Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Banking errors
Consumer Complaint: XX/XX/2022 XXXX issued me a refund for some reason my bank Tusit posted it Friday night the post was gone I have called 3 times no one seem to know where the money is at. They keep telling me they have no record of it.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: 27886
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Took or threatened to take negative or legal action
Subissue: Threatened or suggested your credit would be damaged
Consumer Complaint: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Fl XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/2022 The sale representative XXXX XXXX sold us a water treatment system for {$6400.00} XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX gave him a down payment in the amount of {$2000.00}. Soon after, we discovered the product was defective, we made several phone calls followed by email to XXXX XXXX and XXXX company. They both failed to resolve the issue. We contacted another company to replace the XXXX XXXX XXXX that was making us sick with unclean water. Company was advised. The burden of this additional expense we could no longer continue the monthly payment. Although our bank continued to honor the automatic payments. We filed a complaint with the bank which requested the back payments. Although the company breached the contract the finance company has threatened to report us to the credit bureau resulting in a low credit rating damage. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 33027
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems
Subissue: Other problem
Consumer Complaint: Statement closing date XX/XX/2022 my Personal computer did not match the credit card account summary truist sent in the mail. Account activity does not match, account number does match and transactions do not match. I printed account activity from my credit card statements and compared them to the account activity that truist sent me in the mail, account activity does match the dates. The issue goes all the way up to XX/XX/2022.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: TN
Zip: 37804
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-12
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low
Subissue: Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Consumer Complaint: Truist charged overdraft fees on debit card transaction that did not exceed the accounts positive balance. Truist charge overdraft fees even though I had sufficient positive balance at the time that the transaction was authorized by the bank. Imposing overdraft fees in an Authorize Positive/ Settle Negative situation is unfair, because it causes injury that I can not reasonably avoid. I have no control over or involvement in the settlement and presentment of debit card transactions ( which typically take place days after the transaction occurred ). When Truist authorizes a debit card transaction on my account with sufficient funds to cover the transaction, I reasonably expect that I will NOT incur an overdraft charge on that transaction. Truist is intentionally reordering debits and credits in a way that creates scenarios to cause additional/multiple overdraft fees out of thin air ( typically transactions that accumulate between Friday and Tuesday ). This has happened more than 60 times between my accounts since XX/XX/XXXX, resulting in more than {$2100.00} in undeserving overdraft fees. I am a XXXX XXXX to XXXX children, and this has impacted my ability to feed my children more than once. These practices are immoral, and certainly do not fulfil the company moto of " financial wellbeing ''. I spent more than a week begging the company to reverse this latest round of fraudulent overdraft fees, but the company is hiding behind a XXXX disclosure saying that I agreed to allow them to charge/change/authorize/post fees to transactions at their discretion. All of the transactions made were transfers from Truist acct to Truist acct and XXXX debits. It is impossible to transfer funds from one acct to another if there are not funds available, and it is impossible to send funds to XXXX if there are not funds available. It is safe to conclude that Truist has created these situations intentionally to generate more revenue from overdraft fees, out of scenarios that absolutely can not be in an overdraft situation. Truist is # 4 in the Nation for collecting Overdraft Fees. I'm curious what the ratio is compared to other banks per personal account/business account. The largest occurrences of this happening were in XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX but this has happened throughout the last year and a half, with the latest being XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, XXXX of XXXX ( oddly enough directly behind the heels of a production issue that created multiple duplicate transactions ). It is a shame that banks do not have to pay damages when they negatively impact clients/employees. These instances of made-up fees have really hurt my family of XXXX. The most recent occurrence has set me back so far that I can not buy food, gas, or XXXX gifts. Before I ran out of gas, I had gone to 3 food banks in search of someone that can help me feed my children for the next month due to this outrageous abuse and misuse of power. This is unreal.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: GA
Zip: 30518
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-12
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-13
Issue: Closing an account
Subissue: Can't close your account
Consumer Complaint: About 2 months ago I called Truist Bank and asked to speak to someone about closing my account. A man answered and said he could help me. My account had a zero balance after my wife transferred everything to my new bank. He asked why I was closing my account. I stated that XXXX XXXX doesn't charge me {$20.00} a month and my money is deposited 2 days sooner. He told me okay. The account is closed, he then asked if there is anything else he can do for me. I asked several times if he was sure, it seemed to me that he was too quick to close the account. I asked again if he was sure my account was closed. He stated " Yes, sir '' repeatedly. " The account is closed '', he kept insisting. The next day I blocked Truist and had all emails sent to my spam folder. About a week ago I got a letter stating that I owed them {$120.00}. The letter stated that they " decided '' to pay a company I never heard of and then continued to charge me an overdraft fee. This made the total amount I owed them at that time {$150.00}. A couple of days later I was charged another {$100.00}. They payed this company again. They charged me another overdraft fee! I didn't have one single penny in this account, the account had been inactive for several weeks, and I never even had overdraft protection. They had no reason or permission to pay anyone anything on my behalf! This is without a doubt blatant misuse of my information on an already closed account.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: SC
Zip: 294XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-13
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-09
Issue: Getting a line of credit
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Please see attached document as it contains my complaint. I XXXX XXXX XXXX submitting this complaint myself and no third party involved.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: FL
Zip: 34741
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-09
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-08
Issue: Applying for a mortgage or refinancing an existing mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Truist bank my current mortgage company is dragging their feet on getting an updated payoff
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: MA
Zip: 01020
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-08
Issue: Managing an account
Subissue: Problem accessing account
Consumer Complaint: Timeline of events : 1. On XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX my wife and I received a tuition refund check from our children 's school in the amount of {$25000.00}. We endorsed and deposited this check in our joint Truist checking account ( last four digits of the account are XXXX ). The funds were made available in our account within a couple of days. 2. On XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX the funds ( {$25000.00} ) were withdrawn from our account without notice. We contacted the school which had issued the check to us and they indicated they had not been contacted and did not know why the funds were withdrawn. XXXX. On XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX both my wife 's and my Truist debit cards linked to account XXXX stopped working ( payments were declined ) and our access to the Truist banking app also linked to account XXXX was blocked. I spoke to a Senior Relationship BankerXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX at the Truist branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in XXXXXXXX XXXX to determine what might be the issue. He told me that the {$25000.00} check had been flagged as a 'ficticious item ' and that the school 's bank had refused to honor the check when Truist had attempted to collect the funds. I subsequently called the Truist fraud department through the XXXX number provided by Truist branch staff and was given essentially the same story. I was also told that my name could be placed on an early warning system database of known fraudsters. The fraud department also said they would request that the fraud investigator assigned to our case contact me. XXXX on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX my XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX the Truist fraud investigator, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX indicated she had no new information on the issue and that our account was closed. She advised that we could get a statement from the payer ( the school which issued us the check ) and take it to the local Truist branch who could then provide it to XXXX XXXX in the fraud department as evidence that the transaction was not fraudulent. My wife obtained a statement from the school explaining the situation and provided it to Branch Leader XXXX XXXX XXXX at the Truist branch at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX at approximately XXXXXXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX. XXXX. At XXXXXXXX XXXX on XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX called my XXXX and relayed that XXXX XXXX in the fraud department had said the matter had been referred to the Legal department. My XXXX then called the XXXX department and, after speaking to XXXX different people ( XXXX of whom was XXXX XXXX ), she was informed that they had no contact information for the Legal department and there was no way for us to contact them. XXXX. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, we still had received no contact from XXXX XXXX or anyone else in the Truist fraud or legal departments. We still did not have access to our bank accounts. At XXXX XXXX, we received a letter from Truist dated XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX stating that our account had been closed. This notice, the only formal notice of account closure from Truist, arrived a full XXXX days after we had lost access to our account and the several XXXX dollars it contained. XXXX. On XXXX XXXX, my wife called the Truist fraud department to follow up on their investigation and was informed that our account had been reactivated. When she said that we had not been informed of this, she was told " We don't do that, you just need to check. '' XXXX. On XXXX XXXX XXXX, we were notified that our XXXX mortgage payment had been returned while our account was closed. XXXX. On XX/XX/2022, we received notification that our local personal property tax payment had been returned due to " account closure. '' Most importantly, there was no fraud at any point in this transaction. The check was not ficticious. It was a completely legitimate, easily traceable tuition refund from our children 's school. No one ever contacted us or the school prior to returning the check to make any effort to determine if the check and transaction were valid. Many efforts to receive additional information, or communicate at all with various departments at Truist, by phone and e-mail, between XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX were unsuccessful. No one at Truist bothered to inform us that our account had been reinstated. We have spent significant time and endured significant inconvenience as a result of this mistake. We have taken time from work to meet with the bank, call the bank, collect documentation and open an account at another bank. We had no access to cash ( our money held by Trusit in our 'closed ' account ) for several days. We have accrued late fees and penalties as all our bills are linked through our account. Finally, as I am sure you can imagine, the stress of losing access to our only bank account while essentially being accused of massive fraud was enormous.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: VA
Zip: 23060
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-08
Issue: Struggling to pay mortgage
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: I completed a loan modification following a covid hardship on my Truist mortgage for my primary residence roughly three months ago. On XX/XX/XXXX a letter was received stating a form had not been notarised properly and that i would be required to redo the loan modification documents by XX/XX/XXXX ( now XX/XX/XXXX after several phone calls ) or I risked losing my home. I am currently on assignment for the State Department in XXXX where mail takes 4-6 weeks to arrive and another 4-6 weeks to arrive back stateside once signed/notarised. This would make it impossible for me to meet this deadline and Truist has provided me no recourse otherwise. Without sufficient time to even receive the document its impossible for me to meet their deadlines.
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: NC
Zip: 282XX
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-08
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A
Date Received: 2022-12-08
Issue: Fraud or scam
Subissue:
Consumer Complaint: Consumer Protection Financial Bureau (CFPB) 1700 G Street NW Washington, D.C. 20038 United States This is to complain against the Truist Financial Corporation URGENCY: HIGH IMPORTANCE: HIGH [WITHOUT PREJUDICE] XXXX 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. In 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. It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially engineered, and coerced to engage these fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognize that I am the victim of an investment scam. My complaint to the 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. During 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. General Obligation: Commencing 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. When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether 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. Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, 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. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Truist Financial Corporation did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past. Truist Financial Corporations Position: On 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. On 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. Refuting Truist Financial Corporations arguments from a purely logical perspective: Truist 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. In 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. Imagine 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. I 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. It 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. It 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 and capitalizing on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity. Apropos 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. Truist 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: particularly vulnerable, or if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected. There are some recommendations to organizations for protecting customers from financial harm that might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognize customers who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary actions to prevent or minimize financial harm. These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organization should deliver a service that: 1) Takes a proactive approach to minimizing risks, impact, and incidences of financial harm and it sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general point, it says organizations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorized and unauthorized payments, thereby minimizing the risk of financial harm to customers. Regarding the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization: A) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts: a. multiple chequebooks; b. sudden increased spending; c. transfers to other accounts; d. multiple password attempts; e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations; f. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount; h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee; i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse. B) organizations should have a process in place to ensure that staff makes contact with the customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the suspected or detected fraud, and discuss an appropriate plan of action. Truist 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. Rather than empathizing with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled, positively contributing to local economic growth, development, and sustainability Truist Financial Corporation adopts a rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein. I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to ensue if no responsibility is adopted by 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. Conclusion: Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavors undertaken in this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent practices. Astonishingly, 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 consumers is inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of the patronage of clients like myself. If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Truist Financial Corporation pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. In summary, I respectfully ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome. Thank you. XXXX XXXX THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX Truist Financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, NC Re: Demand Letter Attn: Claims/Fraud Dept. Dear Sir/Madam, For negotiation purposes only, without effect as to any and all rights 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. A 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. OVERVIEW 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. 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. 1 FCA: A more effective approach to combatting financial crime (XXXX XXXX XXXX) 1 Page 2 of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 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! 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. Had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the above-referenced transactions, this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented. Executing transactions without proper authority is not only a severe regulatory offense but also an irresponsible and reckless disregard of the customers financial safety. 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. INTRODUCTION Financial 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. The 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. I 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 2 Page 3 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX withholding from the weaker party in a financial transaction (e.g., an investor) information which is necessary to make an informed, rational or autonomous decision. In 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. The 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. As 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. MERCHANTS FRAUD SCHEME ALLEGATIONS The 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: 1. The Company directed and instructed others to work from shell companies that were operating from various unassociated locations across the globe. 2. 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 3 Page 4 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX legitimate sources. 3. The Company intentionally committed fraudulent misrepresentation, and falsified its agent names, 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. 4. 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. 5. The Company provided direct investment advice - not utilizing 3rd party recommendations (e.g., according to XXXX XXXX) 6. 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. 7. The Company prohibited my ability to withdraw my funds. 8. The Company was guaranteeing unrealistic returns/yields. 9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given. 10. The Company was trading on my behalf (use of remote control of my computer). 11. My money was not held in a segregated account. 12. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing the percentage of total client losses at the company. 13. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps. 14. The Company did not read me the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s). 15. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health. 4 Page 5 of 9 XXXX XXXX XXXX Armed 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. Please take notice that my funds were transferred through means of coercion and under false pretenses. Attached, please find supportive statements, screenshots and further evidence. EXPOSING YOUR ORGANIZATIONS MISCONDUCT I 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). The 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." When 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. Based 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 2 (XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX) 5 Page 6 of 9 JXXXX XXXX XXXX information and/or documentation were sought by your organization, and at worst, no appropriate safeguards were implemented. If 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. Compliance 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. For 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]. A 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. When 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. Instead, 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. Practically speaking, effective steps to prevent bad actors from taking advantage of future victims (or at least to minimize this possibility) are abundant: The use of automated and human review of
Company Response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
State: SC
Zip: 29681
Submitted Via: Web
Date Sent: 2022-12-20
Company Response to Consumer: Closed with explanation
Timely Response: Yes
Consumer Disputed: N/A