Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

y The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, Washington DC XXXX XX/XX/XXXX This is to complain against the Coinbase. 
URGENCY : HIGH IMPORTANCE : HIGH [ WITHOUT PREJUDICE ] I would like to draw your attention to XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  - I had sent my complaint letter to Coinbase, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically and financially. 
I am afraid I have had to go through so much " bureaucracy '' thus far in order to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least ; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace of mind. 
My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly ( could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation ) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank. 
I feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Coinbase never acknowledge my complaint, therefore, I have approached you CFPB and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter. 
General Obligation : Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Coinbase account to fraudulent investment firm ( s ). 
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 Coinbase 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 XXXXay have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Coinbases 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 Coinbase promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Coinbase was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Coinbase owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Coinbase did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Coinbases conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Coinbase 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, Coinbase 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 Coinbase 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. 
Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Coinbase 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. 
Coinbase is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud XXXX 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.