Product: Checking or savings account

Consumer Complaint XX/XX/XXXX Consumer : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, VA XXXX XXXX XXXX Financial Institution Info : Citibank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX VA XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX Re : Account # XXXX Complaint Details : Citi Bank Refuses to close & release funds for my cardholder account based solely on the results of biased automated Fraud Filter, in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Actof2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C . 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; Citi Bank engaged in unfair acts or practices by determining no error had occurred and freezing my accounts based solely on the results of Banks an incorrect/ biased automated Fraud Filter, in violation of Sections 1031 and 1036 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C . 5531 ( a ) and ( c ), 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ; Citi Bank failed to conduct reasonable investigations of my State Issued Government Check release of funds to me and instead withdrew the funds and subtracted it from my account violating the Federal Deposit Insurance Citi Bank failed to timely investigate and resolve my state issued check deposit and my cardholders notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs, in violation of EFTA, 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( a ), ( c ), and Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) - ( 3 ) of Regulation E. Under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 ( CFPA ), 12 U.S.C. 5563, 5565.

Citi Bank executed a Stipulation and Consent to the Issuance of a Consent Order, which is incorporated by reference and is accepted by the Bureau. By this Stipulation, Citi Bank has consented to the issuance of this Consent Order by the Bureau under Sections 1053 and 1055 of the CFPA, 12 U.S.C. 5563, 5565, without admitting or denying any of the findings of fact or conclusions of law, except that Citi Bank admits the facts necessary to establish the Bureaus jurisdiction over Citi Bank and the subject matter of this action. 
Citi Bank incorrectly determined, based solely on the results of Banks Fraud Filter, that no error occurred, and, as a result, Citi Bank ( i ) denied me as a consumers error claim or reversed permanent credits previously granted to the me as a consumer and froze blocked the consumers checking deposit account. 
Citi Bank has given me Consequential Harm meaning financial harm that affected me as a consumer and made a business as big as mine go belly up and halted my business and sales/ because it was designated Expenses and revenue deposit business checking account where I receive monthly subscription payments from my all my customers and due to that fact, it incurred due to the time my deposit checking account remained frozen or blocked after Citi Bank incorrectly determined that no error occurred on my business checking deposit debit card account, based solely on the results of Banks prejudice Fraud Filter.

I authorize the Bureau of Financial Institutions to send a copy of this complaint, together with supporting documents, to the company against which the complaint is filed, other regulated entities, or the appropriate state or federal agency. I also authorize the company to release all records relating to this complaint to the Bureau of Financial Institutions, and I authorize the Bureau of Financial Institutions to release records relating to this complaint to the company. I also agree that by signing this form I authorize the Bureau of Financial Institutions to obtain any information required to evaluate my complaint. Your signature is required for the Bureau to process your complaint. 
Citi Bank would conduct an investigation that could include, among other steps : comparing the location of the transaction with my residence or habitual transactions ; accessing ATM camera footage ( if the alleged unauthorized activity occurred at a Citi Bank ATM ) ; and contacting me as a cardholder for further information. Following a surge in notices of error followed by an error of fraud for my check deposit, Citi Bank changed its practices for investigating fraudulent check or payment services deposit to conveying my cardholder notices of error. Under its new strategy, which Citi Bank implemented and ran my cardholders notices of error concerning alleged unauthorized EFTs through its newly developed automated Fraud Filter, and for notices of error that met any indicator used by the Fraud Filter ceased taking the steps described in Paragraph above, as part of its investigation. After Citi Bank discovered the issue was not an issue, it continued to freeze my flagged business checking deposit debit card accounts and excluding all of my reconsideration request from me as a consumer whether it was pending or where Citi Bank had reversed its initial determination that no error had occurred. 
As a result Citi does not accept any new payment from my clients business ' payments for deposit into a frozen account .When Citi Bank blocks my business checking account, no transactions are permitted. But unlike an account freeze, Citi Bank permits cardholders with blocks to verify their identity directly with Bank. Upon verification, Citi Bank releases the block, and the funds in deposit account and debit card becomes usable again. Before implementing the Fraud Filter Citi Bank knew, or should have known, that the Fraud Filter would, in certain cases, incorrectly determine that no error had occurred but refused to remove the block and took my money from my account.