Product: Payday loan, title loan, or personal loan

I had a Retail Installment Sales Contract with Truist, formerly SunTrust Bank ( Suntrust ) for my XXXX XXXX XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, I put the vehicle on XXXX List and got a call from a potential buyer ( a Ms. XXXX from XXXX ) who wanted to know the outstanding balance on the loan. On XX/XX/XXXX, I sent her a picture of the loan amount with the bank name and loan number, and the woman took that information and paid off the loan without there being an agreement or contract for sale, and demanded that we turn the vehicle over to her the same day. When I refused, she became threatening, demanding that I turn over the vehicle for the cost of the loan balance and before the payment cleared the bank. 
As soon as I learned that she was attempting to pay off my loan, I immediately called Suntrust and informed them that this was a scam and that there was no agreement reached as to sales price. I made numerous calls to various individuals at the bank, informed them that I made a police report, and begged them to refuse the payment in order to assist me in thwarting this scam. However, the bank employees reported that they were required to credit the payment even though they were informed that it was made using identity theft. One of the  bank employees actually ridiculed me for continuing to call, laughing and saying she was sure that she would talk to me again since I would not stop calling. I attempted to continue making the payment on the vehicle and Suntrust refused to accept MY payment, while insisting on accepting payment that they knew was made through fraud. The individuals I spoke to include Ms. XXXX XXXX, the Branch Manager and Mr. XXXX XXXX, Universal Banker. 
I even called the banks fraud department and spoke with XXXX. She informed me that the transaction had been completed, directed me to take the lien release and title to the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration to transfer the title, and promised me that no one could come back and seek payment on the loan ( see XX/XX/XXXX letter ). 
On XX/XX/XXXX, over four months later, I received notice from the bank that it wants me to pay for its loss as a result of the fraud. Apparently, the womans whose identity was stolen in order to access her bank account to pay off my loan eventually reported the fraud to her bank. That bank, as the RDFI, must now be seeking indemnity from Suntrust as the ODFI for breach of warranty of authorization for the payment. 
Now, Suntrust wants to justify its inaction by claiming that it had the victims social security number and bank account information. Allowing a bank to ignore information that an electronic transfer is being made as a result of identity theft simply because the thief was able to steal someones social security number and banking information, is not in the public interest. 
Suntrust can not represent that it was authorized, either by me or by a third party, to accept the payment because I informed them before they accepted payment that neither I nor the woman whose identity was stolen, agreed to the payment, and begged them not to accept the payment. The bank had every opportunity to prevent this crime, but refused to do so. 
Either Suntrust did not have commercially reasonable business practices in place for requiring additional verification when they were immediately informed of the identity theft or their employees did not want to take the time to follow those practices because they thought that the only people who could be injured by the fraud were the woman whose identity was stolen or some blue color nobody from XXXX ( me ). 
Suntrust allowed itself to be a knowing accessory to fraud and now wishes to pass on its loss to its customer ( see XX/XX/XXXX letter acknowledging the bank was on notice of the fraud, apologizing for any miscommunication with us, and directing us to forward any funds we may have been successful in obtaining from the individual who took possession of the vehicle ). While the bank states that it has taken this opportunity to input more coaching surrounding his issue, it is unfathomable that anyone in the banking industry would not already have been well aware of the prevalence of ACH fraud, and I understand that Suntrust has been involved in litigation over this type of fraud before. 
Suntrust has magnanimously offered to forego interest on the loan because it knows it has violated the Credit Grantor Closed End Credit provisions of Maryland law and can not seek interest at this point. The bank wants me to continue to pay on a loan for which it has already given me a release. I obtained clear title of the vehicle, AT THE BANKS INSISTENCE, and will not accept responsibility for Suntrusts egregious breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, which has resulted in its own loss. 
The banks actions have caused an incalculable amount of stress to me and my family that has negatively impacted my health, and if it takes court action to cause me financial loss as well as a result of its misrepresentations, I will seek punitive damages.