Product: Checking or savings account

On Thursday, XX/XX/XXXX, I reported with the citizens bank fraud dept that I had been a victim of check fraud on my citizens business checking account ( ending XXXX, now closed. ) XXXX individual checks were cleared by citizens bank between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX of XXXX, totaling {$8600.00}, all which should have been detected and flagged as fraudulent, given the visual alterations and defects. I understand banks are required to reimburse when failing to exercise ordinary care in handling checks. 
I get my statements electronically, and each months statement isn't made available until the beginning of the following month. 
On XX/XX/XXXX Citizens issued an immediate denial letter, only XXXX business days after I filed the fraud claim, clearly failing to uphold their fiduciary duties to me as a consumer, failing to perform a reasonable investigation, and acting in bad faith, protecting their own interests and ignoring mine. 
I kept getting escalated to supervisors and then XXXX XXXX in the office of the chairman, during which a XXXX and XXXX review were done, all with the same denial, and no further detail given other than that I failed to report the fraud within the 30 day window as outlined in their personal deposit account agreement. 
My explanation to them, which has sided with consumers in case law as an exception to reporting outside the window, is that I was traveling out of the country in XX/XX/XXXX ( when the fraud happened ), and during the month of XX/XX/XXXX as well, and unable to safely access online statements, as well as when I returned, having frequent login problems with citizens website. I have proof of both, but they declined to review either. 
Further I also claim that the 30 day window mentioned in their agreement isn't enforceable, as it can't supercede the 60 day window allowed for consumers to report as outlined in the XXXX. 
I mentioned to them that even while we were arguing about being reimbursed for the XXXX fraud transactions, under their own 30 day window, they should have automatically refunded me for the XXXX XXXX transaction ( {$400.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, ) as that transaction was not necessarily known or made available until the XXXX statement was made available ( which would have been XX/XX/XXXX or later. ) They denied that as well, saying they decided to group in the XXXX fraud together with the XXXX fraud transactions, which is absurd, and against their own depository agreement terms, again acting in bad faith. 
Case law also sides with consumers that agrees consumer should be reimbursed by banks regardless of reporting outside of reporting window, as regardless of reporting in or out of the window, it would not have had a different outcome, and would not have prevented fraud. Further, even if I reported the fraud during the month of XXXX, it would not only not have stopped the XX/XX/XXXX fraud from happening, but certainly would have not stopped the already cleared and released funds from the XXXX fraud transactions. 
I was lied to by their representatives, even at the supervisor level, where rep XXXX and Supervisor XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, in the fraud department, told me I was getting a provisional full reimbursement check while XXXX investigation was pending, which was a clear lie that the business customer service supervisor XXXX said didn't exist, most likely to get me off the phone. I was frequently given improper information, staff was clearly uneducated and unable to provide proper care in handling of my fraud claim, and everytime I called I was given different timeframes for the review process timeline. 
Under UCC guidelines, I was never offered Fraud Prevention Methods by Citizens, despite Citizens being aware of rampant check fraud and large schemes such as stealing checks by mail in the past few years. 
Citizens contractually obligated themselves to having my business account fall under consumer laws, as they cited rules under their consumer/ personal deposit account agreement. 
Citizens refused to help me in any other way or provide and details of what took place during their reviews. Citizens lacked 'good faith ', by not making any attempt to communicate with the several depository banks that cashed these fraudulent checks ( mostly electronically by mobile deposit. ) Citizens failed to reach out to the depository banks and make an effort to recoup any monies or work diligently with those banks in resolving the fraud, identifying and holding responsible their customers that stole the money. Citizens knows that I don't have the access to speak to those banks, and they bear the responsibility to communicate, yet failed to do so. One depository bank, XXXX XXXX, told me that they made Citizens aware of the fraud before I even reported it, and Citizens negligently failed to respond to XXXX XXXX, or reach out to me. 
12CFR 1005.1 BAD FAITH ( required by 1005.9 ) also failed the ten day period under this section to investigate on 2nd review, as they took over a month to conduct their 2nd review, which was initiated on XXXX XXXX by supervisor XXXX and wasn't resolved until XXXX, even though XXXX said the review would only last XXXX business days. They also sent the denial letter for that XXXX review to the wrong address. 
I have federal guidelines on my side that should supercede Citizens 30 day reporting window and allow me 60 days to report. Further, 12CFR 1005.1 BAD FAITH ( required by 1005.9 ) also failed the ten day period under this section to investigate on 2nd review ( efcr.gov ) ; failing to perform a reasonable or good faith investigation pursuant to 1693f, failure to adhere to the consumer liability cap pursuant to 1693g and ( a ) I ask the CFPB to acknowledge that this behavior is similar to the behavior identified in the CFPB lawsuit against Citizens ( Case No. XXXX, ) and to take necessary enforcement actions against Citizens for continuing this behavior, even though they agreed to stop from the decision and order last year from Rhode Island XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX putting Citizens in contempt XXXX I ask the CFPB to assist in having Citizens immediately refund me the {$8600.00} I lost in fraudulent checks that Citizens cleared and released from my account, which I did not authorize. I believe Citizens has established a pattern of malicious intent to deny customer fraud claims without legitimate investigations, attempting to mitigate their losses and look out for their own interests, not the consumers.