Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

SUMMARY : - NFCU Fraud Investigation was completed without any contact with account owners. 
- No real investigative proof supplied by NFCU except a questionable statement determining the device responsible for the activity, leaving possible forensic holes in what they did. 
- No avenue for appeal allowed by NFCU for my wife and I, the aggrieved parties - No information released to us by NFCU ( as their XX/XX/XXXX claim denial stated we had a right to ) without a law enforcement subpoena ( even though no court case exists up to this point in time ) NOTE : The NFCU accounts referred to in this complaint are co-owned by my wife and myself. 
Neither of us entered the three disputed XX/XX/XXXX activities XX/XX/XXXX  : There was unauthorized activity in our Navy Federal Credit Union ( NFCU ) accounts. Activity included these steps : - The creation of an ACH transaction in order to move monies into an external XXXX XXXX account, the owner of which is unknown - A transfer of {$4900.00} from our home equity HELOC into our ( then ) checking - A transfer of {$5000.00} out of our ( then ) checking to the external account created ( 1st step above ) XX/XX/ : I noticed the above mentioned activity and contacted ( NFCU ) immediately. 
The customer service rep who took my call accepted our claim of fraudulent activity and made the necessary security remedies to our accounts, such as account number changes. At the end of our call, she mentioned the NFCU Fraud ( Security ) department will take a look at the activity and may call me for more information. Fraud ( Security ) department never did call. 

Subsequent to XX/XX/XXXX : - Received an unsigned letter from NFCU Security Department, dated XX/XX/XXXX, claiming their investigation determined the fraudulent transactions were legitimate, an inaccurate assessment. 
- In the letter there was no specific explanation of how/why they came to that decision. 
- Also in the NFCU letter was an statement saying we, the account owners, have the right to request information concerning the investigation and how we arrived at this conclusion a statement with a caveat as it turned out in that they subsequently stated several times it would take a subpoena by law enforcement for them to release anything to us - For several weeks of our effort to resolve the issue, NFCU exhibited nothing resembling an advocate for us, their customers. 
- Contact for two weeks with NFCU included Three ( 3 ) phone calls, Four ( 4 ) e-mail exchanges and several media posts. All this resolved nothing and provided little additional information. 
What little detail we were able to obtain from NFCU - Their decision was based on their finding that the three activities in question on XX/XX/XXXX were performed from what they described as an historic device. 
- Whether they were referring to our laptop or my phone ( the only two devices used for NFCU purposes ) is unknown NFCU was unwilling to divulge that information. 
- NFCU provided no avenue for appeal. Decision was final. 
According to NFCU ( and contrary to what they wrote in their XX/XX/XXXX claim denial letter ), any information I wanted on the matter could only be obtained through a law enforcement subpoena, including : - How extensive an investigation did they perform ( e.g. once they determined the activity came from an historic device, did they make any further forensic effort to determine if there were remote/external sources involved in manipulating the historic device ) - The account info of the external ACH fraudulently created on my own account. That info was available to me at before NFCU removed it and told me I was not privy to that information ( which in essence goes against their assertion that the fraudulent activity was legitimate if it was indeed legitimate, then that info should be available to me ) Conclusion : - The NFCU Security departments fraud investigation in this case was nothing more than incomplete, misleading or dishonest. Perhaps a combination of the three. 
- If the investigation was done honestly and with due diligence, it would have been found that the access to the historic device mentioned was, I am sure, a remote connection outside of our home network, either from inside NFCU or elsewhere. If indeed the historic device was used. 
- NFCU refusal to supply any facts behind how they came to their historic device conclusion is eyebrow raising and contrary to what they offered in their XX/XX/XXXX claim denial letter in terms of providing investigative data - NFCU refusal to provide an avenue for appeal of their decision is outrageous - The smokescreen so sue me mantra of needing a subpoena from law enforcement for any info pertaining to this issue is an interesting roadblock considering no legal case was ever begun, anywhere, on this matter up to this point in time