Product: Checking or savings account

I was given a number of checks buy an individual who asked me to cash them because she did not have a bank account. After receiving several checks that were returned for insufficient funds, I realized I was a potential victim of a scam. I decided the only way to protect myself from her submitting another check, and possibly having it paid, was to withdraw all monies from that account ( savings account ending in XXXX ) and block that account, all of which I did.

Not withstanding my efforts, when the last check for {$10000.00} was deposited rather than just returning it to the maker, or at least notifying me before paying it, Citibank paid the {$10000.00} notwithstanding the fact that account had no money on deposit and I had blocked it. As you can see in the attached screenshots of the accounts the notation in account ending in XXXX, i.e., transfer to OD account, Citibank paid the {$9900.00} out of that account claiming it had the authority to withdraw those monies from my other accounts if there were insufficient funds in the account which the check was presented. This ignores the fact that my Citibank accounts are not linked and have never been linked. Citibank took it upon themselves, and despite all the protections I had put in place, paid the {$9900.00} from savings account ending in XXXX ) as a transfer to OD account. That contradicted what Citibank initially said that there were monies in the savings account ending XXXX  again at the time of check was presented. Not only was there no money in that account but I had blocked that account.

Citibank has given several excuses why this happened. It is difficult for me to give exact information about the chronology because Citibank refuses to allow me to reopen the account I blocked ( saving account ending in XXXX  ) and or give me any information about when the check was cashed. The first excuse was that Citibank paid the check because I had not withdrawn the monies before the check was presented. That is clearly untrue since I had withdrawn all monies from that account well before the date the check was presented. The next excuse was even bolder. Citibank took the position it was authorized to withdraw monies from a different account if there were insufficient funds in the account where the check was presented. This is blatantly false since to do so would require that I had linked my accounts. In the 40 years I have been a customer of the bank my accounts have never been linked and are still not linked with the exception of a checking plus line of credit account to protect against overdrafts in my checking account ending in XXXX. That account, however, was also by me closed years ago.

I spoke with numerous Citibank employees, and they all repeat the same untruths. The first - that there was there was money in saving account ending in XXXX - is ridiculous because if there was money in that account, the bank would not have had to take the money out of my savings account ending in XXXX I find this all very strange. One of the first Citibank employees I spoke with agreed that the overdraft should not have been funded from any of my other Citibank accounts since none of my accounts are linked, but changed his story once more senior bankers got involved.