Product: Checking or savings account

Between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, I was the victim of bank fraud. Individual ( s ), of an unknown name, obtained my debit card information ( including card number, expiration date, and CVV number ) and made a host of unauthorized, fraudulent transactions that were charged to my checking account in the approximate amount of {$1000.00}. I was alerted to the fraud on XX/XX/XXXX through my financial institution 's electronic fraud notification system. My financial institution is PNC Bank ( " PNC '' ). 

After becoming aware of the fraud, on XX/XX/XXXX, I contacted PNC and spoke with a fraud representative to dispute the charges and inform PNC that such charges were unauthorized. The date and amount of each posted disputed charge is listed below. 

XX/XX/XXXX : {$51.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$21.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$17.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$220.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$170.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$210.00} XX/XX/XXXX : {$230.00} The obviousness of the fraud was so blatant as some of the above charges were made with vendors I have never purchased from, in rapid succession, out-of-state in areas where I have never been physically present, in areas where I have never used my debit card, and were done at the same time as other authentic charges in a completely different state over 1,000 miles apart. Worse yet, many of the charge were for firearm ammunition, and I DO NOT OWN A GUN. PNC issued me a provisional credit for the amounts identified above while the bank " investigated '' the veracity of the charges. 

On or around XX/XX/XXXX, PNC informed me, via letter, that it had concluded its " investigation '' into the matter and amazingly deemed the unauthorized charges " to be valid. '' Shortly thereafter, I contacted PNC, again, to dispute the charge and to escalate the matter further. I informed PNC of the obviousness of the fraud to which PNC had no response. PNC was unable to explain how I was physically present in 2 different states, at the same time, nearly 1,000 miles apart. During this conversation, I also demanded copies of the documentation PNC relied upon in its investigation to reach its determination. PNC informed me that I had a " right '' to request this information. However, PNC did not honor this request despite my " right '' to such information. 

PNC informed me during my call that it would " reevaluate '' its prior decision, and I should expect to receive a written response within 10 business days. 

On or around XX/XX/XXXX, PNC sent correspondence to me wherein the bank stated, again, that it determined the unauthorized charges to be valid and would not be refunding the fraudulently spent money. 

PNC 's conduct has been egregious. Not only was the fraud obvious and the amounts should unquestionably be refunded, as required under federal law, but PNC 's bad faith has extended to not honoring depositor requests to obtain information that PNC relied upon during its " investigation, '' which PNC has stated that its depositors have a " right '' to. 

Based on PNC 's conduct, a conclusion can be drawn that PNC has no intention of refunding the fraudulent transactions, despite the obviousness of the fraud, and is hoping because of the relatively low dollar amount involved that the victim, me, will simply " go away. '' PNC 's conduct not only violates its statutory obligation to refund, in full, the fraudulently spent money from my bank account but also violates a host of other state and federal law, including but not limited to unfair and deceptive trade practices. 

It is may request for the CFPB to initiate an investigation into PNC 's conduct and practices regarding this matter for compliance with federal law.