Product: Checking or savings account

Key Dates On XX/XX/XXXX, the consumer contacted the financial institution for disputing the known unauthorized transactions under the protections provided by the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. The dispute was established for XXXX debit electronic fund transfers from XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$40000.00} and XX/XX/XXXX in the amount of {$41000.00}. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, SOFI Bank informed the consumer that the investigation found no errors and a reason would be provided only if requested. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the consumer requested the documentation, On XX/XX/XXXX, the document received provided only two reasons : 1. There was an established history with the merchant, providing a reference to a {$5.00} deposit from XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX. No NSF was found, noting it suggested the person who withdrew the money knew the balance. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, per the reasons provided, an appeal was emailed to Sofi Bank, noting that the {$5.00} deposit was not seen, however was also unauthorized and to be added to the claim. Additionally, there was an NSF that occurred XX/XX/XXXX, which was not considered. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Sofi Bank requested I provide documentation to support the appeal. I replied and asked more clarification information on what it meant documentation was needed, as it was meant to be a new claim. No response was received On XX/XX/XXXX, I followed-up and stated my email should be treated as the document that the XXXX transaction is unauthorized and should be investigated as such. I also questioned why no safety steps were being done to verify my account wasnt compromised. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, my account was locked and an email was received stating the investigation was complete, with an additional note As applicable, we coordinate with other Financial Institutions, Merchants, and Networks as part of the claim review. Despite further investigation, we still do not find that an error occurred. 
On XX/XX/XXXX & XXXX, XXXX, based on the concept a further investigation was done, I requested for the documentation to support the no error findings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Sofi Bank sent the same documentation received XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the account restriction was lifted On XX/XX/XXXX, I attempted a new approach and made a new claim for the {$5.00} transaction, separate for the other XXXX transactions. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received an email from Sofi Bank stating the investigation was complete, referencing all XXXX transactions as XXXX dispute, and no error was found. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I requested the documentation to support the investigation. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I received from Sofi Bank, the same document from XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, a new appeal was submitted with a police report and copy of the NSF email, disputing the XXXX reasons provided. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, a follow-up email was sent to Sofi Bank for XXXX update On XX/XX/XXXX, an automated email was received noting the dispute was closed. No response on the XX/XX/XXXX appeal was received. 

Sample of violations The first violation was part of Electronic Fund Transfer Act 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ), Notice of error from consumer. SOFI Bank requested documentation to support my new dispute of the {$5.00} unauthorized transaction and to date shows no signs it was ever investigated.

The second violation was part of Electronic Fund Transfer Act 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( iv ), Reports the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation and Electronic Fund Transfer Act 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), The institution 's report of the results of its investigation shall include a written explanation of the institution 's findings and shall note the consumer 's right to request the documents that the institution relied on in making its determination. Upon request, the institution shall promptly provide copies of the documents. After much communication trying to get any clarification, warning SOFI Bank of the regulations EFTA 1005.11, and SOFI Bank admitting, in writing, the requests for more information were ignored on several occasions ; on XX/XX/XXXX, SOFI Bank claims they did an appeal review, with the new disputed transaction, and came to the same rejection on XX/XX/XXXX, then proceeded to provide the same denial document from XX/XX/XXXX, with reasons contradicting the appeal. It appears the reasons Sofi Bank are using are not being disclosed when requested and should not be used for their reasons of finding no error, per regulation. 
The third violation was similar to the first violation. An appeal was submitted with new documentation and Sofi bank closed the dispute failing in providing me a reasonable investigation to my dispute. 

Summary Despite my timely notification as covered under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) and the clear obligation under the EFTA for Sofi Bank to conduct a reasonable investigation, I have encountered issues with your handling of this matter, specifically : 1. Failure to Perform a Reasonable Investigation : Sofi Bank did not conduct a thorough or reasonable investigation into my claims, as required under 12 C.F.R. 1005.11. I have received no substantive explanation or evidence that a proper investigation took place.

2. Lack of Clarification Regarding Claim Denial : When my dispute was denied, I was not provided with a clear and detailed explanation of the reasons for this denial. This omission is a violation of my rights under the EFTA, which mandates transparency in the resolution of such disputes.