Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

Wells Fargos position that the consumer authorized the fraud and is therefore not a victim deserving protections of the EFTA and Regulation E are also incorrect. The CFPB states that if a third-party, here XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, fraudulently induced a consumer into an EFT transfer, the transaction would fall under Regulation Es definition of an unauthorized EFT. CFPB Guidance, Error Resolution, XXXX ( citing Comment XXXX ( m ) -3 ). 
To put a fine point on the issue, the CFPB states that a consumers negligence when determining liability for unauthorized EFTs under Regulation E may not be considered. Similarly, the FDIC makes it clear that the EFTA applies even if the customer is tricked into the fraud. See FDIC Guidance, Consumer Compliance Supervisory Highlights ( XX/XX/2022 ). 
FDIC states : The regulations Official Interpretations expressly state that an unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud or robbery, and that consumer negligence can not be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permitted under Regulation E .... 
When an MPP [ money payment platform ] entered into an agreement with a consumer, that agreement extended to the financial institution holding the consumers account. The financial institution, as the account holding institution, was held responsible under Regulation E. In addition, the MPP XXXX through whose platform the EFT was made, was also held responsible, as it was considered a financial institution under Regulation E. Both the financial institution and MPP have investigative and error resolution obligations under Regulation E and must comply with those obligations provided the consumer gives timely notice of an alleged error under section 1005.11 ( b ) .... Regulation E also applies to peer-to-peer or P2P payments made through MPPs .... Consequently, an MPP must comply with Regulation E for transactions connected to a consumers debit card or account. Both the financial institution and MPP are obligated under Regulation E to investigate EFT disputes and to limit consumer liability if, after investigation, the consumers allegations are confirmed. 

On XX/XX/2022, I received a call from the XXXX XXXX police department ( came from that phone number XXXX ) and the person left me a voicemail saying he was sergeant XXXX XXXX with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and needed to speak with me regarding an ongoing case. He provided a cell number ( XXXX ) to call him back at. I called back and left a voicemail and he then returned my call and said I had jury duty that I didn't show up for and therefore was being given XXXX citations. He provided citation numbers ( fpa # XXXX and XXXX  # XXXX ) and told me that I needed to pay these fines ( total of {$3000.00} ) and meet with a judge in order for it to not remain on my record OR I can have it remain on my record. He provided me with my FD posting # XXXX and then told me that payments will be sent to an Officer in the Treasury Department, XXXX XXXX and an email address to send payments through XXXX ( XXXX ). He said once payment is received, I will receive a notification and be transferred to his receptionist to set up a court date with the judge via XXXX. I sent {$1500.00} and he said he hadn't received it and asked me to send it again but with different info in the " memo '' and once he receives that, I will be forwarded to his receptionist to set up the XXXX  call. Once BOTH payments went through, he hung up. I have contacted my bank, Wells Fargo numerous times and opened up a case with them but they closed the case saying that there was no issue with the payment and it couldn't be reversed. I argued that the issue was that it was a scam and the money was sent fraudulently!! I have tried requesting a refund through XXXX but now the recipient is no longer registered with XXXX.