Consumer complaint received 2022-05-04
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service
Sub-product: Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam

Complaint:
This complaint is in reference to an egregious violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ) whereby Citibank, NA imposed liability on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ( hereinafter " the victims '' ) in excess of what the EFTA allows. 

The victims are joint accountholders of the following checking and savings accounts at Citibank, XXXX : XXXX ; XXXX ; XXXX. All of these accounts are for personal, family, and household purposes. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, through unknown means, unidentified individuals gained access to the victims ' accounts and made two unauthorized transfers. The first unauthorized transfer was for {$2500.00} and the second was for {$19000.00}. That same day, the victims noticed the unauthorized transfers and immediately notified Citibank. Despite the victims ' diligence in notifying Citibank of the unauthorized transfers, Citibank refused to stop the transfers resulting in a loss of {$21000.00}. The victims then proceeded with Citibank 's Unauthorized Wire Claim process and submitted a Security Affidavit on XX/XX/XXXX in an attempt to recover the {$21000.00} loss. 

While Citibank reimbursed the victims for the {$2500.00} unauthorized transfer, it has refused to reimburse the victims for {$19000.00} of the remaining losses they suffered, citing an alleged " failure to take adequate steps to safeguard your account. This failure compromised the security of your account information and directly contributed to allowing the transaction ( s ) in question to take place. '' See attached Decision of Fraud Claim dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

Citibank 's actions are in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) ( 15 USC 1693 et seq. ) and the implementing Regulation E ( 12 C.F.R 1005 et seq., which includes an official staff commentary ). 

15 U.S.C. 1693g provides that in most instances a consumers liability for an unauthorized transfer ( also see 12 C.F.R. 1005.6 ( b ) ) may not exceed {$50.00}. That cap on liability is subject to exceptions. Most notably, according to Official Interpretation of Regulation E 's Section 1005.6 ( b ) ( 3 ), in cases of an unauthorized transfer not involving an access device, " if the consumer notified the institution within 60 days of the transmittal of the periodic statement that shows the unauthorized transfer, the consumer has no liability. '' Additionally, Official Interpretation of Regulation E 's Section 1005.6 ( b ), expressly states that negligence by the consumer can not be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E 's Section 1005.6. 

The unauthorized transactions in the victims ' case did not involve the use of an access device as they still had their debit cards within their possession. Additionally, the victims notified Citibank of the unauthorized transactions the same day they were initiated, which is much earlier than the 60 day threshold under Regulation E and EFTA. 

Thus, Citibank 's refusal to reimburse the victims {$19000.00} of the remaining losses they suffered citing their alleged " failure to take adequate steps to safeguard [ their ] account '' is a violation of EFTA and Regulation E because : ( 1 ) Citibank imposed a greater liability than is permissible under the law and regulation even though the victims notified Citibank the same day the unauthorized transfers were initiated ; and ( 2 ) Citibank used alleged negligence by the consumers as the basis for imposing greater liability. 

By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above, the victims demand that Citibank reimburse them in the sum of {$19000.00}, plus interest.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation