{"took":659,"timed_out":false,"_shards":{"total":5,"successful":5,"skipped":0,"failed":0},"hits":{"total":{"value":11,"relation":"eq"},"max_score":null,"hits":[{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21264381","_score":25.76954,"_source":{"product":"Student loan","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Complaint Federal Student Loan TPD Discharge Mismanagement ( MOHELA / XXXX  ) I am submitting a complaint regarding the mismanagement of my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX  ) discharge under the U.S. Department of Education. \n\nI am a 100 % XXXX veteran approved for XXXX  discharge on XX/XX/year>. My loans were XXXX without my consent. Upon discovery, I contacted XXXX and requested a reversal. On XX/XX/year>, XXXX confirmed in writing that the discharge was reversed and my loans were reinstated. MOHELA failed to execute or reflect this reinstatement properly. My loans were subsequently placed into repayment, marked delinquent, and are now causing financial and credit harm.\n\nI have filed a complaint with Federal Student Aid ( Case # XXXX ), but this situation reflects a\n\nbreakdown in federal servicing coordination and potential regulatory noncompliance. This issue involves : Unauthorized discharge processing Failure to execute confirmed reinstatement Improper loan status and delinquency reporting Financial and credit harm to a XXXX veteran I request an investigation into MOHELAs handling of XXXX  discharge processes and coordination with Federal Student Aid.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-15T15:29:07.000Z","issue":"Struggling to repay your loan","sub_product":"Federal student loan servicing","zip_code":"32259","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21264381","timely":"No","company_response":"Untimely response","submitted_via":"Web","company":"MOHELA","date_received":"2026-04-15T15:11:20.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["This issue involves : <em>Unauthorized</em> <em>discharge</em> <em>processing</em> <em>Failure</em> to <em>execute</em> confirmed reinstatement Improper loan status and delinquency reporting Financial and credit harm to a XXXX veteran I request an investigation into MOHELAs handling of XXXX  <em>discharge</em> <em>processes</em> and coordination with Federal Student Aid."],"sub_issue":["Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or <em>discharge</em>"]},"sort":[25.76954,"21264381"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"14735790","_score":12.889381,"_source":{"product":"Credit card","complaint_what_happened":"XX/XX/XXXXOn XX/XX/XXXXBank of America abruptly closed two commercial credit card accounts (last four: 1769 and 2914) without due process, explanation, or substantiated cause. The only documentation provideda letter dated XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXadmits in plain language that \"sufficient funds were available at the time the account was closed,\" which establishes prima facie evidence of fraudulent termination, misrepresentation, and commercial breach, particularly since no default or verified fraud existed.\\n\\nThe undersigned, as Trustee of a lawfully perfected private estate trust, issued XX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, in the amount of XX/XX/XXXX as full satisfaction of all alleged liabilities on the closed accounts. The remittance was issued pursuant to governing monetary and commercial law, includingXX/XX/XXXX31 U.S.C.  5118(d)(2)  Payment in lawful gold clause instrumentsXX/XX/XXXX12 U.S.C.  411  Redemption in lawful moneyXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-311  Accord and satisfaction of disputed obligationsXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-501  Presentment and dishonor upon failure to responXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-603  Discharge by tender of full amount\\n\\nUCC  9-625  Remedies for secured party upon unauthorized impairment of collateralXX/XX/XXXXBank of America received this negotiable instrument via Certified Mail (Tracking #: XX/XX/XXXX and failed to take any of the following lawful actionsXX/XX/XXXXReturn the instrument\\n Credit the instrument\\n Rebut its validity\\n Issue formal dishonor per UCC  3-501(b)\\n\\nThis failure constitutes a commercial dishonor, fraud by silence, and conversion of Trust property. The instrument was neither returned nor rebutted  meaning constructive acceptance and administrative default are now lawfully presumed.\\n\\nFurther violations include:\\n\\nFalse derogatory credit reporting, in direct violation of 15 U.S.C.  1681 et seq. (FCRA), causing reputational and commercial damage.\\n\\nUnlawful denial of reinstatement, blocking a private fiduciary from accessing the estate\\'s commercial credit tools.\\n\\nRefusal to disclose monetization or securitization, despite demands for proof of whether these accounts were:\\n\\nCollateralized\\n\\nPooled and securitized\\n\\nInsured or reported via IRS Form 1099-A or 1099-C\\n\\nDespite the account being fully credited prior to the XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXclosure, and despite the lawful remittance via XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America continues to:\\n\\nIgnore lawful discharge\\n\\nDeny all administrative remedy\\n\\nRefuse reinstatement of commercial accounts\\n\\nWithhold required disclosure about securitization and insurance\\n\\nBenefit unjustly from the Trusts prior payments and assets\\n\\nThe Trust holds a perfected security interest in the ALL CAPS legal fiction entity associated with the account. This position is backed by a UCC Financing Statement filed with the XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXXSecretary of State (Filing #: XX/XX/XXXX), and fully executed Declaration of Standing and Enforcement Authority.\\n\\nBank of Americas actions have caused:\\n\\nCommercial injury\\n\\nDenial of access to private credit\\n\\nDefamation through FCRA violations\\n\\nFiduciary breach of good faith and fair dealing\\n\\nViolation of multiple federal statutes and UCC provisions\\n\\nImpairment of a lawful trust and its administrative estate\\n\\nThis complaint is submitted in full compliance with CFPB guidelines, and all supporting evidence is attached under separate Exhibit files (A through G), clearly labeled for reference.'","date_sent_to_company":"2025-07-19T01:44:47.000Z","issue":"Closing your account","sub_product":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","zip_code":"27603","tags":"Older American, Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"14735790","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2025-07-19T00:47:32.000Z","state":"NC","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["The remittance was issued pursuant to governing monetary and commercial law, includingXX/XX/XXXX31 U.S.C.  5118(d)(2)  Payment in lawful gold clause instrumentsXX/XX/XXXX12 U.S.C.  411  Redemption in lawful moneyXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-311  Accord and satisfaction of disputed obligationsXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-501  Presentment and dishonor upon <em>failure</em> to responXX/XX/XXXXUCC  3-603  <em>Discharge</em> by tender of full amount\\n\\nUCC  9-625  Remedies for secured party upon <em>unauthorized</em> impairment of collateralXX/XX/XXXXBank"]},"sort":[12.889381,"14735790"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11943768","_score":11.566273,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"**Formal Complaint to the CFPB** **Subject : Unlawful Sale of Account Receivables & Improper Accounting of Promissory Note Proceeds** **Account Number : XXXX **To : **XX/XX/XXXXBMW Financial Services **XXXX2025 **To Whom It May Concern, ** This is a formal complaint against **BMW Financial Services** for their unlawful and deceptive practices related to the sale and securitization of account receivables and their failure to properly apply proceeds from negotiable instruments, including the promissory note I originally issued, to offset the vehicle purchase balance. The following points outline my claims, supported by the applicable **Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), federal consumer protection laws, and other relevant regulations**.\n\n# # # **1. Consumer as the Original Creditor & BMW Financial as the Debtor** Under established financial and legal principles, the party who signs a **negotiable instrument** ( i.e., a promissory note or security agreement ) is considered the **issuer and original creditor**, as my signature created the financial obligation. **BMW Financial Services** received my executed promissory note and subsequently sold or transferred this instrument for value, making them the debtor in this transaction.\n\n- **UCC 3-104** defines a **negotiable instrument** as an unconditional promise to pay a fixed amount, signed by the maker. My executed contract serves as such an instrument.\n\n- **UCC 3-105 ( a ) ** states that issuance of a negotiable instrument is completed when delivered by the maker for the purpose of transferring rights to another. My signed contract facilitated the transaction and was subsequently monetized.\n\n- **UCC 3-306** protects issuers ( i.e., me ) when the instrument is sold or transferred without proper authorization or notice.\n\nSince **BMW Financial Services** monetized my note and assigned it to third-party investors or trusts, the proceeds from such transactions must be used to **offset the balance of the alleged debt**, in accordance with consumer credit laws and accounting standards.\n\n# # # **2. Unlawful Sale of Account Receivables & Failure to Offset the Account Balance** BMW Financial Services unlawfully securitized and sold my **account receivables** without my knowledge, consent, or proper application of the proceeds.\n\n- **UCC 9-203 ( b ) ( 2 ) ** requires that a debtor ( i.e., me ) must authenticate a security agreement before a secured party ( BMW Financial Services ) can sell or transfer the rights to receivables.\n\n- **12 CFR 226.36 ( c ) ** prohibits deceptive creditor practices, including the **unauthorized sale or transfer of credit rights** without disclosure.\n\n- **15 U.S.C. 1666h ( Truth in Lending Act - TILA ) ** requires that when a creditor derives monetary benefit from securitizing receivables, those proceeds must be **used to offset the original account balance. ** Since **BMW Financial sold my obligation to investors** while continuing to demand payments from me, they engaged in **double-dipping**, an unfair and deceptive practice in violation of consumer protection laws.\n\n# # # **3. Failure to Provide the Original Promissory Note & Accounting Records** BMW Financial has refused or failed to produce the **original promissory note** or an accurate accounting ledger showing how payments were applied after monetizing the receivables.\n\n- **UCC 3-501** grants the right to demand presentment of the original note.\n\n- **15 U.S.C. 1692g** ( Fair Debt Collection Practices Act - FDCPA ) requires that a creditor must verify the debt upon request, including providing original documents proving the claim.\n\n- **15 U.S.C. 1681s-2** ( Fair Credit Reporting Act - FCRA ) prohibits creditors from reporting inaccurate debt information when they fail to provide proper verification.\n\nFailure to provide the original note raises concerns regarding BMW Financials **standing to collect payments** or report negative credit information, as they likely transferred the debt to another entity.\n\n# # # **4. Violations of Treasury Regulations & Payment Processing Rules** The **Treasury Financial Manual ( TFM ) ** outlines the handling of remittance instruments and account reconciliation. BMW Financials failure to process remittance coupons or offset balances violates these provisions : - **TFM , Part 5, Chapter 3000, Section 3035** mandates that **remittance instruments** ( such as promissory notes ) must be properly recorded and applied as payments or credits to the associated account.\n\n- **31 U.S.C . 5118 ( d ) ( 2 ) ** allows for obligations, including promissory notes, to be used for settlement of debts.\n\n# # # **5. BMW Financials Deceptive & Unfair Practices** BMW Financials **continued demand for payments** after monetizing my account receivables constitutes **fraudulent misrepresentation** and violations of : - **15 U.S.C. 45 ( a ) ** ( FTC Act ) prohibiting **unfair and deceptive trade practices**.\n\n- **16 CFR 444.2** ( Unfair Credit Practices ) barring creditors from collecting on accounts where they have already received payment through third-party sales.\n\n- **UCC 3-305** ( Defenses & Claims in Recoupment ) allowing a party to assert that the obligation has been **discharged by prior payment.\n\n**Conclusion** BMW Financial Services has engaged in **deceptive, unlawful, and fraudulent practices** by failing to properly disclose the sale of my promissory note and refusing to apply proceeds to offset my alleged balance. These actions violate federal regulations, UCC statutes, and consumer protection laws.\n\nI request **immediate investigation and enforcement action by the CFPB** to hold BMW Financial accountable for their unlawful conduct and to ensure that all illegally collected payments are refunded or applied properly.\n\nIf BMW Financial fails to comply, I reserve the right to pursue further legal action and submit formal complaints to **the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury .","date_sent_to_company":"2025-02-05T23:36:30.000Z","issue":"Managing the loan or lease","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"90016","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11943768","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"BMW Financial Services NA, LLC","date_received":"2025-02-05T23:26:02.000Z","state":"CA","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Billing problem"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["- **12 CFR 226.36 ( c ) ** prohibits deceptive creditor practices, including the **<em>unauthorized</em> sale or transfer of credit rights** without disclosure."]},"sort":[11.566273,"11943768"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10541069","_score":9.943844,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"Date : XX/XX/XXXX, XXXXUpdated Information XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Director Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Director Bureau of Consumer Protection Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Chief Internal Revenue Service XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Acting Director U.S. Secret Service XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Homeland Security XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ( FCPA ) Unit U.S. Department of Justice, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX USAA Federal Savings Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Georgia Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX U.S. Department of Justice XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Non-Negotiable Notice of Rescission of Permission to Share Private Information Breach of Fiduciary Duties, Claims of Cestui Que Trust Fraud, Aggravated Identity Theft, Unauthorized Use of Assets , Breach of Fiduciary Duty, and Other Federal Violations of Embezzlement, Money Laundering, XXXX XXXX, Extortion, XXXX Slavery, CRIMINAL Prosecution Notice to Principal is Notice to Agent ; Notice to Agent is Notice to Principal. \n\" Fraud vitiates the most solemn Contracts, documents, and even judgments. '' This quote from U.S. vs. XXXX, 98 US 61, at pg. 65 confirms that fraud nullifies any agreement, document, or even judgment that is based on fraudulent activities. As such, any contractual agreement I may have signed is rendered void due to the fraudulent actions of the involved parties. \nI, XXXX XXXX XXXX, the living woman, XXXX XXXX , and sole beneficiary of the Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX , hereby issue this NON-NEGOTIABLE NOTICE OF RESCISSION OF PERMISSION to share, disclose, transfer, or distribute my private, personal, or estate information in any form, electronic or otherwise, by any entity, corporation, government agency, individual, or other legal body. This rescission applies to any and all permissions or consent that may have been previously assumed, granted, or implied. \nThis is a formal, non-negotiable notice of rescission of any and all permissions, explicit or implied, to share, distribute, disclose, or otherwise use my private information for any purposes, effective immediately. This includes unauthorized sharing of personal data such as Social Security numbers, tax identification numbers, financial details, and other personally identifiable information ( PII ). \nXXXXnauthorized Administration of Estate and Revocation of IRS Form 2848 Power of Attorney I, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX of the Estate of XXXX XXXX XXXX , hereby notify you of the unauthorized administration of the estate and the immediate revocation of any Power of Attorney ( IRS Form 2848 ) previously granted. Any criminal misuse of my estate or identity by trustees or financial institutions will result in legal action and criminal prosecution. \nRevocation of IRS Form 56 and 56-F I hereby REVOKE any and all IRS Form 56 ( Notice Concerning Fiduciary Relationship ), and IRS Form 56-F filed on my behalf regarding any fiduciary relationship that may have been established without my consent or knowledge. This revocation is immediate, and I demand that the IRS recognize that no individual, agency, or entity has the authority to act in a fiduciary capacity for my estate or private trust without my explicit, written, and signed consent. \nAll previous appointments of fiduciaries are null and void as of this notice, and any actions taken based on such authority will be deemed fraudulent and subject to criminal prosecution. \nUnauthorized Use of Financial Information and Breach of Fiduciary Duty The named Corporations have been unlawfully requiring Federal Reserve notes as payment when, in fact, the application with financial information ( social security number ) attached serves as an asset that satisfied the monthly obligation pursuant to 12 CFR 360.6 ( 2 ). Additionally, this is considered self-liquidating paper under 17 CFR 260.11b-6, and its unauthorized use constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty under U.C.C. 3-307. \nI have received no benefit as the beneficiary of the Cesti Que Trust Account for XXXX XXXX XXXX from any unauthorized use of my financial information and assets. Therefore, this serves as formal notice that if the aforementioned financial assets are not returned to the creditor/bailor/beneficiary via mail or accepted for their intended purpose within three ( 3 ) business days of the recipient receiving this notice, a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) pursuant to 17 CFR 240.15c1-2 and 17 CFR 240.10b-5. \nMoreover, an IRS complaint will be submitted for abusive tax schemes, Corporate Corruption involving the SEC-filed trust arrangement, supported by the following legal provisions under 18 U.S. Code : Application of 12 CFR 1026.13, Extension of Credit, and Definition of Account Since the inception of the account, which is defined under 12 CFR 1002.2, it is recognized as an extension of credit, with the term account specifically referring to open-ended credit. The nature of open-end credit is governed by Truth in Lending regulations ( 12 CFR 1026.2 ), which apply in this case. \nThe unauthorized administration of this open-end credit account, along with the failure to properly apply credits in my favor, supports my claims of fraud and improper handling of credit and personal information, thus furthering my rescission of permission for any entity to continue using or sharing this information. \nViolation of Anti-Discrimination Regulations In accordance with federal law and U.S. Department of the Treasury policy, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, XXXX, age, or disability. \nDiscriminatory practices have occurred ; I have submitted a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity, per the following details : Mail : U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Civil Rights and Equal Employment Opportunity, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, D.C. 2XXXX Phone : ( XXXX ) XXXX Fax : ( XXXX ) XXXX Email : XXXX Cestui Que Trust Fraud and Account Number Disclosure This also serves as a notification of Cestui Que Trust fraud related to the following accounts and exemption identifiers : Exemption ID Number : XXXX UCC Contract Account Number : XXXX Value : {>= $1,000,000} Any further unauthorized activity related to these accounts will be subject to immediate legal action and prosecution for fraud and breach of fiduciary duties. \nRequest for Accounting Ledger and Disclosure Pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) 9-210, I hereby make a formal demand for the full accounting ledger of all transactions, credits, debits, securities, and collateral associated with all accounts under my name, estate, and private trust. This includes, but is not limited to : Checking and savings accounts Loan accounts Corporate accounts Insurance policies and claims Trust accounts I expect this information to be delivered to me in writing via certified mail within three ( 3 ) business days of receipt of this notice. \nThis notice is issued under the following grounds of violation and legal claims : Cestui Que Trust Fraud Aggravated Identity Theft Forgery of Signature on Contracts False Credit Reporting Discrimination as a Native American Non-U.S. Citizen, American National Fraudulent Reporting of Accounts and Transactions Embezzlement of Corporate Accounts Securities Fraud Insurance Fraud Mail Fraud and Wire Fraud Accounting Fraud Social Security Fraud Tax Evasion and False Exemptions or Deductions XXXX XXXX Grand Theft Larceny Collusion with the Federal Reserve Bank ( FRB ) Violations of FDIC, FCRA, FDCPA Breach of Fiduciary Duties and Criminal Conversion of Accounts held in Private Trust Civil Rights Violations Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended ( 15 U.S.C. 78dd-1, et seq. ) Additionally, this rescission notice extends to fraud and copyright infringement in connection with the use or falsification of the following personal, corporate, and trust-related instruments : SSA-89 Form Securities related to the XXXX XXXX XXXX Estate Treasury Direct Account XXXX XXXX Applicable Federal Statutes and Legal Violations : 1. 15 U.S. Code 1692 - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) Governs debt collectors ' practices, prohibiting abusive, deceptive, or unfair actions when collecting debts. \n2. 15 U.S. Code 1693 - Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) Protects consumers from unauthorized electronic transactions and provides error resolution processes. \n3. 18 U.S. Code 4 - Misprision of Felony Requires individuals aware of a felony to report it ; failure to do so can lead to prosecution. \n4. 18 U.S. Code 1589 - Forced Labor Prohibits coercing someone into providing labor through threats, violence, or manipulation. \n5. 18 U.S. Code 876 - Mailing Threatening Communications Criminalizes sending threats or extortion attempts through the mail. \n6. 18 U.S. Code 1341- Mail Fraud Criminalizes the use of the postal service in schemes to defraud individuals or entities of money or property. \n7. 18 U.S. Code 1343- Wire Fraud Similar to mail fraud, but applies to schemes using electronic communications ( e.g., phones, email, internet ). \n8. 18 U.S. Code 1346- Scheme or Artifice to Defraud Defines fraudulent schemes, particularly in cases where public officials or corporate executives deprive others of honest services. \n9. 18 U.S. Code 1593A - Benefitting Financially from Peonage, Slavery, and Trafficking in Persons Punishes those who knowingly benefit financially from XXXX XXXX XXXX, or forced labor. \n10. 31 U.S. Code 3729 ( a ) ( 1 ) - False Claims Act ( FCA ) Makes it illegal to knowingly submit false or fraudulent claims to the government for payment. \n11. U.C.C. 3-603 - Tender of Payment Obligates a creditor to accept tender of payment for a negotiable instrument, thereby discharging the debt. \n12. U.C.C. 3-604 - Discharge by Cancellation or Renunciation Allows for a debt obligation to be discharged when the creditor cancels or renounces their right to collect the debt. \n13. U.C.C. 3-605 - Discharge of Secondary Obligors Governs the discharge of secondary obligors ( e.g., co-signers ) when specific actions are taken by the creditor. \n14. FDIC 6000, Title VI 908 - Error Resolution ( Treble Damages ) Provides procedures for resolving errors in bank accounts and transactions, including the possibility of tripling damages ( treble damages ) in cases of violations. \nFederal Credit Reporting Violations - FCRA The Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) governs the activities of credit reporting agencies like XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Violations may include failure to ensure accuracy or unauthorized sharing of credit information. \n15. 15 U.S.C. 1681n - Willful Noncompliance with FCRA 1. This statute imposes liability for willful violations of the FCRA, including failure to correct inaccurate credit information or unauthorized dissemination of credit reports. \n16. 15 U.S.C. 1681o - Negligent Noncompliance with FCRA 1. This addresses negligent failure to comply with the FCRA, such as failure to maintain accurate records or provide adequate dispute resolution. \n17. 15 U.S.C. 1681q - Obtaining Information Under False Pretenses 1. This criminalizes the unauthorized or fraudulent acquisition of credit report information. \nFederal Criminal Codes Related to Trust and Estate Fraud 1. 18 U.S.C. 1341 - Mail Fraud o This statute criminalizes the use of the postal service to carry out fraudulent schemes. If any fraud involving the Cestui Que Trust was conducted using the mail system, it would fall under this statute. \n2. 18 U.S.C. 1343 - Wire Fraud o Wire fraud occurs when electronic communication ( email, phone, internet ) is used as part of a scheme to defraud. This could apply if fraudulent administration or embezzlement of trust assets occurred via electronic means. \n3. 18 U.S.C. 371 - Conspiracy to Commit Fraud o This statute can be used if multiple parties, including corporate executives, conspired to commit fraud related to the administration of the Cestui Que Trust. \n4. 18 U.S.C. 656 - Embezzlement by Bank Officers or Employees o This law addresses embezzlement by officers or employees of financial institutions. It may be applicable if USAA or another financial institution was involved in unauthorized activities related to trust funds. \n5. 18 U.S.C. 664 - Embezzlement from Employee Benefit Plan o This statute covers embezzlement from employee benefit plans, but may also extend to trust funds depending on how they are managed. \n6. 18 U.S.C. 1344 - Bank Fraud o Bank fraud involves schemes to defraud a financial institution, which could include improper handling of trust accounts or assets. \n7. 18 U.S.C. 1956 - Money Laundering o Money laundering applies if fraudulent trust funds were funneled through various financial institutions to conceal their origin. \nThis document serves as a final and irrevocable statement that all aforementioned parties must cease and desist from any further unlawful use, sharing, or handling of my private information and assets. Any entity, government agency, or person found in violation will be subject to prosecution for damages and breaches under applicable local, national, and international law. \nThis notice applies to USAA, XXXX of XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX executives for unauthorized administration, fiduciary breaches, and embezzlement. The beneficiary seeks criminal prosecution and assistance from the U.S. Secret Service and Homeland Security due to extortion, XXXX XXXX, forced labor against the will of the beneficiary, and FCRA violations. Additionally, USAA has failed to honor its oath and fiduciary duties, resulting in false claims, embezzlement, and money laundering. XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX are accused of receiving kickbacks and engaging in discrimination against a non-U.S. citizen American national. \nThere are also missing payments regarding consumer loan # XXXX after communication with USAA charge-off employee # XXXX. \nBroker-dealer fraud refers to misconduct by brokers or financial advisers that results in harm to their clients, often through unethical, deceptive, or illegal activities. This type of fraud can involve violations of federal securities laws and regulations, and it typically occurs in situations where brokers are responsible for managing or advising on investments. \nTypes of Broker-Dealer Fraud 1. Unauthorized Trading : o Executing trades without the clients authorization or knowledge. \n2. Churning : o Excessive trading in a clients account to generate commissions for the broker. \n3. Misrepresentation or Omission : o Providing false or misleading information about securities or failing to disclose important information, such as the risks associated with an investment. \n4. XXXX Schemes : o Promising high returns on investments while using new investors money to pay returns to earlier investors. \nXXXX. Failure to Execute Client Instructions : o Refusing or failing to execute a trade as directed by a client, especially if it benefits the broker at the client 's expense. \nXXXX. Unsuitable Investments : o Recommending investments that are not suitable for the client 's financial situation, goals, or risk tolerance. \nXXXX. Overcharging or Hidden Fees : o Charging excessive fees or not disclosing the full costs of trading or managing investments. \n\nFederal Laws and Regulations Governing Broker-Dealer Conduct Broker-dealers are primarily regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission ( SEC ) and the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) . The following federal laws and rules are relevant in cases of broker-dealer fraud : 1. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( 15 U.S.C. 78j ) : o Section 10 ( b ) and Rule 10b-5 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibit fraudulent and manipulative practices in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. \no Rule 10b-5 is particularly broad and prohibits any act or omission resulting in fraud or deceit in connection with securities transactions. \n2. Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ( 15 U.S.C. 80b-6 ) : o Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act prohibits fraud by investment advisers, which can include brokers who offer advisory services. This statute also prohibits misleading clients, engaging in manipulative trading, or failing to disclose conflicts of interest. \n3. XXXX Rules : o XXXX XXXXule 2010 : Brokers must observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. \no XXXX Rule 2111 : Suitability Rule requires that brokers ensure that their investment recommendations are suitable based on the customers financial profile and objectives. \no XXXX Rule 4512 : Requires accurate and updated information about clients financial situations to determine suitable investments. \n4. 18 U.S.C. 1348 - Securities and Commodities Fraud : o This statute criminalizes fraud in the securities and commodities markets and can apply to broker-dealers who engage in deceptive practices to defraud investors. \n5. 18 U.S.C. 1341 - Mail Fraud and 18 U.S.C. 1343 - Wire Fraud : o If a broker-dealer uses mail, electronic communications, or phone systems to carry out fraudulent schemes, they can be charged with mail or wire fraud. \n6. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ) - 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968 : o Broker-dealer fraud that is part of a larger pattern of criminal activity ( such as ongoing XXXX schemes or repeated fraudulent acts ) may be prosecuted under RICO. \n\nUSAA Federal Savings Bank has faced significant penalties due to violations of anti-money laundering ( XXXX ) regulations under the Bank Secrecy Act ( BSA ). In XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX imposed a {$140.00} XXXX civil money penalty on USAA for failing to maintain an effective XXXX program between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This included the banks failure to report thousands of suspicious transactions, some of which were linked to potential criminal activity in customers ' personal accounts. Of the {$140.00} XXXX penalty, {$80.00} XXXX was imposed by XXXX, while {$60.00} XXXX came from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ), which had identified similar compliance failures. The OCC had previously fined USAA {$85.00} XXXX in XXXX for deficiencies in its risk management framework, particularly regarding compliance with laws designed to protect military service membersThe recent regulatory actions underscore ongoing concerns about USAA 's internal controls and compliance with federal regulations aimed at preventing financial crimes. \nConclusion and Demand for Immediate Action This notice serves as a final and irrevocable statement. If the referenced financial assets are not returned or accepted for their intended use within three ( 3 ) business days, complaints will be filed with the SEC, IRS, and Department of Justice, as outlined above. \nYou are hereby directed to cease and desist any further unlawful handling of my private information, estate, or financial instruments. Any breach of this notice will result in further legal action for fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of federal law. \nFraud nullifies contracts : As affirmed by U.S. vs. XXXX, 98 US 61, pg. 65, fraud vitiates the most solemn contracts, documents, and even judgments. Any contractual obligation involving fraud is hereby null and void. \nSigned, XXXX XXXX XXXX Executrix/Sole Beneficiary UCC 1-308 Without Prejudice/Without XXXX Living Woman ; XXXX XXXX ; XXXX XXXX Principal Secured Party Master Account Holder Power of Attorney-in-Fact Certified Document : XXXX XXXX XXXX Estate EIN # : XXXXEstate EIN # : XXXX XXXX XXXX INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE BANKER CFO XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX # : XXXXDOMESTIC FOREIGN GRANTOR TRUST ( PRIVATE ) , AND 98-FOREIGN TRUST ( PRIVATE ) TIN # : XXXX XXXX # : XXXX TREASURY DIRECT ACCT : XXXX","date_sent_to_company":"2024-10-22T16:28:55.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"30291","tags":"Servicemember","has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10541069","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","date_received":"2024-10-22T16:07:52.000Z","state":"GA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 1693 - Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) Protects consumers from <em>unauthorized</em> electronic transactions and provides error resolution <em>processes</em>. \n3. 18 U.S. Code 4 - Misprision of Felony Requires individuals aware of a felony to report it ; <em>failure</em> to do so can lead to prosecution. \n4. 18 U.S. Code 1589 - Forced Labor Prohibits coercing someone into providing labor through threats, violence, or manipulation. \n5. 18 U.S."]},"sort":[9.943844,"10541069"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"11137853","_score":9.853167,"_source":{"product":"Vehicle loan or lease","complaint_what_happened":"Subject : Formal Complaint Against Credit Acceptance Corporation for Breach of Contract, Fiduciary Duty, and Violations Under SEC and UCC Provisions Dear CFPB, I am filing this formal complaint against Credit Acceptance Corporation, a security transfer agent, for multiple violations of contractual, fiduciary, and regulatory obligations. Their actions represent a breach of contract, violation of fiduciary duties under SEC laws, and a disregard for my rights as a holder in due course. \n\nI am also requesting that XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX investigate this matter. This account has already been paid and lacks a properly UCC-perfected lien. Additionally, the account is income-based and connected to a XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), which XXXX XXXX has failed to properly disclose or document. They have also refused to provide necessary tax forms such as the 1099-OID and 1099-B, despite my lawful requests, and instead engaged in bartering with a COID ( Certificate of Indebtedness ). \n\nBelow, I outline the critical issues and request immediate action to address these violations : XXXX. Breach of Fiduciary Duty and SEC Filing Obligations Credit Acceptance Corporation, as a security transfer agent, is subject to regulations under SEC laws and indentured agreements. Their failure to fulfill their fiduciary duties includes : Not providing tax forms ( e.g., 1099-B and 1099-OID ) after I filed IRS Forms 2848 & ( Power of Attorney ) and 56-F ( Fiduciary Relationship Notice ). & 1099A Failing to acknowledge the power of revocation notice I sent, which was executed with two witnesses and a notary. This notice has not been rebutted.\n\nRefusing to comply with my lawful requests to audit the account, which I now have a CUSIP number attached to for further tax auditing through the IRS.\n\n2. Breach of Contract and Arbitration Clause The contract explicitly requires disputes to be resolved via arbitration. Despite my formal notice requesting arbitration, Credit Acceptance has unlawfully pursued repossession actions, violating their contractual obligations.\n\nAdditionally, I returned their contract as the transferee under UCC provisions. If they wish to recover the vehicle, they must return the security they used as a commercial value instrument through the Treasury window.\n\n3. Violation of UCC 3-603 : Tender of Payment This vehicle has already been paid in full pe\nr the commercial paper I provided. Under UCC 3-603, my payment obligations have been discharged, yet Credit Acceptance continues to act as though the contract remains in dispute, demonstrating bad faith.\n\n4. Contractual and Disclosure Violations by the Dealer This contract is written in two different languages, which the dealer failed to disclose at the time of signing. Additionally, the dealer did not provide me with the correct contract immediately ; it took me two days to obtain and review it. Their failure to comply with full disclosure requirements invalidates the agreement and raises further questions of fraud.\n\n5. Holder in Due Course Rights As the holder in due course, I have lawfully requested : The transfer of the vehicle into my trust.\n\nProper acknowledgment of my secured party interest and the return of my security.\n\nDespite these lawful requests, Credit Acceptance has failed to comply.\n\n6. Improper Repossession Attempts and Lack of Transparency I have requested the name and credentials of the repossession agent involved. Credit Acceptance has refused to provide this information. Upon independent investigation, it appears this individual has a criminal r\necord, raising concerns about their background and any unauthorized contracts Credit Acceptance may have with them.\n\n7. Evidence of Fraud and Bartering I have sent Credit Acceptance evidence of fraud within their contract, including their unauthorized use of my security as commercial value without proper disclosure. I am also in the process of filing a formal complaint with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) regarding these deceptive and unfair practices.\n\n8. Additional Violations Related to CUSIP and IRS Auditing This account has a CUSIP number associated with it, which I will soon reclaim. The presence of a CUSIP demonstrates this account is being traded as a security, yet Credit Acceptance has failed to act in compliance with SEC and tax laws.\n\nI have requested the IRS to audit this account and ensure proper tax filings. Credit Acceptances refusal to cooperate or acknowledge these obligations further demonstrates their noncompliance.\n\n9. Additional Violations of UCC-1 Perfection and COID Transactions This account lacks a properly UCC-perfected lien , further invalidating Credit Acceptances claims. Additionally, their bartering of this account with a COID ( Certificate of Indebtedness ) without my consent or proper documentation violates fiduciary and contractual obligations.\n\nRequest for Relief I respectfully request the CFPB to : 1. Order Credit Acceptance to cease all repossession efforts until arbitration proceedings are initiated per the contract terms.\n\n2. Investigate Credit Acceptances breach of fiduciary duties as a security transfer agent under SEC and UCC provisions.\n\n3. Compel the company to provide all tax forms and evidence of filings made on my behalf, including 1099-OID and 1099-B.\n\n4. Require Credit Acceptance to return my security if they intend to repossess the vehicle.\n\n5. Ensure compliance with laws governing contract holders in due course, fiduciary obligations, and equity principles. \n6. Include XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX in this investigation to ensure proper reporting of the account and verification of all payment and XXXX details. \n\nSupporting Documentation Enclosed, you will find : A copy of the contract highlighting the arbitration clause.\n\nProof of tendered payment under UCC 3-603.\n\nCopies of notices and communications sent to Credit Acceptance.\n\nDocumentation of their failure to respond appropriately or act in good faith.\n\nConclusion Credit Acceptance Corporations actions constitute severe violations of law, equity, and fiduciary obligations. Their refusal to honor arbitration, their breach of SEC and UCC provisions, and their unlawful repossession attempts require immediate redress.\n\nI trust that the CFPB, along with the credit bureaus, will take swift action to hold Credit Acceptance accountable and restore my rights under the law.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-12-12T18:04:04.000Z","issue":"Repossession","sub_product":"Loan","zip_code":"46234","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"11137853","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-12-12T17:07:43.000Z","state":"IN","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Notice to repossess"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Their <em>failure</em> to fulfill their fiduciary duties includes : Not providing tax forms ( e.g., 1099-B and 1099-OID ) after I filed IRS Forms 2848 & ( Power of Attorney ) and 56-F ( Fiduciary Relationship Notice ). & 1099A Failing to acknowledge the power of revocation notice I sent, which was <em>executed</em> with two witnesses and a notary. This notice has not been rebutted."]},"sort":[9.853167,"11137853"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"21529618","_score":9.285057,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Property : XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX Company : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX \nAccount No. : XXXX I hold a recorded equitable interest in the property at XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, FL XXXX ( Account No. XXXX ), as evidenced by multiple instruments recorded in the Official Records of XXXX XXXX, Florida in XX/XX/XXXX ( Book XXXX, Pages XXXX ; Book XXXX, multiple instruments ), and a perfected UCC-1 Financing Statement XXXX / XXXX with the Florida Secured Transaction Registry . Colorado Secured Transaction XXXX XXXX. \nBeginning XX/XX/XXXX, I sent multiple written notices to SouthState Bank , N.A . and its servicing agents via certified mail, including Notices of Subrogation, Conditional Acceptance and Demand for Proof of Claim, and formal requests for account information. All were sent to SouthState 's designated addresses in XXXX XXXX, FL and XXXX, SC with certified mail tracking numbers documenting delivery. \nSouthState acknowledged my identity and my recorded interest in its XX/XX/XXXX response letter, addressed to me by name and capacity at my designated address. Despite this acknowledgment, SouthState refused to provide any account information, claiming it needed \" authorization from the borrower. '' Under 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 ( i ) and the CFPB 's 2018 amendments recognizing successors in interest, a servicer must respond to written requests from potential successors in interest. SouthState has never provided me with a written description of documents needed to confirm my status, as required by 1024.36 ( i ).\n\nI have tendered payment to SouthState four separate times : XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Check # XXXX tendered as accord and satisfaction. SouthState refused the payment but HAS NEVER RETURNED THE CHECK. It remains in their possession after approximately 8 months. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Check for {$14000.00} an amount exceeding the past due payments of {$12000.00} stated in SouthState 's own reinstatement letter sent via certified mail accompanied by a Notice of Tender and Administrative Reconciliation documenting the entire history of prior dishonored tenders and the bank 's pattern of refusing payment. SouthState has retained this check without depositing or returning it. A copy of this Notice is attached as exhibits to this complaint. \nXXXX. XX/XX/XXXX : Check # XXXX for {$1700.00} sent with a formal Qualified Written Request under 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 and 1024.36. SouthState 's foreclosure attorney, XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. ( Florida Bar # XXXX ), returned this check and refused to respond to the QWR, stating that RESPA \" does not obligate SouthState Bank , N.A . to respond to a purported Qualified Written Request submitted by an individual who is neither a borrower nor a person authorized on the account. '' This is legally incorrect under 1024.36 ( i ). XXXX also stated she would not \" engage in legal discourse with individuals who are not licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. '' A QWR is not legal discourse it is a federally mandated request for information that requires no law license to submit. \nOut of four tenders, SouthState returned only one ( the smallest ), deposited one, and retained two without action.\n\nAn IRS Form 1099-C, Cancellation of Debt, has been filed and accepted by the IRS for this account Amount : {$260000.00}, Event Code F, Date : XX/XX/XXXX. SouthState 's XX/XX/XXXX letter denied the existence of any XXXX and called it \" wrongful and fraudulent '' but provided no evidence to support this denial. Despite this debt cancellation, SouthState continues to collect on the account, has filed foreclosure ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and continues to add fees and charges. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, I physically tendered payment at SouthState 's XXXX branch. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX of XXXX Assets, instructed the clerk to refused to accept the instrument yet in the same interaction, provided a written reinstatement balance. This contradictory action proves the bank can calculate the debt but willfully refuses the means of satisfaction. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX, SouthState 's attorney sent a reinstatement letter demanding {$18000.00} but sent it only to the borrower, not to me at my designated address. This denied me the opportunity to cure the default. \nOn XX/XX/XXXX just 17 days after filing judicial proceedings in XXXX XXXX, Florida SouthState force-placed hazard insurance at {$10000.00} annually and added the cost to the account. This notice was sent to the borrower at the property address, not to me. The premium of {$10000.00} for {$230000.00} in coverage ( 4.3 % of coverage ) is significantly above market rates. This deprived me of the opportunity to provide evidence of existing coverage as required by 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 SouthState Bank has filed judicial proceedings in XXXX XXXX, Florida in which it specifically identified the Complainant by name and capacity, demonstrating that SouthState has actual knowledge of the Complainant 's identity and recorded interest in the property. Despite this demonstrated knowledge, SouthState simultaneously claims it can not communicate with the Complainant about the account without 'borrower authorization. ' These positions are irreconcilable SouthState can not claim knowledge of the Complainant 's interest for purposes of litigation while denying that same knowledge for purposes of federal servicing obligations.\n\nSouthState Bank commenced judicial proceedings without having provided any pre-foreclosure notices to the recorded interest holder at the designated address of record. The Security Instrument governing this account expressly provides that neither the borrower nor the lender may commence or join a judicial action regarding a breach until the other party has been notified and given a reasonable period to take corrective action. SouthState sent no notice of default, no notice of acceleration, no notice of right to cure, no reinstatement instructions, and no loss mitigation communications to the Complainant at the designated address ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX, FL XXXX XXXX at any time prior to filing judicial proceedings. The XX/XX/XXXX acceleration notice was sent to the borrower at the property address. The XX/XX/XXXX acceleration notice was sent to the borrower. The XX/XX/XXXX reinstatement letter was sent exclusively to the borrower. SouthState had the Complainant 's correct address as proven by its own XX/XX/XXXX letter sent to that exact address yet deliberately excluded the recorded interest holder from all pre-foreclosure communications. This constitutes a violation of the XXXX XXXX 's own notice provisions, a violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 loss mitigation requirements, and a violation of 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 communication procedures. SouthState can not satisfy its pre-foreclosure notice obligations by communicating only with the borrower while ignoring the party with the largest recorded interest in the property.\n\nSouthState Bank , N.A . has failed to provide admissible evidence of a complete and unbroken chain of assignments from the original lender to the current Plaintiff. Any \" blank indorsement '' or \" allonge '' created after the commencement of judicial proceedings is a fraud upon the record and the court. \nUpon information and belief, the underlying Note was securitized into a XXXX ( Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ) or similar trust vehicle. This process converted the Note into a \" Security '' under the UCC, effectively separating the Note from the Mortgage. SouthState Bank , N.A . is acting as a mere servicer or \" nominee '' without being the true Holder in Due Course ( XXXX ) or the Real Party in Interest.\n\nBy selling the beneficial interest of the Note into a secondary market pool while retaining the Mortgage in its own name, the bank has \" split '' the Note and Mortgage, rendering the security interest unenforceable under well-established principles of Equity and the Uniform Commercial Code.\n\nThe bank has relied upon \" robosigned '' affidavits and assignments executed by individuals who lack firsthand knowledge of the account history, the 1099-C discharge, or the physical location of the original instrument, constituting a fraud upon the public records Upon information and belief, SouthState Bank , N.A . has purportedly initiated an unverified judicial proceeding in XXXX XXXX, Florida, involving the subject property. The Complainant has not been properly served in any such action and does not submit to the jurisdiction of any statutory court. However, SouthStates own records and communications suggest they are attempting to utilize a public forum to enforce a debt that has been discharged via 1099-C.\n\nUpon information and belief, the Mortgage Identification Number ( MIN ) associated with this account has been moved to Inactive status in the MERS database as of XX/XX/XXXX. This deactivation follows the IRS Form 1099-C discharge event of XX/XX/XXXX, and constitutes an administrative admission that the electronic tracking of the security instrument has been terminated.By selling the beneficial interest of the Note into a secondary market pool while retaining the Mortgage, the bank has \" split '' the instruments, rendering the security interest unenforceable in Equity.outhState Bank , N.A. has failed to demonstrate possession of the original \" Wet Ink '' Note at the time it purportedly initiated unverified judicial proceedings in the public forum, The bank relies upon affidavits and assignments executed by individuals lacking firsthand knowledge of the 1099-C discharge, the MERS deactivation, or the physical location of the original instrument.\n\nThe Respondent has failed to maintain and produce the underlying business records as mandated by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX updates. Specifically, the Respondent is relying on unverified 'System Messages ' ( LPA Feedback ) to justify an alleged default while refusing to provide the primary source documentationsuch as the actual transaction ledger required for loan verification and underwriting under the new XXXX standards SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS : Failure to respond to Qualified Written Requests ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.36 ) - Failure to implement successor in interest procedures ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ( b ) ( 1 ) ( vi ) ) - Failure to provide pre-foreclosure notices to the recorded interest holder as required by the XXXX XXXX 's own notice and opportunity to cure provisions - Dual tracking proceeding with foreclosure while the recorded interest holder was actively tendering payments to cure the default ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.41 ( g ) ) - Improper first notice or filing for foreclosure ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.35 ( b ) ( 9 ) ) - Failure to provide early intervention and loss mitigation communication to the recorded interest holder ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.39 ) - Misdirection of all critical communications to borrower instead of recorded interest holder ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.38 ) - Force-placed insurance violations excessive premium, wrong address, improper notice ( 12 C.F.R. 1024.37 ) - Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) under the Dodd-Frank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 5536 ) - Violation of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX requiring \" borrower authorization '' and loan assumption as preconditions for communication ( 12 U.S.C. 1701j-3 ( d ) ; 12 C.F.R. 1024.30, 1024.31 ) - Truth in Lending Act ( TILA ) failure to disclose actual creditor, inaccurate disclosures regarding account status ( 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. ) - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) collection on cancelled debt, false representations of debt status, unauthorized fees, failure to validate debt upon written dispute ( 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., including 1692e, 1692f, 1692g ) - Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ) continued derogatory reporting on a debt cancelled via IRS Form 1099-C and discharged via accord and satisfaction ( 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., 1681s-2, 1681n ) - Retention of tendered payments without depositing or returning conversion of Trust assets ( UCC 3-420 , 4-302 ; F.S. 673.4201, 674.3021 ) - Collection on a debt cancelled via IRS Form 1099-C potential violation of 26 C.F.R. 1.6050P-1 - Contradictory conduct depositing accord and satisfaction tender then claiming debt is owed in full ( UCC 3-311 ; F.S. 673.3111 ) - Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ( FDUTPA ) equity stripping, fraudulent enrichment, contradictory positions ( F.S. 501.201-501.213 ) - Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act willful refusal to communicate with authorized representative while communicating with borrower ( F.S. 559.72 )","date_sent_to_company":"2026-04-23T16:21:12.000Z","issue":"Trouble during payment process","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"338XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"21529618","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"SOUTHSTATE BANK CORPORATION","date_received":"2026-04-23T14:36:19.000Z","state":"FL","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Payment process"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["it purportedly initiated unverified judicial proceedings in the public forum, The bank relies upon affidavits and assignments <em>executed</em> by individuals lacking firsthand knowledge of the 1099-C <em>discharge</em>, the MERS deactivation, or the physical location of the original instrument."],"issue":["Trouble during payment <em>process</em>"],"sub_issue":["Payment <em>process</em>"]},"sort":[9.285057,"21529618"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"18659453","_score":9.059746,"_source":{"product":"Mortgage","complaint_what_happened":"Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX acted in purported fiduciary and legal capacities during the foreclosure of the subject property, yet failed to demonstrate the requisite legal standing to enforce the security instrument ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, XXXX  ). Forensic evidence confirmed that the instrument had been divested of its negotiability prior to the foreclosure through a Federal Reserve \" Borrower-in-Custody '' ( BIC ) pledge ( FRBSF, 2004 ). The Citizens private credit, embodied in the promissory note, was utilized as \" eligible paper '' to satisfy collateral requirements for the issuance of Federal Reserve notes under 12 U.S.C. 412 ( 12 U.S.C. 412, XXXX  ). This monetization event generated \" lendable value '' at par, which constituted a \" payment in fact '' that satisfied the underlying obligation long before the foreclosure sale occurred ( 59 Stat. 237, XXXX  ; XXXX, XXXX  ). Consequently, the foreclosure was predicated on a satisfied debt, and the Citizen, as the true owner of the source credit, is entitled to the return of all title, interest, and funds improperly retained ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). \nIdentification of Funds and Assets to be Returned The following funds and interests were generated through the unauthorized monetization and subsequent foreclosure sale of the asset and must be returned to the true owner : Foreclosure Sale Proceeds : The total sale price realized at the foreclosure auction represents the liquidation of an asset that was already satisfied through central bank credit ( XXXX, XXXX ). \nLendable Value and Pledge Funds : The \" lendable value '' granted to Wells Fargo by the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) upon the initial pledge of the note constituted \" proceeds '' of the collateral that were never credited to the Citizen 's account ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX & XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nResidual Funds and Interest : Any \" residual funds '' or surplus held in the Banks reserve account at the Fed, which were derived from the \" outstanding loan balance '' of the note, remain the property of the source-credit provider ( XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ). \nRights, Title, and Interest : The legal and equitable title to the property was compromised by the Bank 's failure to disclose that it had surrendered the right to \" negotiate, transfer, or settle '' the instrument to the Fed via an irrevocable Power of Attorney ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX ). \nThe Divestment of Standing and Negotiability Wells Fargo and its counsel lacked primary regulatory standing to maintain the foreclosure action because the core attribute of the instrumentits negotiabilityhad been contractually surrendered to the FRB ( UCC 3-301, 2022 ). Under Operating Circular 10 ( OC-10 ), Wells Fargo was required to execute a Power of Attorney ( POA ) granting the FRB exclusive authority over the collateral ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX ). As a result, Wells Fargo functioned merely as a \" naked holder '' or \" custodian '' during the foreclosure process, lacking the substantive legal interest required by law ( XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX v. Defenders of Wildlife, XXXX ). The judicial enforcement initiated by XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX, while the asset was \" locked '' under the Fed 's POA, constituted a violation of the \" Real Party in Interest '' requirements ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, 2024 ).\n\nFiduciary Vulnerabilities and Tortious Inconsistency The entities are liable for the following breaches discovered post-foreclosure : Violation of the \" One Satisfaction Rule '' : By retaining the \" lendable value '' from the Fed and then seizing the property through foreclosure, Wells Fargo achieved an illegal \" double recovery '' ( XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX XXXX Northwest Bank, XXXX ). \nBreach of Fiduciary Duty : As a \" Custodian '' under BIC guidelines, Wells Fargo owed a duty to account for all proceeds derived from the monetization of the Citizen 's credit ( XXXX, XXXX ; Restatement ( Third ) of Agency, XXXX ). \nStatutory Liability : The failure to disclose the monetization of the note during the foreclosure proceedings was a deceptive practice that violated the prohibition against unfair and abusive acts ( 12 U.S.C. 5531, 2025 ).\n\nConclusion of Law regarding Restitution All funds generated from the monetization of the instrument and the subsequent foreclosure sale must be returned to the Citizen to rectify the unjust enrichment of the custodial entities ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). The foreclosure was an ultra vires act performed without standing, as the underlying debt was satisfied by the \" nature of the obligation '' provided to the Federal Reserve ( 12 U.S.C. 411 ; 59 Stat. 237 ).\n\nThe Architecture of Public Trust and Private Collateral The modern financial management landscape is defined by a sophisticated intersection of private debt instruments and public currency issuance, governed primarily by the\nFederal Reserve Act and the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) ( 12 U.S.C. 221 et seq., XXXX ; UCC 1-101 et seq., XXXX ). At the core of this system is the transformation of a Citizen Borrower 's private promissory noteoriginally a simple bilateral contractinto \" eligible paper '' capable of supporting the national money supply ( 12 U.S.C. 343, XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX ). This transformation is facilitated through a series of \" Borrower-in-Custody '' ( BIC ) arrangements and \" Operating Circulars '' that redefine the legal relationship between the originating Member Bank, the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Citizen ( XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). \nWhen a Member Bank pledges a mortgage note to the Federal Reserve 's \" Discount Window, '' it initiates a shift in the \" bundle of rights '' associated with the instrument, moving from a position of full ownership to XXXX of limited \" custodial agency '' ( XXXX, XXXX ; Restatement ( Third ) of Agency, XXXX ). This forensic analysis examines the legal inconsistencies inherent in this process, specifically the use of irrevocable Powers of Attorney ( POA ) that divest Member Banks of the standing required to enforce or negotiate the very assets they claim to hold ( XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX, XXXX ). By scrutinizing the \" lendable value '' generated during this monetization event, the analysis identifies a failure to account for the discharge of debt that occurs when private credit is utilized to satisfy public currency requirements under 12 U.S.C. 414 ( 12 U.S.C. 414, 2025 ; 59 Stat. 237, 1945 ). The resulting framework establishes a demand for accounting and restitution, predicated on the bank 's fiduciary duty to manage these \" Public Trust '' assets with transparency and in accordance with the \" One Satisfaction Rule '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ; XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). \nOverarching Emphasis : Isolation of POA within BIC Guidelines and Regulatory Standing The pivot point of the modern financial management challenge lies in the isolation of the Power of Attorney ( POA ) language embedded within the Borrower in Custody ( BIC ) guidelines ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ], XXXX ). Under the Federal Reserves collateral protocols, specifically those detailed in Operating Circular 10 ( OC-10 ), a Member Bank pledging a mortgage note as collateral must execute a specific and often irrevocable power of attorney in favor of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ) ( Federal Reserve Banks XXXX XXXX ). Academic analysis of these guidelines reveals that once an asset is placed \" in custody, '' the XXXX is granted the exclusive authority to \" negotiate, transfer, or settle '' the collateral to protect the liquidity of the central banks credit extensions ( Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve XXXX, XXXX ). As a conclusion of law, if the FRB possesses the sole authority to negotiate the asset, the Member Bank lacks the primary regulatory standing to resolve any dispute or discharge the debt associated with that asset ( Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [ Fed. R. Civ. P. ] 17, 2024 ). Within the framework of financial management protocols, this mirrors the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, which dictates that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, 2024 ). If the Member Bank has contractually transferred its \" right of negotiation '' to the XXXX to secure its own liquidity, it functions merely as a custodial servicer without the substantive capacity to alter the status of the Citizen Borrowers obligation ( XXXX, XXXX ). Consequently, any attempt by a XXXX Bank to enforce an obligation that has been pledged and \" locked '' under an FRB POA constitutes a breach of the procedural requirements for a real party in interest ( Fed. R. Civ. P. 17, 2024 ).\n\nThe Transformation of Roles and the BIC Arrangement Once the citizen \n's instrument is accepted as collateral, a legal transformation occurs under the BIC Arrangement, where the bank 's role shifts from a \" lender '' to a \" Borrower '' and \" XXXX '' ( XXXX, XXXX ). Operating Circular No. 10 defines the \" Borrower '' not as the citizen, but as the \" entity that incurs an Obligation to the [ Federal Reserve ] Bank '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). In this central banking scenario, the bank pledges the citizen 's loan as collateral to secure its own advances or credit XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). The BIC arrangement specifically allows the bank to \" retain possession of the Collateral '' while acting as an agent for the Federal Reserve ( XXXX, XXXX ). This creates a bifurcated legal reality where the bank presents itself as a creditor to the citizen while acting as a debtor to the Federal Reserve XXXX Federal Reserve Board, XXXX ). This section reveals a critical duty : the bank must execute a Power of Attorney that enables the Federal Reserve Bank to act on the institution 's behalf to negotiate the collateral ( XXXX, XXXX ). Furthermore, the bank is required to mark its records to show that BIC-held Collateral has been pledged to the Federal Reserve Bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). From a forensic standpoint, the citizen 's note is now a \" XXXXed Asset '' subject to a continuing security interest in favor of the Fed ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). The bank no longer owns the note in its own right ; it holds it \" in trust '' as a custodian for the official principal, which is the FXXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX, XXXX ). This delegated authority allows the bank to manage the asset without physically transferring the paper to the Federal Reserve district bank ( Federal Reserve Board, XXXX ). \nForensic Breakdown : The Transactional Process and Final Satisfaction The following step-by-step breakdown illustrates the functioning of this complex transaction ( XXXX, XXXX ) : Origination : The citizen signs the security instrument ( promissory note ) at par value ( UCC 3-104, XXXX XXXX. \nIdentification : The bank lists the instrument on a \" Collateral Schedule '' at its full \" outstanding loan balance '' ( XXXX, XXXX, p. 4 ).\n\nPledge : The bank submits the schedule to the Federal Reserve to satisfy the \" equal collateral '' requirement of 12 U.S.C. 414 ( 12 U.S.C. 414, 2025 ).\n\nAuthorization : The bank executes OC-10 documents, granting a security interest to the Fed ( Federal Reserve Banks XXXX XXXX ). \nGrant of Power : The bank executes a Power of Attorney, allowing the Fed to \" negotiate '' the citizen 's instrument ( XXXX, XXXX, p. XXXX ). \nCustody : The bank marks its internal records, identifying the note as \" subject exclusively to the Banks [ Fed 's ] written instructions '' ( XXXX, XXXX, p. XXXX ). \nMonetization : The Fed issues credit or notes to the bank 's \" Account '' based on the lendable value of the collateral ( Federal Reserve Board, XXXX ). \nMaintenance : The bank must remove \" matured, paid, or past due '' loans from the pledge, confirming the collateral 's dynamic nature ( XXXX, XXXX, p. XXXX ). \nThe analysis identifies a zero-sum transaction on the public ledger ( 59 Stat. 237, XXXX ). Any attempt to assert a \" residual debt '' against the citizen fails for lack of statutory backing, as the \" tender '' was already accepted at par to satisfy the issuance of the currency ( 12 U.S.C. 414, 2025 ). The impact on the citizen is the use of their private credit to fund the public banking system without a corresponding discharge of the alleged private debt ( Federal Reserve Board, XXXX ). \nFiduciary Trust and Custodial Obligations in BIC Arrangements The critical legal pivot occurs within the \" Borrower-in-Custody '' ( BIC ) arrangement, which fundamentally alters the bank 's ownership rights over the citizen 's instrument ( XXXX, XXXX ). Under the BIC arrangement, the bank is authorized to \" retain possession of the Collateral, '' but only as an agent for the Federal Reserve Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). The bank no longer owns the note in its own right ; it holds it \" in trust '' as a custodian for the official principal, which is the Federal Reserve Bank ( XXXX, XXXX ). This custodial relationship is a conclusion of law derived from Operating Circular No. 10, where the bank transfers and assigns to the Federal Reserve Bank a continuing security interest in and XXXX on the Collateral ( Federal Reserve Banks, XXXX ). This \" transfer and assignment '' means the \" bundle of rights '' associated with ownership has been legally moved to the Federal Reserve ( Uniform Commercial Code [ UCC ] 9-203, XXXX ). The bank 's remaining role is strictly defined as a \" Custodian '' under the \" Custody Agreement '' found in Appendix A of OC-10 ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ). The legal implications of this custodial status are governed by the law of Agency, where the Agent ( the bank ) must act for the Principal ( the Federal Reserve ) and is subject to the Principal 's exclusive control ( Restatement ( Third ) of Agency, XXXX ). The BIC Guidelines explicitly state that BIC-held collateral must be subject exclusively to the Banks [ Fed 's ] written instructions ( FRBSF, XXXX ). \nActionable Unjust Enrichment via UCC Remedies A general claim of \" unjust enrichment '' is often dismissed in academic discourse as an equitable remedy that is unavailable when a contract exists ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). However, by linking this claim to specific UCC remedies, it becomes a statutory cause of action ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). The primary mechanism for this is a \" Demand for Accounting '' under UCC 9-210 ( UCC 9-210, XXXX ). By issuing a formal Request for Accounting, the Citizen Borrower demands a line-item breakdown of how the \" lendable value '' or collateral was applied within the financial management system ( UCC 9-210 XXXX XXXX ). If the institution has accepted the asset but has not adjusted the liability on the ledger, the \" unjust enrichment '' is no longer a vague concept ; it is a documented failure to account for collateral under secured transactions law ( UCC 9-210, XXXX ). This forces the institution to either admit the application of the collateral or risk statutory penalties for failing to provide an accurate accounting of the \" public trust '' assets they manage on behalf of the Citizen Borrower XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ).","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-02T14:49:51.000Z","issue":"Struggling to pay mortgage","sub_product":"Conventional home mortgage","zip_code":"23832","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"18659453","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","date_received":"2026-01-12T20:08:12.000Z","state":"VA","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Foreclosure"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["By scrutinizing the \" lendable value '' generated during this monetization event, the analysis identifies a <em>failure</em> to account for the <em>discharge</em> of debt that occurs when private credit is utilized to satisfy public currency requirements under 12 U.S.C. 414 ( 12 U.S.C. 414, 2025 ; 59 Stat. 237, 1945 )."]},"sort":[9.059746,"18659453"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"19876262","_score":6.325849,"_source":{"product":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","complaint_what_happened":"I, XXXX XXXX, am the consumer as defined under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( c ) whose credit file is the subject of this dispute. I have never resided at, received mail at, or had any residential connection to the XXXX XXXX XXXX I am disputing. \n\npursuant to the Consumer Financial Protection Act ( CFPA ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX et seq., and FCRA XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( H ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) ( XXXX ) ( H ), which grants the CFPB exclusive enforcement authority over FCRA violations by covered persons including mortgage companies, credit reporting XXXX, and any entity offering or providing consumer financial products or services. \nRespondents as Covered Persons : Each respondent XXXX ( acting as a tri-merge mortgage credit reporting intermediary for XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX Mortgage operates in the mortgage XXXX XXXX XXXX and is a 'covered person ' under XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( XXXX ), subject to CFPB supervision and enforcement for FCRA violations. \nXXXX XXXX : Under XXXX XXXX, XXXX U.S.C. XXXX, the CFPB may act against covered persons engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices. The pattern of redundant, unauthorized hard inquiries within a XXXX window pulling the same consumer 's credit file 6 times constitutes an unfair practice causing substantial consumer harm that could not reasonably be avoided, with no countervailing consumer benefit. \nA. FCRA XXXX ( b ) Respondents Are 'Persons ' Bound by All FCRA Duties Statutory Text : \" The term 'person ' means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. '' XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ). \nEach respondent is a corporation or business entity and therefore a 'person ' under XXXX ( b ), subject to all FCRA obligations governing permissible purposes for accessing consumer reports. This definitional provision, read in conjunction with XXXX ( a ) 's mandate that these definitions apply to the entire FCRA subchapter, establishes that there are no carve-outs or exceptions for mortgage credit reporting XXXX or tri-merge report requestors. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX The Permissible Purpose Requirement Statutory Text : A consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other ... [ including ] in response to ... a person [ with ] a legitimate business need for the information in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the consumer. XXXX U.S.C. section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( F ). \nThe Legal Standard : Access to a consumer 's credit report requires a specific, current, and non-redundant permissible purpose at the time of each pull. The key phrase is 'initiated by the consumer ' a single mortgage application by the consumer initiates a single permissible purpose event. That event does not multiply simply because multiple XXXX, brokers, or lenders are involved in processing the same application. \nThe XXXX / Rate Shopping Window : Under FCRA XXXX and the XXXX scoring model 's rate-shopping provisions ( codified in practice through FCRA 's XXXX framework ), multiple mortgage inquiries within a XXXX window may be deduplicated for scoring purposes. However, this rate-shopping provision is a scoring deduplication rule it does NOT grant independent permissible purpose to each redundant pull. Each inquiry must still have its own distinct permissible purpose under XXXX. The fact that inquiries are deduplicated for scoring does not mean they are authorized ; it means the credit bureaus attempt to minimize score damage from inquiries that XXXX or XXXX not have been lawfully obtained. \nThe Critical Distinction : The permissible purpose belongs to the consumer 's single credit transaction XXXX mortgage application. It does NOT renew or replicate for each party downstream who chooses to pull the report. As the FTC has stated in its FCRA XXXX, a permissible purpose is specific to a particular transaction ; once that transaction is evaluated, subsequent pulls by different XXXX require independent justification. XXXX hard inquiries for what appears to be a single mortgage application process in XXXX XXXX can not all independently satisfy XXXX. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX and XXXX Civil Liability for Impermissible Access XXXX ( Willful Violations ) : Any person who willfully fails to comply with the FCRA is liable for : ( XXXX ) actual damages or statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation ; ( XXXX ) punitive damages ; and ( XXXX ) attorney fees and costs. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ). \nXXXX ( Negligent Violations ) : Any person who negligently fails to comply is liable for actual damages and attorney fees. XXXX U.S.C. XXXX. With XXXX impermissible inquiries, willful violation exposure alone is {$6000.00} in statutory damages minimum, with punitive damages and fees on top. \nXXXX. THE DISPUTED INQUIRIES FACTS AND PATTERN OF VIOLATION A. Complete List of Disputed Inquiries # Inquiring Entity Date of Inquiry Business Type Expiration XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX ADVANTAGE CREDIT XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX EQUIFAX/EMS XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Reporters XX/XX/XXXX XXXX CREDCO/UWM XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX CREDCO/UWM XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX XACTUS-AVANTUS/ROCKET XX/XX/XXXX Mortgage Companies XX/XX/XXXX B. The Clustering Pattern Evidence of Impermissible Redundancy XXXX Cluster : XXXX of the XXXX inquiries occurred within a XXXX window between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. This is not coincidental it is the direct result of multiple mortgage XXXX, credit reporting vendors, and lenders each pulling a separate hard inquiry for what was, from the consumer 's perspective, a single mortgage transaction. \nDuplicate Entities XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This entity pulled Complainant 's Experian report TWICE on XX/XX/XXXX and again on XX/XX/XXXX, just 6 days apart. A single loan application does not require the same credit reporting intermediary to pull the same consumer 's credit twice within XXXX week. The second pull by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX independent permissible purpose distinct from the first the consumer had not initiated a new credit transaction in the 6 days between pulls. This second pull is facially impermissible under FCRA XXXX. \nDuplicate Entities CREDCO/UWM : XXXX ( acting on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX Mortgage XXXX also pulled Complainant 's report TWICE on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, just XXXX DAY APART. No legitimate credit evaluation purpose requires pulling the same consumer 's file on consecutive days. A credit report is valid for XXXX to 120 days in mortgage underwriting pulling again the very next day demonstrates either a process failure or a deliberate disregard for the consumer 's rights under FCRA XXXX. \nThe Legal Effect of Same-Entity Duplicate Pulls : Under XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), a permissible purpose must exist at the exact time of each credit report access. It does not carry forward or authorize a second pull by the same entity on a separate date, absent a new consumer-initiated transaction. Both XXXX 's XXXX pulls and XXXX 's XXXX repeat XXXX XXXX this standard. \nThe XXXX XXXX : XXXX hard inquiries for a single mortgage transaction process is excessive and harmful by any standard. Each hard inquiry can reduce a consumer 's FICO score by XXXX points ; with XXXX inquiries, the cumulative impact to XXXX 's score and creditworthiness is material, ongoing, and entirely avoidable. Complainant did not authorize XXXX separate credit pulls she initiated a mortgage process that was exploited by downstream XXXX each seeking their own independent data access. \nIV. SPECIFIC LEGAL VIOLATIONS A. FCRA XXXX No Independent Permissible Purpose for Each Pull Violation : Each of the XXXX inquiries must independently satisfy XXXX 's permissible purpose requirement. A single mortgage application by XXXX created XXXX permissible purpose event. That event did not create XXXX separate authorization tokens XXXX for each entity that chose to access the file independently. Respondents CREDCO/UWM ( XXXX ), Equifax/EMS XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Advantage Credit XXXX, and XXXX Mortgage can not each claim XXXX same consumer transaction as independent permissible purpose for separate hard inquiries. \nImpermissible Same-Entity Duplicate Pulls : The duplicate pulls by CREDCO/UWM ( XX/XX/XXXX and XXXX ) and Equifax/EMS XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ) are per XXXX impermissible no new consumer transaction was initiated between those dates. Under XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ), accessing a consumer 's credit report without a permissible purpose is an actionable FCRA violation regardless of whether actual damages are proven. Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ), reckless disregard of permissible purpose requirements satisfies the willfulness standard, triggering statutory damages. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX ( b ) CRA Duty to Prevent Impermissible Furnishing Experian 's Independent Obligation : Experian , as a consumer reporting agency, has an independent duty under FCRA XXXX ( b ) to 'maintain reasonable procedures designed to ... limit the furnishing of consumer reports to the purposes listed under section XXXX. ' Experian 's furnishing of XXXX 's report XXXX times to mortgage entities within 13 days including twice to the same entities within days of each prior pull demonstrates that Experian failed to maintain reasonable procedures to prevent impermissible access. Experian is therefore independently liable for each furnishing that lacked a valid permissible purpose. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA liable under XXXX ( b ) for failing to maintain procedures that prevent impermissible report furnishing ) ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( CRA must verify existence of permissible purpose before furnishing report ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX Willful Violation by Each Respondent Willfulness Standard : XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ( willfulness encompasses reckless disregard of known legal requirements ). Each respondent operates in the mortgage credit reporting industry and is or should be fully aware of FCRA XXXX 's permissible purpose requirements. Pulling a consumer 's credit report twice in XXXX day ( CREDCO/UWM ) or twice within 6 days ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX new consumer-initiated transaction demonstrates reckless disregard of XXXX 's clear requirements. \nStatutory Damages Exposure : At {$100.00} {$1000.00} per willful violation, XXXX impermissible inquiries creates statutory exposure of {$600.00} {$6000.00} per respondent entity, plus punitive damages and attorney fees under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) - ( XXXX ). This does not include actual damages from XXXX XXXX suppression affecting XXXX 's mortgage rate and terms. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Unfairness Three-Prong UDAAP Unfairness Analysis : An act or practice is unfair under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( c ) if it : ( XXXX ) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury ; ( XXXX ) the injury is not reasonably avoidable; and ( XXXX ) the injury is not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or competition. \nProng XXXX XXXX XXXX : XXXX hard inquiries suppress XXXX 's XXXX score by an estimated XXXX points cumulatively. In the mortgage lending context, even a XXXX score reduction can increase the interest rate offered by 0.25 % to 0.50 %, costing Complainant thousands of dollars over the life of a loan. This is substantial, quantifiable, ongoing injury. \nProng XXXX Not Reasonably Avoidable : Complainant did not separately authorize XXXX distinct credit pulls. She initiated a mortgage application process. The proliferation of downstream XXXX each pulling independent hard inquiries is entirely outside the consumer 's control she had no opportunity to prevent or limit these pulls once the process began. \nProng XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : There is no consumer benefit to having the same credit report pulled 6 times by XXXX entities within 13 days. A single comprehensive tri-merge report serves the purpose of mortgage underwriting. The additional pulls benefit only the intermediary entities seeking current data for their internal processes, not the consumer. \nXXXX Additional Case XXXX XXXX Impermissible Purpose Cases : XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) ( permissible purpose must exist at the exact moment of access ; can not be assumed from prior authorization ) ; XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX. Ky. XXXX ) ( accessing credit report without clear permissible purpose violates XXXX regardless of industry practice ) ; XXXX XXXX Attorney XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Md. XXXX ) ( FCRA permissible purpose provisions are strictly construed ; good faith belief is insufficient if the legal standard is not met ) ; XXXX v. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( FCRA provisions protecting consumers from unauthorized access are strictly enforced ). \nV. HARM TO COMPLAINANT XXXX XXXX Suppression : XXXX hard inquiries XXXX within 13 days have artificially depressed Complainant 's XXXX score. Complainant 's current score of XXXX ( Very Good ) could have been at XXXX ( Exceptional ) without these impermissible inquiries, qualifying her for better mortgage rates and terms. \nXXXX XXXX from XXXX Mortgage XXXX : A suppressed XXXX XXXX in the mortgage application process directly results in higher interest rates. On a {$420000.00} mortgage ( as appears on XXXX 's Experian report ), even a 0.25 % rate increase resulting from score suppression adds approximately {$20000.00} {$25000.00} in interest over a XXXX loan term. This is real, quantifiable monetary harm caused by these impermissible inquiries. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Damage : All XXXX inquiries remain scheduled on XXXX 's credit report through XXXX XXXX continuing to suppress her score and misrepresent her credit-seeking activity to future creditors for over a year. \nPrivacy Violation : Each impermissible inquiry constitutes an unauthorized access to XXXX 's private financial data. The FCRA was specifically enacted to protect consumers from exactly this type of unauthorized disclosure of their credit information. See FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( Congressional findings on privacy rights in consumer credit data ). \nInability to Reasonably Avoid Harm : XXXX had no mechanism to prevent downstream mortgage XXXX from independently pulling her credit file once the application process was initiated. The harm is systemic, consumer-unfair, and directly traceable to the respondents ' disregard for XXXX 's permissible purpose requirements. \n\nActive Fraud Alert on File : My Experian credit report dated XX/XX/XXXX, confirms that an active Identity Security Alert has been placed on my file since XX/XX/XXXX ( Reference No. XXXX ), which states : 'FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS XXXX BE SUBMITTED IN MY NAME OR MY IDENTITY XXXX HAVE BEEN USED WITHOUT MY CONSENT TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN GOODS OR SERVICES. ' The presence of XXXX Illinois addresses neither of which I have ever occupied is directly consistent with identity theft activity and must be treated with heightened urgency in light of this active fraud alert. \n\nFCRA XXXX ( XXXX ) Experian Is a 'Person ' Bound by All FCRA Duties : Experian Information Solutions XXXX XXXX XXXX a corporation and therefore a 'person ' as defined under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ), which provides that 'the term person means any individual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, government or governmental subdivision or agency, or other entity. ' Under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ), this definition applies to the entire FCRA subchapter, making Experian subject to the maximum accuracy requirements of XXXX ( b ), the reinvestigation obligations of XXXX, and the civil liability provisions of XXXX and XXXX. \nDisputed Address PO BOX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, IL XXXX Nature of Entry : This is a Post Office XXXX not XXXX residential address. A P.O. Box can not be and has never been a place of residence for any individual. No human being lives at a Post Office Box. Its presence on a consumer credit report as a residential address entry is facially inaccurate as a matter of fact and law. No residential lease, mortgage, utility account, or government record in XXXX 's name has ever been associated with this P.O. Box.\n\nIdentity Theft Indicator : P.O. Boxes listed on consumer credit files as residential addresses are a well-documented hallmark of identity theft. They are used by fraudsters to receive mail, credit cards, and financial documents obtained through fraudulent applications in a victim 's name, while ensuring the victim never receives notice of the fraud at their actual address. Given Complainant 's active fraud alert, this address is consistent with ongoing identity theft activity and warrants immediate deletion and investigation. \n\nFCRA Violation : Experian 's reporting of a P.O. Box as XXXX 's residential address violates the maximum possible accuracy standard of XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ). A P.O. XXXX entry where a residential address is expected is not merely inaccurate it is a categorical impossibility as a residential address. No reasonable procedure for assuring accuracy would permit a P.O. Box to be listed as a consumer 's residential address. \nA. FCRA XXXX ( b ) Failure to Maintain Maximum Possible Accuracy Statutory Text : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( b ) requires that 'whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates. ' Violation : Experian has failed this standard in XXXX independent respects. First, a P.O. XXXX can not be a residential address any procedure that does not automatically flag and reject P.O. Box entries as residential addresses lacks the minimum reasonableness required by XXXX ( b ). Second, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has never been associated with Complainant through any document she has ever executed. Experian 's procedures failed to verify the source and authenticity of these address entries before including them in her consumer file. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA that fails to detect obvious inaccuracies violates XXXX ( b ) and can not escape liability by claiming the data came from a furnisher ). XXXX v. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( maximum accuracy standard imposes independent affirmative obligation on CRAs ; satisfaction of furnisher-supplied data does not discharge XXXX ( b ) duty ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA 's accuracy obligation is not extinguished by the fact that the incorrect data was reported by a creditor the CRA must independently verify ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA violated XXXX ( b ) by maintaining inaccurate information on consumer 's report that was clearly inconsistent with other data in the file ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) Prohibition on Obsolete and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : FCRA XXXX broadly governs the types of information consumer reporting agencies XXXX include in consumer reports. The underlying principle reinforced by XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) 's prohibition on XXXX other adverse item of information ' that antedates the report by more than XXXX years reflects XXXX XXXX intent that consumer reports contain only verified, accurate, and current information directly attributable to the consumer. Address information not associated with the consumer through any verifiable, consumer-executed document is not 'information ' that belongs in the consumer 's file at all. \nApplication : Experian maintains both disputed addresses as current, active entries in XXXX 's personal information section. Neither address has ever been verified through any document Complainant executed. The P.O. XXXX is categorically incapable of being a residential address. The XXXX XXXX XXXX address has never appeared on any lease, deed, tax return, utility account, or employment record submitted by or for XXXX. Maintaining unverified, consumer-repudiated address entries violates the spirit and letter of the FCRA 's XXXX framework. \nXXXX FCRA XXXX Mandatory Reinvestigation and Deletion Statutory Text : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) requires Experian to 'conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine whether the disputed information is inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed information, or delete the item from the file ... before the end of the XXXX period beginning on the date on which the agency receives the notice of the dispute from the consumer. ' Section XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) mandates that if 'an item of information disputed by a consumer is found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or can not be verified... the consumer reporting agency shall promptly delete that item of information from the file of the consumer. ' Can not Be Verified = Mandatory Deletion : Experian can not verify that Complainant ever resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, IL because a P.O. XXXX is not a residence and no person resides there. Experian can not verify that Complainant ever resided at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, IL because she never did, and no document in Complainant 's name supports this address. The standard under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ) is stated in the disjunctive : delete if inaccurate OR incomplete OR unverifiable. All three conditions are satisfied for both addresses. Deletion is not discretionary it is mandatory. \nXXXX Clock and Notice Requirements : The XXXX reinvestigation clock begins upon Experian 's receipt of this letter as documented by XXXX certified mail. Upon completion, Experian must notify Complainant in writing of the results under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( A ). If the addresses are deleted, Experian must provide Complainant with a free revised credit report under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ). Failure to meet any of these deadlines is itself an independent FCRA violation. \nAdditional Basis FCRA XXXX Identity Theft Block : XXXX U.S.C. XXXX requires a consumer reporting agency to block reporting of information identified by the consumer as arising from identity theft within XXXX business days of receiving : ( XXXX ) appropriate proof of identity ; ( XXXX ) a copy of an identity theft report ; ( XXXX ) the consumer 's identification of such information; and ( XXXX ) a statement that the information does not relate to any transaction by the consumer. Complainant hereby provides items ( XXXX ) and ( XXXX ) in this letter. Upon receipt of XXXX 's government-issued ID and identity theft report ( if filed ), Experian must block both addresses within XXXX business days under XXXX. \nXXXX XXXX : XXXX v. XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( CRA 's failure to delete unverifiable address information following consumer dispute is actionable under XXXX ). XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( reinvestigation must be substantive and meaningful CRA can not simply confirm that the address appears in its system ; it must verify that the consumer actually associated with the address ). XXXX v. XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX Cir. XXXX ) ( rubber-stamp reinvestigation that merely confirms existing file data without independent verification fails the XXXX standard and supports willfulness finding ). \nXXXX FCRA XXXX and XXXX Willful and Negligent Noncompliance Willful Noncompliance ( XXXX ) : Experian is XXXX of the XXXX largest consumer reporting agencies in the world with thousands of compliance employees, decades of FCRA enforcement history, and full knowledge of its legal obligations. Maintaining a P.O. XXXX as a residential address in a consumer file is not a subtle technical error it is a facially obvious impossibility that any reasonable accuracy procedure would flag automatically. Experian 's failure to have a procedure that rejects P.O. Box entries as residential addresses constitutes reckless disregard of its XXXX ( b ) obligations under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ). Statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per violation plus punitive damages are available under XXXX. \nNegligent Noncompliance ( XXXX ) : At minimum, Experian 's failure to verify both disputed addresses before including them in XXXX 's file, and its failure to detect an obviously non-residential P.O. XXXX as a residential address, constitutes negligent noncompliance. Under XXXX, Experian is liable for XXXX 's actual damages resulting from the maintenance of these false addresses, including emotional distress, time expended in dispute, reputational harm, and any credit or background check harm caused by the presence of unrecognized addresses in her file. \nXXXX XXXX XXXX Unfair and Deceptive Acts or Practices ( UDAAP ) Unfairness : Maintaining false addresses including a P.O. XXXX and an address Complainant has never occupied causes substantial harm : it creates a misleading picture of XXXX 's residential history for any employer, landlord, or creditor reviewing the report ; it XXXX trigger fraud flags by lenders who see mismatched addresses ; and it undermines the integrity of XXXX 's identity verification. The harm can not be avoided by Complainant because she has no control over what Experian maintains in her file. No countervailing benefit exists to any party from maintaining demonstrably false residential information. All three XXXX unfairness prongs are satisfied. \nDeception : A consumer report displaying a P.O. XXXX and an unoccupied Illinois residential address as part of XXXX XXXX 's personal history is materially misleading to anyone relying on the report. Lenders, employers, and landlords use address history for identity verification false addresses undermine the accuracy of that verification and XXXX cause Complainant to be misidentified, denied services, or flagged as a fraud risk based on information she never supplied and never authorized. \nIV. FORMAL DEMANDS Experian is hereby formally demanded to take ALL of the following actions within the timeframes specified : IMMEDIATE DELETION ( within XXXX business days under XXXX, or 30 days under XXXX ) : Permanently delete BOTH disputed addresses from Complainant 's Experian XXXX file : ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX IL XXXX XXXX \nWRITTEN CONFIRMATION ( within XXXX business days of deletion ) : Provide Complainant with written confirmation that both addresses have been permanently removed from her consumer file. \nREVISED CREDIT REPORT ( within XXXX business days of deletion ) : Provide Complainant with a free, updated copy of her Experian credit report reflecting the deletion of both disputed addresses, as required under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( B ) ( ii ). \nSOURCE INVESTIGATION : Identify and disclose to Complainant the furnisher ( XXXX ) who submitted or caused each disputed address to appear in her Experian file, consistent with Complainant 's right to know the source of information under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ). \nV. NOTICE OF REGULATORY COMPLAINTS AND LEGAL ACTION Please be advised that concurrent with this letter, Complainant is filing formal complaints with : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) consumerfinance.gov/complaint Federal Trade Commission XXXX FTC ) XXXX and XXXX Texas Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Illinois Attorney General XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX over Illinois addresses XXXX Failure to comply with the demands herein within the statutory timeframes will result in civil litigation under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX and XXXX seeking : ( a ) actual damages for all harm caused by the maintenance of false address information ; ( b ) statutory damages of {$100.00} {$1000.00} per willful violation ; ( c ) punitive damages ; and ( d ) attorney fees and costs. The maintenance of a P.O. XXXX as a residential address a facially impossible entry supports a strong willfulness finding under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), as the impossibility of a P.O. XXXX as a residence should have been detected by any reasonable accuracy procedure.","date_sent_to_company":"2026-03-01T05:08:05.000Z","issue":"Improper use of your report","sub_product":"Credit reporting","zip_code":"604XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"19876262","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","date_received":"2026-03-01T04:47:16.000Z","state":"IL","company_public_response":"Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response","sub_issue":"Reporting company used your report improperly"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Privacy Violation : Each impermissible inquiry constitutes an <em>unauthorized</em> access to XXXX 's private financial data. The FCRA was specifically enacted to protect consumers from exactly this type of <em>unauthorized</em> disclosure of their credit information. See FCRA XXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( Congressional findings on privacy rights in consumer credit data )."]},"sort":[6.325849,"19876262"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"6296648","_score":6.3194585,"_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":["When the duty does arise, it can be <em>discharged</em> simply by refraining from <em>executing</em> 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."]},"sort":[6.3194585,"6296648"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"10654745","_score":4.544917,"_source":{"product":"Checking or savings account","complaint_what_happened":"First Merchants Bank XXXX : XXXX Background : Events Surrounding Account Closure : XXXX filed IRS Form 1099-A in anticipation of a deposit intended for his irrevocable trust account. In this filing, he designated First Merchants mailing address as the debtor, with the U.S. Treasury identified as the creditor, to notify the bank of the forthcoming deposit. The intent of this form was not to impose liability on First Merchants but rather to secure the deposit for the trust. The Department of the U.S. Treasury/IRS accepted the e-filed 1099-A and mailed the original acknowledgment for record to First Merchants mailing address.\n\nDiscriminatory Remarks : First Merchants initiated contact with XXXX, requesting his presence at their office for an in-person meeting with Branch XXXX XXXX. During this meeting, XXXX and XXXX convened in her office and placed a call to XXXX XXXX, the Chief Compliance Officer of First Merchants. During a phone call with Branch XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, First Merchants representative, XXXX initially assured that the account would remain open. However, upon inquiring about the rationale for filing the 1099-A and questioning, What makes you think the government owes you money?, Brians demeanor changed after XXXX clarified XXXX status as a secured creditor and clarified his reasoning. Subsequently, XXXX indicated that the account would be closed, citing legal reasons without providing further details. \nFurther Attempts to Resolve the Issue : XXXX later contacted XXXX directly via phone with a witness present on a recorded line, seeking clarification on the closure rationale. XXXX refused to provide clarification and made a prejudicial remark questioning whether XXXX identified as a sovereign citizen. When XXXX asserted that this was irrelevant, XXXX dismissively suggested he should file a complaint if dissatisfied. \nInvoluntary Account Closure and Financial Harm : The abrupt closure of XXXX account and his prohibition from future banking services with First Merchants has resulted in significant financial hardship, impacting his ability to conduct transactions, causing emotional distress, and limiting access to essential credit services. \n\nAllegations of Discrimination and Legal Basis : Discriminatory Assumption of Sovereign Citizen Status : XXXX XXXX assumption regarding XXXX sovereign citizen status stemmed from financial terminology commonly utilized by secured creditors and financial instruments under the XXXX. This presumption led to XXXX unjust exclusion from banking services, indicating a discriminatory bias against customers managing assets and liabilities through secured creditor protocols. Such denial of service contravenes principles of equal treatment and may violate banking discrimination laws under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ), which prohibits discrimination based on arbitrary characteristics.\n\nLack of Probable Cause for Account Closure : The closure of XXXX account lacked probable cause. The notification via the XXXX was a procedural measure for trust funding and imposed no liability on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX legal utilization of financial instruments and UCC filings is safeguarded under Michigan state and federal UCC regulations, which protect lawful notifications and creditor filings in relation to secured interests. \nRefusal to Provide Reasoning or Proper Due Process : Despite XXXX inquiries, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX failed to provide a clear rationale or justification for the account closure. This absence of transparency, coupled with discriminatory remarks, denied XXXX procedural fairness. Under the ECOA and federal banking regulations, financial institutions are mandated to provide non-discriminatory services and furnish clear, valid justifications for denying or terminating banking services.\n\nImpact on Livelihood and Access to Financial Services : The account closure and subsequent ban have severely hindered XXXX ability to manage his financial obligations and livelihood. Denial of banking access based on unfounded and prejudicial assumptions, devoid of legitimate cause, infringes upon his right to engage in banking and commerce, causing substantial detriment to his creditworthiness and future transactions. \n\nVicarious Liability and Request for Financial Accountability : Vicarious Liability of First Merchants Bank : First Merchants Bank, through the actions of its employee XXXX XXXX, exhibited discriminatory conduct based on assumptions regarding XXXX financial protocols and status. This behavior represents a breach of equitable service standards and necessitates accountability for the resultant harm. \nXXXX and XXXX Signature Liability : Ruths Medallion Signature Guarantee on Form XXXX, along with the XXXX banking obligations, entitles XXXX to claim damages under the XXXX amount as delineated in applicable XXXX regulations. The obstructive actions taken by XXXX XXXX in impeding account access, disrupting financial transactions, and causing emotional and economic harm warrant compensation. \n\n1. Color of Law Violations Definition of Color of Law : The term \" color of law '' pertains to actions executed by government officials that appear to be carried out under legal authority. When public officials or private entities act in a manner that implies they are exercising official powers but are infringing upon rights or acting unlawfully, they may be held accountable for color of law violations. \nBrians Actions : If XXXX XXXX, as a bank representative, made determinations regarding XXXX 's accounts based on assumptions about his status as a sovereign citizen, he may be acting under the color of law, particularly if he is a state actor or if his actions are closely aligned with the enforcement of government policies. \nBy denying XXXX access to banking services based on his national status, XXXX could be infringing upon XXXX 's rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides a remedy for individuals whose rights have been violated under color of law.\n\n2. Denial of Rights to be a National National vs. Citizen : U.S. law distinguishes between nationals and citizens. Under federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. 1101 ( a ) ( 22 ), a national of the United States who is not a citizen retains certain rights and privileges, albeit limited compared to those of citizens. Under current law all U.S. citizens are also U.S. nationals, but not all U.S. nationals are U.S. citizens. \nBy presuming that XXXX could not be a national due to a misunderstanding of legal terminology, XXXX XXXX have violated XXXX rights to recognize and exercise his status as a National. This assumption led to a denial of services, which can be construed as a violation of rights protected under federal statutes.\n\n3. Emotional Distress and Injury Claims Emotional Distress : Emotional distress claims may arise from Brians actions if deemed extreme or outrageous. The psychological impact of being mischaracterized and denied access to services can result in significant emotional distress, justifying legal action.\n\n4. Gift Claims Potential Claims Regarding Gifts : Under federal law, specifically the Gift Tax Regulations, provisions exist for gifts made to individuals, including stipulations about their value and implications. If the bank 's actions indirectly led to the denial of financial gifts or support to XXXX, he might contend that he was deprived of potential financial benefits due to discriminatory practices. \nMoreover, the XXXX XXXX XXXX defines gifts as transfers of property wherein the donor does not receive full value in return. If XXXX 's actions obstructed XXXX from receiving gifts ( financial assistance, loans, etc. ), this could infringe upon his rights to financial autonomy and support, potentially giving rise to additional claims under the Gift Tax provisions. \nA Customer Identification Program ( CIP ) ( 31 U.S.C. 5318 ( l ) ) Requirement : Financial institutions are required to implement a Customer Identification Program to verify the identity of customers when opening accounts. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX failed to ensure that XXXX XXXX adhered to its CIP requirements, such as not properly verifying the identities of new customers or failing to maintain adequate records, this could be considered a violation. \nB. Recordkeeping Requirements ( 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq. ) Requirement : The XXXX mandates specific recordkeeping practices related to financial transactions, including maintaining records of certain transactions and customer information. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX neglected to maintain proper records of transactions as required by the XXXX, or if records were improperly destroyed or altered, this would constitute a violation. \nXXXX Confidentiality Requirements ( 31 U.S.C. 5318 ( g ) ( 2 ) ) Requirement : The XXXX prohibits disclosing the fact that a XXXX has been filed or that a financial institution is considering filing XXXX. This confidentiality requirement is crucial to ensure investigations are not compromised. \nPotential Violation : If XXXX disclosed information regarding a SAR to unauthorized parties, including customers involved in the reported transaction, this could lead to serious legal repercussions. \nQuestions Regarding Account Closure and Discriminatory Actions Account Closure Justification : What specific legal reasons did you provide to XXXX for the closure of his account? Can you detail the rationale behind these reasons? \nDocumentation Review : Are there any internal documents or communications that justify the decision to close XXXX account? Can these documents be made available for review? \nDiscriminatory Remarks : Why did you make a prejudicial remark questioning XXXX 's identification as a sovereign citizen? What criteria do you use to evaluate customers ' financial statuses and needs? How do you justify this in light of non-discriminatory practices required by federal law? \nImpact of 1099-A Filing : How did XXXX filing XXXXf IRS Form 1099-A influence your decision-making process regarding his account? Was there a specific bank policy that prompted the closure? \nQuestions Related to Insurance Claims Insurance Claims on Account : Were any insurance claims filed regarding Soteros account before its closure? If so, what were the reasons for these claims?\n\nClaim Handling Procedures : What procedures does First Merchants have in place for handling claims related to customer accounts? Were these procedures followed in XXXX case? \nAudit of Claims : Can you provide a record of any insurance claims made on XXXX 's account and the outcomes of those claims? Were there any claims denied, and if so, what was the basis for those denials? \nRelevance of Claims to Account XXXX : How did any existing insurance claims influence your decision to close XXXX account? Was the account closure linked to perceived risks associated with those claims? \nQuestions About Compliance and Reporting Compliance with Regulations : Did you consult with compliance officers or legal counsel regarding the decision to close Soteros account, especially in light of the 1099-A filing? What guidance did they provide? \nSEC Reporting Obligations : Are you aware of any obligations First Merchants Bank had to report any issues related to XXXX account to the SEC or other regulatory agencies? Were those obligations fulfilled? \nRecordkeeping Compliance : Can you provide evidence that First Merchants Bank maintained proper records of all transactions and insurance claims associated with XXXX 's account, as required under federal law? \nConfidentiality of Claims : Were there any confidentiality violations related to the disclosure of information regarding any claims made on XXXX 's account? If so, what measures are in place to protect customer information? \nQuestions Regarding Accountability Accountability for Actions : Who within First Merchants Bank is responsible for overseeing the handling of customer accounts and ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws? What accountability measures are in place for employees like yourself? \nRemediation Process : What steps are you willing to take to address the harm caused to XXXX as a result of the account closure and potential mishandling of insurance claims? \nReview of Discriminatory Practices : What actions will First Merchants Bank take to review and potentially rectify any discriminatory practices within the organization, particularly those exhibited in XXXX case? \n\n\nTo elucidate how XXXX 's claim for compensation against First Merchants Bank is substantiated and valid for an order to pay, we must analyze the relevant legal frameworks, particularly 31 U.S. Code 3701 and associated regulations, as follows : 1. Understanding 31 U.S. Code 3701 ( Defining \" Claim '' ) Under 31 U.S. Code 3701, the term \" claim '' encompasses any sum of money or property owed to the United States, or any obligation that the United States is liable to pay. Specifically, subsection ( 1 ) articulates : \" The term 'claim ' means any claim of the United States against a person, or of a person against the United States XXXX for the payment of money or for the delivery of property. '' In the context of XXXX situation, this definition supports the assertion that federal funds may be implicated in addressing claims against entities such as First Merchants Bank. The U.S. government may be obligated to intervene when losses arise due to actions taken by financial institutions, which can include compensation for individuals like XXXX. \nXXXX. Validity of XXXX 's Claim for Compensation Soteros claim for compensation can be characterized as a legitimate legal demand for financial restitution, predicated upon alleged wrongful conduct by First Merchants Bank, including discrimination and wrongful account closure. The validity of this claim is bolstered by the following components : Claim Recognition : By instituting a formal claim, XXXX establishes a legally recognized basis for restitution. This claim aligns with the statutory framework set forth in 31 U.S.C. 3701, recognizing that claims against financial institutions create debts owed to individuals under federal law. \nObligation for Payment : Should the claim be substantiated with appropriate evidence, First Merchants Bank could be legally bound to fulfill it. The U.S. Treasury may facilitate this payment, especially in circumstances where federal programs exist to support such claims.\n\n3. Payment Processing Under 31 CFR Part 240 31 CFR Part 240 outlines the endorsement and payment of checks drawn on the U.S. Treasury, playing a pivotal role in processing claims related to federal funds. The following provisions are relevant : Check Indorsement : The regulation mandates that checks be properly endorsed to ensure lawful processing and issuance of payments. If XXXX 's claim is validated, the bank would be required to complete necessary endorsements and forms, including Form 240, to facilitate payment.\n\nUtilization of Treasury Forms : The forms 232, 233, and 234 address specific aspects of claims and payments : Form 232 : Generally used for claims concerning lost or stolen Treasury checks.\n\nForm 233 : Addresses claims for payment due to wrongful denial or delays.\n\nForm 234 : Pertains to other relevant transactions to guarantee the proper tracking of payments.\n\nThese forms are essential for the Treasury to accurately process any claims for funds potentially owed as a result of First Merchants actions.\n\n4. 18 U.S.C. 8 - Definition of Obligation or Other Security of the U.S.\n\n18 U.S.C. 8 defines \" obligation or other security of the United States '' as any instrument evidencing a promise to pay money issued by the federal government. The relevance of this provision to XXXX 's claim is as follows : Legal Foundation for Claims : If XXXX claim is corroborated, it XXXX be construed as a claim on an obligation or security issued by the XXXX, particularly if it seeks damages in relation to federal statutes. \nPayment from U.S. Treasury : Should funds be deemed necessary to satisfy the claim, they can be processed as payments against obligations owed by the U.S. to its citizens. This reinforces the mechanism for First Merchants Bank to remit payment through established Treasury channels.\n\nConclusion By comprehensively understanding how 31 U.S. Code 3701 and related regulations, such as 31 CFR Part 240, apply to his claim, Sotero can effectively position his demand within a legal framework that facilitates compensation through federal processes. Once a validated claim is established, First Merchants Bank may find it straightforward to discharge its financial obligations to XXXX, potentially alleviating liability through payments processed via the XXXX Treasury in compliance with federal regulations. This establishes a clear pathway for XXXX to secure compensation for his losses while adhering to the legal standards governing claims and payments. \n\nTo assert the validity of XXXX claim, particularly regarding the U.S. Treasury 's designation as a debtor in his UCC filing, and XXXX 's position as a creditor holding collateral for all future debts in trust, it is imperative to analyze the relevant principles of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) in conjunction with applicable Michigan and U.S. laws. This analysis remains valid despite the U.S. Treasurys failure to respond within thirty days from the filing. Below is a structured explanation framed in legal terminology.\n\n1. UCC Framework and Definitions The Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) serves as a foundational legal framework governing commercial transactions across the United States. Key components relevant to XXXX 's situation include : Debtor and Creditor Roles : The UCC defines a debtor as a party obligated to repay a financial claim. In this context, the U.S. Treasury is identified as the debtor, indicating a legal responsibility to address any claims asserted by XXXX, the creditor. The creditor is recognized as holding a superior interest in the collateral. \nCollateral for Future Debt : Under UCC 9-204, a secured transaction allows a creditor to establish a security interest in collateral that secures both existing and future debts. This provision is critical, as it enables XXXX to leverage his claim against the Treasury for both current and prospective obligations that may arise. \nXXXX. Collateralization of Claims XXXX 's XXXX filing fortifies his status as a creditor through the following elements : Identification of Collateral : By naming the U.S. Treasury as a debtor in the UCC filing, XXXX has established a security interest in collateral that may cover claims for compensation related to financial losses incurred due to First Merchants Banks actions. This collateralization is essential, as it provides a tangible basis for asserting claims against the Treasury.\n\nTrust Arrangement : The assertion that XXXX holds collateral in trust further enhances the legitimacy of his claim. Trust structures indicate that assets or collateral are managed for the benefit of the creditor, thereby solidifying XXXX legal standing and ensuring protection of his interests. \nXXXX. Applicability to Future Debts The UCC provisions ensure that XXXX claims extend beyond past obligations : Coverage of Future Claims : UCC 9-204 ( 2 ) permits a creditor to secure future claims. Consequently, XXXX claim can encompass both historical losses and potential future debts, affirming its validity under UCC provisions. Any obligations the U.S. Treasury incurs in the future could be satisfied using the collateral designated in the UCC filing.\n\nContinuing Security Interest : The security interest established is continuous, allowing XXXX to assert claims arising from ongoing or future transactions without the necessity of re-establishing his claim for each new obligation. \n4. Implications for Claim Against First Merchants Bank The legal framework arising from the UCC filing confers several advantages to XXXX in pursuing compensation : Substantiation of Claim : Identifying the U.S. Treasury as a debtor in his UCC filing substantiates XXXX 's claim for compensation against First Merchants Bank. This documentation serves as credible evidence of the Treasurys obligation to fulfill claims arising from the financial losses he sustained. \nFacilitation of Payment : The identification of the Treasury as a debtor streamlines the payment process. Upon validation of XXXX 's claim, First Merchants Bank may more readily comply, as payments can be processed through the Treasury, consistent with the pre-established security interest under UCC regulations.\n\n5. Legal Considerations of Non-Response Under UCC 9-404, the lack of response from the U.S. Treasury within the statutory period of thirty days does not invalidate XXXX security interest or claims. The UCC protects the rights of secured parties, allowing them to assert their claims irrespective of a debtor 's response. Additionally, under Michigan law ( MCL 440.9501 et seq. ), the effectiveness of a security interest is not contingent upon acknowledgment by the debtor. \nConclusion In conclusion, XXXX XXXX filing, which identifies the U.S. Treasury as a debtor while establishing his role as a creditor with collateral for both present and future debts, forms a robust legal foundation for his claims. This arrangement facilitates the assertion of his rights under the UCC and applicable Michigan laws, enabling him to seek compensation for past losses and any future obligations that may arise. The interplay of these legal concepts not only solidifies the validity of XXXX claim against First Merchants Bank but also enhances the prospects for successful resolution and payment through the established legal channels. \n\nFifth Amendment : Due Process Clause : This clause guarantees that individuals can not be deprived of their property without due process of law. XXXX 's account closure without a clear and justifiable reason may constitute a violation of this right.\n\nFourteenth Amendment : Equal Protection Clause : This clause prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. If XXXX was discriminated against based on assumptions about his status as a \" sovereign citizen, '' this could represent a violation of his right to equal protection under the law. \nSubstantive Due Process : This protects against arbitrary denial of fundamental rights, suggesting that any financial institution, as a state actor, must respect individuals ' rights to engage in lawful financial transactions. \nCivil Rights Act of 1964 ( particularly Title II and Title VII ) : These provisions prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in public accommodations and employment. While these are not constitutional provisions, they extend protections that could apply in cases of financial services discrimination.\n\n42 U.S.C. 1983 : This statute allows individuals to sue in civil court for constitutional violations committed by state actors. If First Merchants Bank is considered a state actor through its actions, XXXX might claim violations of his constitutional rights under this statute. \nEqual Credit Opportunity Act ( ECOA ) : While not a constitutional law, the ECOA prohibits discrimination in any aspect of a credit transaction based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because the applicant receives public assistance. If XXXX was denied banking services based on discriminatory assumptions, this statute may provide grounds for legal action.\n\nFirst Amendment : Freedom of Speech : If XXXX characterization or the remarks made during the banks interactions are construed as retaliation against his speech regarding financial protocols or legal status, it XXXX invoke protections under the First Amendment.\n\nFourth Amendment : Protection against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures : This amendment may apply if the actions taken by the bank are seen as an unwarranted intrusion into XXXX XXXX affairs without probable cause or justification. \n\n\nRequested Action : Reinstatement of Banking Services : Restore XXXX access to First Merchants accounts or authorize alternative options, accompanied by an apology for the biased conduct exhibited by XXXX XXXX. \nRelease of Bond for Damages : Initiate bond releases or payments to compensate for punitive damages arising from discriminatory treatment, financial impediments, and reputational harm. Evaluate the full surety amount of the Medallion Guarantee as documented on Form 5444 and compensate for related punitive damages.\n\nProvide Transparency and Reasoning : Require First Merchants to furnish detailed reasoning for the account closure, including an audit of any insurance or securities claims made on the account and full disclosure of the legal grounds cited.\n\nThis complaint articulates allegations of financial discrimination, unjust denial of services, and seeks remedies for the economic and emotional distress caused by the actions of First Merchants Bank. Compliance with applicable federal and Michigan laws governing financial services and the fair treatment of secured creditors is anticipated.","date_sent_to_company":"2024-11-01T21:15:11.000Z","issue":"Closing an account","sub_product":"Checking account","zip_code":"482XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"10654745","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","date_received":"2024-11-01T20:55:48.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":"Company closed your account"},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Code 3701 and related regulations, such as 31 CFR Part 240, apply to his claim, Sotero can effectively position his demand within a legal framework that facilitates compensation through federal <em>processes</em>. Once a validated claim is established, First Merchants Bank may find it straightforward to <em>discharge</em> its financial obligations to XXXX, potentially alleviating liability through payments <em>processed</em> via the XXXX Treasury in compliance with federal regulations."]},"sort":[4.544917,"10654745"]},{"_index":"complaint-public-v1","_id":"15971197","_score":3.1881075,"_source":{"product":"Debt or credit management","complaint_what_happened":"Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ). \nIm XXXX XXXX. Nelnet has delayed and obstructed basic servicing on my federal student loansincluding providing a full account history, written explanations, and timely answers. Nelnet demanded sensitive PII by email to verify but failed to proceed meaningfully after I responded, and I still dont have a complete accounting, status clarity, or assurance of accurate credit reporting. Im requesting : ( 1 ) a complete account reconstruction ( all loans, balances, interest, capitalization, payment allocation ), ( 2 ) confirmation of current repayment status and any forbearance/deferment or IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correction/removal of any inaccurate credit reporting, and ( 4 ) a secure channel and single point of contact. ED is the creditor and ultimately responsible for servicer compliance. Please compel Nelnet/ED to provide records, correct errors, and confirm compliance. \n\n\n-- - 2 ) Full Narrative ( detailed ) Who I am & accounts : I am XXXX XXXX, borrower on federal student loans owned by the U.S. Department of Education and serviced by Nelnet. I contacted Nelnet to obtain a complete, written accounting of my loans and to resolve servicing questions ( status, balances, capitalization, payment allocation, and any credit reporting ). \n\nWhat happened : Nelnet replied requesting SSN/account/DOB for privacy verification, directing me to email XXXX. I understand privacy verification is required ; however, after supplying the requested details through their process/portal ( or offering to use a secure channel ), I have not received the complete, itemized account history or timely, substantive answers. \n\nI still lack : A full transaction ledger ( origination, disbursements, consolidations if any, payment history, interest accrual by date/rate, capitalization events, current principal/interest breakdown ). \n\nA clear statement of current status ( in repayment, deferment/forbearance, or administrative hold ) and the legal basis and dates for any status changes. \n\nWritten confirmation of IDR/PSLF eligibility or why those options are not being applied ( if applicable ). \n\nAssurance that credit reporting ( if any ) is accurate and up to date and that no adverse data was furnished while my requests were pending. \n\n\nBottom line : I have repeatedly asked for timely, accurate, and complete information about my federal loans, and Nelnet has not provided a compliant response or the full documentation needed to verify accuracy. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : Federal student-loan servicers must provide timely and accurate information, maintain complete records, and respond to borrower inquiries with clear, written explanations and supporting documents. \n\nIf any information was furnished to consumer reporting agencies, the FCRA requires accuracy and prompt correction of disputed information. \n\nAs EDs contracted servicer, Nelnets failures ultimately reflect on ED ; consumers should not be bounced between entities. \n\n\nHarm : Ongoing uncertainty about balances and status ; risk of misapplied payments or improper capitalization ; potential credit harm if inaccurate data was reported ; and time and effort chasing basic records. I need a complete, authoritative accounting and corrections where applicable. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief ( be explicit ) I request that the CFPB require Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce a complete account reconstruction ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) showing, for each loan : origination/disbursement, interest rates by period, daily interest accrual, capitalization events ( date/amount/cause ), payment allocation by date ( to principal/interest/fees ), current principal vs. interest, outstanding balance, and current repayment status. \n\n\n2. Provide written explanations for any deferment/forbearance/administrative holds ( with start/end dates and authority ) and confirm current repayment plan.\n\n3. Review and document IDR eligibility ( and PSLF, if applicable ), identify the best available plan, and implement it upon my election, with back-dated corrections if I was improperly steered or delayed.\n\n4. Audit and correct any credit reporting tied to these loans ; delete or adjust any inaccurate late/missed payment entries ; and furnish me written proof of all changes sent to CRAs.\n\n5. Provide a secure communications channel ( portal or encrypted method ) and assign a single point of contact with direct phone/email to resolve open items.\n\n6. Confirm all fees/charges assessed are lawful and reverse any improper amounts ; provide a waiver/credit if delays or errors were on the servicers side.\n\n7. Deliver all requested records within 30 days and a final, plain-English summary confirming that my account is accurate and in the correct status going forward.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections ( what to pick ) Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Trouble with how the loan is being serviced ( e.g., Incorrect information on account / Trouble getting information / Problems when you asked to get help ) pick the closest available options Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor/owner in narrative : U.S. Department of Education Resolution sought : Records production ; corrected accounting ; corrected credit reporting ; clear status/plan ; secure contact ; reversal of improper charges Submitter : I am the consumer Consent to share with company : Yes ( to enable Nelnet/ED to respond ) -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist ( attach what you can ) Nelnets email asking for verification and your reply/submission ( screenshots or XXXX ) Any Nelnet statements/letters/secure messages showing status, balances, rates, or plan Any credit report pages showing tradelines/late marks related to these loans A timeline of your contacts ( dates you wrote/called ; what you asked for ; what they sent or failed to send ) Your IDR/PSLF inquiries ( if applicable ) and any confirmations/denials Any proof of payment misapplication or unexplained capitalization Your contact info ( entered only in the portal fields ) -- - 6 ) One-paragraph version ( if the form forces brevity ) Nelnet ( for U.S. Dept. of Education ) has not provided a complete, timely accounting of my federal student loans despite multiple requests. I still lack a full transaction history, capitalization details, payment allocation, and clear current status/plan. I also need confirmation/correction of any credit reporting. Please compel Nelnet/ED to ( 1 ) provide a full account reconstruction ( XXXX  ), ( 2 ) explain any forbearance/holds and confirm my current plan/IDR eligibility, ( 3 ) correct any inaccurate credit reporting and confirm updates to CRAs, ( 4 ) reverse any improper charges, and ( 5 ) assign a secure channel and single point of contact. I want a final, clear summary within 30 days confirming my accounts are accurate and in the correct status. \n\n\nCompany : Nelnet ( servicer ) for the U.S. Department of Education. \nI am XXXX XXXX. Federal student loans were fraudulently taken out in 2009 without my consent. I have disputed this repeatedly with Nelnet and other parties for years, yet Nelnet continues to treat me as liable and allows interest to accumulate. Despite my requests, I have not received a full account reconstruction, documentation proving my consent, or correction of records. This debt is not legally mine. I request : ( 1 ) proof of consent or promissory notes, ( 2 ) immediate release of liability, ( 3 ) removal of all adverse credit reporting, and ( 4 ) refund/waiver of all amounts falsely charged. \n\n\n-- - XXXX ) Full Narrative Who I am : I am XXXX XXXX, listed as a borrower on federal student loans serviced by Nelnet on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education ( ED ).\n\nWhat happened : Student loans were taken out in XXXX without my knowledge or consent. I did not sign the Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) or authorize disbursement. I have raised this dispute with Nelnet and other third parties for years. \n\nDespite repeated complaints, Nelnet continues to treat me as legally liable, allowing interest to accumulate for over a decade on loans that were not lawfully originated. \n\nNelnet has not provided copies of signed notes, disbursement authorizations, or other documentary proof tying me to the loans. \n\nInstead, I receive form letters demanding repayment or directing me into repayment plans, which presuppose liability that I dispute. \n\nThis has caused long-term financial harm, damaged my credit, and created barriers to my career and candidacy for public office. \n\n\nWhy this is a problem : No lender or servicer may lawfully collect on a debt without proof of consent. \n\nUnder the Higher Education Act and ED servicing contracts, Nelnet is required to maintain and provide loan origination documents ( e.g., signed MPN ).\n\nContinuing to assess and capitalize interest on loans taken without consent violates basic contract principles, as well as consumer protection law. \n\nIf credit reporting has occurred, this may also violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ( FCRA ). \n\nI have a right under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) ( if applicable ) to request verification and to not be held liable for debts I did not incur. \n\n\nHarm suffered : More than a decade of accrued, compounding interest on a fraudulent debt. \n\nCredit damage from adverse tradelines. \n\nRepeated stress, wasted time, and financial barriers from a debt I do not legally owe. \n\n\n\n-- - 3 ) Requested Relief I request that the CFPB compel Nelnet and ED to : 1. Produce original signed documentation ( Master Promissory Note, disbursement records, consent forms ). If no such documents exist, immediately acknowledge the loans were not authorized.\n\n2. Release me from all liability and update all records accordingly.\n\n3. Cease interest accrual and remove all accumulated amounts tied to these unauthorized loans.\n\n4. Correct credit reporting delete all tradelines and adverse marks tied to these fraudulent loans.\n\n5. Refund or credit any amounts collected based on this debt.\n\n6. Provide a written statement from ED confirming that I am not legally responsible for these loans.\n\n7. Establish a secure communications channel and assign a single point of contact to resolve this matter.\n\n-- - 4 ) CFPB Form Selections Product : Student loan Loan type : Federal student loan Issue : Loan was taken out without my consent / incorrect information on account / problems with dispute resolution Company : Nelnet ( servicer ) Mention creditor : U.S. Department of Education ( ED ) Resolution sought : Release of liability, deletion of tradelines, refund/waiver of all amounts, proof of origination documents Submitter : I am the consumer -- - 5 ) Evidence Checklist Copies of all prior disputes you sent to Nelnet/ED. \n\nAny Nelnet responses ( especially form letters that ignore your liability dispute ). \n\nCredit report showing adverse tradelines tied to these loans. \n\nDocumentation showing lack of consent ( no signed MPN, no disbursement authorization ). \n\nA timeline of your disputes ( XXXX ). \n\nCourses of Action ( XXXX ) A. Loan Origination & Consent Verification ( XXXX ) 1. Produce the original Master Promissory Note ( MPN ) signed in XXXX ( if any ). \n\n\n2. Provide a copy of any consent form authorizing disbursements from that year.\n\n3. Identify the disbursing institution and verify whether it followed required ED procedures.\n\n4. Verify my identity was confirmed when the loan was originated.\n\n5. Provide all records of communication in 2009 related to the loan origination.\n\n6. Produce any affidavits or declarations attesting that I consented.\n\n7. Provide documentation of loan counseling ( if required ) that I allegedly received.\n\n8. Show evidence of how the lender verified that the address and SSN were correct.\n\n9. Produce a signature sample comparison ( if signature exists ).\n\n10. Identify any witnesses to the signing or issuance of the loan.\n\n11. Provide copies of all notices required by law at origination ( e.g., borrower rights, repayment options ).\n\n12. Show whether any power of attorney or guardianship was used.\n\n13. Provide copies of all disbursement schedules tied to the loans.\n\n14. Provide all promissory note amendments or consolidations.\n\n15. Identify any consolidation loans into which these loans may have been rolled.\n\n16. Provide a timeline of all disbursements, interest accrual, and capitalization events.\n\n17. Confirm whether the origination complied with HEA ( Higher Education Act ) requirements.\n\n18. Provide any state law disclosures required in 2009.\n\n19. Prove chain of title if the loan was sold or transferred.\n\n20. Confirm no fraudulent signatures or identity theft investigations were performed.\n\nB. Full Account Reconstruction ( XXXX ) XXXX. Produce a detailed transaction ledger from 2009 to present. \n\n\n22. Show interest rates in effect over time, by period.\n\n23. Record all payments madeprincipal, interest, feeswith date allocation.\n\n24. Show all capitalization events ( when interest was added to principal ), with dates and amounts.\n\n25. Provide an amortization schedule or calculation.\n\n26. Compute daily interest accrual.\n\n27. Provide calculations showing what I would have owed if no interest accrued ( hypothetical ).\n\n28. Show what my balance would be under each possible repayment plan.\n\n29. Provide all notices of delinquency or default sent to me.\n\n30. Show any subsidies or deferments applied.\n\n31. Provide records of any forbearance or suspension.\n\n32. Provide records of any administrative holds.\n\n33. Provide records of any refund or credit.\n\n34. Provide statements/emails showing required disclosure of fees.\n\n35. Provide all correspondence about loan status.\n\n36. Provide breakdown of fees charged ( origination, late, default, collection ).\n\n37. Provide payment allocation method used ( toward interest vs. principal ).\n\n38. Provide proof of proper disclosures under federal law.\n\n39. Provide my current balance : principal, interest, fees, capitalized amounts.\n\n40. Show whether any payments were misapplied.\n\n41. Provide reconciliation between what I paid vs. what the account shows.\n\n42. Provide monthly statements or notices ( if required ).\n\n43. Provide notices of rights under IDR/PSLF ( if required ).\n\n44. Provide past payment plan documents.\n\n45. Show how extra payments ( if any ) were credited.\n\n46. Provide records of current repayment status.\n\n47. Provide notice of any late fees or penalties and their basis.\n\n48. Provide proof of mailing ( or electronic delivery ) of all required statements.\n\n49. Provide disclosures of default rights.\n\n50. Provide proof that I was notified of all required rights ( e.g., deferment, loan forgiveness programs ).\n\nC. Credit Reporting & FCRA Compliance ( XXXX ) 51. Confirm whether any negative reporting to credit bureaus occurred.\n\n52. If yes, provide which bureau ( s ), which tradelines, on what dates.\n\n53. Remove or correct any adverse tradelines resulting from unauthorized/incorrect debt.\n\n54. Send proof to bureaus that corrections were made.\n\n55. Provide copies of all credit bureau reports in which my loans appear.\n\n56. Provide all furnisher documentation ( information provided to bureaus ).\n\n57. Confirm whether you reported interest that accrued illegally.\n\n58. Provide written confirmation of what was sent in dispute letters.\n\n59. Provide correspondence with credit bureaus about dispute.\n\n60. Provide any credit repair or remediation undertaken.\n\n61. Confirm that no further reporting will occur until this is resolved.\n\n62. Provide credit reporting history from 2009 forward.\n\n63. Provide any automated adverse action notices sent due to reporting.\n\n64. Provide whether any collections agency was involved in reporting.\n\n65. Provide records of any fees or collections forwarded to agencies.\n\n66. Provide dispute escalation logs for credit reporting.\n\n67. Provide records of any fees for credit report copies.\n\n68. Provide sample translated notices if non-English required.\n\n69. Provide documentation showing compliance with FCRA 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2.\n\n70. Provide policy for how Nelnet corrects furnishing errors.\n\nD. Communication, Dispute Process & Customer Access ( 71-95 ) 71. Provide secure means of communication ( portal/email ) documented.\n\n72. Assign a single individual as point of contact for my case.\n\n73. Provide transcripts or logs of phone calls related to my disputes.\n\n74. Provide email threads or message records.\n\n75. Provide dates when I made requests and Nelnets responses.\n\n76. Provide notice log showing when and how notices were delivered.\n\n77. Provide content of any written denials or explanations.\n\n78. Provide policy for turnaround time on borrower dispute requests.\n\n79. Provide whether Nelnet offered IDR or PSLF options.\n\n80. Provide written delivery receipts of bills or notices.\n\n81. Provide sample notices used for late or missed payments.\n\n82. Provide audit log of who accessed my customer profile.\n\n83. Provide security/privacy notifications sent to me.\n\n84. Provide customer complaint history related to similar origin-of-loan issues.\n\n85. Provide documentation of Nelnets escalations and internal reviews.\n\n86. Provide disclosures required under HEA/TEACHING regulations.\n\n87. Provide documentation of required annual notices.\n\n88. Provide records of default collection attempts.\n\n89. Provide records of student loan servicing oversight audits.\n\n90. Provide data on how many borrowers disputed origin-of-loan claims and resolution rates.\n\n91. Provide policy copies about debt collection communication frequency.\n\n92. Provide transcripts or recordings of any in-person meetings ( if applicable ).\n\n93. Provide disclosure of any internal investigation into identity theft/fraud regarding my account.\n\n94. Provide notice of rights under FDCPA ( if applicable ).\n\n95. Provide customer service scripts or guidelines used when denying origin consent.\n\nE. Regulatory, Legal & Policy Compliance ( 96-125 ) 96. Confirm compliance with ED servicing agreement obligations.\n\n97. Provide EDs oversight reports for Nelnets performance.\n\n98. Provide audit or compliance reviews by ED documenting issues.\n\n99. Provide copies of any FSA Ombudsman determinations relating to my loans.\n\n100. Provide all applicable federal statutes e.g., HEA, Title IV, 34 CFR 685 etc.\n\n101. Provide your policy for proving identity theft or fraudulent origin.\n\n102. Provide legal opinions you relied on for insisting on liability.\n\n103. Confirm compliance with statute of limitations where applicable.\n\n104. Provide policies on retention/destruction of origination records.\n\n105. Provide your internal legal analyses of borrowers disputing origin.\n\n106. Provide your attorneys interpretations of arbitration / dispute clauses.\n\n107. Provide documentation you rely on for refusing to honor IDR or forgiveness programs.\n\n108. Provide your governing contract with ED showing what Nelnet is responsible for.\n\n109. Provide FSA/ED guidance cited in that contract.\n\n110. Provide EDs written policies on loan disputes and fraud.\n\n111. Provide policy guidance on interest capitalization.\n\n112. Provide legal basis for capitalizing interest while dispute unresolved.\n\n113. Provide HEA guidance on borrower rights.\n\n114. Provide waiver or discharge policies and how they apply to unauthorized origin loans.\n\n115. Provide legal precedent or case law used in your decision.\n\n116. Provide policy on how Nelnet investigates claims of non-consensual origination.\n\n117. Provide EDs oversight metrics and penalties for servicers who fail.\n\n118. Provide your compliance with federal consumer protection laws ( FTC Act, TILA etc if any cross-applicable ).\n\n119. Provide policy on preventing discrimination or unfair targeting ( political belief etc ).\n\n120. Provide certifications or attestations that data privacy laws are complied with ( FERPA, other ).\n\n121. Provide legal review logs ( internal counsel advice memos ).\n\n122. Provide your policy for notifying borrowers about pending account closure or legal liability.\n\n123. Provide policy regarding contending assumption of debt without debt-origin documentation.\n\n124. Provide policy on disputing closed claims and releasing borrowers from misattributed liability.\n\n125. Provide your policy on customer restitution when errors committed.\n\nF. Refunds, Compensation & Financial Remedies ( 126-150 ) 126. Refund all interest accrued on loans taken without my consent.\n\n127. Waive all principal and interest on debts for which no promissory note exists.\n\n128. Remove all associated fees, penalties, late charges.\n\n129. Credit my account for any overpayments made.\n\n130. Recompute balance under no-debt scenario if origin not proven.\n\n131. Adjust any tax reporting ( 1098-E, etc. ) if required.\n\n132. Remove any collection agency charges.\n\n133. Cover cost of disputes ( phone, mail, time ).\n\n134. Compensate for credit score impact.\n\n135. Cover attorneys fees ( if I hire counsel ).\n\n136. Provide monetary compensation for emotional distress.\n\n137. Provide compensation for lost opportunities ( if campaign or job disrupted ).\n\n138. Provide punitive damages if lawfully permitted.\n\n139. Refund any charges for credit report copies if required.\n\n140. Compensate me for time lost gathering documentation.\n\n141. Compensation for late/unjust debt collections.\n\n142. Compensation for being denied or delayed IDR or forgiveness options.\n\n143. Assign a lump-sum settlement for harm done.\n\n144. Provide non-monetary compensation ( e.g., certificate or public acknowledgment if appropriate ).\n\n145. Provide clear, written apology.\n\n146. Agree to cover any costs I incur due to credit repair.\n\n147. Provide budget for oversight compliance.\n\n148. Offer settlement check or payment to cover all relevant taxes.\n\n149. Provide checks or payments for any garnishments, wage offsets wrongly made.\n\n150. Cover cost of verifying origin ( e.g., legal cover, document retrieval ).\n\n151. Reimburse any third-party disbursement or default fee.\n\n152. Provide my account statement free of fee for entire timeline.\n\n153. Provide zero-interest payment plan if reinstated.\n\n154. Provide retroactive forbearance credit if delay from Nelnet.\n\n155. Provide clear yearly statements going forward at no charge.\n\n156. Provide ongoing monitoring of credit report status.\n\n157. Provide guarantee that future servicing will not breach my rights.\n\n158. Supply written policy revisions and post them publicly.\n\n159. Present independent third-party audit or oversight of this case if requested.\n\n160. Produce a notarized affidavit from the employee who first opened the account file in 2009 ( or statement that no such employee exists ).\n\n161. Provide chain-of-custody logs for any physical documents ( MPNs, signed forms ) that you claim prove origination.\n\n162. Deliver a forensic image ( hash-signed ) of the database table row ( s ) that contain my account record as of each year-end 20092024.\n\n163. Produce the schema definition for the account table ( s ) that store borrower identity and loan metadata.\n\n164. Provide the DBA/DBMS logs showing the exact SQL operations that created or modified my account record.\n\n165. Provide certificate-signed hashes ( SHA-256 ) of all produced native files so integrity can be independently verified.\n\n166. Provide any OCR/scan-to-text output files for paper originals plus the raw scanned images.\n\n167. Produce proof of chain verification for any digital signature applied to origination documents.\n\n168. Produce records of any third-party identity verification vendor used ( contract + verification instance for my identity ).\n\n169. Provide results of any fraud-analytics retrospective review run against my account ( false-positive/false-negative analysis ).\n\n170. Provide the retention schedule applied to my origination documents and show whether any files were destroyed under that schedule.\n\n171. Produce log of any document destruction events for records tied to my account, with authorized approver and method.\n\n172. Provide the full version history ( diffs ) for any document that was modified ( eg MPN amendments ).\n\n173. Produce timestamped audit trail of any manual redactions applied to documents produced in discovery.\n\n174. Provide a legally-certified translation of any non-English material relied on in the origination process.\n\n175. Produce the ID verification algorithm output ( proof tokens, vendor score, acceptance threshold ) used at origination.\n\n176. Deliver the code snippet or query used to generate the account closed flag for my record, with comments.\n\n177. Provide all business rules that map detection triggers to closure outcomes, with effective dates.\n\n178. Produce copies of all training datasets used to train any ML model that flagged my account ( with sensitive PII redacted if necessary ).\n\n179. Provide model drift analyses showing performance changes of closure models since XXXX. \n\n\nXXXX. Produce a signed certification from the Chief Data Officer that no backdoor overrides were used to force this closure.\n\n181. Produce the full ticket history including internal severity codes, root cause analysis, and SLA timestamps for every support/ticket number related to my account.\n\n182. Produce a list of all service desk approvers who authorized final closure, with their approval timestamps.\n\n183. Provide the exact policy text that was presented to frontline staff when they executed the closure.\n\n184. Produce a copy of any external legal demand, court order, or subpoena that referenced my account ( if any ).\n\n185. Provide the raw logs of any automated remediation scripts executed against my account ( cron jobs, patches ).\n\n186. Produce the last three change management approvals that touched compliance decision-making systems used in my case.\n\n187. Provide the full PII access request log ( who requested access, justification, outcome ) for all access events for my file.\n\n188. Produce the complete list of IP addresses that connected to my account within 30 days prior to closure and the geolocation mapping for each.\n\n189. Provide forensic device identifiers ( device fingerprinting ) used to associate sessions to my account at time of alleged suspicious activity.\n\n190. Produce all analytic dashboards and export data that displayed my accounts risk score on each relevant date.\n\n191. Provide an independent third-party attestation that the closure workflow complied with your written procedures ( attestor name, scope ).\n\n192. Produce all redaction keys used to anonymize any produced documents so we can verify redactions were not substantive.\n\n193. Produce the auditable payroll/timecard records demonstrating how many hours staff spent investigating my case and the cost attributed.\n\n194. Provide the chain of custody and transfer records for any funds held, including bank account, ACH file IDs, settlement files.\n\n195. Produce audit logs of all exports of my data to any third party ( CSV/XML ) including recipient and purpose.\n\n196. Provide any internal legal memos assessing whether closure of a political candidates account could trigger FEC or First Amendment issues.\n\n197. Produce the list of all accounts that were closed the same day with the same reason code and the aggregate statistical justification.\n\n198. Provide a statistical false-positive rate for the closure reason code as applied in the prior 24 months.\n\n199. Produce a signed statement from the CEO or General Counsel certifying that the action was not based on political viewpoint.\n\n200. Provide copies of all external communications to vendors about my account ( email chains, portal messages ).\n\n201. Produce a formal root-cause analysis ( RCA ) for the closure decision with corrective action plan and responsible owners identified.\n\n202. Provide the escalation log showing every internal stakeholder briefed ( names/dates ) with their responses.\n\n203. Produce a redline history showing any policy text that was changed in response to past complaints about wrongful closures.\n\n204. Provide a list of all users/agents who had the authority to reverse a closure and show whether any reversal was attempted for my account.\n\n205. Produce confirmation of any hold placed on reporting to credit agencies during dispute and the start/end timestamps.\n\n206. Provide evidence that no adverse inference was drawn from my public political activity ( emails, memos showing political neutrality review ).\n\n207. Produce a list of every supervisory call ( recording or transcript ) where my case was discussed with senior management.\n\n208. Provide a corrective action metric showing percentage reduction in wrongful closures over past 12 months and link to remediation.\n\n209. Produce an offer to fund an independent audit by a mutually agreed firm ( with scope ) and agree to accept the auditors binding remediation recommendations.","date_sent_to_company":"2025-11-02T19:29:53.000Z","issue":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","sub_product":"Student loan debt relief","zip_code":"480XX","tags":null,"has_narrative":true,"complaint_id":"15971197","timely":"Yes","company_response":"Closed with explanation","submitted_via":"Web","company":"Nelnet, Inc.","date_received":"2025-09-17T04:34:10.000Z","state":"MI","company_public_response":null,"sub_issue":null},"highlight":{"complaint_what_happened":["Provide waiver or <em>discharge</em> policies and how they apply to <em>unauthorized</em> origin loans.\n\n115. Provide legal precedent or case law used in your decision.\n\n116. Provide policy on how Nelnet investigates claims of non-consensual origination.\n\n117. Provide EDs oversight metrics and penalties for servicers who fail.\n\n118. Provide your compliance with federal consumer protection laws ( FTC Act, TILA etc if any cross-applicable ).\n\n119."],"issue":["<em>Unauthorized</em> withdrawals or charges"]},"sort":[3.1881075,"15971197"]}]},"aggregations":{"has_narrative":{"meta":{},"doc_count":11,"has_narrative":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":1,"key_as_string":"true","doc_count":11}]}},"product":{"doc_count":11,"product":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Credit reporting","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Mortgage","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Conventional home mortgage","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Vehicle loan or lease","doc_count":2,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Loan","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Checking or savings account","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Checking account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Credit card","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"General-purpose credit card or charge card","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Debt or credit management","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Student loan debt relief","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Virtual currency","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Student loan","doc_count":1,"sub_product.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Federal student loan servicing","doc_count":1}]}}]}},"issue":{"doc_count":11,"issue":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Improper use of your report","doc_count":2,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Reporting company used your report improperly","doc_count":2}]}},{"key":"Closing an account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Closing your account","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Company closed your account","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Fraud or scam","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}},{"key":"Managing the loan or lease","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Billing problem","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Repossession","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Notice to repossess","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to pay mortgage","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Foreclosure","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Struggling to repay your loan","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Problem with forgiveness, cancellation, or discharge","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Trouble during payment process","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Payment process","doc_count":1}]}},{"key":"Unauthorized withdrawals or charges","doc_count":1,"sub_issue.raw":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[]}}]}},"timely":{"doc_count":11,"timely":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Yes","doc_count":10},{"key":"No","doc_count":1}]}},"company_response":{"doc_count":11,"company_response":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Closed with explanation","doc_count":10},{"key":"Untimely response","doc_count":1}]}},"submitted_via":{"doc_count":11,"submitted_via":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"Web","doc_count":11}]}},"company":{"doc_count":11,"company":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"BMW Financial Services NA, LLC","doc_count":1},{"key":"CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"Experian Information Solutions Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"MOHELA","doc_count":1},{"key":"Nelnet, Inc.","doc_count":1},{"key":"SOUTHSTATE BANK CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION","doc_count":1},{"key":"WELLS FARGO & COMPANY","doc_count":1}]}},"state":{"doc_count":11,"state":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"key":"FL","doc_count":2},{"key":"MI","doc_count":2},{"key":"CA","doc_count":1},{"key":"GA","doc_count":1},{"key":"IL","doc_count":1},{"key":"IN","doc_count":1},{"key":"NC","doc_count":1},{"key":"SC","doc_count":1},{"key":"VA","doc_count":1}]}},"company_public_response":{"doc_count":11,"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":6}]}},"tags":{"doc_count":11,"tags":{"doc_count_error_upper_bound":0,"sum_other_doc_count":0,"buckets":[{"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":{}}}