Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

Previous claim submitted : XXXX This is a new complaint in response to their final decision. m - on XX/XX/year>, I was a victim of fraud/deceptive practice and intimidation. As mentioned in my previous case, I was intimidated into giving a {$4.00} donation to a man that approached me in the parking lot. This man forced his arm into my car, tapped my phone, and charged me a total of {$2300.00} through an electronic transfer. An unauthorized charge. This was reported to Wells Fargo within XXXX minutes. A police report filed that same day was also provided to the bank. There has been miscommunication, faulted rationale, and misinformation regarding my account provided to me. For XX/XX/XXXX months, I was denied the claim under the rationale that I had my debit card on me and since I had my card on me, it was an authorized transaction even though the robbery occurred electronically. After opening a case with CFPB, the case was denied once again under the following rationale : " The XXXXXX/XX/XXXXpartnered with the claims department to inquire if the decision can be overturned to return the funds to your Everyday checking account ending in XXXX. After an additional review of your debit card claim, we determined that the denial will be maintained. With the information, police report, you agreed to give the donation, thus the donation was authorized. Regardless of the situation, the transaction was made by you, not fraud. The provisional credit that was credited to the account ending in XXXX for {$2300.00} on XX/XX/year>, was reversed on XX/XX/year>. A notice was sent on XX/XX/year>, advising of the upcoming provisional credit reversal. We have enclosed the letter for your review. 
This transaction is not covered by Regulation XXXX, since you preformed the transaction or electronic funds transfer ( EFT ). '' This claim is faulted a requires further investigation to protect me as a consumer. XXXX includes deceptive practice therefore, this case does constitute as fraud. 

XXXX ) The bank is arguing that my agreement to a {$4.00} donation somehow extends to or implies consent for additional charges. The XXXX requires clear and affirmative consent for electronic fund transfers from a consumer 's account. If the {$2300.00} charge was not explicitly authorized by me, and if the agreement to donate {$4.00} did not clearly encompass further transactions or charges, this charge could still be considered unauthorized under the XXXX. 

XXXX ) The XXXX outlines specific steps consumers must take to dispute unauthorized charges, including timely notification to the financial institution. My rights to dispute the {$2300.00} charge hinge on following these procedures, regardless of the {$4.00} donation agreement. I complied with all required steps, including notifying the bank within XXXX minutes of the unauthorized transaction which should limit my liability to {$50.00} and preserves my rights to dispute the charge. 

XXXX ) Banks obligation : Banks have obligations under the XXXX to investigate reports of unauthorized charges and to correct errors promptly. Since I have followed the dispute process correctly, the bank is required to investigate my claim and provide a resolution. The fact that I agreed to a separate, unrelated {$4.00} donation does not negate the bank 's obligations to address the unauthorized {$2300.00} charge. They have not provided ANY information about investigating the company that charged me {$2300.00}. Have they found phone numbers, addresses, spoken to someone? Any tracks of this company at all which does no exist? And with that, how can this claim be denied based on an agreed {$4.00} donation which ended up being a forced {$2300.00} unauthorized charge to an automobile company?? 

The message they are conveying is that any entity, people or company, can charge others any given amount without any consequences. The {$2300.00} was unauthorized, was XXXX, and I should not be liable for the entire amount stolen from me.