Product: Credit card or prepaid card

On XX/XX/XXXX I identified a fraudulent transaction on my Bank of America ( BoA ) credit card in the amount of {$1300.00}. I contacted BoA on XX/XX/XXXX after the transaction had posted to dispute the charge as fraudulent and received a provisional credit. On XX/XX/XXXX I received a PDF letter ( online ) from BoA that the dispute was resolved. On Friday, XX/XX/XXXX the {$1300.00} was charged to my credit card again with the transaction labeled as " Fraud Dispute ''. I immediately contacted BoA that same day and was informed the charge was done in error and should not have been posted to my account. I was told the amount would be refunded in 2-3 business days. I did not receive a new PDF letter via BoA 's online " Message Center ''. The week of XX/XX/XXXX I received a hard copy letter from BoA via the mail stating " unfortunately, we're unable to approve your recent fraud claim. This letter did not include the information required per 12 CFR Part 1026 ( Regulation Z ), 1026.13 ( f ) ( 1 ) and ( 2 ). By XX/XX/XXXX the refund still had not posted so I once again contacted BoA fraud and after an hour on hold and bringing the representative up to speed I was transferred to fraud claims and asked to speak to a supervisor. I was transferred to " XXXX '' who once again stated the amount would be refunded within 5 business days from XX/XX/XXXX. During this call, XXXX did not provide any additional information related to BoA 's investigation, nor did she seem to be aware or have any context of the current status of the investigation. On Friday, XX/XX/XXXX the refund still had not posted so I once again contacted BoA Fraud Dept., waited on hold nearly an hour, updated the rep again to so I could be transferred to Fraud Claims and requested to speak to a Supervisor. XX/XX/XXXX is the first day ( +21 days from XX/XX/XXXX letter date ) in which I was informed of the fraud investigation results and why my fraud claim was being denied. I was informed of the details of the XXXX XXXX order, which was completed online and curbside pickup completed in XXXX NJ which is 1.5-2 Hrs north of where I live ( there is a XXXX XXXX 10 minutes away from where I live ). I asked if BoA obtained the IP address of where the order was placed and they had not. On XX/XX/XXXX BoA finally indicated that the order was completed using my valid personal information ( phone number, email, name and address ) and for this reason the claim was being denied. I did not place this order nor did I take receipt of the ordered item. XXXX XXXX did not adhere to there policy to check identification of the individual picking up an item at curbside pick up. I asked BoA to mail the results of their investigation ( since they were not included in the letter dated XX/XX/XXXX and as of XX/XX/XXXX I still have not received this information. BoA stated I would need to contact XXXX XXXX and dispute the transaction. I did this and XXXX XXXX was of no assistance. On XX/XX/XXXX I filed a police report with XXXX XXXX of the XXXX XXXX, NJ police ( this is the local police where I live ) [ [ Case # XXXX, I am waiting for this to be available to pick up and can provide if required ] ]. In contacting XXXX XXXX I was informed they did not have video of the individual picking up the item, did not have signature for the individual picking up the items, etc. Essentially, I have no recourse to dispute this fraudulent transaction. BoA did not adhere to the Reg. Z requirements noted above nor the XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( Dodd-Frank Act ) in which it is unlawful for any provider of consumer financial products or services or a service provider to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice. The Dodd-Frank Act granted rulemaking authority regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX BoA withheld information they had obtained which factored into their investigation decision for 21 days which unfairly prevented my ability to follow up timely with XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NJ XXXX and XXXX, NJ XXXX. BoA policy as dictated by regulatory requirements requires the fair, timely and complete information to be provided to the consumer during credit transaction disputes. Their actions were deceptive in misleading me to believe the reposting of the transaction was done in error. I was mislead two separate times in speaking with two different supervisors. BoA actions were abusive due to the fact I had to contact them three times before I was provided with the required level of detail so i could file a police report. These practices of BoA raise serious concerns warranting further review by the CFPB. BoA practices caused substantial monetary harm and limited my ability to reasonably avoid this harm. BoA acts/practice directly, without question, hindered my reasonably expected decision-making in an effort to dispute this fraud and obtain monetary reimbursement. Their delay in communicating investigation results currently leaves me unable to recover the {$1300.00}.