be completely cognizant with its principles. \nThe Code gives recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nIt establishes that, as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 3.1 ( b ) takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it states that organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. \nIn regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, Code 5.3.1. states that organisations should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts, ( the application examples are in bold ) : multiple chequebooks ; sudden increased spending ; transfers to other accounts ; multiple password attempts ; logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; sudden changes to the operation of the account ; a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse The Code at 5.4.2. sets out that organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff members make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-03-18T04:09:29.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5337030","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-03-18T00:03:04.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The Code gives recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm."]},"sort":[9.525881,"5337030"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4930281","_score":9.485355,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Gemini Trust Company , LLC. XXXX Gemini. \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Gemini to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Gemini. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Gemini respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Gemini to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Gemini, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or about XX/XX/2021, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Gemini account to these fraudulent investment companies. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Gemini did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Geminis custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Gemini promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Gemini was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Gemini owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Gemini did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Geminis conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Gemini has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Gemini must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Gemini did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nGeminis Position : On XX/XX/2021, Gemini wrote in a letter Once digital assets leave your Gemini account, they can not be recovered. The reason behind this is due to a concept known as transaction finality. Transaction finality is a function of decentralized blockchains. It means that once the transaction has been broadcast to the network and confirmed on the blockchain, the transaction is irreversible. \nRefuting XXXX arguments from a purely logical perspective : XXXX position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn XXXX view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Gemini morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Gemini encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Gemini. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Gemini carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Gemini, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Gemini here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Gemini adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Gemini that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Geminis capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Geminis indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nGemini is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If they don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-19T19:54:22.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"60634","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4930281","timely":"No","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Winklevoss Exchange LLC","date_received":"2021-11-19T19:48:47.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm."]},"sort":[9.485355,"4930281"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"4930105","_score":9.455242,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Coinbase Inc. ( Coinbase ).\n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\n\nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or about XX/XX/2021, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD and approx. XXXX XXXX from my Coinbase account to these fraudulent investment companies. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXX eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : On XX/XX/2021, XXXX have sent XXXX USD to my account in XXXX, as a compensation. \nRefuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : I do not consider it as reasonable and sufficient enough. You have to understand that as a result of this scam I lost all of my savings in the total amount of XXXX USD and approx. XXXX XXXX. This is a huge part of my life and I need Coinbase to give me a better compensation. \nCoinbases position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase.\n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a XXXX and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If they don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.","date_sent_to_company":"2021-11-19T19:47:52.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"60634","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"4930105","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2021-11-19T18:57:19.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm."]},"sort":[9.455242,"4930105"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9912396","_score":9.191286,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  , DC. \nXX/XX/year> This is to complain against the Citizens Bank. \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Citizens Bank to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : C - XXXX ) with Citizens Bank. \nIn order to clear up the myriads of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Citizens Bank respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an confidence scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Citizens Bank to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Citizens Bank, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing around XX/XX/year>, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by a fraudulent individual which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD, from which XXXX USD were transferred from my Citizens Bank account to fraudulent individual ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Citizens Bank did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Citizens Banks custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Citizens Bank promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Citizens Bank was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Citizens Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Citizens Bank did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Citizens Banks conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Citizens Bank has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Citizens Bank must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Citizens Bank did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCitizens Banks Position : On XX/XX/year>, Citizens Bank wrote in a letter Based upon our investigation, we concluded no error occurred. Records indicate that you engaged and authorized the transaction ( XXXX ). As a result, we will not credit your account in the amount of XXXX USD. \nRefuting Citizens Banks arguments from a purely logical perspective : Citizens Banks position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn Citizens Banks view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Citizens Bank morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Citizens Bank encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Citizens Bank. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Citizens Bank carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Citizens Bank, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Citizens Bank here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Citizens Bank adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Citizens Bank that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Citizens Banks capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Citizens Banks indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Citizens Bank has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nCitizens Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud XXXX be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it XXXX be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : XXXX ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; XXXX transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nCitizens Bank are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide- ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Citizens Bank adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Citizens Bank in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Citizens Banks business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Citizens Banks non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. \nIt is extremely unfortunate that Citizens Bank pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-26T14:06:18.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"08723","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9912396","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","date_received":"2024-08-26T13:53:36.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is perfectly obvious that Citizens Bank, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate <em>support</em> nor protects anything other than its own interests."]},"sort":[9.191286,"9912396"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8234693","_score":9.184713,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Wells Fargo Bank ( WFB ).\n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of WFB to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with WFB. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to WFB respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of WFB to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\n\nDuring the complaints process with WFB, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Between XXXX  and XX/XX/, I fell victim to XXXX  multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my WFB account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether WFB did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of WFBs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether WFB promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether WFB was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether WFB owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether WFB did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether WFBs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether WFB has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, WFB must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that WFB did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nWFBs Position : On XX/XX/2023, WFB wrote in a letter Recently, your fraud inquiry was forwarded to us for our review. We found that between XXXXand XX/XX/2023, you authorized multiple wire transfers totaling {>= $1,000,000} for the benefit of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX As the money will not be returned from the receiving bank, we are not able to reimburse you. At this time, we consider your inquiry closed.\n\nPlease note that a wire transfer is an immediate form of payment and can not be reversed after the funds have been deposited in the beneficiary 's account, even if you believe you are a victim of fraud. To learn more about protecting yourself from fraud, visit our Fraud Protection Center at wellsfargo.com/privacy-security/fraud/.\n\nRefuting WFBs arguments from a purely logical perspective : WFBs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn WFBs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make WFB morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if WFB encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as WFB.\n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by WFB carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\n\nIt is perfectly obvious that WFB, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\n\nIt is WFB here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that WFB adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is WFB that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with WFBs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, WFBs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all WFB has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\n\nWFB is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harmand it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financialabuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems aredeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention offraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, therebyminimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud andfinancial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detectsuspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It thenlists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a.multiple cheque books ; b.sudden increased spending ; c.transfers to other accounts ; d.multiple password attempts ; e.logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f.sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions aretransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\n\ng.a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h.a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i.financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\n\nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact withthe customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the natureof the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\n\nWFB are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\n\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability WFB adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by WFB in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that WFBs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. WFBs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\n\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that WFB pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\n\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\n\nThank you. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-01-27T15:35:22.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"91011","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8234693","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2024-01-27T15:11:05.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : Between XXXX  and XX/XX/, I fell victim to XXXX  multi-layered scam <em>operations</em> run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my WFB account to fraudulent investment firm ( s )."]},"sort":[9.184713,"8234693"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6647285","_score":9.184713,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"RE : Complaint against Coinbase The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington XXXX DC XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX [ XXXX XXXX ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : # XXXX ) with Coinbase. \n\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analyzing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \n\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \n\nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by bitbankvip.vip ( the Company ), which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Coinbase account to fraudulent investment firm. \n\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \n\nCoinbases Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Coinbase wrote in a letter Coinbase is technically ( and physically ) unable to retrieve the cryptocurrency that you sent. Coinbase is also unable to accept responsibility for send ( s ) which you requested and authorized Coinbase to make. Coinbase had ( and still has ) no way of verifying if XXXX did indeed own the blockchain address ( s ) to which you sent your cryptocurrency Refuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : Coinbases position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \n\nIn Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally nave victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \n\nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \n\nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \n\nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \n\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \n\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; XXXX transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \n\nB ) Organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \n\nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \n\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \n\nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \n\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Coinbases business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Coinbases non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Coinbase pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \n\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \n\nThank you, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-03-04T23:58:38.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"33157","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6647285","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2023-03-04T23:43:49.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm."]},"sort":[9.184713,"6647285"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7047994","_score":9.178421,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20552\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\nThis is to complain against Crypto.com. \nI wish to practice my right as a customer of CRYPTO.COM to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation \nto amicably settle my dispute with CRYPTO.COM. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to CRYPTO.COM respecting my complaint, I believe it \nwill substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing \nthe relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my \nembarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of CRYPTO.COM to be \ncommensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their \nmoney and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with CRYPTO.COM, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to \nmanagement and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing \nworld of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules \nand regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by WTN  which involved me making \ndeposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my CRYPTO.COM account to fraudulent investment firms. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, \nthe following (i) whether CRYPTO.COM did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements \nof the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of \nCRYPTO.COMs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that \nduty was breached; (iii) whether CRYPTO.COM promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the \ntransaction(s) in question (iv) whether CRYPTO.COM was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether \nCRYPTO.COM owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CRYPTO.COM did not uphold those duties; (vi) \nwhether CRYPTO.COMs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether CRYPTO.COM has within its power the ability to, and should, \ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors \nmaking an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the \ncustomer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. \nIn this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that \ntheir customer is being scammed. In other words, CRYPTO.COM must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted \nto a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing \nwith a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care \nof the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most \npeople behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although \nreasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CRYPTO.COM did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the \nmost obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person \nshould be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nCRYPTO.COMs Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, CRYPTO.COM wrote in a letter ADDENDUM 2  DIGITAL ASSET WALLET 2. Crypto.com processes all \nDigital Asset Transfers according to the Instructions received from you and does not guarantee the identity of any recipient. You \nshould verify all transaction information prior to submitting Instructions for a Digital Asset Transfer to Crypto.com as the Digital \nAsset Transfer may not be canceled or reversed once processed by Crypto.com unless Crypto.com decides at its sole discretion that \nthe transaction should be canceled or reversed and is technically capable of such cancellation or reversal. You acknowledge that \nyou are responsible for ensuring the accuracy of any Instructions submitted to Crypto.com and that any errors may result in the \nirreversible loss of your Digital Asset...2- The general position is that customers are free to transact as they wish on their accounts \nwithout interference from their bank. It is the customers responsibility to make enquiries about the persons or businesses they are \ndealing with and to ensure they are genuine. There is no general obligation on banks to monitor customers accounts or to raise \nquestions regarding payments from their accounts in circumstances where the customer has made the transactions.\nRefuting CRYPTO.COMs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nCRYPTO.COMs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless \nvictims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account \nof the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention \nit deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn CRYPTO.COMs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, \nreasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such \nviews are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make CRYPTO.COM morally obligated to do something is having it \nwritten down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if CRYPTO.COMencounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated \nto intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such \nas CRYPTO.COM. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by CRYPTO.COM carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental \nargument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far \ngreater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected \nto and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that CRYPTO.COM, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner \nwhich neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is CRYPTO.COM here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that CRYPTO.COM\nadhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is \nCRYPTO.COM that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and \nthat my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with CRYPTO.COMs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope \nof services in any way. To reemphasize, CRYPTO.COMs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions \nin a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast \ncapabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all CRYPTO.COM has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not \nhavingthe legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, \nhas maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich \nexperience.\nCRYPTO.COM is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you \ndon't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the \nred flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or \nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual \nand how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for\nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are \ndeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised \nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and \nfinancial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that \nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, \ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market \nparameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial \nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nCRYPTO.COM are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of \nspecialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a\nmultitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently \nreasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad \nand thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role \nin society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  CRYPTO.COM adopts \na rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is \nadopted by CRYPTO.COM in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by \nstrictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems \nto me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby \nkeeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forwardthinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk \nmanagement system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the \ndigital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat \nlandscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and \nexperience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that CRYPTO.COMs business conduct was insufficient insofar as \nbackground checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein \ndiscussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. CRYPTO.COMs non-observance of the fundamental \nprinciples of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is \ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like \nmyself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have \nabsolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the \ntransactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that CRYPTO.COMpushes quite hard for me to believe \nall three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair \nand reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-05-30T19:56:10.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"030XX","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7047994","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Foris DAX, Inc.","date_received":"2023-05-30T19:44:41.000Z","state":"NH","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam <em>operations</em> run by WTN  which involved me making \ndeposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my CRYPTO.COM account to fraudulent investment firms."]},"sort":[9.178421,"7047994"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5898782","_score":9.178421,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) 1700 G Street NW., Washington , DC 20552 XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against the Coinbase. \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. \nThey are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : About XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by Hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Coinbase account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( XXXX ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( XXXX ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Coinbase wrote in a letter Unfortunately, due to the technical nature of most digital currency networks, we are unable to cancel these payments and we are unable to mediate in any way in this matter. Digital currency transactions can not be reversed or canceled on the blockchain, it is important to be careful and make sure you trust everyone you send digital currency to and allow access to your computer. Coinbase also has no knowledge of the ownership of external cryptocurrency addresses, and since this is an external process, Coinbase can not reverse, cancel, transfer, or refund these funds on your behalf. \nRefuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : Coinbases position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common- sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nXXXX a view according to which the XXXX and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of- pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : XXXX ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; XXXX transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide- ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self- interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\n\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Coinbases business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Coinbases non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Coinbase pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-08-19T16:15:00.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"38111","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5898782","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-08-19T16:07:53.000Z","state":"TN","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : About XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam <em>operations</em> run by Hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Coinbase account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX )."]},"sort":[9.178421,"5898782"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5778692","_score":9.178421,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX Washington, DC XXXX XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against the Wells Fargo. \nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Wells Fargo to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( Ref : XXXX ) with Wells Fargo. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Wells Fargo respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Wells Fargo to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Wells Fargo, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. \nThey are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to these fraudulent investment companies. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following : ( i ) whether Wells Fargo did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Wells Fargos custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Wells Fargo promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether Wells Fargo was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Wells Fargo owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Wells Fargo did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Wells Fargos conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Wells Fargo has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. \nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a XXXX eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Wells Fargo must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Wells Fargo did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\n\nWells Fargos Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Wells Fargo wrote in a letter We understand that you believe you may be a victim of a fraud scheme resulting in you wiring funds to a third party under false circumstances. We will make every attempt to recall a wire if a victim advises us the transaction was associated with a fraud scheme ; however, we can not guarantee we will able to return the full amount from a suspected fraudulent transaction. If there are insufficient funds in the recipients account or if the recipients account is closed at the time the request to recall a wire is made, we may not be able to recover the funds from the recipients account. \nRefuting Wells Fargos arguments from a purely logical perspective : Wells Fargos position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that commonsense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\n\nIn Wells Fargos view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Wells Fargo morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Wells Fargo encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Wells Fargo. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Wells Fargo carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Wells Fargo, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Wells Fargo here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Wells Fargo adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Wells Fargo that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Wells Fargos capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Wells Fargos indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a XXXX and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Wells Fargo has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, such as the XXXX, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nWells Fargo is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nWells Fargo are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. \nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Wells Fargo adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Wells Fargo in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than selfinterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Wells Fargos business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Wells Fargos non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Wells Fargo pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-07-17T06:20:20.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Domestic (US) money transfer","zip_code":"08109","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5778692","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2022-07-17T02:17:04.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam <em>operations</em> run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Wells Fargo account to these fraudulent investment companies."]},"sort":[9.178421,"5778692"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7135443","_score":8.77625,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXX\nThis is my complaint against CHASE BANK. \nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI would like to draw your attention to XX/XX/XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to CHASE BANK, in which I clearly stated\nhow this scam has affected me personally, psychologically andfinancially. \nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't\nshow their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace\nof mind.\nMy complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper\ninvestigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what\nI believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I \ncomprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, CHASE BANK never acknowledged my complaint,\ntherefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, \nand XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, \nthe following (i) whether CHASE BANK did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements \nof the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of \nCHASE BANKs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to me and if so, whether that \nduty was breached; (iii) whether CHASE BANK promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the \ntransaction(s) in question (iv) whether CHASE BANK was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether CHASE \nBANK owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CHASE BANK did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether \nCHASE BANKs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether CHASE BANK has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me \nfor the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors \nmaking an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the \ncustomer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. \nIn this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that \ntheir customer is being scammed. In other words, CHASE BANK must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted \nto a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing \nwith a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care \nof the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most \npeople behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although \nreasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CHASE BANK did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the \nmost obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person \nshould be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all CHASE BANK has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not \nhaving the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, \nhas maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich \nexperience.\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I received a phone call in the morning at about XXXX XXXX. The caller identified himself as XXXX XXXX, ID ss(or XXXX) XXXX \nfrom XXXX. He stated that he was confirming a purchase that was made on my XXXX account of a gold XXXX that was to be delivered \nto an address in XXXX New York the next day on the XXXX. I told him that I had not made such a purchase and it needed to be cancelled. \nHe said he would cancel it, but he needed to transfer me to their fraud division and asked me to hold for a moment. This was at XXXX XXXX.\nThe next person got on the line (XXXX XXXX), the same phone number. This person identified himself as XXXX XXXX BadgeXXXX XXXX \nU.S. Marshall. He proceeded to describe that my name was used to open several bank accounts, in Texas, New York, New Jersey, etc. rent \na vehicle and that my name was being used in a money laundering scheme and possibly drug smuggling. He then started to tell me that he \nneeded me to talk to one of their U.S. Marshals that were in that department and proceeded to transfer me to yet another person. He had \nme stay on the line and not hang up for the whole day. The next person got on the line but had a different phone number, 1-XXXX. \nHe identified himself as a U.S. Marshall, XXXX XXXX, badgeXXXX XXXX, assigned to my caseXXXX XXXX, and that he would explain what \nwe could do to protect my money and provide proof that I was not involved with committing any of the fraud. \nHe said I needed to pull all my money out of my bank account and secure it so they could open a new account to put it into at my bank. \nHe then said to stay on the line no matter what and to not tell anyone what we were doing and asked how much money needed to be \nsecured, I then gave him my balance in my bank account. He never asked me for my actual bank account number. He then had me go to the \nbank and withdraw as much as I could in cash to take to a specific Bitcoin ATM that they provided to me after I let them know what city \nI was in. I used XXXX all day long because my car was in the shop.\nI withdrew XXXX cash and proceeded to the Bitcoin ATM address they gave me. He kept stating that my XXXX trips would be refunded \nafter all this was done. They sent me a QRC code to use at the Bitcoin ATM. I deposited the cash into the ATM and kept the receipt. Then \nhe directed me to buy as many XXXX  cash cards as I could to secure the rest. I went to XXXX and was only able to purchase XXXX  cash \ncards for the amount of XXXX each. Then he asked if I could do an ATM cash withdrawal at XXXX for the rest. I was only able to \nwithdraw XXXX because of limits.\nI told him I was at all my withdrawal limits and could do no more for XXXX hrs.\nHe then said that once we got all my money secured that he would set up an appointment for the next day to meet another Marshall in \nperson who would help me set up my new bank account and provide me with my new Social Security number and transfer all my money \ninto the new account.\nHe said he would postpone his case for a day so we could continue the next day because if we did not secure my money, they would close \nmy bank account and my Social Security number forever.\nThe next day, XX/XX/XXXX I was exhausted and didnt want to work with him anymore. I transferred my savings to checking for the next \nround of securing my money. I told him this and told him I did it because I needed to pay some bills with it and was leaving some money \nin my account,\nHe then got upset and said I broke the rules and hung up on me.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along!\nCHASE BANK is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you \ndon't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the \nred flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or \nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual \nand how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for \nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are \ndeveloped using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised \nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and \nfinancial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that \nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, \ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market \nparameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial \nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is \nadopted by CHASE BANK in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by \nstrictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems \nto me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby \nkeeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk \nmanagement system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the \ndigital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat\nlandscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and \nexperience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nCHASE BANKs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to \nmitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as \nthe direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair \nand reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX\n\nPage 1 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NY\nRe: Demand Letter \n For negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam, \nThe goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as \nyou have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and have not acted in a reasonable and prudent \nmanner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall \nserve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among \nothers.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing an atypical, non-routine \ntransaction(s), and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein \nand/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of wrongful \nand negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that \nresulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in \nquestion are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation\norchestrated by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX (the Scammers), all of which aim \nat contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named\nBitcoin Of America in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher\nlevels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the\nsituation, whether by raising chargeback in respect of the transaction in question or reimbursing\nme and crediting my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX USD\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced transaction, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also\nan irresponsible and reckless disregard for the customers financial safety.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XX/XX/XXXX)\nPage 2 of 7 XX/XX/XXXX \n2 \n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and\ndemand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and \nsensitivity to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as \npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, \nstandards, and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where \nsuitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained \nherein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience or upon \nfacts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that \nsubstantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate \nopportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the \nScammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the \nfraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized \nas withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make \nan informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A \ncomplication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well \nto identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required \nto promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers. \nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive \nvictims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme \nand therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially \ninjurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The \nfalse statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transaction(s) the \nScammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on \nme which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.","date_sent_to_company":"2023-06-20T02:01:40.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"92071","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7135443","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-06-20T01:04:48.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I strongly believe that \nsubstantive evidence in <em>support</em> of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate \nopportunity for discovery. Key facts <em>supporting</em> the allegations contained herein are known only to the \nScammer or/and are exclusively <em>within</em> their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the \nfraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer."]},"sort":[8.77625,"7135443"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9561046","_score":8.760117,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"I wish to practice my right as a customer of Bank of America to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Bank of America.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Bank of America\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by\ntaking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent\ncriminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof Bank of America to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They\nsell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains\na traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Bank of America, I found their communication ineffective, which\nfurther hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or abouXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX fell victim to a multi-layered scam\noperation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule,\nlaw, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct,\nthat may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of\nAmericas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me\nand if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in\nquestion despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America\nwas in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to\nmyself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi)\nwhether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power\nthe ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn\na blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other\nwords, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense\nin which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the\nevidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nBank of Americas Position:\nBank of America wrote in a letter The amounts totaling of XXXX  in question that you listed in your\ncomplaint is an accumulation of several transactions that were sent to the three previously mentioned\nmerchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the transactions posted correctly\nto your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds.\nWe can only recommend that you contact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nRefuting Bank of Americas arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nBank of Americas position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation\nto protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Bank of Americas view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten\nlaws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight,\nwhen taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Bank of America morally obligated\nto do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Bank of America encounter\nthe suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Bank of\nAmerica.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Bank of America carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had\na duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Bank of America, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some\nof the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything\nother than its own interests.\nIt is Bank of America here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that\nis to say, that Bank of America adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue\ngiven its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Bank of America that claims that the damages which\nI have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed\ndegree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX  capacity, experience,\nexpertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Bank of Americas indisputable overriding\npurpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a\nbalance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect\nconsumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set\nup a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud\nmay be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might\noccur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might\nbe at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent\nor minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets\nout systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point,\nit says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies\nthat are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised\npayments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions\nwhose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity\nof the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal\njustification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer\nto verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or\ndetected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nBank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wideranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not\nsufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons\nby which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable\nand well-justified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence\nof such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers\nwho have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively\ncontributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  Bank of America adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nI would also like to highlight the stark difference in how complaints are handled between Bank of America\nand XXXX XXXX Bank of America's handling of the situation was notably inadequate. They failed to properly\nacknowledge the issues I faced and did not provide the necessary support to recover my funds. In contrast,\nPNC Bank managed the situation with exemplary care. They not only acknowledged everything I had been\nthrough but also took proactive steps to assist me in recovering my funds. This level of customer service\nand attention to detail speaks volumes about XXXX XXXX commitment to their clients and their ability to\neffectively address and resolve issues.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this\nconnection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Bank of Americas business conduct\nwas insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. Bank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice \nthat is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers\nis inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result\nof the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these\nthingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Bank of America\nBank of America Corporate Center, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWITHOUT PREJUDICE\nSubjectXXXX XXXX XXXX complaint to XXXX XXXX XXXX: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nI have now reviewed your response dated XXXX XXXX XXXX  Based on my review, I do not believe you have acted fairly, let alone reasonably.\nThe investigatory processes appear to disfavour the victim, and there is a lack of knowledge of good industry practice as well as a lack of\ncare/compassion towards me as the customer.\nYour response is, to say the least, extremely inadequate. It is based on a blatantly incorrect understanding of what I have maintained.\nWhat amazes me is just how difficult it has been to find soundness in it. Your analysis, for instance, does not engage with the actual\nhistory of my account and a significant portion of related data that may contradict your position has been conveniently ignored.\nSeemingly, in arriving at a decision in relation to the issue I raised, no consideration was given to a) Duty of care in relation to the fact\nthat I am the victim of a financial crime and b) The responsibility that your institution hold to protect its clients from such crimes.\nI find your rejection incredibly offensive and perplexing. In all honesty, if you could provide me with any kind of a logical coherent\naccount that could reconcile the evident fact of the multiple warning signals as well as my susceptibility relating to this matter with the\nexistence of a sound anti-fraud program, then I would absolutely appreciate your point of view.\nGiven the variety of similar cases involving various types of scams, you should be acutely aware of this problem for society, but your\nsuperficial (and perhaps convenient) answer to it, simply put, is that blameless victims must be held accountable for their misfortune.\nBecause your argument presumably aims at self-protection rather than the truth, we can have no confidence that your rejection is\nultimately just, fair, or reasonable. It is time to adopt a more realistic, long-term attitude towards unavoidable scenarios of this kind,\nstarting from the justifiable assumption that such injured parties did not in the least contribute to (and thus certainly should not bear\nresponsibility for) their own victimisation.\nMisplaced Accountability:\nScam victims have relatively little freedom of reactivity; under such circumstances, they respond immediately, instinctively, and\ninvariably to the specific demands of the perpetrator. Being able to consciously refrain from reacting in such a way is extremely difficult\nand sometimes impossible. Unwittingly giving off signals that mark us as easy targets, is by no means the same as being grossly\nnegligent, in view of the increasingly sophisticated scams, which continue to be a pervasive problem in society.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimisation period; I was also relatively financially illiterate\nand very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nSince this time, having lost all of my savings to these fraudulent companies, I have learnt an enormous amount about the scope of these\ncriminal endeavours and also about how the financial services sector operates internationally.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast,\nmostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are\npeople who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping\nthe uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been\nlost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a perpetrator who grooms his victim whilst at the same time assaults him/her and\nprevents them from escaping.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must\ntherefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as\nthe one described herein.\nThe grounds upon which you refute my claim:\nScrutiny shows that your claims are defective as an endeavour to thoroughly investigate the accessible facts; let alone as an attempt to\nportray an accurate image respecting the role of banks in fighting financial crime and fraud, your organisations scope of services, and\nvarious other details in connection with the duties that emerge out of our relationship, particularly in the context of the broader historical\ncircumstances. The emphasis that you have placed on the incredibly insufficient diligence checks as well as the inconsequential\nreferences and the unidimensional thinking, not only gives a skewed picture of my fundamental rights as your customer, but also\npresents a poor blueprint for understanding the issue discussed in a well-reasoned and objective manner, and an even poorer guide to\ndictate whether there has been, as suggested, wrongdoing on your part.\nThe amounts totaling of XXXX in question that you listed in your complaint is an accumulation of several transactions that\nwere sent to the three previously mentioned merchants that were confirmed valid and not made in error. Please note, the\ntransactions posted correctly to your account as instructed in XXXX XXXX. While we are sensitive to the effect this matter has had on\nyou, we are unable to dispute any agreements that you may have had with the recipient of the funds. We can only recommend that you\ncontact the recipient directly for further assistance with your disputes.\nConcerning the \"authorisation\" argument, it can be cast as an incompatibility between statements such as \"the transaction has been\nauthorised\" and \"the duty of care has been breached\". However, you have not shown that both statements are logically incompatible or\nimprobable with respect to each other. They are not mutually exclusive in the broader context.\nThe view that I have authorised the transaction and therefore fully liable is dangerously reductive--various aspects relating to the breach\nof the duty of care have been marginalised. Clearly there are more facts to be taken into account than at first appears.\nI notice that your account of the subject matter depends crucially on the supposed lack of obligation which is perhaps the most obscure\npoint in your argument. But regardless, your views give us reason to contemplate as well whether your societal role (which arguably\nrenders you capable of preventing plausibly foreseeable damages such as the one set forth herein) should trigger the appropriate moral\nobligations rather than unscrupulous beliefs which are inherently unjust, flagrantly unfair and merely conducive to your own self-interest\nand welfare. Likewise, you unknowingly oppose the emergent notion that I was no luckier in blindly placing faith in your\nestablishments competence than I would have been in not doing so.\nYou have blithely ruled out your obligation herein by undermining reasoning strategies aimed at justice and fairness; remarkably, you\nhave deliberately avoided the uncomfortable yet inevitable conclusion that in this instance you are to be held accountable, by narrowly\nholding that a financial institution's role in society is merely to \"act upon the customer's instruction.\" This sort of reductionist view has\nlong since been exposed as inadequate among world-leading, key financial regulatory authorities.\nIt is intuitively clear that you have not reckoned with the remarkable range of indispensable functions, which your organisation should\nperform for the community in a manner that is both stable and sustainable. It is moreover blatantly apparent, that, instead of being\nattuned more than ever to the importance of apprehending the pernicious influences of your idleness and non-intervention amidst an\ninexorable rise of financial fraud, you are unwarrantably hiding behind specious arguments based on thin assumptions, inadequate\nresearch, poor evidence, and sloppy reasoning. It is a whole lot better and far more effective to do the right thing, rather than the most\nprofitable one thereby compromising the integrity of your enterprise. I suggest that by following adequate protocols aimed at mutual\nbenefits (rather than satisfaction of personal goals), disadvantaged consumers will thrive rather than suffer, with a plethora of positive\nfeedback propagating far and wide as a result.\nI demand an investigation to bring to light additional relevant evidence that I am persuaded will support my view. It is hereby proposed\nthat your motivations may adversely affect reasoning through overreliance on a biased set of processes. As a substitute for sub-optimally\nrelying on a set of gross oversimplifications (which frustratingly and inexorably lead us to draw erroneous conclusions), we should,\ninstead, systematically account for the totality of the evidence  howsoever unpalatable  by even-handedly relying on complex and\nmultifactorial reasoning. The demand for sound reasoning is essentially a demand for ultimate explanation, and is linked with a complete\nunderstanding of the pronounced role that you played in permitting my injuries herein\nIn light of the above, it is patently clear that your train of thought is fatally flawed and totally unsupported. You have failed to come up\nwith positive evidence to support your claims, that is, to show beyond any reasonable doubt that irrespective of your conduct, my\nvictimization was an inevitable outcome. On the other hand, I have provided substantial evidence to support the claim that you could\nhave done more to safeguard my funds. Not only have you let me down, but you have also failed to admit that you could and should\nhave done better.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). Your\nresponse has limited the discussion narrowly to highly technical terms, and insufficient attention has been given to your organizational\ndysfunctions from a common-sense point of view. It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various riskbased\nexamination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous\noutcome. It is wildly incorrect to assume that you have exercised your duties by doing the minimum necessary. You have not exercised\nyour duties at all, rather, many of your underlying assumptions have simply gone unquestioned. Instead of being receptive to\nconstructive criticism and improving yourself, you ultimately seek to blame your customers thus absolving yourself of any\nresponsibility.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus\nviolate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. To the extent to\nwhich you were inconsistent therewith, you are liable for damages. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me as a customer and other entities\nassociated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including vulnerability, identification and research\nof high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of unusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud programs, and other associated policies\nand procedures.\nIt is incumbent upon financial institutions to carefully assess all information available about their customers, including vulnerability,\nneeds and customer type. There is a wide range of transactions which, although legitimate, should raise a red flag simply because they\nare inconsistent with the customers typical and ordinary activity. What constitutes reasonable grounds to flag transactions varies\naccording to the facts and circumstances of the particular matter being investigated and the effectiveness of the anti-fraud processes.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organisation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If\nyou don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable\nif the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or\nfinancial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the\nindividual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm, these recommendations are established as a\ngeneral principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for\nthe prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems\nare developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through\nauthorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of\nfraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that\nmight indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount,\ncharacteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal\nmarket parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial\nactivity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected","date_sent_to_company":"2024-07-19T23:38:35.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"08807","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9561046","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with non-monetary relief","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-07-19T23:25:30.000Z","state":"NJ","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to <em>examine</em> previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast."]},"sort":[8.760117,"9561046"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"9750331","_score":8.712367,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/year>2024. \nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX  XXXX This is to complain against Coinbase URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Coinbase. \nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Coinbase respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \nDuring the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \nGeneral Obligation : Commencing on or around XXXX XXXX 2024, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation orchestrated by a clone of XXXX XXXX  ( the XXXX  or the XXXX ), with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting, marketing, distributing, labelling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains in the equivalent of XXXX USD which was transferred from my Coinbase XXXX. \nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. \nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \nCoinbases Position : Please find all relevant evidence attached below. \nI have been a client of Coinbase for over a decade and it can be easily deduced that transactions to XXXX are outside of the usual pattern of my transactions. Coinbase should have warned me, educated me about the risky transactions and possible scams or blocked the suspicious transaction. I never received a call from Coinbase, nor did anyone ever ask me if I am sure to whom I am sending the funds or outlined the reasons for reconsidering sending the funds. \nCoinbase conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, Coinbase writes on their website : We work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we : Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you XXXX, all year round. \nSecure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone banking. \nOffer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices. \nFrequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security. \nGive you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats. \nRefuting XXXX arguments from a purely logical perspective : XXXX position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \nIn XXXX view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. \nImagine a view according to which the XXXX and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. \nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \nIt is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \nIt is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. \nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\n\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : XXXX ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; XXXX transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \nThis series of payments to XXXX, which I have never used before this, clearly shows that I am a victim of a known method of a fraud. \nCoinbase are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of XXXX knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well- justified. \nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Coinbase adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Coinbase in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core. \nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only XXXX of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that XXXX business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. XXXX non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least XXXX of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. \nIt is extremely unfortunate that Coinbase pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these things despite evidence to the contrary. \nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-08-08T08:31:27.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"34655","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"9750331","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2024-08-08T08:09:37.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm."]},"sort":[8.712367,"9750331"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6736230","_score":8.60696,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Office of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW.,\nWashington, DC\nDC 20552\nThis is to complain against the Bank of America\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX.\n I would like to draw your attention to XXXX XXXX XXXX - I had sent my complaint letter to Bank of America, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially.\nI am afraid I have had to go through so much \"bureaucracy\" thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least; and certainly, does not contribute tomyoverall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly (could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank.\nI feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and\npractice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Bank of America never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by hackers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Bank of America account to fraudulent investment firms.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Bank of America did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Bank of Americas custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Bank of America promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the\n \nnature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Bank of America was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Bank of America owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Bank of America did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Bank of Americas conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Bank of America has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Bank of America must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Bank of America did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Bank of America has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nBank of America is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Bank of America in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-\n  \ninterest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly\n \nadopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nBank of Americas non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX XXXX\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of America XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Re: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care was breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence or/and not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages I suffered as a result of a fraud [ 1]. Second, it shall serve as formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA very comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you engaged in/ is a pattern or a practice of a wrongful and negligent conduct which provided substantial assistance to advance the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated Hackers (the Scammer), all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding innocent people.\n Money was transferred from my account via debit card, and through an intermediary named XXXX  in the\ntotal amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in\nthe fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance\nwithin your organization.\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation,\nwhether by raising chargeback in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXX XXXX\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime XXXX XXXX XXXX 1\n   \nPage 2 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX   Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and demand that you reimburse my account in full within 10 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively within their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of its customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Scammer have a tendency or capacity to deceive victims, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Scammers fraudulent scheme and therefore are, by their very nature immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumersall at once.\nAs a result of the Scammers deceptive practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds to them. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the sham transactions the Scammer perpetrated upon myself; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated on me which would have likely tricked a reasonable person under the circumstances.\n  2\n\nPage 3 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nSCAMMERS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\n Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses all along! Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization had breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to satisfy yourself that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation on a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the Quincecare duty, because it was established in the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. (the Quincecare duty)\nThe Quincecare duty is well-established and requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing clients instructions. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the clients funds.\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution has been able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution shall seek further information or/and documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it became glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information or/and documentation were sought by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented at all.\nIf a bank executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank shall be liable to its client for damages in negligence.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst they are investigated.\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Ellinger's Modern Banking Law XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.)\n    3\n\nPage 4 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds shall not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something fishy was going on and suspended transactions until you had made reasonable enquiries to satisfy yourself that the transactions was/were properly to be executed. In other words, I have been a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard my financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was a fraud victim (Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50) [ 3].\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer. The debits made to my account should be reversed out, and damages to compensate me for any reasonably foreseeable losses incurred as a result of your failure to state the balance of my account accurately and properly. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about someone that adversely affect their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action or/and additional responsibilities or liabilities owed by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties owed by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those owed to the customer. On top of that, please remember you may owe liabilities to more than one regulator.\nMore often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper authorization or enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence.\nA plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nAccording to the FCA [5]: XXXXXXXX  could do more to identify fraudulent incoming payments and prevent accounts from being compromised by fraudsters. XXXX fraud is where a fraudster tricks a payer into making an XXXX  to an account controlled by that fraudster under false pretenses, similarly to the above-described victimization.\n3 Singularis Holdings Limited (in liquidation) v Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Limited [XXXX] UKSC 50\n4 Using AI in the fight against fraud XXXX XXXX XXXX\n5 FCA introduces new rules on handling complaints about Authorised Push Payment fraud (XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    4\n\nPage 5 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nMoreover, I argue that you should also make a reasonable estimate on the basis of relevant historical data of my account.\n\"Given XXXX fraud is currently a XXXX million problem and growing, the potential exposure for banks is very large indeed. This is yet another reason why the banking industry must do all it can to use the data available to it to detect and stop fraud.\"\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of irregular or suspicious transactions and traffic patterns to identify financial crimes in general and common fraudulent schemes in specific;\n Human review of complaints from the public and law enforcement in connection with rapidly-growing, recurring, and popular fraudulent practices as well as suspicious merchants, including creating special channels for such complaints;\n Cross-checking warnings, notices, cautionary announcements, and reports concerning beneficiaries, merchants, associations, or countries often suspected to be associated with cyber-fraud from governments, central banks, regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies, and watchdogs.\n Artificial Intelligence & XXXX embrace and leverage Machine Learning technologies and Big Data Analytics to identify fraudulent, or potentially fraudulent merchants by scrutinizing publications and reports about such merchants in the digital sphere (e.g. on forums, social media, et cetera.)\n Establishing contact with the recipient institution of fraud victims: any holds in place on new related activities, or similar blockers that prevent rapid rebranding of related/similar merchants.\nIt would also be wise to consider implementing additional safeguards where the movement of large sums of monies are concerned. For instance, you could specify additional prerequisites for executing the transfer of large sums such as: (1) requiring multiple levels of approval; (2) requesting more information concerning the intended purpose of the transfers and cross-checking for similar patterns of transfer; and (3) checking on my capacity to make such transfers. While such measures entail additional compliance costs, it would be sensible for you to err on the side of caution.\n5\n\nPage 6 of 7 XXXX XXXX XXXX  CONCLUSION\n If a full refund is not administered within 10 days from the date of this letter, in addition to a refund amount, a request for reimbursement of attorneys fees, filing fees, and any further costs associated with obtaining the refund amount may be pursued.\nIn the event of non-compliance with the demand mentioned above, your organization, knowingly or unknowingly, manifestly jeopardize its business through its association with the Criminals: those who are not direct accomplices to the commission of a crime but rather are permissive of the criminal behavior after the crime has been committed can also be charged with a crime. Being permissive, even if not present when the crime was committed, by not reporting the crime to the authorities and not trying to do your part in remedying the situation, makes you an accessory to the crime. If you unknowingly assist criminal behavior and remain impartial after discovering such, you are seen as obstructing justice.\nThis letter does not realize the full extent of my claims, rights, and remedies against you or any of your affiliates, parents and subsidiary corporations, including, without limitation, your representative managing partners, officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, attorneys, assigns, successors, servants, insurers, and representatives, in any matter whatsoever, including the present context of this letter, as that will not detract from my rights and claims in any form or manner whatsoever, or constitute any concessions on my behalf against you and against others.\nFor more information, please reread.\nXXXX XXXX  6\n\nPage 7 of 7\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nDEMAND FOR DISCLOSURE\nThe individuals who directed and enjoyed the fruits of these illegal and unlawful activities shall be exposed in full. This means that any and all contextual documents and/or information at your disposal shall be disclosed in a timely and equitable manner, in a reply to this letter.\nHence, I hereby demand that you disclose the following within 10 days from the date of this letter:\nReports, instructions, transmittal letters, statements, notices, and other documents, related to the relevant participants and beneficiaries, whether involved directly or indirectly, in accordance with the applicable regulations and guidelines. It also includes the correct and true names of the parties to the lawsuit, their ID NO., addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as information and documents of any potential party or of persons having knowledge of relevant facts, and a brief statement of each identified persons connection with the case, including information and documents concerning their beneficiary bank accounts, if available.\n 7\n\nTo: Bank of America\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  Subject: XXXX XXXX XXXX  complain to Bank of America\nFAO: Bank of Americas complaints dept.\nDear Sir / Madam,\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n This is my subsequent letter pursuant to the original, unanswered disputed letter sent to Bank of America on the XXXX XXXX XXXX\nWith this letter, I hereby express my utmost dissatisfaction with your lack of reply to the above referenced letter and reiterate key points that were raised and left unanswered previously supporting my request for your cooperation.\nAs I mentioned I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by hackers (the Company) and innocently lost XXXX XXXX  of my hard-earned life-savings due to your misadministration.\nThis complex issue has caused substantial harm to me, and if not appropriately addressed, will cause substantial harm to others, we must therefore conduct an in-depth and comprehensive review of all of the contributing factors that have led to an outcome as horrendous as the one described herein.\nDue to personal circumstances, I was particularly vulnerable during the victimization period; I was also relatively financially illiterate and very inexperienced in the finance sector which made me a prime target for criminal enterprises in this field.\nFinancial institutions are well aware of the scope and nature of such crimes and the risks that these pose to their clients, who, in contrast, mostly have limited knowledge of these dangers.\nTo be clear, people who have been scammed such as myself, are not individuals who have made poor investment decisions. They are people who have been tricked, lied to, deceived and emotionally manipulated. Sophisticated, aggressive sales techniques end up trapping the uninformed and unsuspecting victim who once in the clutches of the scammer cannot get out until most or all of the funds have been lost (stolen) by the scammers. A good comparison is a XXXX who XXXX  his victim whilst at the same time XXXX XXXX  and prevents them from escaping.\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management\n\nsystem, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and preemptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nWhat can Bank of America do?\nPlease be noted that I will not in any way quietly tolerate the consequences of your actions (or more precisely, the lack thereof). It is perfectly obvious that you could have, and should have, utilized various risk-based examination procedures and techniques, all of which are within your purview and could have entirely prevented this disastrous outcome.\nAs previously advised, you should have known, suspected, or had reason to suspect that the transactions (or pattern of transactions):\n involve funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal enterprise;\n is intended to disguise funds the ultimate purpose of which was to fuel an illegal\nenterprise, in an attempt to avoid and thus violate regulations;\n is intentionally designed to defraud your customer;\n serves no legitimate or lawful purpose; and\n involve the use of your services to facilitate criminal activity.\nThere are so many other ways in which measures related to fraud prevention and mitigation could have been useful. Further factors that should have been taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the following:\n The timing, volume, frequency, and nature of the transactions in question;\n The abnormality of such transactions against the background of your experience with me\nas a customer and other entities associated with the transactions (if any);\n The suspicious nature of such transactions based on my overall risk profile including\nvulnerability and identification and research of high-risk services/products;\n Systemic filtering mechanisms, whether manual or automatic, for the identification of\nunusual activities; and\n Periodic evaluation of the usefulness, appropriateness and effectiveness of anti-fraud\nprograms, and other associated policies and procedures.\nRelevant industry practices at the time of the victimisation:\nYour Organization is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting","date_sent_to_company":"2023-04-21T20:26:34.000Z","issue":"Other transaction problem","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"33908","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6736230","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2023-03-22T23:52:24.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I strongly believe that substantive evidence in <em>support</em> of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts <em>supporting</em> the allegations contained herein are known only to the Scammer or/and are exclusively <em>within</em> their control.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud that was being perpetrated upon myself by the Scammer."]},"sort":[8.60696,"6736230"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"7803385","_score":8.588172,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX To : Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Dear Sir or Madam of CFPBs Complaint/Dispute Department , I would like to draw your attention to the complaint letter of XX/XX/XXXX - I sent it for your attention, in which I clearly stated how I was affected personally, psychologically, and financially by the scam in which XXXX failed to protect my funds. However, it is over 30 days and I have yet to receive a response regarding my claim. I wish I can do anything to get this complaint done or get a resolution as soon as possible, seeing as the issue at hand is a matter of urgency for me. My complaint is against XXXX which did not do its job properly ( could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation ) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of XXXX XXXX and other banks do have a duty to protect customers against the risk of financial loss due to fraud and/or to undertake due diligence on large transactions to guard against the aforementioned fraud. Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated! Kind regards, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Finance Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This is to complain against XXXXXXXX XXXX URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of XXXXXXXX XXXX  to use your organization 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with XXXX XXXX In order to clear up the letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to XXXX XXXX respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the CFTC has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of XXXXXXXX XXXX to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, and protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. During the complaints process with XXXX XXXX, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFTC as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my XXXXXXXX XXXX  account to the fraudulent investment firm. When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether XXXXXXXX XXXX  did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of XXXX XXXX  custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether XXXX XXXX  promoted the transactions in question despite being aware of the nature of the transactions in question ( iv ) whether XXXX XXXX was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether XXXX Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether XXXXXXXX XXXX did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Chase Banks conduct Page 2 of 5 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether XXXX XXXX has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, XXXX XXXX must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that XXXX XXXX did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. XXXXXXXX XXXX Position : They choose to completely ignore the dispute letters and have never informed me nor have they done the investigation. I no longer have a choice but to turn to you for help and justice. Refuting XXXXXXXX XXXX arguments from a purely logical perspective : While I am appreciative of XXXX responses thus far, I have to admit that, to me, they do not seem nearly sufficient. A bank of XXXX caliber, in my opinion, should provide its clients with thorough responses to their complaints. XXXX XXXX  position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. In XXXX XXXX view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely on ) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. Page 3 of 5 XXXX XXXX XXXX  Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make XXXXXXXX XXXX morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if XXXX XXXX  encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as XXXX XXXX I have reviewed the material hereto sent by XXXXXXXX XXXX carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. It is perfectly obvious that XXXX XXXX, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. It is XXXX XXXX  here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that XXXX XXXX  adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is XXXX XXXX that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with XXXX XXXX capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, XXXX XXXX indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, have maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience. XXXX XXXX  is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple chequebooks ; Page 4 of 5 XXXX XXXX XXXX b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. B ) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. XXXXXXXX XXXX is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified. Rather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability XXXX XXXX adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by XXXX XXXX  in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core. Conclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forwardthinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. Page 5 of 5 XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Astonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that XXXXXXXX XXXX business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. XXXX XXXX non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that XXXX XXXX  pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. In summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2023-11-17T18:41:46.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"06704","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"7803385","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","date_received":"2023-11-04T10:25:08.000Z","state":"CT","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam <em>operation</em> run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my XXXXXXXX XXXX  account to the fraudulent investment firm."]},"sort":[8.588172,"7803385"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6120923","_score":8.271605,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"This is to complain against the Charles Schwab Bank & Co,. Inc. \n\nURGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc to use your organisation 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute ( XXXX ) with Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc . \n\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Charles Schwab & Co., Inc respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \n\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam. \n\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. \n\nDuring the complaints process with Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nGeneral Obligation : On XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX  which involved me making cash withdrawals and gift card deposits in the total amount of XXXX USD from my Charles Schwab & Co., Inc account to a fraudulent investment firm. \n\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Charles Schwab & Co., Inc did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Charles Schwab & Co. , Incs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Incs conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\n\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. \n\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. \n\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. \n\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\n\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. \n\n\n\n\nCharles Schwab & Co., Incs Position : On XX/XX/XXXX, Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc wrote in a letter : The Client Advocacy team has thoroughly reviewed and evaluated your concerns on several occasions. We have not been able to reach a resolution that you find acceptable. Please consider that Schwab considers this matter closed. \nXXXX XXXX, respectfully, Schwab declines to respond to your future communications regarding this matter. \n\n\nRefuting Charles Schwab & Co., Incs arguments from a purely logical perspective : Charles Schwab & Co., Incs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. \n\nIn Charles Schwab & Co., Incs view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\n\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Charles Schwab & Co., Inc morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Charles Schwab & Co., Inc encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc . \n\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. \n\nIt is perfectly obvious that Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. \n\nIt is Charles Schwab & Co., Inc here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Charles Schwab & Co., Inc that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Charles Schwab & Co., Incs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Charles Schwab & Co., Incs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. \n\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\n\nCharles Schwab & Co. , Inc is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. \nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimise financial harm. \nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a service that : 1 ) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation : A ) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts : a. multiple cheque books; b. sudden increased spending ; c. transfers to other accounts ; d. multiple password attempts ; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations ; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. \ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount ; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee ; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. \nB ) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action. \n\nCharles Schwab & Co. , Inc are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\n\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability Charles Schwab & Co., Inc adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. \n\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they can not simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\n\nFurther points for consideration : I ask CFPB to respectfully take into consideration my position as a victim. I have been a client of Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc. since XXXX, regularly settling all of my obligations towards them, and putting my trust in them. On the other hand, I have reasons to believe that the fraudster group targeted me because I am a nurse, disabled, and because I had no prior knowledge of how the scammers schemes operate. I have never bought a gift card in my life, and the scammers used it with the purpose of me losing all of my money.\n\nI would like to bring to your attention that I have reached out to another bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX, whose client am I regarding the issue since some of my funds were transferred from their account. XXXX XXXX XXXX recognized that I was a victim of a scam and refunded me the full amount ( I am willing to provide you the written proof of that ). This only proves that the banks, if they are willing to, can protect their clients by acknowledging their responsibility, recognizing the fraud, and taking protective measures. \n\nIn addition to this, I would like to mention that a direct result of this scam was not only the money that was lost but also the severe negative effects on my mental health. I have been experiencing symptoms of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. all consequences of XXXX  I endured and still continue to endure. \n\nConclusion : Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. \n\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Charles Schwab & Co., Incs business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Charles Schwab & Co., Incs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. \n\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Charles Schwab & Co., Inc pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\n\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. \n\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. \n\nThank you.","date_sent_to_company":"2022-10-24T13:51:47.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Check cashing service","zip_code":"94530","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6120923","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE","date_received":"2022-10-24T13:45:38.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["It is perfectly obvious that Charles Schwab & Co. , Inc, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate <em>support</em> nor protects anything other than its own interests."]},"sort":[8.271605,"6120923"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":8.008787,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB)\n1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States\nThis is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation\nURGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  XXXX, XXXX   I wish to practice my right as a customer of Truist Financial Corporation to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute XXXX XXXX XXXX  with Truist Financial Corporation.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to Truist Financial Corporation respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Truist Financial Corporation to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money, and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with Truist Financial Corporation, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct from management and diminishes the service offered to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem that they choose to manage in a way that is not in line with the rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\n\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or around XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX  which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX XXXX from my Truist Financial account to fraudulent investment firm.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether Truist Financial Corporation did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of Truist Financial Corporations custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether Truist Financial Corporation promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether Truist Financial Corporation was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether Truist Financial Corporation owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Truist Financial Corporation did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether Truist Financial Corporations conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether Truist Financial Corporation has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Truist Financial Corporation must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.\n \nTruist Financial Corporations Position:\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: Based on our investigation, Truist denies your claim for reimbursement because our investigation reveals the activity/transaction(s) was authorized.\nOn XXXX XXXX XXXX, Truist Financial Corporation wrote in a letter: You have advised that you were a victim of fraud... The information was keyed according to the Outgoing Wire Transfer Request Agreement, which you confirmed and signed.\nRefuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nTruist Financial Corporations position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn Truist Financial Corporations view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely on) unwritten laws, practicality, good judgment, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Truist Financial Corporation morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Truist Financial Corporation encounters the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Truist Financial Corporation.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by Truist Financial Corporation carefully, and it, unfortunately, provides no response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that Truist Financial Corporation, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner that neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests.\nIt is Truist Financial Corporation here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Truist Financial Corporation adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Truist Financial Corporation that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Truist Financial Corporations capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To re-emphasize, Truist Financial Corporations indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions\n  \nand capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Truist Financial Corporation has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nTruist Financial Corporation is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that fraud may be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple chequebooks;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation\n  \nto the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nTruist Financial Corporation is yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-justified.\nRather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability  Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by Truist Financial Corporation in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that Truist Financial Corporations business conduct was insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too crucial to be taken lightly. Truist Financial Corporations non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable\n \nconsumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you.\nXXXX  XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\n \nPage 1 of 9\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTruist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC\nRe: Demand Letter\nAttn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam,\nFor negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights\n  The goal of this letter is twofold: first, it aims to establish that a duty of care has been breached, inasmuch as you have failed to perform adequate due diligence and/or have not acted in a reasonable and prudent manner to prevent foreseeable substantial damages that I have suffered as a result of a fraud [1]. Second, it shall serve as a formal written demand for reimbursement based on the aforementioned grounds, among others.\nA comprehensive analysis of fraud prevention suggests that by processing atypical, non-routine transactions, and/or by being aware of other fraudulent schemes similar to the one alleged herein and/or ignorance of obvious warning signs of fraud, you have engaged in, is a pattern or a practice of wrongful and negligent conduct which has enabled the commission of a fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. The facts and details concerning the actions in question are set forth hereunder.\nOVERVIEW\n Commencing on or about XXXX XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX  (the Company), with the design, development, manufacture, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services,\" all of which aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients, through a predetermined cycle of client losses to gains.\n Money was transferred from my account via bank wire, credit card, debit card and through intermediaries named \"XXXX XXXX in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\n1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1\n    \nPage 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\n Additionally, it is vital that you will immediately take all actions within your power to remedy the situation, whether by raising chargeback and recall in respect of the transactions in question or reimburse me and credit my account, for the full amount of these payments, in the total amount of XXXXusd!\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role financial institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for higher levels of supervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for financial and emotional harm, and insist that you reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and sensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as possible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards and rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good industry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either upon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations conducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it. The overall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced and naive, in pursuit of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered the fraud that was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as\n 2\n\nPage 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nwithholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A complication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble analyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial products are often abstract and complex, theres no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of investors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies, know-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that financial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the understanding of their customers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive consumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme and therefore by their nature are jointly  immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for investment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the investments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged thus causing significant economic damage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions; and the fraudulent transactions the Company perpetrated were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices perpetrated which would have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to their crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include, but are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and malicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts and crypto currency wallets in multiple countries and used them through their accomplices from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated through\n 3\n\nPage 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nlegitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent\nnames, credentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name, officially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being conducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and furthermore, the call center, marketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden entities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum of financial maneuvers, is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a license and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require registration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data (e.g.: the manufacture of false charts). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the existence of the trades was fabricated. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using it to purchase various luxurious, non- essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields.\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer).\n11. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data\nrepresenting the percentage of total client losses at the company.\n13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my\nhealth.\n4\n\nPage 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX\nArmed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me, until I transferred all my savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square and honorable business dealings along with honesty, to maliciously take advantage of my trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has breached the duty of care that is owed by a financial institution to its clients in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the sole purpose of a payment instruction is to defraud the client. Under such circumstances, you are obliged to refrain from executing the payment instruction until you have been able to conclude that there is a legitimate basis for the instruction. Once the duty is engaged, the duty takes priority over the usual obligation of a financial institution to execute customer instructions promptly. The duty in question is often referred to as the XXXX XXXX  well established in the case of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX).\nThe XXXX XXXX  requires financial institutions to take reasonable care and skill when executing the instructions of a client. It is recognized as authoritative by leading academic texts [2]. The duty arises in cases where it can be argued that an ordinary prudent staff member of a financial institution would have a reasonable basis for suspicion that a particular payment instruction would result in the misappropriation of the funds of the client.\"\nWhen the duty does arise, it can be discharged simply by refraining from executing the instruction unless and until such time as the financial institution is able to establish that the instruction relates to a lawful obligation. The financial institution should seek further information and/or documentation from the client in order to help establish this.\nBased on the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions, it has become glaringly obvious to me that at best, no adequate\n2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX)\n    5\n\nPage 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX\ninformation and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executed a customers order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable individual would make,\" it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the payment instruction is made in accordance with the terms of the mandate and the bank is liable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and that where there are suspicions, these suspicions must be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of various signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on and suspended transactions until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transactions were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the misappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable banker would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I am a fraud victim. (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [3].\nA financial institution would never be as reckless with its own assets as has been the case with my assets, and if you had treated my assets as though they were your own, this would not have been made possible. The debits made from my account should be reversed as a result of your failure to take proactive measures to protect it, just as you would do if your own assets were in a similar state of peril. It is also libelous/defamatory to make false statements about an individual that adversely affects their credit rating.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a bank might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact that a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of a client might generate/give rise to further statutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant regulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a bank to a regulator are distinct from those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be liable to more than one regulatoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  More often than not, such legal duties spring from the very facts that gave rise to the liabilities to your clients in the first place. Similarly, to the foregoing, I may also have a cause of action against you for breach of mandate as you have negligently transferred my funds without proper enquiry.\nInstead, you should have been working hard with Artificial Intelligence [4] / Big data technologies to discover automated and effective ways not only to detect fraud but also to prevent it. Furthermore, the tremendous amount of data you possess is by no means self-evident let alone to be overlooked, hence by not utilizing it systematically and effectively to pinpoint irregular and suspicious activities you are misleading your customers, who have taken the leap of faith and placed trust and confidence in your honesty, authority, and competence. A plausible assumption here would be that the pattern of the above-mentioned transactions was sufficiently suspicious that it should have been flagged and blocked by your staff, even if you have never encountered similar situations.\nPractically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant:\n The use of automated and human review of","date_sent_to_company":"2022-12-20T18:39:13.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"29681","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"6296648","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","date_received":"2022-12-08T23:55:35.000Z","state":"SC","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":["I strongly believe that substantive evidence in <em>support</em> of the allegations set forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts <em>supporting</em> the allegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively <em>within</em> their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums while knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money that they had entrusted to it."]},"sort":[8.008787,"6296648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10981005","_score":7.9875913,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nConsumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX\nThis is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,\nimpartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA respecting my\ncomplaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a\ndeeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof RIA to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a service\nto look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional\nrelationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides\ntheir conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to\nadapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a\nreal problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of\nCFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i)\nwhether RIA did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material\nelements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my\nfinancial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of RIAs custodianship over my funds or by its control over them,\nthey owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether RIA\npromoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question\n(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties\nto myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether\nRIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA has within its power the ability to, and should,\ncompensate me for the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, RIA must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers\nin this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nRIAs Position:\nPlease find attached all relevant evidence below.\nRIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on\ntheir website:\nWe work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:\n Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.\n Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone\nbanking.\n Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.\n Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.\n Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.\nRefuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nRIAs position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect\ninnocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are\ndoomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful\nchoice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves\neven though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do\nsomething is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of\ntotally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree\nrequired by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA carefully, and it unfortunately provides no response to\nmy fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its\ndisposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to\ndetermine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to\nintervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key\nquestions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than\nits own interests.\nIt is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,\nthat RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive\nexperience compared to mine. It is RIA that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection\nto this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has\nnot been, commensurate with RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To\nreemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a\nblind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and\ncapitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nRIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being\nperpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the\ncustomer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\n1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nRIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nrequiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA adopts a rather\ninsouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by RIA in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly detailed why\nthey cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which, after careful\nreflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly unfair to\ndisregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly malevolent acts,\nthereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that RIAs business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. RIAs non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is, to\ncompletely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite\nevidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX\nXXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nTo: RIA\nXXXX XXXX, California , United States\nVia Email\n[Without Prejudice]\nAttn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.\nDear Sir or Madam,\nRe: Demand Letter  Fraud\nI hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that\nyou become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.\nCommencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,\nmarketing, distributing, labeling, and/or sale of illegal and outright fraudulent investment services, all of\nwhich aim at contributing to the goal of robbing and defrauding clients through a predetermined cycle of the\nclient losses to gains.\nMoney was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.\nOVERVIEW\n This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial\ninstitutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced\nsupervision and vigilance within your organization.\n Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced\ntransaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.\n Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed\nfinancial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,\nfinancial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some\nlegitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower\npayments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed\nby vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to\nmaintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.\n Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an\nirresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety.\n Against this background, and without derogating any of my rights, I hereby hold you liable for\nfinancial and emotional harm as well as medical problems relating to this victimization and insist that\nyou reimburse my account in full within 14 days from the date of this letter.\nINTRODUCTION\nFinancial crimes and fraud investigations often involve a high degree of sophistication, complexity, and\nsensitiveness to detail. Accordingly, this letter aims to address the issue at hand as profoundly and fairly as\npossible, by taking into consideration contextual regulations, laws, and bylaws, as well as guidance, standards\nand rules promoted by supervisory authorities, relevant codes of practice and (where suitable) what was good\nindustry practice (GIP) at all times relevant hereto. The allegations contained herein are predicated either\nupon knowledge with respect to myself and my own experience, or upon facts obtained through investigations\nconducted by qualified third parties. I strongly believe that substantive evidence in support of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts supporting the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively within their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it. The\noverall purpose of the scheme, in other words, was to target and defraud people who are often inexperienced\nand naive, in pursuance of illicit wealth through various fraudulent representations.\nI did not know, and through the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have discovered, the fraud\nthat was being perpetrated upon me by the Company. Fraud is commonly conceptualized as withholding\nfrom the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an\ninformed, rational or autonomous decision.\nIn this regard, even access to adequate information is insufficient to achieve complete autonomy. A\ncomplication here is that the weaker party, amateur/unseasoned investors in particular, might have trouble\nanalyzing the data at hand sufficiently well to identify fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, because financial\nproducts are often abstract and complex, there is no easy solution to this problem. Therefore, full autonomy of\ninvestors might not only require access to sufficient information, but also access to relevant technologies,\nknow-how, processing capabilities, and resources to analyze the information. A reasonable solution is that\nfinancial institutions would be required to promote transparent communication in which they track the\nunderstanding of its customers.\nAccording to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and\nunfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or\npractice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers\ndetriment.\nThe federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or\ncapacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends\npublic policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.\nThe false representations and omissions made by the Company have a tendency or capacity to deceive\nconsumers, such as myself, into unwittingly providing funds that fueled the Companys fraudulent scheme\nand are therefore, by their very nature, jointly immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, and\nsubstantially injurious to consumers.\nAs a result of the Companys deceptive trade practices, I was deceived into transferring my funds for\ninvestment returns that were never delivered. I will certainly never receive any monetary value for the\ninvestments considering the way the Company had their scheme rigged, thus causing significant economic\ndamage to me. The false statements of material facts and omissions as described above; and the fraudulent\ntransaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices which\nwould have likely deceived any reasonable person under the circumstances.\nMERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME  ALLEGATIONS\nThe Company hired, managed, and trained personnel, and collaborated with others as accomplices to\ntheir crimes to induce fraud that resulted in my financial and psychological damages. These include,\nbut are not limited to, the following allegations, all of which involve criminal, non-regulated, and\nmalicious activities:\n1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating\nfrom various unassociated locations across the globe.\n2. The Company opened bank accounts in multiple countries and used them through their\naccomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of\nillegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from legitimate sources.\n3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names,\ncredentials, competencies, qualifications and location. The Companys name is merely a brand name,\nofficially owned by shell corporations located offshore. In reality, the entire operation is being\nconducted from elsewhere (supposed location is evidently fictitious), and on top of that the call center,\nmarketing, and decision making, are all being performed by completely anonymous and hidden\nentities. Concealing true identities and utilizing front companies as a vehicle for a wide spectrum\nof financial maneuvers is a notorious practice of criminal organizations.\n4. The Company has blatantly violated international laws, as it has been practicing without a\nlicense and funneling enormous sums of money, through countries and jurisdictions that require\nregistration to operate.\n5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g.,\naccording to Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)\n6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data\n(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that\neach client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply\nconcocted. Instead, the Companys staff and its accomplices simply pocketed the money, using\nit to purchase various luxurious, non-essential items.\n7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds.\n8. The Company was guaranteeing returns/yields (unrealistic ones).\n9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.\n10. My money was not held in a segregated account.\n11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing\nthe percentage of total client losses at the company.\n12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.\n13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).\n14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.\n15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my\nsavings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square\nand honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order to maliciously take advantage of\nmy trusting nature.\nPlease take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses.\nAttached, please find supportive statements, screenshots, and further evidence.\nEXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT\nI hereby allege that your organization has completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances\nsurrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.\nMany suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the\nunusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your\norganization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting\npatterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently\nperformed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic\nquestions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,\nmethodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated\nwith fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.\nIn light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,\nit has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought\nby your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.\nIf a financial institution executes a customer order to transfer money knowing it to be dishonestly given,\nshutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as\nan honest and reasonable individual would undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the\npayment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be\nliable for negligence resulting in damages.\nCompliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there\nare suspicions, these suspicions be communicated to all relevant personnel whilst being investigated.\nFor the avoidance of doubt, reasonable grounds should not necessarily be interpreted as proof. On the basis of\nvarious signs, you should have assumed that something suspicious was going on therefore should have\nsuspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)\nwas/were properly executed. In other words, I am a victim of your negligence for facilitating the\nmisappropriation of funds, and doing little to safeguard public financial interests. Any reasonable staff\nmember would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.\n(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]\nYou knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully\nbelong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred\nthrough your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you\nhave facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the\nawareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their\nvictims.\nYour services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were\neither unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you\nconducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and\nsubsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and\nregulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you\nundeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or\nindirectly, those particular transactions.\nYou also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in\nenriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial\nlosses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did\nnot have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have\nirreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as\ntheir loved\nones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably\nharm the general public, and our society deserves better.\nA financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be\ntreated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.\nWhen discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution might incur, it is crucial not to forget the fact\nthat a legitimate complaint by, or cause of action on the part of, a client might generate/give rise to further\nstatutory cause of action and/or additional liabilities beholden by a financial institution to the relevant\nregulatory authority. Obligations/duties beholden by a financial institution to a regulator are distinct from\nthose beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.\nAs a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to\nmonitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of\nimplementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities\nhas been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures\nand internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You\nshould have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which\ncould suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role\nin preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.\nFRAUD\nActual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or\nbelief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for\ndamages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-30T09:15:06.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"International money transfer","zip_code":"XXXXX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10981005","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Ria Envia, LLC","date_received":"2024-11-30T08:54:09.000Z","state":null,"company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["I strongly believe that substantive evidence in <em>support</em> of the allegations\nset forth herein will be found after an appropriate opportunity for discovery. Key facts <em>supporting</em> the\nallegations contained herein are known only to the Company and/or are exclusively <em>within</em> their control.\nThe Company cleverly orchestrated a prevalent scheme of deception to lead people to invest significant sums\nwhile knowing that those would-be investors would ultimately lose the money, they had entrusted to it."]},"sort":[7.9875913,"10981005"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"5262200","_score":7.8931236,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/2022 XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Or, XXXX ( XXXX ) - XXXX To whom it may concern, This is to complain against the Coinbase. Company Name : Coinbase, To whom it may concern, My name is XXXX XXXX I have been a customers of Coinbase for about a year and I have been using your services and learning as I go things where going well. I have made several transactions in Buy/Sell of Currencies like, Bitcoin, but sill just learning. \n\n( Coinbase ). URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I wish to practice my right as a customer of Coinbase to use your organization 's service, seeking a formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with Coinbase. In order to clear up or state my case respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding, by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analyzing the relevant facts in an objective and comprehensive fashion. \nIt is, crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct of Coinbase to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. \nThey sell a service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a traditional relationship and way of working with its customers. During the complaints process with Coinbase, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients. XXXX and I have suffered from a what I think a huge financial loss. I transferred thirteen times totaling $ XXXX from my XXXX XXXX XXXX banks/checking Account and XXXX XXXX XXXX debit card and XXXX XXXX XXXX debit card into Coinbase. \nFrom Coinbase to the fraudulent copycat/ duplicates investment company. Called http : //falconprofx.com. \nLater, I learned that this was a scam. I fell for the scam because I thought that it was a legitimate business I used Coinbase because is a very trustworthy company because of its great reputation. Therefore, I trusted Coinbase and gave in with my hard earned money. I transferred all that money into a fraudulent platform ; Unexpectedly ( from the present perspective ), Coinbase gave no warning not only that this is a flagged-for-fraud wallet, but also a verified one. That means that Coinbase has an untrustworthy verification system, therefore betraying our trust. In a second, all my hard earned savings were sent into a fraudulent platform, permanently losing it ( unless you help! ). \n\nObligation : Commencing on XXXX, I fell victim to a copycats or duplicate investing platform scam operations run by http : //falconprofx.com which involved me making deposits to a supposedly a mining pool for a total amount of XXXX USD and approx. XXXX you can see on my receipts from my Coinbase account to these fraudulent copycat/ duplicates investment company. When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability and security ; Common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Coinbase did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Coinbase promoted the transaction ( XXXX ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( XXXX ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent organization. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a Blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Coinbase must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Coinbase did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past. Coinbases Position : On XXXX, I have sent thirteen transactions for a total of XXXX USD from my account/debit I believe I deserve XXXX USD as a compensation. Refuting Coinbases arguments from a purely logical perspective : I do not consider it as reasonable and sufficient enough. You have to understand that as a result of this scam I lost all of my savings in the total amount of XXXX USD mind you this is after all your fees and approx. XXXX BTC you can see on my receipts. This is a huge part of my life and I need Coinbase to give me a better compensation. Coinbases position is the ( features ) of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to protect innocent and helpless victims ; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint. In Coinbases view, it is implied that we should not home in ( and consequently rely ) on unwritten laws, practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense and are wildly irresponsible. Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make Coinbase morally obligated to do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if Coinbase encounter the suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as Coinbase. I have reviewed the material hereto sent by Coinbase carefully, and it unfortunately they provides a simple response of this transactions are in reversible there is nothing we can do response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind. It is perfectly obvious that Coinbase, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than its own interests. It is Coinbase here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say, that Coinbase adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive experience compared to mine. It is Coinbase that claims that the damages which I have suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with Coinbases capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To reemphasize, Coinbases indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a careless ad reckless fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.\n\nCoinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being perpetuated. If they don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is : particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Transaction on Coinbase # 13 transactions XXXX $ BTC XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2022-02-25T20:22:16.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Virtual currency","zip_code":"977XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"5262200","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Coinbase, Inc.","date_received":"2022-02-25T19:54:20.000Z","state":"OR","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse ; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. \n\n\nSincerely, XXXX XXXX Transaction on Coinbase # 13 transactions XXXX $ BTC XXXX"]},"sort":[7.8931236,"5262200"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"17175549","_score":6.5419207,"_source":{"product":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","complaint_what_happened":"CFPB, I am submitting this complaint to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after months of unrelenting frustration with XXXX XXXX. Since XXXX of this year I have experienced denial after denial from this companyso many that I have lost countand at every stage I have been treated with disregard, silence, and evasion. Each application I filed was honest, accurate, and complete. Each contained verifiable financial information that any fair-minded lender could have evaluated in good faith. Instead, XXXX XXXX has built a system that seems designed to reject people automatically, instantly, and without explanation. These are not ordinary denials ; they are dismissals that happen in seconds, leaving no trace of individualized consideration, no rationale that can be examined, and no respect for the consumers right to understand the basis of a credit decision. I have watched this pattern repeat again and again, even after filing prior CFPB complaints, and the company continues to behave as though the law simply does not apply to it. \n\nEvery interaction with XXXX XXXX has followed the same hollow script. The website invites applications, promising quick decisions and transparency. What actually happens is a denial so rapid that it appears computer-generated, followed by silence or a boilerplate message such as your application did not meet internal criteria. That phrase is the corporate equivalent of a brick wall. It tells me nothing about why I was denied, nothing about what data they used, and nothing about how I might correct an error if one exists. This vagueness is not only unhelpful ; it violates the spirit and the letter of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Regulation B, both of which require creditors to provide specific reasons for adverse action. XXXX XXXX has never complied with that duty in my experience. They either fail to send an adverse-action notice at all or send one so generic that it renders the requirement meaningless. Their denials look like they were written by a machine, not a person, and they communicate one message only : that applicants do not deserve answers. \n\nI have reached out repeatedly for clarification. I have used their online form, emailed their support address, and even replied directly to denial notifications, asking for a real explanation. Not once have I received a meaningful response. The replieswhen they existare copy-and-paste paragraphs offering no human engagement, no accountability, and no willingness to review or reconsider. It is a customer-service faade, a performance designed to appear compliant while ensuring that no consumer ever gets help. This silence adds insult to injury. A legitimate lender would at least review a pattern of repeated denials to see if something had gone wrong. XXXX XXXX simply does not care. \n\nOver the months since XXXX I have endured measurable harm. The time I have spent applying, re-applying, documenting, and filing complaints could have been devoted to real financial progress. I have lost opportunities to obtain credit from other sources because XXXX XXXX inquiries remain visible on my consumer reports. I have experienced stress and sleepless nights wondering why the company continues to treat me as if my information is worthless. The repeated humiliation of submitting honest applications only to be rejected within seconds has left me anxious, angry, and disillusioned. It is difficult to describe the feeling of powerlessness that comes from dealing with a company that hides behind algorithms and refuses to acknowledge the people it harms. Financial institutions wield enormous influence over consumers lives ; they can open doors or close them. XXXX XXXX has chosen to slam those doors shut and bolt them from the inside. \n\nThe companys behavior also raises questions about how it evaluates applicants. The denials occur so quickly and so uniformly that I believe they are the result of automated decisioning systemsalgorithmic models that may rely on third-party data or proprietary scoring metrics invisible to the public. These systems may be biased, inaccurate, or discriminatory, yet XXXX XXXX offers no transparency about their design or operation. The CFPB has warned lenders about the dangers of black-box credit algorithms that produce disparate impacts. XXXX XXXX exemplifies that danger. Its system acts as judge, jury, and executioner, with no appeal, no human oversight, and no accountability. If my repeated denials stem from such a system, then the company is not only violating ECOAs disclosure rules but also perpetuating algorithmic discrimination that the Bureau must investigate and correct. \n\nIt is particularly alarming that this company continues these practices despite already being aware of my prior CFPB complaints. The record should show that I have been raising these issues for months. XXXX XXXX can not claim ignorance. The fact that it persists anyway demonstrates contempt for regulatory authority. A responsible lender, once notified of a consumer complaint filed with a federal agency, would review its internal processes, ensure compliance, and issue a good-faith response. XXXX XXXX has done none of those things. Its disregard for oversight makes clear that voluntary compliance will never occur ; only direct enforcement will. When a company repeatedly ignores both its customers and the CFPB, it sends a message that consumer protection laws are meaningless. That message must be answered decisively. \n\nThe damage here extends beyond my personal frustration. Every consumer who encounters XXXX XXXX is at risk of the same treatment : false promises of opportunity, instant rejection, and total silence afterward. The companys behavior erodes public trust in the lending industry. It fosters cynicism and fear among people who are already trying to improve their financial stability. I know this firsthand. The repeated denials have made me question my own financial worthiness, even though the issue lies entirely with the companys process. I have felt humiliated explaining to others why a supposedly reputable lender refuses even to evaluate my applications fairly. The emotional toll has been heavyanxiety, sleepless nights, a sense of being trapped in an endless loop of disrespect. No consumer should have to experience that because a lender refuses to follow the law. \n\nI am asking the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to intervene in the strongest possible terms. The Bureau should open a full-scale investigation into XXXX XXXX credit-decision process, data sources, and compliance procedures. It should demand disclosure of the algorithms and scoring factors used to evaluate applicants, along with demographic and geographic breakdowns of all denials since the beginning of this year. It should determine whether the companys models have a disparate impact on any group of consumers and whether its adverse-action notices satisfy legal requirements. If they do notand based on my experience they do notthe Bureau should impose civil monetary penalties, mandate corrective measures, and order restitution for all affected applicants. The Bureau should also evaluate whether XXXX XXXX should be allowed to continue operating. A lender that repeatedly disregards the law, ignores regulator communications, and harms consumers on this scale does not deserve to maintain its license. \n\nI also urge the Bureau to consider public enforcement. XXXX XXXX behavior is not a private misunderstanding ; it is a systemic failure that affects countless applicants. Public enforcement would send a clear message to the industry that opacity, automation, and indifference will not be tolerated. When a company chooses to deny in bulk without transparency, it undermines the very concept of fair credit. XXXX XXXX has chosen that path deliberately. The Bureau should respond with the same deliberateness by imposing sanctions proportionate to the harm done. \n\nAs an individual consumer I have done everything within my power : I have applied honestly, documented my experiences, reached out directly, and filed multiple CFPB complaints. I have followed every channel available to me, and yet XXXX XXXX continues its pattern of neglect and abuse. I should not have to keep repeating myself for the company to acknowledge that something is wrong. At this point, only the Bureaus authority can compel accountability. I respectfully demand that the CFPB require XXXX XXXX to provide a full written explanation for every denial issued to me, to correct any data inaccuracies that contributed to those decisions, and to compensate me and others for the time, stress, and opportunity lost as a result of its unlawful practices. The Bureau should further require the company to establish transparent review procedures and human oversight for all automated decisions, ensuring that no applicant is ever again dismissed by a machine without explanation. \n\nXXXX XXXX has demonstrated that it will not change voluntarily. Its repeated denials, its silence, and its disregard for both consumers and regulators prove that it considers itself untouchable. That arrogance is precisely what consumer-protection law exists to confront. I ask the CFPB to use every tool at its disposalinvestigation, enforcement, public reporting, fines, restitution, and, if necessary, license revocationto hold this company accountable. XXXX XXXX has turned lending into an exercise in opacity and contempt. The Bureau must turn this case into a demonstration that the rules still matter, that consumers still have a voice, and that companies that refuse to listen will face consequences. \n\nI submit this complaint in good faith, with the hope that it will finally bring visibility and action to a problem that has persisted for far too long. I am not just filing on my own behalf ; I am speaking for every applicant who has been ignored, every consumer who has been denied without reason, and every person who has been made to feel powerless by a system that should serve them. XXXX XXXX has had months to correct itself. It has chosen not to. Now it is time for the CFPB to step in, investigate, enforce, and ensure that justicereal, tangible justiceis finally delivered.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-11T04:21:29.000Z","issue":"Problems receiving the advance","sub_product":"Other advances of future income","zip_code":"93444","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"17175549","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MoneySpot USA LLC DBA Sunshine Loans","date_received":"2025-11-11T04:17:34.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["These systems may be biased, inaccurate, or discriminatory, yet XXXX XXXX offers no transparency about their design or <em>operation</em>. The CFPB has warned lenders about the dangers of black-box credit algorithms that produce disparate impacts. XXXX XXXX exemplifies that danger. Its system acts as judge, jury, and executioner, with no appeal, no human oversight, and no accountability."]},"sort":[6.5419207,"17175549"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10794902","_score":6.1293807,"_source":{"product":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","complaint_what_happened":"Page XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC XXXX\n[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]\nURGENCY: HIGH\nIMPORTANCE: HIGH\nThis is to complain against U. S. Bank.\nU. S. Bank account ending in: XXXX\nI wish to practice my right as a customer of U. S. Bank to use your organisation's service, seeking a\nformal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with U. S. Bank.\nIn order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to U. S. Bank\nrespecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding,\nby taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and\ncomprehensive fashion.\nIt is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these\nfraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.\nMy complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct\nof U. S. Bank to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a\nservice to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a\ntraditional relationship and way of working with its customers.\nDuring the complaints process with U. S. Bank, I found their communication ineffective, which further\nhides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are\nstruggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is\npresenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and\nregulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.\nGeneral Obligation:\nCommencing on or about XXXX  2024, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by DML Markets under the domain m.dml-markets.cc which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX  USD from my U. S. Bank account to fraudulent investment firm(s).\nWhen determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries\ninclude, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether U. S. Bank did not take notice of any rule, law, or\nregulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that\nmay have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of U. S. Banks\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024\ncustodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so,\nwhether that duty was breached; (iii) whether U. S. Bank promoted the transaction(s) in question despite\nbeing aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether U. S. Bank was in compliance\nwith its own policies and procedures; (v) whether U. S. Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of\nthose duties was, and whether U. S. Bank did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether U. S. Banks conduct\nwas unfair; and (vii) whether U. S. Bank has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me\nfor the harm that has befallen me.\nUpon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member\nadequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent\nand nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant\ncriteria of fraud.\nIn providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and\nskill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not\nturn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In\nother words, U. S. Bank must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real\npossibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have\nknown that I was dealing with a scammer.\nGranted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a\nsense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective\nelement.\nHowever, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not\naverage care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is\nreasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of\nthe evidence suggests that U. S. Bank did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious\ndangers in this respect.\nSituations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the\nstandard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the\npast.\nU. S. Banks Position:\nOnXX/XX/2024 U. S. Bank wrote in a letter We regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter\nmay have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a scam can be confusing, time consuming,\nand inconvenient.\nUpon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire\nDepartment on XXXX XXXX which debited your account ending XXXX  on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX in the amounts\nof XXXX and XXXX  A request was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.\nPlease know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The\nelapsed time from the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of\nrecalling the funds. We recommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement\nofficials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024Refuting U. S. Banks arguments from a purely logical perspective:\nU. S. Banks position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to\nprotect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches\nare doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only\nmeaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the\nattention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.\nIn U. S. Banks view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,\npracticality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when\ntaking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense\nand are wildly irresponsible.\nImagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make U. S. Bank morally obligated to\ndo something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if U. S. Bank encounter the\nsuffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the\ndegree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as U. S. Bank.\nI have reviewed the material hereto sent by U. S. Bank carefully, and it unfortunately provides no\nresponse to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the\nresources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as\nmyself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and\nhad a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.\nIt is perfectly obvious that U. S. Bank, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the\nkey questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other\nthan its own interests.\nIt is U. S. Bank here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to\nsay, that U. S. Bank adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its\nextensive experience compared to mine. It is U. S. Bank that claims that the damages which I have\nsuffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree\nof care is not, and has not been, commensurate with U. S. Banks capacity, experience, expertise, or scope\nof services in any way. To reemphasize, U. S. Banks indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to\npurely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing\nthose transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby\nenhancing market integrity.\nApropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all U. S. Bank has done in this regard is set up a\ndichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go\none-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions\ncan, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.\nU. S. Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may\nbe being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam\nwith the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:\n particularly vulnerable, or\nPage XXXX of XXXX  XX/XX/2024\n if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.\nThere are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm.\nThese recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a\nservice that:\nXXXX) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it\nsets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general\npoint, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and\nmethodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised\nand unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to\nthe detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:\nA) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious\ntransactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following\nexamples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:\na. multiple cheque books;\nb. sudden increased spending;\nc. transfers to other accounts;\nd. multiple password attempts;\ne. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;\nf. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are\ntransactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the\neconomic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no\napparent legal justification.\ng. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;\nh. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;\ni. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.\nB) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the\ncustomer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the\nsuspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.\nU. S. Bank are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging\nexperience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to\navert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which\nPage XXXX of XXXX\nXX/XX/2024requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-\njustified.\nRather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the\nexistence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of\nconsumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,\npositively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  U. S. Bank adopts a\nrather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.\nI am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to\nensue if no responsibility is adopted by U. S. Bank in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly\ndetailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,\nafter careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly\nunfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly\nmalevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.\nConclusion:\nBased on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is\nabundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall\nfraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their\nundisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital\narena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively\nnavigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in\nthis connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent\npractices.\nAstonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that U. S. Banks business conduct was\ninsufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and\nresponsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too\ncrucial to be taken lightly. U. S. Banks non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is,\nto completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is\ninexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of\nthe patronage of clients like myself.\nIf it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)\nfinancial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in\nquestion was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.\nIt is extremely unfortunate that U. S. Bank pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these things\ndespite evidence to the contrary.\nIn summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and\ncompanywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.\nI look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.\nThank you.\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Page XXXX of XXXXXX/XX/2024\nTHE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK\nDemand for Return of Funds\nXX/XX/2024\nU.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MN XXXX Re: XXXX XXXX XXXX Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demand for Return of Funds Dear XXXX  or XXXX, I am writing to you concerning my account referenced above to notify you that the transactions described below were fraudulent, and to demand that funds in the amount of XXXX  be returned immediately.\nThe Transactions\nI made the following transfers from the Account:\nDate Amount Recipient InstitutionXX/XX/2024 XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2024 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nAll of the foregoing transfers were the result of fraud. Specifically, I bonded with an individual online and\ngot introduced to investing in a seemingly innocent manner. She directed me to a carefully replicated\nXXXX  Markets website, under the domain m.dml-markets.cc. Initially, I seemed to be profiting from my\ninvestments, according to their platform. However, I was later notified that my account and funds had\nbeen frozen due to suspicious activity and leveraged on my trust and fear of slipping into an unfortunate\nfinancial situation, successfully tricking me into depositing additional funds in order to resolve the issue.\nUltimately, I was unable to complete further transfer requests they made. Despite the highly irregular\nnature of these transactions compared to my usual patterns, I was never approached for clarification by\nany institution involved.\nPlease note the following:\n I have never transacted with cryptocurrency in such a manner before.\n The pattern of the Transactions fits within well-known fraudulent schemes.\n I am an elderly individual.\n The bank failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect elderly customers from known fraud\nschemes, potentially violating the \"reasonable security\" standard under various state laws.\n The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's guidelines on preventing elder financial abuse\nsuggest that banks should have systems in place to detect and prevent this type of fraud\n The bank did not attempt to contact me to verify this large, unusual transaction before processing\nit, which may be considered a failure in their duty of care.\nDemand for Return of Funds\nBasis For Demand\nThe foregoing Transactions were fraudulent, and I am therefore entitled to have the amounts set forth\nabove returned to my account pursuant to the representations made by you. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. Further, the Transactions had all the clear markings of well-known scams, about which you have been\nrepeatedly warned by law enforcement and other government agencies. Your facilitation of the\nTransactions is another basis for the return of the Funds. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX (applying the should have known standard under statute); see alsoXXXX 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 XXXXXX/XX/XXXX).\nRight to File Claim\nNothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of my rights to damages not expressly set forth\nherein. It is my hope that the Funds are returned quickly, and that no further action is necessary.\nIf we cannot reach a resolution, then I will have no choice but to file an arbitration claim pursuant to your\nterms and conditions.\n\nu s D a n K . XXXX XXXX  CA XXXX U.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING U.S. Bank National Association Card Withdrawals (continued) Card Number: XXXX Date Description of Transaction R e f Number Uni-Statement Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Statement Period: XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX\n(CONTINUED)\nAccount Number XXXX\nAmount\nCard XXXX Withdrawals Subtotal\nTotal Card Withdrawals\nRef Number\nXXXX XXXX\nOther Withdrawals\nDate Description of Transaction XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Wire Transfer Fee XXXX XXXX Wire  Debit XXXX\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SA\nChecks Presented Conventionally\nCheck\nXXXX\nDate Ref Number XXXX XXXX XXXX  Amount XXXX  Check\nXXXX  Total Other Withdrawals\nDate\nXXXX XXXX  $\nRef NumbeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Amount XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-\nAmount XXXX\nu s b a n k JXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXXXXXX\nU.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING\nU.S. Bank National Association\nCard Withdrawals (continued)\nCard Number: XXXXXXXX\nDate Description of Transaction Ref Number\nUni-Statement\nAccount Number:\nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX\nStatement Period:\nXXXX XXXX XXXX through\nXXXX XXXX XXXX\nPage XXXX of XXXX XXXXCONTINUED)\nAccount Number XXXX\nAmount\nOther Withdrawals\nDate Description of Transaction\nXXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX\nCard XXXX  Withdrawals Subtotal\nTotal Card Withdrawals\nRef Number\nTo XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-\nA m o u n t\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Wire Transier Fee XXXX XXXX  Wire Debit REFXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX\nXXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal\nREF=XXXX XXXX\nChecks Presented Conventionally\nCheck Date Ref Number\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  Total Other Withdrawals\nAmount\nXXXX  Check XXXX Date Ref Number\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Conventional Checks Paid (2)\n\n\nu s b a n k .\nusbankXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX  Re: Account ending in XXXX\nDear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX:\nThe Office of the President received your request for assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your\nc o n c e r n s .\nWe regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter may have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a\nscam can be confusing, time consuming, and inconvenient.\nUpon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire Department on\nXXXX XXXX  which debited your account ending XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amounts of XXXX XXXX XXXX. A\nrequest was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.\nPlease know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The elapsed time\nfrom the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of recalling the funds. We\nrecommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your\nmoney from the beneficiary of this payment.\nPlease refer to the section of the Your Deposit Account Agreement (Agreement) titled Funds Transfers, which states, \"A\nwire transfer is irrevocable once payment has been transmitted to the beneficiary's bank. At your request, we may\nrequest that the beneficiary's bank return funds previously transferred. However, you acknowledge that the beneficiary's\nbank is under no obligation to comply with this request.\" The most current copy of the Agreement is available on\nusbank.com or at your local U.S. Bank branch. The Agreement is also included with the documentation provided when a\nnew account is opened.\nOur customers are generally protected from liability for unauthorized transactions or fraud. Any transactions you initiate\nare considered authorized by you. Also, if you send funds to someone for products or services, and they fail to deliver the\ndesired service, it becomes a civil matter and unfortunately falls outside of our ability to recover those funds. We\nrecommend you continue to work with the recipient of the funds to request a refund. You may also consider working with\nyour local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.\nIn your correspondence you enclosed a statement and mention four additional fraudulent transfers on your account\nending XXXX  in the amounts oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Please note, we were unable to locate any claims on\nthe transactions mentioned above. If there are transactions you believe should be disputed, please contact our Fraud\nDispute Intake team at XXXX to file a claim, where representatives are available to assist you XXXX  hours a day,\nseven days a week (we accept relay calls).\nAdditionally, in your correspondence you also expressed concern regarding our alleged failure to prevent the above\ntransactions from occurring. A review of the wire interaction confirmed the branch representative asked appropriate\nverification questions and determined you had previously sent similar wires.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-14T21:28:16.000Z","issue":"Fraud or scam","sub_product":"Mobile or digital wallet","zip_code":"92027","tags":"Older American","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10794902","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"U.S. BANCORP","date_received":"2024-11-14T21:06:04.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that\nmight occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers\nwho might be at <em>risk</em>, how to assess the potential <em>risks</em> to the individual and how to take the necessary\nactions to prevent or minimise financial harm."]},"sort":[6.1293807,"10794902"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"8368931","_score":3.0983863,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"GROWCREDIT is furnishing deceptive information to the credit bureaus that I do believe have not been properly verified or validated as accurate as there are several inaccuracies from each reporting information. The credit bureaus allege this information is being sent from GrowCredit so how is this account being report XXXX different ways. Furthermore GrowCredit has to have my expressed or written consent to sell information for profit. They do not have permission to sell my financial history with them for profit this is putting my information at risk to be comprised. \nXXXX Reasonable opportunity to opt out. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX  In general. You must not use eligibility information that you receive from an affiliate to make marketing solicitations to a consumer about your products or services unless the consumer is provided a reasonable opportunity to opt out, as required by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ). \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX  Examples of a reasonable opportunity to opt out. The consumer is given a reasonable opportunity to opt out if : ( XXXX ) By mail. The opt out notice is mailed to the consumer. The consumer is given 30 days from the date the notice is mailed to elect to opt out by any reasonable means. \n\n( XXXX ) By electronic means. \n\n( i ) The opt out notice is provided electronically to the consumer, such as by posting the notice at an Internet Web site at which the consumer has obtained a product or service. The consumer acknowledges receipt of the electronic notice. The consumer is given 30 days after the date the consumer acknowledges receipt to elect to opt out by any reasonable means. \n\n( ii ) The opt out notice is provided to the consumer by e-mail where the consumer has agreed to receive disclosures by e-mail from the person sending the notice. The consumer is given 30 days after the e-mail is sent to elect to opt out by any reasonable means. \n\n( XXXX ) At the time of an electronic transaction. The opt out notice is provided to the consumer at the time of an electronic transaction, such as a transaction conducted on an Internet Web site. The consumer is required to decide, as a necessary part of proceeding with the transaction, whether to opt out before completing the transaction. There is a simple process that the consumer XXXX use to opt out at that time using the same mechanism through which the transaction is conducted. \n\n( XXXX ) At the time of an in-person transaction. The opt out notice is provided to the consumer in writing at the time of an in-person transaction. The consumer is required to decide, as a necessary part of proceeding with the transaction, whether to opt out before completing the transaction, and is not permitted to complete the transaction without making a choice. There is a simple process that the consumer XXXX use during the course of the in-person transaction to opt out, such as completing a form that requires consumers to write a yes or no to indicate their opt out preference or that requires the consumer to check XXXX of XXXX blank check boxesone that allows consumers to indicate that they want to opt out and XXXX that allows consumers to indicate that they do not want to opt out. \n\n( XXXX ) By including in a privacy notice. The opt out notice is included in a GLBA privacy notice. The consumer is allowed to exercise the opt out within a reasonable period of time and in the same manner as the opt out under that privacy notice. \n\n( a ) Definitions.For purposes of this section ( XXXX ) the term agency means agency as defined in section XXXX ( XXXX ) [ XXXX ] of this title ; ( XXXX ) the term individual means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence ; ( XXXX ) the term maintain includes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate ; ( XXXX ) the term record means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a photograph ; ( XXXX ) the term system of records means a group of any records under the control of any agency from which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual ; ( XXXX ) the term statistical record means a record in a system of records maintained for statistical research or reporting purposes only and not used in whole or in part in making any determination about an identifiable individual, except as provided by section XXXX of title XXXX ; ( XXXX ) the term routine use means, with respect to the disclosure of a record, the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected ; ( XXXX ) the term matching program ( A ) means any computerized comparison of ( i ) XXXX or more automated systems of records or a system of records with non-Federal records for the purpose of ( I ) establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefit programs, or ( II ) recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefit programs, or ( ii ) XXXX or more automated Federal personnel or payroll systems of records or a system of Federal personnel or payroll records with non-Federal records, ( B ) but does not include ( i ) matches performed to produce aggregate statistical data without any personal identifiers ; ( ii ) matches performed to support any research or statistical project, the specific data of which XXXX not be used to make decisions concerning the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals ; ( iii ) matches performed, by an agency ( or component thereof ) which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, subsequent to the initiation of a specific criminal or civil law enforcement investigation of a named person or persons for the purpose of gathering evidence against such person or persons ; ( iv ) matches of tax information ( I ) pursuant to section XXXX ( d ) of the Internal Revenue Code of XXXX, ( II ) for purposes of tax administration as defined in section XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) of such Code, ( III ) for the purpose of intercepting a tax refund due an individual under authority granted by section XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX, or XXXX of the Social Security XXXX ; or ( IV ) for the purpose of intercepting a tax refund due an individual under any other tax refund intercept program authorized by statute which has been determined by the XXXX of the Office of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX verification, notice, and hearing requirements that are substantially similar to the procedures in section XXXX of the Social Security XXXX ; ( v ) matches ( XXXX ) using records predominantly relating to Federal personnel, that are performed for routine administrative purposes ( subject to guidance provided by the XXXX of the Office of XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX subsection ( v ) ) ; or ( II ) conducted by an agency using only records from systems of records maintained by that agency ; if the purpose of the match is not to take any adverse financial, personnel, disciplinary, or other adverse action against Federal personnel ; ( vi ) matches performed for foreign counterintelligence purposes or to produce background checks for security clearances of Federal personnel or Federal XXXX personnel ; ( XXXX ) matches performed incident to a levy described in section XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Internal Revenue Code of XXXX ; ( XXXX ) XXXX performed pursuant to section XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) ( XXXX ) of the Social Security XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) matches performed by the Secretary of XXXX and XXXX XXXX or the Inspector General of the Department XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX with respect to potential fraud, waste, and abuse, including matches of a system of records with non-Federal records ; or ( x ) matches performed pursuant to section XXXX ( d ) ( XXXX ) of the Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of XXXX ; XXXX ( XXXX ) the term recipient agency means any agency, or XXXX thereof, receiving records contained in a system of records from a source agency for use in a matching program ; ( XXXX ) the term non-Federal agency means any State or local government, or agency thereof, which receives records contained in a system of records from a source agency for use in a matching program ; ( XXXX ) the term source agency means any agency which discloses records contained in a system of records to be used in a matching program, or any State or local government, or agency thereof, which discloses records to be used in a matching program ; ( XXXX ) the term Federal benefit program means any program administered or funded by the Federal Government, or by any agent or State on behalf of the Federal Government, providing cash or in-kind assistance in the form of payments, grants, loans, or loan guarantees to individuals ; and ( XXXX ) the term Federal personnel XXXX officers and employees of the Government of the United States XXXX XXXX of the uniformed services ( including members of the Reserve Components ), individuals entitled to receive immediate or deferred retirement benefits under any retirement program of the Government of the United States XXXX XXXX survivor benefits ). \n( b ) Conditions of XXXX XXXX shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains, unless disclosure of the record would be ( XXXX ) to those officers and employees of the agency which maintains the record who have a need for the record in the performance of their duties; ( XXXX ) required under section XXXX of this title ; ( XXXX ) for a routine use as defined in subsection ( a ) ( XXXX ) of this section and described under subsection ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( D ) of this section ; ( XXXX ) to the XXXX of the Census for purposes of planning or carrying out a census or survey or related activity pursuant to the provisions of title XXXX ; ( XXXX ) to a recipient who has provided the agency with advance adequate written assurance that the record will be used solely as a statistical research or reporting record, and the record is to be transferred in a form that is not individually identifiable ; ( XXXX ) to the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX as a record which has sufficient historical or other value to warrant its continued preservation by the United States Government, or for evaluation by the Archivist of the United States or the designee of the Archivist to determine whether the record has such value ; ( XXXX ) to another agency or to an instrumentality of any governmental jurisdiction within or under the control of the United States for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity if the activity is authorized by law, and if the head of the agency or instrumentality has made a written request to the agency which maintains the record specifying the particular portion desired and the law enforcement activity for which the record is sought ; ( XXXX ) to a person pursuant to a showing of compelling circumstances affecting the health or safety of an individual if upon such disclosure notification is transmitted to the last known address of such individual ; ( XXXX ) to either House XXXX XXXX, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, any committee or subcommittee thereof, any XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or XXXX of any such joint committee ; ( XXXX ) to the XXXX XXXX, or any of his authorized representatives, in the course of the performance of the duties of the Government XXXX XXXX ; ( XXXX ) pursuant to the order of a court of competent jurisdiction ; or ( XXXX ) to a consumer reporting agency in accordance with section XXXX ( XXXX ) of title XXXX. \n( c ) Accounting of Certain Disclosures.Each agency, with respect to each system of records under its control, shall ( XXXX ) except for disclosures made under subsections ( b ) ( XXXX ) or ( b ) ( XXXX ) of this section, keep an accurate accounting of ( A ) the date, nature, and purpose of each disclosure of a record to any person or to another agency made under subsection ( b ) of this section; and ( B ) the name and address of the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made ; ( XXXX ) retain the accounting made under paragraph ( XXXX ) of this subsection for at least XXXX years or the life of the record, whichever is longer, after the disclosure for which the accounting is made ; ( XXXX ) except for disclosures made under subsection ( b ) ( XXXX ) of this section, make the accounting made under paragraph ( XXXX ) of this subsection available to the individual named in the record at his request; and ( XXXX ) inform any person or other agency about any correction or notation of dispute made by the agency in accordance with subsection ( d ) of this section of any record that has been disclosed to the person or agency if an accounting of the disclosure was made. \n( d ) Access to Records.Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ( XXXX ) upon request by any individual to gain access to his record or to any information pertaining to him which is contained in the system, permit him and upon his request, a person of his own choosing to accompany him, to review the record and have a copy made of all or any portion thereof in a form comprehensible to him, except that the agency XXXX require the individual to furnish a written statement authorizing discussion of that individuals record in the accompanying persons presence ; ( XXXX ) permit the individual to request amendment of a record pertaining to him and ( A ) not later than 10 days ( excluding XXXX, Sundays, and legal public holidays ) after the date of receipt of such request, acknowledge in writing such receipt ; and ( B ) promptly, either ( i ) make any correction of any portion thereof which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete ; or ( ii ) inform the individual of its refusal to amend the record in accordance with his request, the reason for the refusal, the procedures established by the agency for the individual to request a review of that refusal by the head of the agency or an XXXX designated by the head of the agency, and the name and business address of that official ; ( XXXX ) permit the individual who disagrees with the refusal of the agency to amend his record to request a review of such refusal, and not later than 30 days ( excluding XXXX, Sundays, and legal public holidays ) from the date on which the individual requests such review, complete such review and make a final determination unless, for good cause shown, the head of the agency extends such XXXX period ; and if, after his review, the reviewing official also refuses to amend the record in accordance with the request, permit the individual to file with the agency a concise statement setting forth the reasons for his disagreement with the refusal of the agency, and notify the individual of the provisions for judicial review of the reviewing officials determination under subsection ( g ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of this section ; ( XXXX ) in any disclosure, containing information about which the individual has filed a statement of disagreement, occurring after the filing of the statement under paragraph ( XXXX ) of this subsection, clearly note any portion of the record which is disputed and provide copies of the statement and, if the agency deems it appropriate, copies of a concise statement of the reasons of the agency for not making the amendments requested, to persons or other agencies to whom the disputed record has been disclosed ; and ( XXXX ) nothing in this section shall allow an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation of a civil action or proceeding. \n( XXXX XXXX XXXX Requirements.Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ( XXXX ) maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or by XXXX order of the President ; ( XXXX ) collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information XXXX result in adverse determinations about an individuals rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs ; ( XXXX ) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual ( A ) the authority ( whether granted by statute, or by XXXX order of the President ) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary ; ( B ) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used ; ( C ) the routine uses which XXXX be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph ( XXXX ) ( D ) of this subsection ; and ( D ) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information ; ( XXXX ) subject to the provisions of paragraph ( XXXX ) of this subsection, publish in the XXXX XXXX upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include ( A ) the name and location of the system ; ( B ) the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system ; ( C ) the categories of records maintained in the system ; ( D ) each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use ; ( XXXX ) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records ; ( F ) the title and business address of the agency official who is responsible for the system of records ; ( G ) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request if the system of records contains a record pertaining to him ; ( H ) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request how he can gain access to any record pertaining to him contained in the system of records, and how he can contest its content ; and ( I ) the categories of sources of records in the system ; ( XXXX ) maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination ; ( XXXX ) prior to disseminating any record about an individual to any person other than an agency, unless the dissemination is made pursuant to subsection ( b ) ( XXXX ) of this section, make reasonable efforts to assure that such records are accurate, complete, timely, and relevant for agency purposes ; ( XXXX ) maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the XXXX XXXX unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity ; ( XXXX ) make reasonable efforts to serve notice on an individual when any record on such individual is made available to any person under compulsory legal process when such process becomes a matter of public record ; ( XXXX ) establish rules of conduct for persons involved in the design, development, operation, or maintenance of any system of records, or in maintaining any record, and instruct each such person with respect to such rules and the requirements of this section, including any other rules and procedures adopted pursuant to this section and the penalties for noncompliance ; ( XXXX ) establish appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to insure the security and confidentiality of records and to protect against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which could result in substantial harm, embarrassment, inconvenience, or unfairness to any individual on whom information is maintained ; ( XXXX ) at least 30 days prior to publication of information under paragraph ( XXXX ) ( D ) of this subsection, publish in the XXXX XXXX notice of any new use or intended use of the information in the system, and provide an opportunity for interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments to the agency ; and ( XXXX ) if such agency is a recipient agency or a source agency in a matching program with a non-Federal agency, with respect to any establishment or revision of a matching program, at least 30 days prior to conducting such program, publish in the XXXX XXXX notice of such establishment or revision. \n( f ) XXXX XXXX order to carry out the provisions of this section, each agency that maintains a system of records shall promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements ( including general notice ) of section XXXX of this title, which shall ( XXXX ) establish procedures whereby an individual can be notified in response to his request if any system of records named by the individual contains a record pertaining to him ; ( XXXX ) define reasonable times, places, and requirements for identifying an individual who requests his record or information pertaining to him before the agency shall make the record or information available to the individual ; ( XXXX ) establish procedures for the disclosure to an individual upon his request of his record or information pertaining to him, including special procedure, if deemed necessary, for the disclosure to an individual of medical records, including psychological records, pertaining to him ; ( XXXX ) establish procedures for reviewing a request from an individual concerning the amendment of any record or information pertaining to the individual, for making a determination on the request, for an appeal within the agency of an initial adverse agency determination, and for whatever additional means XXXX be necessary for each individual to be able to exercise fully his rights under this section; and ( XXXX ) establish fees to be charged, if any, to any individual for making copies of his record, excluding the cost of any search for and review of the record. \nThe XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX shall biennially compile and publish the rules promulgated under this subsection and agency notices published under subsection ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) of this section in a form available to the public at low cost. \n( g ) ( XXXX ) Civil Remedies.Whenever any agency ( A ) makes a determination under subsection ( d ) ( XXXX ) of this section not to amend an individuals record in accordance with his request, or fails to make such review in conformity with that subsection ; ( B ) refuses to comply with an individual request under subsection ( d ) ( XXXX ) of this section ; ( C ) fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, or opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that XXXX be made on the basis of such record, and consequently a determination is made which is adverse to the individual ; or ( D ) fails to comply with any other provision of this section, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual XXXX bring a civil action against the agency, and the district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction in the matters under the provisions of this subsection. \n( XXXX ) ( A ) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection ( g ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) of this section, the court XXXX order the agency to amend the individuals record in accordance with his request or in such other way as the court XXXX direct. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo. \n( B ) The court XXXX assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this paragraph in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. \n( XXXX ) ( A ) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection ( g ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) of this section, the court XXXX enjoin the agency from withholding the records and order the production to the complainant of any agency records improperly withheld from him. In such a case the court shall determine the matter de novo, and XXXX examine the contents of any agency records in camera to determine whether the records or any portion thereof XXXX be withheld under any of the exemptions set forth in subsection ( k ) of this section, and the burden is on the agency to sustain its action. \n( B ) The court XXXX assess against the United States reasonable attorney fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in any case under this paragraph in which the complainant has substantially prevailed. \n( XXXX ) In any suit brought under the provisions of subsection ( g ) ( XXXX ) ( C ) or ( D ) of this section in which the court determines that the agency acted in a manner which was intentional or willful, the United States shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of ( A ) actual damages sustained by the individual as a result of the refusal or failure, but in no case shall a person entitled to recovery receive less than the sum of {$1000.00} ; and ( B ) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court. \n( XXXX ) An action to enforce any liability created under this section XXXX be brought in the district court of the United States in the district in which the complainant resides, or has his principal place of business, or in which the agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia, without regard to the amount in controversy, within XXXX years from the date on which the cause of action arises, except that where an agency has materially and willfully misrepresented any information required under this section to be disclosed to an individual and the information so misrepresented is material to establishment of the liability of the agency to the individual under this section, the action XXXX be brought at any time within XXXX years after discovery by the individual of the misrepresentation. Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize any civil action by reason of any injury sustained as the result of a disclosure of a record prior to XX/XX/XXXX. \n( h ) Rights of XXXX Guardians. \nFor the purposes of this section, the parent of any minor, or the legal guardian of any individual who has been declared to be incompetent due to physical or mental incapacity or age by a court of competent jurisdiction, XXXX act on behalf of the individual. \n( i ) ( XXXX ) Criminal Penalties. \nAny XXXX or employee of an agency, who by virtue of his employment or official position, has possession of, or access to, agency records which contain individually identifiable information the disclosure of which is prohibited by this section or by rules or regulations established thereunder, and who knowing that disclosure of the specific material is so prohibited, willfully discloses the material in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than {$5000.00}. \n( XXXX ) Any XXXX or employee of any agency who willfully maintains a system of records without meeting the notice requirements of subsection ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than {$5000.00}. \n( XXXX ) Any person who knowingly and willfully requests or obtains any record concerning an individual from an agency under false pretenses shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined not more than {$5000.00}. \n( j ) General Exemptions.The head of any agency XXXX promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements ( including general notice ) of sections XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ), and ( XXXX ), ( c ), and ( XXXX ) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from any part of this section except subsections ( b ), ( c ) ( XXXX ) and ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) through ( F ), ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ), and ( XXXX ), and ( i ) if the system of records is ( XXXX ) maintained by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ; or ( XXXX ) maintained by an agency or component thereof which performs as its principal function any activity pertaining to the enforcement of criminal laws, including police efforts to prevent, control, or reduce crime or to apprehend criminals, and the activities of prosecutors, courts, correctional, probation, pardon, or parole authorities, and which consists of ( A ) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, the nature and disposition of criminal charges, sentencing, confinement, release, and parole and probation status ; ( B ) information compiled for the purpose of a criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual ; or ( C ) reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. \nAt the time rules are adopted under this subsection, the agency shall include in the statement required under section XXXX ( c ) of this title, the reasons why the system of records is to be exempted from a provision of this section. \n( k ) Specific Exemptions.The head of any agency XXXX promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements ( including general notice ) of sections XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ), and ( XXXX ), ( c ), and ( XXXX ) of this title, to exempt any system of records within the agency from subsections ( c ) ( XXXX ), ( d ), ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ), ( XXXX ) ( XXXX ) ( G ), ( H ), and ( I ) and ( f ) of this section if the system of records is ( XXXX ) subject to the provisions of section XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) of this title ; ( XXXX ) investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection ( j ) ( XXXX ) of this section : Provided, however, That if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence ; ( XXXX ) maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to section XXXX of title XXXX ; ( XXXX ) required by statute to be maintained and used solely as statistical records ; ( XXXX ) investigatory material compiled solely for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section, under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence ; ( XXXX ) testing or examination material used solely to determine individual qualifications for appointment or promotion in the Federal service the disclosure of which would compromise the objectivity or fairness of the testing or examination process ; or ( XXXX ) evaluation material used to determine potential for promotion in the XXXX services, but only to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effectiv","date_sent_to_company":"2024-02-22T14:29:54.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"600XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"8368931","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Grow Credit Inc","date_received":"2024-02-19T03:47:36.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Account status incorrect"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The consumer is allowed to exercise the opt out <em>within</em> a reasonable period of time and in the same manner as the opt out under that privacy notice."]},"sort":[3.0983863,"8368931"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15926261","_score":2.7358725,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"IMPLACABLE 605B WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE RECORD FEDERAL AUTHORITY CONTEMPT ( XXXX XXXX ) deliberate 605B defiance ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX ) willful noncompliance dual-branch disdain daily counts accruing TO : experian, transunion, equifax and every compliance officer, executive, legal counsel, and data handler acting under your banner Opening Indictment This communication documents your willful and continuous violation of 15 U.S. Code 1681c-2 ( 605B ), a provision of federal law enacted by the United States Congress and signed into binding force by the President of the United States under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ) in 2003. \nRefinement Layer : This record is not a mere complaint it is a prosecutorial indictment. You have not simply failed to comply you have\n\ndefied the Legislative Branch and disregarded the Executive authority that codified your obligations under law. 605B the 4-business-day block ( Dual Mand\nate : Congress & the Presidency ) let the Rule of Law indict : experian, transunion, equifax deliberate defiance of 605Bs four-business-day order ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ) ; willful noncompliance ( 15 U.S.C. 1681n ) via wanton or reckless disregard ( Safeco, 551 U.S. 47 ) ; open disdain for the Powerful Legislative Branch ( Congress ) and the Powerful Executive Branch ( the Presidency ) ; accuracy-duty breach ( 607 ( b ) ) ; cease transmission now ; daily counts accruing under the Rule of Law. \nThe statute leaves no room for confusion. It requires that within 4 business days of receiving : A valid identity theft report Proof of identity Identification of the disputed information A formal request for the block you must execute a full block of the fraudulent tradelines.\n\nNot review. Not reassess. Not delay. \nEach of these four elements was submitted clearly, directly, and lawfully. You acknowledged receipt. You failed to execute. And in doing so, you crossed the threshold of mere error. This is deliberate noncompliance, weaponized delay, and statutory sabotage.\n\nRebuttals Destroyed You may attempt to say that a police report was required. It is not. The law defines identity theft report under 1681a ( q ) to include affidavits submitted to federal agencies such as the FTC not solely police documents. And yet, in full deference to due process, I provided a formal police report anyway as supplemental documentation beyond what the law required. You had no right to demand it. You received it nonetheless. You still refused to act.\n\nYou may try to invoke the term under review. But you were not granted the liberty of interpretation. 605B offers 4 days not a discretionary time frame. Your review periods are irrelevant when stacked against the direct language of federal statute. Your refusal to block even after receiving what exceeds the legal minimum is a willful rejection of the law, not a misunderstanding of it.\n\nYou may attempt to raise excuses and the Law will dismantle them here and now : We require a police report.\n\nIrrelevant. The statute does not require a police report. The legal definition of identity theft report includes FTC affidavits and other Affirmative filings. \nNonetheless, you were provided with a formal police report as supplemental evidence despite it not being required by law. \n\n\nWe are reviewing the matter. \nUnlawful. 605B gives you 4 business days. Not a review window. Not a loophole.\n\nWe need additional verification. \nObstruction. You were provided all four legally sufficient elements. Additional delays are not supported under federal law.\n\nYour continued failure to execute the block even after receiving more than the statute required is not just a breach of federal compliance. \n\n\nIt is an act of corporate defiance against the : United States Congress, which passed the statute Office of the President of the United States, who gave it executive authority Rule of Law, which binds you under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) Daily Federal Breach Every day that you continued to publish those known-fraudulent tradelines past the expiration of the 605B window specifically beyond XX/XX/XXXX you committed a fresh federal breach. \nRefinement Layer : Each day is not just harm it is a fresh statutory violation. A rolling indictment. A multiplying liability. \nStatutory Clause Reminder 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 ( a ) : The block must be executed not later than 4 business days after receipt of the four triggers. Beyond XX/XX/XXXX, every transmission is unlawful. \n\nFederal + State Violations Federal Defiance : You did not merely violate a statute. You violated the authority of the United States Congress ( which wrote the law ) and the Office of the President of the United States ( whose signature made it enforceable ).\n\nMassachusetts Violations : Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A, 2 ( a ) : Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.\n\nMassachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93, 56 : Every consumer reporting agency shall, upon request and proper identification, clearly and accurately disclose to the consumer the nature and substance of all information ( except medical ) in its files on the consumer the sources of such information and the identification of each person ( including each end-user identified under section 50 ) to whom such information was furnished within the preceding two years.\n\n209 CMR 18.18 ( 6 ) : It shall constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice to make any false representation to any person, including a representation with respect to the character, extent, or amount of a debt.\n\nXXXX : Each falsified tradeline you transmit = fresh unlawful misrepresentation under both federal and state law. \n\nXXXX XXXX XXXX You were not confused. You were complicit. You were not lost in policy. You were guided by a business model rooted in obstruction and control. \nRefinement Layer : You were not navigating ambiguity you were executing from within a corporate doctrine of willful XXXX  : XXXX by design Obstinate by doctrine Insubordinate to federal authority You operate not in legal uncertainty, but in strategic short-sightedness, weaponized to suppress compliance through bureaucracy, indifference, and delay. \nYou are willfully XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX obstinate by doctrine, insubordinate to the very federal authority that sustains your existence. What you call review is in fact strategic blindness, weaponized to evade 605B and perpetuate financial captivity. \n\nFederal + State Violations And most critically you did not merely violate a statute. You violated the authority of the United States Congress, whose elected members wrote this law. You disrespected the Office of the President of the United States, whose signature made that law enforceable. You spat on the federal framework that gives your existence legal structure.\n\nRefinement Layer : You are not only in federal breach you are also in direct violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts : Chapter 93A : Knowingly refusing to block fraudulent tradelines after the legal triggers are met = unfair or deceptive practice, punishable by treble damages and attorneys fees.\n\nG.L. c. 93, 56 : CRAs must clearly and accurately disclose all data, sources, and recipients. You failed.\n\n209 CMR 18.18 : Prohibits false or misleading representations to third parties. Each falsified tradeline you transmit = fresh unlawful misrepresentation.\n\nThus, each transmission is not only a federal violation it is a state-level crime against consumer protection. \n\nCriminalized Business Model Federal Crimes Triggered : 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( Wire Fraud ) : Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1341 ( Mail Fraud ) : Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.\n\n18 U.S.C. 371 ( Conspiracy ) : If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. \nMassachusetts G.L. c.19A, 14 ( XXXX  Financial Exploitation ) : No person shall abuse, neglect, or exploit an XXXX  person. Whoever commits abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation upon a person XXXX  years of age or older shall be punished XXXX : Because I am XXXX, your willful refusal to block fraudulent tradelines = XXXX  financial exploitation under Massachusetts law. \n\nFormal Documentation of Liability 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( Willful Noncompliance ) : Any person who willfully fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) ( A ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer or damages of not less than {$100.00} and not more than {$1000.00} ; ( 1 ) ( B ) such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow ; and ( 3 ) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees 15 U.S.C. 1681o ( Negligent Noncompliance ) : Any person who is negligent in failing to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter with respect to any consumer is liable to that consumer in an amount equal to the sum of ( 1 ) any actual damages sustained by the consumer; and ( 2 ) in the case of any successful action to enforce any liability under this section, the costs of the action together with reasonable attorneys fees.\n\nFinding : Your conduct satisfies both statutes negligent and willful.\n\nCorporate insubordination against both branches by refusing to carry out 605B, they are obstructing Congresss legislative power and the Presidents enforcement power.\n\nPotentially 18 U.S.C. 371 conspiracy ( because all three bureaus act in coordinated practice ).\n\nPotentially 18 U.S.C. 1505 obstruction ( because theyre hindering the execution of federal statutes ).\n\nPotentially 18 U.S.C. 2384 seditious conspiracy ( if you want to frame their willful refusal to execute the law as a systemic delay of federal authority though this is extreme, it emphasizes gravity ). \n\n\nLegislative & Executive Defiance as Criminal Posture You have not merely failed a statute you have staged open defiance against the United States Government itself.\n\nDefiance of the Legislative Branch ( Congress ) : The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ( FACTA ) of 2003 which created 605B was enacted by elected representatives of the people. By ignoring the four-day block mandate, you are not only in noncompliance you are in contempt of Congress itself .\n\nArticle I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution : All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States Finding : By refusing to execute the block, you have denied the authority of Congress to legislate protections for consumers.\n\nDUAL-EXECUTIVE CONTEMPT XXXX  You have defied two Presidencies. In XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX gave 605B binding force by signing FACTA into law. In XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX carries the Article II duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. \nEvery day past XX/XX/XXXX you refuse to block is not just a statutory violation it is a fresh act of contempt toward : the Presidency that enacted this consumer protection ( XXXX ), and the Presidency that must enforce it today ( XXXX ). \n\n\nThis is not delay it is dual-branch defiance of Executive authority, past and present.\n\nFEDERAL DEPLOYMENT ORDER This indictment will not remain confined to your portals or your excuses.\n\nIt will be XXXX to the XXXX House, the United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ), the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), the U.S. Department of Justice ( Consumer Protection Branch ), and the Massachusetts Attorney General. \nEvery act of defiance, every delay past the 605B clock, will be logged in the federal record and tracked day by day as post-deadline violations. \nYou will not only face me. You will face Congressional Committees, the Executive Office, and the courts of this Republic.\n\nDefiance of the Executive Branch ( The Presidency ) : The FACTA amendments to the FCRA were signed into law by the President of the United States, who carries the Article II authority to enforce laws enacted by Congress. Your refusal to comply is an act of executive contempt.\n\nArticle II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution : he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed Finding : By ignoring 605B, you spit on the Presidents constitutional duty to enforce the law and on the signature that gave FACTA legal force.\n\nCriminal Dimensions of Dual Defiance By refusing to comply with a statute enacted by Congress and signed by the President, your coordinated actions are not merely civil violations but rise to federal criminal exposure : 18 U.S.C. 371 ( Conspiracy to Defraud the United States ) : If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof each shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.\n\nFinding : Your joint practices across experian, equifax, and transunion amount to a conspiratorial scheme to obstruct and nullify federal consumer protection law.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1505 ( Obstruction of Proceedings ) : Whoever corruptly obstructs or impedes the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.\n\nFinding : By refusing to execute 605B, you obstruct the due and proper administration of federal law.\n\n18 U.S.C. 2384 ( Seditious Conspiracy ) : If two or more persons conspire to oppose by force the authority of the United States, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.\n\nFinding : While your defiance is corporate, not military, your systematic hindrance of 605B execution mirrors the essence of seditious conspiracy : deliberately preventing and delaying the execution of U.S. law.\n\nConclusion of this Layer : Your misconduct is not just statutory breach. It is constitutional insubordination defiance of the Legislative Branch that enacted 605B and contempt for the Executive Branch that signed it into law and enforces it.\n\nEvery delay, every false transmission, every day beyond XX/XX/XXXX is not just a consumer injury it is an act of coordinated insubordination against the two co-equal branches of the United States Government. \n\n\nIV. CONTINUING HARM YOUR LAWLESSNESS KEEPS BREAKING THE RULE OF LAW ; I KEEP PAYING THE PRICE PROPAGANDA, EXTORTION, AND XXXX  ABUSE IN PROGRESS YOU CONTINUE TO PUBLISH AND TRANSMIT FRAUDULENT, MANIPULATED, MANUFACTURED DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND FALSE DEFAMATORY ACCOUNTS DESPITE 605BS EXPIRED CLOCK ( XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX ). THIS IS NOT ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY IT IS ONGOING LAWLESSNESS. EVERY DAY YOU REFUSE TO BLOCK IS A NEW BREACH. \n\n\nTHIS IS NOT MERELY NEGLIGENCE IT IS A PROPAGANDA BUSINESS MODEL : SYSTEMATIC DISSEMINATION OF CORRUPTED, FALSIFIED DATA FOR PROFIT WHILE CONSUMERS ABSORB THE DAMAGE. YOUR TRANSMISSION OF KNOWN FALSE, MANIPULATED DATA TO LENDERS, LANDLORDS, INSURERS, AND EMPLOYERS AMOUNTS TO FINANCIAL EXTORTION AND EXPLOITATION. YOU PROFIT FROM PROPAGATED DEFAMATION WHILE I SHOULDER THE HOUSING RISKS, THE DENIALS, THE ELEVATED PRICING, AND THE MENTAL ANGUISH. \n\n\nI HAVE ATTACHED RECENT LOAN DENIAL LETTERS FOR YOUR DERANGED ENJOYMENT AND DELIGHT DIRECT CONSEQUENCES OF YOUR CONTINUING LAWLESSNESS. YOU ARE DELIBERATELY STRIPPING ME OF FAIR ACCESS TO CREDIT AND FUNDING BY TRANSMITTING FRAUDULENT DATA INTO THE STREAMS OF COMMERCE. \n\n\nBECAUSE I AM XXXX, THIS IS NOT ONLY NONCOMPLIANCE IT IS XXXX  FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION IN PROGRESS ( M.G.L. C.19A, 14 ). IT IS ALSO DE FACTO FINANCIAL ENSLAVEMENT : BY OBSTRUCTING ACCESS TO MY OWN FILE, REFUSING TO CORRECT OUTDATED INFORMATION, AND CIRCULATING CORRUPTED ACCOUNTS, YOU HAVE IMPOSED AN ECONOMIC RESTRAINT REGIME. I AM NOT YOUR SLAVE. I AM A CONSUMER WITH RIGHTS GRANTED BY FEDERAL STATUTES WRITTEN BY THE POWERFUL UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES Closing Indictment You have failed not just to act but to respect the authority of the federal law that governs you. The record will now reflect your disobedience, your defiance, and your dereliction of statutory duty in full view of any court, agency, or legislative body that chooses to examine this matter. \nRefinement Layer : You have failed not only to act but to respect the very architecture of law itself. \nYou have spat on Congress.\n\nYou have disregarded the Presidency.\n\nYou have trampled Massachusetts law. \n\n\nYOUR CONDUCT IS NOT MERELY DELAY. IT IS A SYSTEMATIC PROPAGANDA OPERATION THE CONTINUED PUBLICATION AND TRANSMISSION OF FRAUDULENT, MANIPULATED, MANUFACTURED DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND FALSE DEFAMATORY ACCOUNTS. THIS IS NOT AN ERROR ; IT IS A DELIBERATE BUSINESS PRACTICE THAT PROFITS FROM SPREADING CORRUPTED DATA WHILE CONSUMERS LIKE ME ABSORB THE DAMAGE. \n\n\nWHEN YOU TRANSMIT KNOWINGLY FALSE, MANIPULATED DATA TO LENDERS, LANDLORDS, INSURERS, AND EMPLOYERS, IT AMOUNTS TO FINANCIAL EXTORTION AND EXPLOITATION. YOU LEVERAGE DEFAMATORY ACCOUNTS TO STRIP ME OF ACCESS TO FAIR CREDIT AND TO INFLICT ECONOMIC AND EMOTIONAL HARM WHILE HIDING BEHIND THE EMPTY REFRAIN OF MORE TIME. \n\n\nTHIS IS WILLFUL, GROSS MALFEASANCE AND XXXX  EXPLOITATION IN PROGRESS. THE RULE OF LAW, WRITTEN BY THE POWERFUL UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, DOES NOT PERMIT A PROPAGANDA BUSINESS MODEL. IT DEMANDS ACCURACY, PROMPT BLOCKING, AND FAIR DEALING.\n\nYou are now documented as a mob of data traffickers masquerading as credit reporting agencies complicit, contemptuous, and criminal in posture. \n\n\nSTOP THE FRAUDULENT TRANSMISSION FEDERAL CRIMES AND CIVIL VIOLATIONS YOU ARE NOT SIMPLY DELAYING. YOU ARE ENGAGED IN ONGOING TRANSMISSION AND SALE OF FALSIFIED, FRAUDULENT, MANIPULATED, AND MANUFACTURED DEROGATORIES TO LENDERS, CREDITORS, LANDLORDS, EMPLOYERS, INSURERS, AND DOWNSTREAM USERS. THIS IS NOT JUST A CIVIL VIOLATION IT STRADDLES INTO FEDERAL CRIMINAL TERRITORY. \n\n\nWIRE FRAUD ( 18 U.S.C. 1343 ) EACH TRANSMISSION OF KNOWINGLY FALSE CREDIT DATA ACROSS INTERSTATE WIRE SYSTEMS TO LENDERS AND SUBSCRIBERS.\n\nMAIL FRAUD ( 18 U.S.C. 1341 ) IF ANY TRANSMISSIONS OR REPORTS ARE DISSEMINATED BY MAIL.\n\nCONSPIRACY ( 18 U.S.C. 371 ) YOUR JOINT PRACTICES ACROSS equifax, experian, AND transunion AMOUNT TO A CONSPIRATORIAL SCHEME TO PROFIT OFF CORRUPTED DATA. \n\n\nXXXX  FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION ( M.G.L. c.19A, 14 ) BECAUSE I AM XXXX, EACH CONTINUED TRANSMISSION MAGNIFIES LIABILITY FOR TARGETING AN XXXX  CONSUMER.\n\nLET THE RECORD SHOW : THE FOUR-DAY BLOCK MANDATE WAS NOT MY DEADLINE IT WAS ENACTED BY THE POWERFUL UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE POWERFUL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES . YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO AMEND IT, PAUSE IT, OR INVENT MORE TIME. YOUR REFUSAL TO BLOCK BY XX/XX/XXXX, WHILE CONTINUING TO TRANSMIT CORRUPTED DATA FOR PROFIT, IS GROSS MALFEASANCE AND A CRIMINAL PRACTICE. \n\n\nFURTHER, I AM ATTACHING ADDITIONAL LOAN DENIAL LETTERS FOR YOUR DERANGED ENJOYMENT AND DELIGHT REAL-TIME PROOF THAT YOUR LAWLESSNESS IS BLOCKING LEGITIMATE FUNDING AND INFLICTING DAMAGES ON AN XXXX  HOUSEHOLD. YOU PROFIT WHILE I PAY. \n\n\nAFTER YOUR SPATTERING OF MORE TIME AND OTHER PORTAL NONSENSE, THE REALITY REMAINS : FEDERAL STATUTORY LAW WAS WRITTEN BY THE POWERFUL UNITED STATES CONGRESS AND SIGNED INTO LAW BY THE POWERFUL OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. YOU DEFIED IT.\n\nNOW, FOR THE RULE OF LAW TO BE UPHELD, YOU MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THIS IS NO LONGER A QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE DELAY IT IS MALPRACTICE AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW ITSELF. WILLFUL NONCOMPLIANCE, FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION, XXXX  ABUSE, AND GROSS MALFEASANCE ARE YOUR BUSINESS MODEL. \n\n\nFAIR RESOLUTION IS NON-NEGOTIABLE : COMPLETE CURE, FULL RESTITUTION, VERIFIED COMPLIANCE, AND PREVENTION SAFEGUARDS ON THE CLOCK, NOT AT YOUR LEISURE. FAILURE TO DELIVER IS NOT PARTIAL COMPLIANCE ; IT IS FURTHER LAWLESSNESS AND HEIGHTENED LIABILITY. \n\n\nVictim Impact XXXX XXXX Injuries Recorded This is not abstract noncompliance. It is not a hypothetical harm. \nI am the direct victim of your statutory sabotage, and the damages are real, ongoing, and escalating : Displacement by Natural Disaster : On XX/XX/XXXX, my home was struck by a devastating rainstorm. The XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX condemned the property, forcing me, my family, and all occupants to be displaced. We lost all possessions including vital documents, XXXX XXXX, and personal records. \nFinding : In the aftermath of this destruction, your refusal to block fraudulent data compounded the devastation, leaving me with no stable housing, no possessions, and no functional credit file.\n\nLoan Denials : Attached denials are not possibilities they are documented outcomes directly flowing from your refusal to execute the 605B block. Each rejection represents economic loss, reputational defamation, and increased financial restraint.\n\nXXXX XXXX / XXXX XXXX : By transmitting falsified derogatories to lenders, landlords, insurers, and employers, you have placed me in a position of systemic denial of credit, higher pricing, and blocked opportunities. This constitutes a de facto regime of financial enslavement. \n\n\nXXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ) : I am XXXX XXXX XXXX. Every day you propagate fraudulent data past the 605B deadline constitutes not only noncompliance but XXXX  exploitation. \n\n\nNo person shall abuse, neglect, or exploit an XXXX  person. Whoever commits abuse, neglect, or financial exploitation upon a person XXXX  years of age or older shall be punished Finding : Your willful refusal to block constitutes XXXX  exploitation in progress.\n\nEmotional & Reputational Harm : Each transmission of false data is a fresh act of defamation, transmitted via interstate wires and mail systems, magnifying injury to my reputation, creditworthiness, and mental health. \n\n\n\nLegal Strikepoint 15 U.S.C. 1681n ( Willful Noncompliance ) : Your defiance is willful, exposing you to statutory and punitive damages.\n\n15 U.S.C. 1681o ( Negligent Noncompliance ) : Your negligence compounds my actual damages, recoverable in court.\n\nM.G.L. c.93A ( Unfair/Deceptive Practices ) : Each denial is treble-damages exposure.\n\n18 U.S.C. 1341, 1343 ( Mail/Wire Fraud ) : Each transmission of false credit data across interstate systems is criminally actionable.\n\n18 U.S.C. 371 ( Conspiracy ) : Your coordinated refusal across all three CRAs elevates liability to conspiratorial obstruction of law.\n\nVictims Declaration I am not reporting delays. \nI am documenting daily criminal transmissions that defame my name, restrain my financial freedom, and exploit my age. \nThis is compounded by the fact that I am a disaster victim, displaced from my condemned home, stripped of all possessions, and left to navigate credit markets without even my basic records. \nEvery day past XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  is not only a violation of 605B it is a renewed attack on me, the consumer Congress intended to protect, and a continuation of financial exploitation upon a disaster-stricken XXXX  household. \n\nFinal Cessation/ Escalation Let it be formally and permanently stated : This is the final indirect communication you will receive from me regarding this matter.\n\nFrom this day forward, all correspondence, all legal actions, and all consequences arising from your willful defiance of federal and Massachusetts consumer protection laws regarding the fraudulent tradelines will be handled through legal counsel. \nYour opportunity to self-correct under administrative procedure has expired. You continue to publish, transmit, and weaponize false and corrupted tradelines in violation of multiple statutes. \n\n\nJurisdictional Transfer Notice Indictment Threshold Reached You are now officially entered into the legal record of formal litigation. \nEffective immediately, this matter is transferred from private dispute to prosecutorial proceedings. \nYou will no longer hear from me. \nFrom this point forward, your audience is licensed litigation counsel, enforcement authorities, and the courts of this Republic.\n\nJurisdictional Transfer Notice Indictment Threshold Reached You are now officially entered into the legal record of formal litigation. \nThe 605B four-business-day mandate expired on XX/XX/XXXX. \nEvery day beyond that date including today, XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  constitutes a fresh statutory breach, a renewed injury, and an escalating liability. \nYou will no longer hear from me. \nFrom this moment forward, your audience is licensed litigation counsel, enforcement authorities, and the courts of this Republic.\n\nThere is no administrative grace period left. \nThere is only a record of counts, damages, and indictments multiplied daily past the statutory deadline.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-09-15T04:56:18.000Z","issue":"Incorrect information on your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"02301","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15926261","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","date_received":"2025-09-15T04:55:47.000Z","state":"MA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Information belongs to someone else"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Additional delays are not <em>supported</em> under federal law.\n\nYour continued failure to execute the block even after receiving more than the statute required is not just a breach of federal compliance."]},"sort":[2.7358725,"15926261"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":46,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":46}]}},"product":{"doc_count":46,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":23,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":22},{"key":"Other personal consumer report","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":21,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":14},{"key":"Mobile or digital wallet","doc_count":3},{"key":"Domestic (US) money transfer","doc_count":2},{"key":"Check cashing service","doc_count":1},{"key":"International money transfer","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"VA mortgage","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Other advances of future income","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":46,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":20,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problem with a company's investigation into an existing problem","doc_count":16,"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":16}]}},{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":4,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":4}]}},{"key":"Incorrect information on your report","doc_count":3,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Information belongs to someone else","doc_count":2},{"key":"Account status incorrect","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Delays in the application process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Other transaction problem","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Problems receiving the advance","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":46,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":45},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":46,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":27},{"key":"Closed with non-monetary relief","doc_count":18},{"key":"Closed with monetary relief","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":46,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":46}]}},"company":{"doc_count":46,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"TRANSUNION INTERMEDIATE HOLDINGS, INC.","doc_count":9},{"key":"Coinbase, Inc.","doc_count":7},{"key":"EQUIFAX, INC.","doc_count":6},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":6},{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":2},{"key":"JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.","doc_count":2},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":2},{"key":"CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, THE","doc_count":1},{"key":"CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Foris DAX, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"Grow Credit Inc","doc_count":1},{"key":"LEXISNEXIS","doc_count":1},{"key":"MoneySpot USA LLC DBA Sunshine Loans","doc_count":1},{"key":"NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Ria Envia, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SAN DIEGO COUNTY CREDIT UNION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"U.S. BANCORP","doc_count":1},{"key":"Winklevoss Exchange LLC","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":46,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"PA","doc_count":16},{"key":"CA","doc_count":7},{"key":"NJ","doc_count":7},{"key":"IL","doc_count":4},{"key":"FL","doc_count":3},{"key":"MA","doc_count":2},{"key":"CT","doc_count":1},{"key":"DC","doc_count":1},{"key":"NH","doc_count":1},{"key":"OR","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"TN","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":46,"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":21},{"key":"Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law","doc_count":1}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":46,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Older American","doc_count":3},{"key":"Servicemember","doc_count":2},{"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":[2.7357624,"15926261"]}}}