Product: Credit card or prepaid card

My dispute is with Citicards and concerns fraudulent charges on my credit card for a total amount of {$1100.00}. 

I became aware of the fraud when I saw a charge for {$840.00} for " landscaping services '' recorded on XX/XX/XXXX. I did not recognize the merchant, " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '', supposedly located in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX , XXXX , a town where I live part of the year. After reviewing previous credit card bills I realized that the same merchant had made three other charges for smaller amounts : {$160.00} on XX/XX/XXXX ; {$61.00}, also on XX/XX/XXXX ; and {$83.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. 

I filed my dispute with Citicards on XX/XX/XXXX for the {$840.00} transaction. The Citicard dispute resolution agent with whom I spoke recommended beginning with the largest charge and then filing subsequently for the other amounts if the first case was proven to be fraudulent. The case was assigned the number XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I received notification that the review of the case was complete and that the charge was deemed valid. I followed up with several phone calls to the Citicards fraud investigation department and was told that the transaction had been made with the embedded chip and that I therefore must have been physically present at the time of the charge. They could not provide me with any information about the merchant in question, i.e., physical address, phone number, bank information. 

After bringing my Citigold account manager onto a call with the fraud department I was able to get Citicards to provide me with a phone number for the merchant, which happened to be a U.S. number [ XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ]. I called that number and reached a company with a similar name [ XXXX XXXX XXXX ] based in [ XXXX, ] Indiana. However, the firm 's accountant had no record of the transactions and said that they had no business presence in XXXX, or even outside of Indiana. 

With that information in hand I once again contacted Citicards fraud department and finally reached someone at the  supervisory level. After I described my case and provided the information about the purported merchant, the supervisor denied that Citicards had any information at all about the merchant, notwithstanding the fact that they had previously provided me with a phone number. She said that the charges were made in XXXX and that I " should go to the merchant '' and inquire with them. I could not do so, I explained, because there was no such merchant in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

The supervisor was unable to suggest any other source of information about the recipient of the charge payments and left me with the unsatisfactory answer that Citicards did not have any more details about the transactions than what appeared in my credit card statement. 

Having gone through exhaustive " Know Your Client '' ( KYC ) procedures with Citibank ( where I have had an account for thirty years ), I find it difficult to believe that Citicards has no knowledge or record of the recipient of the funds that were transferred as a result of the four transactions, especially since, as Citicards avers, the merchant in question is in XXXX, a country where Citibank has had serious money laundering issues in the past. I asked if it was possible to obtain bank information for the recipient and the response was negative. Thus, I have no way of determining who charged me for more than {$1100.00}. 

I do not know much about credit card transaction procedures, but it seems to me that it might be possible that someone could have fraudulently opened a merchant credit card account using a fictitious name, phone number and address, perhaps " borrowed '' from a legitimate business located somewhere else. They could perhaps have scanned my card while it as in their possession, possibly at a restaurant. That scenario, however, did not register with the fraud investigation department 's supervisor. 

Citicards seemed eager to brush the problem aside and shockingly indifferent to what was clearly a case of fraud. The fact that I am a longstanding client of Citibank and Citicards with no previous claims made no difference to them whatsover. Silly me, I thought that they insured themselves and their clients against such cases. Caveat emptor!