Consumer complaint received 2022-04-20
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: MD
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Problem using a debit or ATM card

Complaint:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I was the victim of fraud committed via a phishing attack. A bad actor impersonating my boss emailed me and then texted me, directing me to purchase items ( gift cards ) for what were purportedly business-related expenses, with the promise that I would be reimbursed for these charges. I purchased these gift cards using my Bank of American ATM card ( approximately {$4900.00} ) and my Bank of America credit card ( approximately {$7900.00} ). At the bad actor 's request, I provided the gift card numbers to the bad actor, who used the gift cards for his/her own purpose. I received no benefit from the gift cards, and was not reimbursed for them. Nor were these transactions " authorized '' because they benefited a stranger ( not my employer/boss ) and I was not reimbursed for them as I expected. During the course of this conduct, I also provided the individual who I thought was my boss with my bank account number and routing number so I could be reimbursed for these charges ; the bad actor requested and used this information to help perpetrate the fraud. As soon as a I realized what had occurred, I called Bank of America and explained what occurred ; the Bank of America representative said these charges were " fraudulent '', placed a hold on my accounts, and told me to got to a branch office the next day- which I did. I also reported these occurrences to the police department ( XXXX XXXX, Maryland ) ; the officer referred to this occurrence as a " fraud. '' When I went to the Bank of America branch in XXXX XXXX, Washington DC, I was directed to a Bank of America employee named XXXX XXXX. I described what happened and how the charges were placed on my debit and credit card and my bank account number/routing number had been provided to the bad actor ; XXXX XXXX said these charges were " fraudulent '' and that I would not be liable for them. We also discussed closing my existing bank account since the numbers had been compromised and opening a new bank account. XXXX XXXX agreed this was the correct approach and said that I would " probably not '' be charged for checks to open the new account/that I would be reimbursed for these checks because I was a " fraud victim. '' ( In fact, I was charged {$40.00} for these checks and not reimbursed ). 
Approximately 10 days later, I received a letter from Bank of America saying that I was liable for these charges. When I called the number Bank of America provided on the letter, she said I was liable because I was the victim of a " scam '' not a fraud. She did not dispute any of the facts as I described them to her and as they are set forth above. Nor did she explain how these charges were " authorized. '' This " scam '' versus " fraud '' argument is legally irrelevant and is not a real distinction. First, Bank of America 's customer/banking agreement that I signed and its own website say that customers are not liable for fraudulent charges/fraud. They do not distinguish " XXXX '' from " scams '' or say that customers are not protected in the event of a " scam. '' Bank of America drafted these materials and if they wanted to distinguish the concept of fraud from the concept of a scam, and the protections afforded to clients who were the victim of each, Bank of America could have done so- but it did not. Second, the events that occurred were referred to as " Fraud '' or " Fraudulent '' by Bank of America 's own personnel ( XXXX XXXX ) and by the police officer who completed the police report. Moreover, the definition/concept of " fraud '' and " scam '' are interchangeable : XXXX 's Online dictionary defines " scam '' as a " fraudulent act '' and says that " scam '' is a synonym of " fraud. '' Finally, under the CFPB 's interpretation of Regulation XXXX, this is an unauthorized transaction, for which a consumer is not liable : Comment, 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) -3 and 1005.2 ( m ) -4 : " Access device obtained through robbery or fraud. An unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud. '' Bank of America has not given me an opportunity to appeal it decision that I was liable for these charges. Rather, it has engaged in dilatory tactics where it sends me letters saying the documents that formed the basis for its decision are attached - but they are not actually attached - and that I can request copies of these documents. I have made numerous requests to Bank of America, both by phone and in writing, for the documents it used to reach its decision that I was liable for these charges. The first two times I made this request by phone, and the Bank of America representative said there were documents that it used to make its decision and that they would provide those documents to me. I told them that I needed those documents so I could appeal its purported decision that I was liable for these fraudulent charges. However, Bank of America never sent these documents, so in XX/XX/XXXX I made a written request for these documents. When I finally spoke to a Bank of America representative in XX/XX/XXXX, she told me that my dispute was closed. I told her her that I had been waiting for the documents that Bank of America used to resolve my dispute to submit my appeal and that it was wrong to close my case when I was still waiting for the documents that Bank of America promised. She then transferred me to a supervisor, who said there were documents but that I need a subpoena to get them ; I pointed out that prior letters that Bank of America sent me said I could request those documents and that Bank of America representatives said I was entitled to these documents. The manager told me that was incorrect. After submitting another written request to Bank of America requesting these documents and attempting to appeal the decision, I called Bank of America again in XX/XX/XXXX. When I requested the documents that Bank of America used to make its decision, as referenced in the letters from Bank of America, I was initially told that no documents exist. I then asked how Bank of America made the decision to deny my claim/dispute without any documents, at which point she said that documents were used but that I can't have them, but she would not confirm this in writing. 
It appears that Bank of America never investigated what occurred, never intended to consider my appeal/dispute, never gave me a chance to present my case, and made the dispute process as Kafka-esque as possible in an attempt to obfuscate, delay, and ultimately wear me down into accepting its decision which was contrary to numerous representations made to me. Bank of America 's letters regarding the fraudulent charges on my credit card are similarly flawed ; for example, one of these letters refers to a disputed " transaction '' with a merchant even though there were multiple transactions with three separate merchants. 
Bank of America has also refused to close my bank account that was compromised by the fraudulent actor, even though I directed that account closed at the meeting with XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX ( nd she agreed to do so ) and in numerous subsequent written communications. Rather, Bank of America unilaterally reversed my instructions to close the account and refused to reconsider. Keeping this account open exposes me to further risk of fraud, and also increases the risk that one of my bank accounts may be overdrawn and increases Bank of America 's banking fees/revenues and reportable open accounts. 
By initially telling me that I was not liable for these charges but then paying the chares to the merchant without prior notice, Bank of America foreclosed me from meaningfully challenging these transactions with the merchants or taking other remedial measures. 
It should be noted that I also incurred charges as a result of this fraud on an ATM card and a credit card issued by other financial institutions, both of which covered/did not hold my liable for these charges.

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 monetary relief