Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

HUNTINGTON BANK OF OHIO  at best failed to make reasonable professional and fiduciary efforts to seek and pursue the return of funds transferred under a fraud scheme to an illegal business account at XXXXXXXX XXXX NEVADA. 

XX/XX/XXXX : Huntington Bank receives {$120000.00} of fraudulently directed funds ( internet phishing scheme ) via ACH from our business made out to a business XXXX  company account at Huntington. We learn after subpoena, that the funds were actually deposited into an XXXX, XXXX  woman 's personal account who is under the care of Adult Protective Services and is also a victim of the fraudsters and had nominal prior account activity and XXXX  balance. On this same day, the account holder requested cashiers checks totaling {$60000.00}. Rather than flagging the highly irregular activity and request to ensuring that their XXXX XXXX  client was safe, Huntington promptly granted her request for {$60000.00} in cashiers checks which the woman proceeded to mail to a XXXX Nevada account on direction of her unknown financial predator at the time. 

XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX Nevada receives and negotiates the 2 cashiers checks totaling {$60000.00} from Huntington Bank ( Ohio ) and deposits them to one of their ( XXXX Nevada 's ) " business accounts. '' XX/XX/XXXX : We learn of the fraud scheme and notify Huntington Bank directly and request return of funds while providing all necessary indemnification documents. Per Huntington Bank 's Chief Risk Officer 's office, Huntington claims to have made a single, oral request of XXXX Nevada to return the funds. According to representatives from Huntington, XXXX Nevada responded orally to them that " funds are not available '' in the applicable account for return. No further effort from Huntington appears to have been made following this initial request. 

Following our subpoena of Huntington and XXXX Nevada 's account records during this time, they eventually complied and we received proof from law enforcement that, despite XXXX 's claim to the contrary, the funds WERE in fact available on the date Huntington requested their return. Further, the account continued to hold the funds for an ADDITIONAL 7 DAYS ( with no further communication or effort from Huntington to seek/request return of the {$60000.00} ). We have this account balance statement documentation to share outside of this forum. 

On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Bank, rather than return the fraudulent misdirected funds to Huntington Bank, wired the funds to a Credit Union at the request of the account holder facilitating the money laundering scheme. We further learned through subpoena that XXXX Nevada had red-flagged the business account which appears to have been set up by a fraudulent business solely for multiple money laundering purposes. 

XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : After presenting our subpoena evidence to Huntington Bank and requesting their Chief Risk Officer file a claim with XXXX for reimbursement, rather than provide reimbursement for their negligence, we are told that XXXX again responded to Huntington with : " Claim Denied. Funds Depleted. '' Now, due to XXXX XXXX  Nevada 's gross negligence at best ( fraudulent behavior at worst assuming Huntington made the oral request ), and Huntington Bank 's lack of reasonable effort to pursue the return of funds, the entire {$60000.00} is gone and we have incurred an additional excessive burden trying to remedy the matter... .all of which could have been moot if Huntington and more reasonably pursued the funds and any balance available following their claim that XXXX Nevada had conveyed " funds are not available '' on XXXX 

This similar information and complaint was filed with CFPB for XXXX Nevada. After sharing our documented evidence of our funds being in their account for 7 days following their supposed claim to Huntington they were not, XXXX responded with " no errors occurred on our part. '' This leads us to believe/assume that XXXX feels that any " errors '' must be on Huntington 's communication or lack thereof. 

As we KNOW that our funds WERE available for return for up to 7 days following our request, the onus is not on us to figure who is at fault, especially when neither bank is forthcoming. Each bank seems to be pointing the finger at the other while we are the only one 's left with the {$60000.00} consequence. To date, Huntington has only returned the funds that never left the account/control of their elderly deaf client 's account. We require the return of our remaining funds.