Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service

Dear XXXX, I strongly disagree with the results of the Bank of America inner investigation , where the bank claim ( Claim No : XXXX ) its returned the money stolen by fraudsters in part because this is an authorized transfer. 


I consider your research/ investigation to be unfounded and incomplete for the following reasons : 1. I authorized the XXXX transfer because my Bank accepted the checks and thereby authorized their authenticity. The Bank accepted XXXX checks a day apart and approved them. As soon as the money appeared in my account the day after Bank approved the checks, it gave me confidence that the employer was genuine, after which I authorized the transfer. The money transfer was made within the bank 's system and using transfer tools supported by the bank and as a bank customer, I want to ask the following : Why BOA is promoting a transfer system that is constantly involved in fraud ( according to Media ) and from which BOA can not protect bank customers? 

2. After the money from these checks appeared in my account on the second day, I moved the money further to buy working equipment with confidence because my bank accepted these checks. 

3. When the money for the second check arrived in my account, the bank did not immediately approve the acceptance. I had to call the bank, where a bank employee asked me about the reason for the transaction with checks, to which I told the bank service team member that I had applied for a job, I received checks from the employer, the employer contacted me by mail and asked me to transfer money to the organization, for purchase of working equipment. Please note : Although the bank employee asked how and where I received the checks and what they were for, she did not warn me that it could be dangerous. Moreover, she did not say anything about the fictitiousness of the checks at that time. ( I can concede that someone like me, who has just moved to the US from XXXX and has never dealt with checks, could become a victim of fraud. But why didn't a bank that has been dealing with such acts of fraud for quite a long time ( according to the Media for XXXX ) notify me of the possible risks or fictitious checks? ). 

4. The bank declared the checks to be fictitious only after I informed them of the fraudulent act. Before this, the bank had no doubts about the authenticity of the checks. 

5. I only ended up with a large number of outstanding checks after the bank received information from me about the act of fraud and immediately rejected the check operation, which had been approved two days before. In this regard, I have a question to the BOA : a ) Why did the bank not have questions about fictitious checks when the bank accepted and approved the checks? 
b ) Why did this question suddenly arise after I informed the bank that I was a victim of fraud? 

6. If the bank is unable to assess the fictitiousness of checks and accepts the check, how can the customer do this? Is it the responsibility of bank depositors to authenticate the checks that are drawn to them? ( If a bank employee would have warned me that the checks are fictitious and the transaction with the transfer is very risky, I would not have become a victim of fraud ). 

7. What evidence can the bank rely on claiming that the reason for the incomplete refund is my authorized transfer? 

8. What documents were reviewed by banks when conducting a Bank investigation and making such a decision? 

As a result of this incompletely drawn-out bank investigation, I ended up in a dire situation where not only did I lose my savings, but I ended up in debt to the bank {$1500.00} because my bank accepted the checks, then canceled them. From XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I could not use my account, could not pay bills, or make purchases. This situation has had a very negative impact on my health and my life in general. I just couldn't buy food, clothes, and essentials for life. During this time, I lived with the support of my relatives and had to ask my relatives for a debt to close the debt of the bank ( as result of fraudulence ), since I am currently not working due to health reasons. 

The decision of the bank was unpleasant news for me, in this case, sounded like an accusation against me for neglecting banking operations. Although I consider myself the side of victim, who also suffered from the actions of the bank. By BOA decision, the Bank question the safety and security of the bank customers, who are not protected in any way and I think they will lose confidence in you as soon as such precedents as mine are known to your bank customers.