Product: Checking or savings account

On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from Truists fraud department saying check # XXXX for which the proper payees name had been washed out and a new payee name substituted ( ( Acct # XXXX ). This check had been stolen from the mail. I confirmed that the check had indeed been altered. When asked, I said that Truist should not pay the check. Truist paid the check anyway. If Truist had followed my instruction and not paid the check, none of the future problems would have occurred. 
After seeing in my statement that Truist wrongly paid the altered check, I submitted a claim of fraud to Truist for {$12000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, Truist sent me a letter saying that my claim was found to be valid and the money was returned to my account. 
In the @ XX/XX/XXXX call, I expressly asked whether I should close the account. I was told that this was not necessary. 
In my XXXX statement, I learned that this same check ( or a copy ) had been altered further, so that the payees name, the date, the amount ( changed to {$10000.00} ) and the check number ( changed to XXXX ) were different. The original signature on check XXXX was retained. Truist did not catch this much more substantial alteration of my original check and paid it. 
I called to submit another fraud claim, # XXXX. Within a day, before I had a chance to submit the required signed and notarized fraud claim, Truist denied my claim based on my alleged negligence in keeping my account information safe. Truist never specified the nature of the negligence. I was left to believe that Truist wrongly believed that two separate checks had been stolen, rather than only one check that was altered and used twice. I filed an appeal from the denial, # XXXX. 
In XXXX, I was informed in a phone call from XXXX XXXX XXXX that Truist was denying my appeal but was continuing its effort to recover the funds from XXXX, where the altered checks were initially submitted. 
XXXX XXXX told me that Truist was basing its denial on a proviso that was in the papers when I opened the account with XXXX XXXX XXXX  years previously, in XXXX. XXXX subsequently became Suntrust, and Suntrust later was bought out by Truist. Apparently this proviso said that if I did not close my account after it was compromised once, the bank was not responsible for subsequent account invasions. XXXX XXXX mailed me a copy of a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX in which such a proviso appears on XXXX. I have no knowledge or memory of such a provision. 
Even if the proviso still exists and applies after all these years and ownership changes, Truist certainly made no effort after they wrongfully cashed the first check to advise me that I should close the account at that time or face possible adverse consequences. Indeed, in the XX/XX/XXXX call from the Truist Fraud department, the Truist representative responded to my express question by saying that I did not need to close and replace my account. I should be permitted to rely on Truists advice, not penalized for following it.

Moreover, Truist ( a ) never timely informed my wife and I of the existence and significance of the proviso, whether by letter, phone call, or advice from our branch customer agents ; ( b ) never included the proviso in the required signed and notarized Affidavit of Fraud where it included other provisos, such as my agreement to testify against a culprit ; ( c ) did not mention the proviso as a a requirement, or even as advice, in the letter saying Truist was restoring the money taken in the first invasion of my account invasion ; or ( d ) did not simply close the account on its own if it believed the account was in further jeopardy.

In my view, the negligence in this matter was entirely on Truists part. Truist had many ways to protect my account and its customers that it failed to take. These include : ( 1 ) following my explicit instructions to not pay the initial altered check when they discovered ( and I confirmed ) that it was fraudulent ; ( 2 ) advising me that I need should close my account or face increased jeopardy and reduced bank protection ; and ( 3 ) advising me about the proviso if it indeed was important enough to justify a refusal to restore the stolen funds.

I appreciate your efforts to achieve a fair resolution of this matter. 


Sent from my XXXX