Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, DC XXXX
This is to complain against RIA XXXX: HIGH
IMPORTANCE: HIGH
[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]
I wish to practice my right as a customer of RIA to use your organisation's service, seeking a formal,
impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with RIA.
In order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to RIA 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 recognise 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 RIA 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 RIA, I found their communication ineffective, which further hides
their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are struggling to
adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is presenting a
real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and regulations of
CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.
General Obligation:
Commencing on XXXX XXXX, I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company).
Money was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX.
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 RIA 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 RIAs 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 RIA
promoted the transaction(s) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question
(iv) whether RIA was in compliance with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether RIA owed duties
to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether RIA did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether
RIAs conduct was unfair; and (vii) whether RIA 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, RIA 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 RIA did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers
in this respect.
Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the
standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the
past.
RIAs Position:
Please find attached all relevant evidence below.
RIA conspicuously touts their security as a reason to use their service. Specifically, RIA writes on
their website:
We work hard to protect you from fraud. That's why we:
 Apply best-in-class security technologies expertise to protect you 24/7, all year round.
 Secure every method of banking we offer including online, mobile, ATM and telephone
banking.
 Offer free security software from our trusted tech partners to download on to your devices.
 Frequently train our employees on the latest practices in cyber and physical security.
 Give you the security tips and resources you need to protect yourself from potential threats.
Refuting RIAs arguments from a purely logical perspective:
RIAs 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 RIAs view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,
practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when
taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense
and are wildly irresponsible.
Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make RIA morally obligated to do
something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if RIA encounter the suffering of
totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the degree
required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as RIA.
I have reviewed the material hereto sent by RIA 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 RIA, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the key
questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other than
its own interests.
It is RIA here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to say,
that RIA adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its extensive
experience compared to mine. It is RIA 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 RIAs capacity, experience, expertise, or scope of services in any way. To
reemphasize, RIAs indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to purely execute transactions in a
blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing those transactions and
capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby enhancing market integrity.
Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all RIA 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.
RIA is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may be being
perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam with the
customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:
 particularly vulnerable, or
 if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.
There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that
might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers
who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary
actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.
These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a
service that:
1) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it
sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general
point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and
methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised
and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to
the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:
A) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious
transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following
examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:
a. multiple cheque books;
b. sudden increased spending;
c. transfers to other accounts;
d. multiple password attempts;
e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;
f. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are
transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the
economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no
apparent legal justification.
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) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the
customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the
suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.
RIA are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging
experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to
avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which
requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and welljustified.
Rather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the
existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of
consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,
positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  RIA 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 RIA 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 endeavours 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 RIAs 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. RIAs 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 RIA pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite
evidence to the contrary.
In summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and
companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.
I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.
Thank you. XXXX XXXX XXXX
XXXX  THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
XXXX XXXX XXXX
To: RIA
XXXX XXXX, California , United States
Via Email
[Without Prejudice]
Attn: Complaints/Fraud Dept.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re: Demand Letter  Fraud
I hope this letter has correctly found itself within your complaints/fraud department as it is essential to me that
you become aware of the ordeal I have had to go through.
Commencing on XXXX XXXX I fell victim to a multilayered scam operation orchestrated by XXXX XXXX (the Fraudsters or Company) with the design, development, manufacturing, promoting,
marketing, distributing, 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 the
client losses to gains.
Money was transferred from my account in the total amount of XXXX XXXX utilizing your services.
OVERVIEW
 This letter shall thrust into the spotlight, inter alia, the increasingly important role those financial
institutions play in the fight against financial crime and fraud, and the pressing need for enhanced
supervision and vigilance within your organization.
 Heres an indisputable fact: had you looked at the wider circumstances surrounding the abovereferenced
transaction(s), this illicit transfer of wealth could have been prevented.
 Obviously, there is no consensus with respect to the degree and scope to which regulated and licensed
financial institutions must intervene and block suspicious transactions, and indeed, in so doing,
financial institutions may often cause payments to be slowed down unnecessarily or even some
legitimate payments may be rejected, however, please be noted that additional frictions such as slower
payments (such as delaying payments or freezing funds to investigate) is beneficial to and welcomed
by vulnerable customers and is widely considered to be a positive practice that is necessary in order to
maintain their financial safety, particularly for large-value and/or out of pattern.
 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 as well as medical problems relating to this victimization 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, 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 pursuance 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 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, there is 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 its customers.
According to the Federal Trade Commissions interpretations of certain terms (like the words deceptive and
unfair), the FTC has found that a deceptive act or practice encompasses a representation, omission or
practice that is likely to mislead the consumer acting reasonably in the circumstances, to the consumers
detriment.
The federal courts have defined a deceptive trade practice [i] as any act or practice that has the tendency or
capacity to deceive consumers and have defined an unfair trade practice as any act or practice that offends
public policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.
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 are therefore, by their very nature, 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 as described above; and the fraudulent
transaction(s) the Company perpetrated upon me; were unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive practices 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 in multiple countries and used them through their
accomplices and strawmen from around the world to conceal and disguise the identity of
illegally obtained proceeds so that they appear to have originated from 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 on top of that 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 Bloomberg TV/Investing.com)
6. The Company offered investment services/advice not related to real market/exchange data
(manufacturing false charts etc.). The trading platform was purposely manipulated, in a way that
each client would ineluctably and unknowingly lose money, as the trades were simply
concocted. 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 returns/yields (unrealistic ones).
9. The Company furnished me with bonuses - which are not allowed to be given.
10. My money was not held in a segregated account.
11. The Company did not advertise/disclose/was not transparent regarding the statistical data representing
the percentage of total client losses at the company.
12. The Company did not mention the commission and overnight swaps.
13. The Company did not read the risk disclosure prior to my deposit(s).
14. The Company used high pressure tactics and outbursts, which took a severe toll on my health.
15. Armed with my personal details, the Companys staff seduced me into transferring all of my
savings to them. They utilized their knowledge of my cultural context, which stressed square
and honorable business dealings along with honesty, in order 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 completely failed to adequately investigate the circumstances
surrounding the transaction(s) in question and willfully blinded itself to obvious red flags.
Many suspicions should have arisen at your organization as an issue of great concern, with respect to the
unusual activity taking place in my account. Despite the regulatory and statutory requirements your
organization should abide by as a licensed and regulated financial institution  and instead of detecting
patterns, drawing certain conclusions, and taking actions accordingly you at best, merely and insufficiently
performed some hasty and haphazard reviews of the transaction(s) or possibly asked only minimal generic
questions regarding the suspicious activities, and at worst, shut your eyes completely rather than being careful,
methodical, and vigilant. Had you bothered, you would probably have realized that the funds were associated
with fraud and financial crime, rather than some other legitimate revenue/activity.
In light of the above, and after conducting a comprehensive review of our communication/interactions,
it has become glaringly obvious to me that no adequate information and/or documentation were sought
by your organization, at best, and at worst no appropriate safeguards were implemented.
If a financial institution executes a customer 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 undergo, it would be in breach of its duty of care, even if the
payment was made in accordance with the terms of the mandate, and the financial institution should still be
liable for negligence resulting in damages.
Compliance departments should ensure that staff members understand the legal requirements and where there
are suspicions, these suspicions 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 therefore should have
suspended transaction(s) until reasonable enquiries could be made to verify that the transaction(s)
was/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 staff
member would have realized that there were many obvious, even glaring, signs that I was being defrauded.
(XXXX XXXX XXXX (in liquidation) v XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX [XXXX] XXXX XXXX) [ii]
You knew or should have known that the funds being transferred through your services did not rightfully
belong to the recipient fraudsters. Similarly, you knew or should have known that the funds being transferred
through your services serve no legitimate or lawful purpose. You turned a blind eye to the crimes that you
have facilitated and thus provided an array of essential money transfer services, acting as a vehicle, with the
awareness that it was enabling the fraudsters to commit crimes and enrich themselves with the funds of their
victims.
Your services undoubtedly served as a crucial element in the fraudulent scheme detailed herein, and you were
either unaware of your complicity in the fraud, or, more worryingly, completely aware and silent. Had you
conducted an adequate account analysis, you would have discovered the nature of the recipient, and
subsequently, disclosed and reported the fraudsters activities to law enforcement authorities/agencies and
regulators. Instead, to satisfy your financial interests, you conveniently closed your eyes, even though you
undeniably had, at all material times, the necessary controls and resources to influence, whether directly or
indirectly, those particular transactions.
You also had the duty to stop those crimes, yet you refused to do so because you were more interested in
enriching yourself, even if it meant furthering those crimes and allowing them to cause massive financial
losses to plenty of victims  many of whom are probably your customers. Therefore, it is clear that you did
not have in place adequate security measures to properly safeguard my assets  hence, you have
irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably harm other victims as well as
their loved
ones and associates. You have irreparably harmed me and, if not enjoined, will continue to irreparably
harm the general public, and our society deserves better.
A financial institution which wrongly pays money away when it has no authority to do so will usually be
treated as if it had paid using its own funds, not those of its customer.
When discussing the responsibilities that a financial institution 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 financial institution to a regulator are distinct from
those beholden to the customer. Moreover, you may be held liable to more than one regulator.
As a regulated and licensed financial institution, you have strict statutory and regulatory obligations to
monitor transactions and report any suspicious activities to law enforcement authorities. The importance of
implementing robust internal systems to detect and report money laundering and other suspicious activities
has been continuously emphasized in the industry in addition to having the appropriate policies, procedures
and internal controls in place to ensure ongoing compliance in respect to the aforementioned systems. You
should have analysed and distinguished thereafter between that which may be normal activity and that which
could suggest an illegal activity. This is a well-known standard industry practice which plays a substantial role
in preventing criminals from liquidating and laundering funds.
FRAUD
Actual fraud can be described, inter alia, as suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or
belief of the fact. Therefore, due to your actual knowledge that such scams are so prevalent, you are liable for
damages. Similarly, due to the fact that you knew or were grossly negligent in not kn