Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received text messages telling me 6 transactions in the amounts of {$280.00}, {$280.00}, {$280.00}, {$280.00}, {$270.00}, {$270.00} ( totaling the amount of {$1600.00} ) were being transferred through XXXX. I had previously registered for XXXX money transfer through the Citibank Mobile App, and that is the only way my account was linked with XXXX. I did not know or have any relation with the recipient of these money transfers ; nor did I give my account and password to anyone. I did not operate XXXX in any way that day. 

I happened to be on the phone with a Citibank agent regarding other issues, so I immediately informed him of those unauthorized transactions. He told me the transactions would be stopped-which was not true-the transactions were consummated. When I called later in the week to question the charges, Citibank told me XXXX transfers were immediate, so there was nothing Citibank could have done when I reported the unauthorized transactions. 

I then disputed the charges with Citibank twice. The first time, they sent me a report on XX/XX/XXXX saying, " On XX/XX/XXXX you authorized a funds transfer in the amount of {$1600.00}. Since the account that you indicated received the funds, please contact the recipient directly regarding this funds transfer ''. The report also said, " You are entitled by law to obtain copies of the information used in our investigation. '' On XX/XX/XXXX, I called Citibank to dispute the result of the first investigation. I told them I did not authorize the money transfer, nor do I know the recipient. I also requested to see the " copies of the information used in [ their ] investigation ''. As to this date ( XX/XX/XXXX ), I have not received any information used in the investigation. 

Following my call on XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank conducted another investigation. They sent me a report on XX/XX/XXXX saying, " We have conducted additional review of your case for {$1600.00}, and we maintain our position to deny your claim. '' I called the bank 's Centralized Disputes Unit on XX/XX/XXXX telling them again, that I did not authorized the transaction. The agent on the phone told me they actually found out the disputed transaction was part of a token scam, and they had barred the token from further scam activities. 

I pointed out the self-contradiction in their conclusion : if I was a victim of a token scam, I couldn't have authorized the transaction. The Citi agent conceded but said, because the money had been transferred on XXXX, Citi would not be responsible for the amount. Essentially, because the money had been paid due to the nature of XXXX 's fast transfer, Citi asks me, the consumer of their financial product and services, to bear the loss. I asked to file for another investigation, but I doubt the result would be any different. 

I registered for XXXX through Citi Bank 's mobile app, because I believed XXXX had Citibank 's endorsement. I believed in the XXXX context, I would still be protected by Citibank 's service. Citibank disclaims all responsibility despite channeling its consumers through its mobile app onto XXXX. 

Claim One : Citibank had violated 15 U.S.C.A. 1693f ( 2011 ) of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act by not making a good faith investigation of the alleged error, not having a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error, and knowingly and willfully concluded that the consumer 's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available to the financial institution at the time of its investigation. 15 U.S.C.A. 1693f ( e ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ).

Knowing that the disputed transactions were part of the consequences of a token scam, they issued me two letters telling my, they found that I authorized the transactions. This action should constitute willfully concluding the consumer 's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn. Alternatively, they did not conduct good faith investigation or have reasonable basis to believe my account was not in error. 

Claim Two : Citibank had also violated 15 U.S.C.A. 1693h ( 2011 ) by failing to stop payment of a preauthorized transfer from a consumer 's account when instructed to do so in accordance with the terms and conditions of the account. 15 U.S.C.A. 1693h ( a ) ( 3 ). 

According to my bank statement, the disputed transactions were consummated on XX/XX/XXXX, after I had called Citibank at least twice to report I did not authorize the transactions. They claim they could not have done anything to prevent my loss, despite being on notice, because the transactions were made through XXXX. I do not know how true this statement is, and I have reasonable grounds to believe they have also violated 15 U.S.C.A. 1693h ( a ) ( 3 ).