Product: Checking or savings account

On XX/XX/XXXX three significant and obvious fraudulent attempts were made to withdraw funds from our Charles Schwab Bank checking account. These were successfully processed on XX/XX/XXXX and the funds taken from our account. We detected the problem from the Charles Schwab website on the same date and IMMEDIATELY informed Charles Schwab. On that same date a fourth attempt by the same party was made, which was allowed to process on XX/XX/XXXX. Altogether the total fraudulent payments made from our account totaled more than {$22000.00}. These payments were characterized on the Charles Schwab website as paid to a legitimate vendor whom we had made a long series ( more than 4 years ) of consistent $ XXXX  monthly payments to, but were apparently directed to an individual in XXXX XXXX Missouri whom Charles Schwab identified to us once, but then refused to repeat. We had never made a payment more than {$120.00} to the vendor ( XXXX XXXX  ) at any time, and had pending payments of {$120.00} a month at the time the fraudulent {$22000.00} was paid out. 

After we opened a fraud report with Charles Schwab we agreed to freeze the existing checking account but we provided a detailed list of outstanding checks, and bill payments - and while we transferred most of the remaining balance out of the checking account to our Charles Schwab brokerage account, we left a sufficient amount to pay those bills in the checking account with Charles Schwab 's REPEATED assurances that they would be allowed to clear when presented for payment, or when scheduled to pay through their " bill pay '' process. When the fraud  investigator agreed that the four withdrawals/payments taken from our account on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX were thefts, the funds were returned to us, and we immediately transferred those into our Charles Schwab brokerage account. 

On the day following our fraud report we went to the local Charles Schwab brokerage office, and met with an advisor named " XXXX XXXX ''? who opened new bank and brokerage accounts for us, and into which we transferred most of the funds in our prior brokerage account since we needed those funds to conduct our economic life. Mr. XXXX did NOT at any time advise us that Charles Schwab would be conducting a hard credit check on us, nor did he offer us any opportunity to refuse such a credit check and to take our funds elsewhere. 

The day after this we learned from two parties to whom we had issued checks prior to the fraud that Charles Schwab bank had returned those checks with the notation " account frozen '' on them. These had been reported as NSF checks ( derogatory and harmful to our reputations, and also false and misleading ) to the system which other financial institutions utilize in order to assess the credit worthiness of people who wish to open checking or other accounts with them. At no time were there insufficient funds in the account to pay those checks - and so the harm done to our reputation and credit worthiness by these returned checks was and remains substantial. 

At this point we attempted to contact the fraud investigator and Mr. XXXX, neither of whom returned our calls. Later we were able to connect with XXXX XXXX, the Interim Manager of the XXXX XXXX branch of Charles Schwab, who, in turn, evidently referred our situation to the Charles Schwab Client Advocacy team. During our efforts to correct this situation we were told, contemptuously, by a Charles Schwab employee that their promise to honor outstanding checks at the time of the fraud which had been specifically identified to them in detail ( date, check #, payee, and amount ) was only on a " best efforts '' basis. This was the FIRST time ( after the fact of the returned checks ) that this term was used in any communication of any Charles Schwab employee with us.

After we were contacted by the Client Advocacy team, whose name was " XXXX  '' he insisted that we had agreed to the hard credit check to open our new bank and brokerage account. We had learned of this hard credit check only when we were contacted by an employee to verify our identity the day after we opened the account through Mr. XXXX, and when we objected " XXXX  '' insisted that we had agreed to it, that it was " in the agreement '', etc. We NEVER agreed either in writing or by electronic signature. 

Last Friday we were contacted by the Supervisor of the Client Advocacy team who agreed that Charles Schwab had violated our rights and that there is a procedure for transferring from an existing account to a new account that should have been followed in our case, since our reason for making this change was because of a series of fraudulent withdrawals from our existing Charles Schwab bank account. And she offered to write a letter to XXXX  which is the credit reporting agency from whom they requested the hard credit report to " withdraw '' the hard credit check. But we have reached the end of our rope and do not believe this is a satisfactory resolution to our situation. 

Over this past weekend Charles Schwab bank returned the third ( there were only five - the first two of which they paid ) check which we had identified to them at the time of our initial fraud report. This particular payee ( XXXX XXXX ) has a policy of charging a significant fee to us because of the bounced check IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL PAYMENT - AND OF MAKING AN ADVERSE CREDIT REPORT against us for this defect. Charles Schwab again apparently relies on it's " best efforts '' language which was never disclosed to us, and which the Client Advocacy team leader agreed had been " no efforts '' in our case. 

All of the " bill pay '' payments have been allowed to process, although in each case several days late - some of these payments, had they not been processed on time could and may still result in severe economic harm to us. 

This alleged " bank '' which has no branches, and can only be dealt with through its telephone and online interfaces, and by dealing with dual hat employees of both their brokerage service and the bank ( as Mr. XXXX described himself ) has literally put the mask and gloves on and assisted the bank robbers in taking more than {$22000.00} from us ( which they did NOT perceive, but only responded to when WE reported the thefts to them ) - and in returning legitimate payments we repeatedly identified to them in detail thus significantly harming our reputation and credit, and by performing unauthorized and undisclosed hard credit checks on us. 

One additional matter we want on the record - naturally Charles Schwab bank puts none of their representations in which they admit both fault and failure in how they have handled this situation in writing. But they do announce ON EVERY CALL that it will be recorded and monitored. We are confident that they will either destroy or misplace or alter these conversations, but we would hope that this complaint would put them on notice that any such action on their part, from our point of view, and from that of any reasonable person, would constitute the destruction of evidence and admission of our assertions. 



We request that CFPB both notify them, and also sanction them as severely as possible. Civil litigation is problematic because Charles Schwab through its various entities has engaged most if not all of the competent law firms in XXXX XXXX who might be interested in taking action on our behalf against them. This is evidently a strategy they adopt to prevent access to the courts by establishing a pre-existing relationship through some trivial matter or another under which they engage virtually all law firms to prevent those they harm from doing the same due to the " conflict of interests '' limitations which lawyers must observe. 

Thank you for any help you can extend in this matter.