Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

I respectfully request that you revisit this previously closed case with DISCOVER and XXXX, considering the extenuating circumstances outlined below fall within the framework of Cyber Blackmail and Extortion, 18 U.S.C. 875. The threats of physical harm and coercion I experienced from XXXX XXXX and her accomplice on X align with the provisions of this law 18 U.S.C. 875. I base my reasonable assertions on the following : The transactions in question were not conducted voluntarily. Still, they were made under extreme duress, coercion, and threats of physical harm by a known cybercriminal, XXXX XXXX, and her accomplice, XXXX XXXX. These actions constitute violations of federal laws, including but not limited to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ( CFAA ), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ( ECPA ), and laws governing wire communication, wire fraud, and cyber blackmail. 

XXXX XXXX targeted me through a calculated scheme exploiting military personnel and veterans. She presented herself as a Good Samaritan offering financial assistance, only to coerce and defraud victims through cybercrime. The transactions made on my account were executed under the threat of physical harm, leveraging my personal and financial information without my informed consent. 

Additionally, XXXX XXXX gained unauthorized access to my accounts, including XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, further evidencing her cybercriminal activities. Police reports have been filed with the XXXX Police Department and the XXXX XXXX Police Department regarding her accomplice, XXXX XXXX, and the fraudulent transactions. 

Federal law explicitly addresses scenarios involving duress and coercion in fraudulent financial activities. The circumstances surrounding these transactions fall directly within these provisions. By dismissing this case, Discover Financial Services overlooks critical evidence and the substantial impact of cybercrime on consumers like me. 

In my past correspondence, I have provided the following documentation to support my claim : Police reports were filed with the XXXX  XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Evidence of unauthorized access and coercive threats. 

Relevant communication records with XXXX XXXX XXXX Department. 

I am writing in response to your letter dated XX/XX/XXXX. According to our records, a fraud claim was filed on XX/XX/XXXX, for XXXX transactions totaling {$1600.00} on the account ending in XXXX. Consequently, the account was closed, and a fraud investigation was initiated. On XX/XX/XXXX, the investigation concluded that no fraud had occurred, thus holding you responsible for the account balance. The request for reassertion review was subsequently denied on XX/XX/XXXX. After thoroughly reviewing all the information, we regret to inform you that our position remains unchanged. 

However, I must point out several discrepancies and oversights in this conclusion. First, substantial evidence indicates that the transactions in question were conducted under suspicious circumstances, which were not fully considered during the initial investigation. Second, the rapid closure of the account without proper verification may have impeded a thorough examination of potentially fraudulent activities. Additionally, the denial of the reassertion review seems to lack sufficient explanation, failing to address specific concerns about the integrity of the investigation process. Given these issues, it is imperative to re-evaluate the case comprehensively to ensure a just and accurate resolution. 

DISCOVER acknowledges my awareness of the disputed activity and my admission of providing physical card information or being involved in the card 's use when the activity occurred. On XX/XX/XXXX, I confirmed that these transactions were part of a cyber scam targeting military personnel and veterans on XXXX I also informed DISCOVER that I sent funds to someone who approached me on X as a " Good Samaritan. '' However, I must assert that I was a victim of sophisticated fraud. The scam was highly convincing and targeted individuals like me in the military community. The attacker impersonated a trustworthy individual, which led me to believe their intentions were genuine. Furthermore, I promptly reported the suspicious activities to DISCOVER upon realizing the deception, demonstrating my commitment to resolving the issue. I request that DISCOVER consider these circumstances and the nature of cyber scams that exploit trust and manipulate victims into unintentional participation. 

You state that if I voluntarily allowed activity on my account or shared my account information, DISCOVER can not consider it fraud, and I remain responsible for the balance. However, I can argue that any such activity was done under duress, without my informed consent, or due to misleading or incomplete communication from DISCOVER 's end. Additionally, if there is evidence of unauthorized access despite reasonable precautions, it should still be considered fraud. 

Yet, credit agencies must recognize that there are measures that can be implemented to combat these scams. For instance, banks and financial institutions can enhance their security protocols and provide educational resources to customers about common scam tactics. Law enforcement agencies can also increase their efforts to track down and prosecute scammers. Victims must also be provided enhanced recourse through consumer protection laws and by reporting fraud to relevant authorities. DISCOVER and XXXX penalized me for reporting these cyber crimes promptly, which is disgraceful. 

You state that credit card issuers can not control where consumers use their cards or recover losses from trusted sources. For instance, they can't help if a customer withdraws cash and gives it to a scammer. Companies like DISCOVER attempt to detect and prevent scams or warn consumers, but this did not happen in my situation. 

However, consumers have certain defenses when dealing with credit card fraud or disputes. The Fair Credit Billing Act ( FCBA ) allows consumers to dispute unauthorized charges and billing errors on their credit card statements. Additionally, the Truth in Lending Act provides protections that limit a consumer 's liability for unauthorized transactions to {$50.00}, provided the loss is reported promptly. These legal frameworks are designed to give consumers recourse if they become victims of fraud or deceptive practices. 

While DISCOVER 's claim that increased awareness among consumers, banks, and merchants can help protect everyone is well-intentioned, it overlooks the complexity of modern scams. Scammers continually evolve tactics, making detecting fraud difficult for well-informed individuals and institutions. Additionally, not all consumers have equal access to information or education about these threats, leaving some more vulnerable than others. Therefore, while awareness is crucial, it must be complemented by stronger regulatory measures, technological defenses, and support systems to combat scams effectively. 

Given the evidence and legal framework, I urge you to re-evaluate this case and recognize these transactions as fraudulent under cybercrime, coercion, and duress. Your understanding and cooperation in this matter would greatly assist in mitigating the severe financial hardship I have suffered as a direct result of these crimes. The Office of XXXX XXXX XXXX has opened a query with the FBI to check on the status of the XXXX complaint I filed last XXXX and with the Federal Trade Commission. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your timely response. 

Sincerely, XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX