Consumer complaint received 2017-11-28
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: UT
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement
Sub-issue: Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement

Complaint:
This is in reference to previous complaint : XXXX. 
As a XXXX year old, XXXX, XXXX Veteran, Bank Of America Platinum Credit Card holder for the past 16 years ( and former Bank Of America Mortgage Holder ) I do not believe that the background for this complaint was researched, or understand how the conclusion was formed. The Official Findings of Bank Of America were basically a reiteration of what could be determined from printing off a monthly statement. My greatest disappointment is that the Bank Of America statement does not take into account all the facts : The previously mentioned payments in the amount of {$6000.00} were returned unpaid on XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, and the {$4000.00} payment was returned unpaid on XX/XX/XXXX, due to the account provided for payment was frozen. Yes the charges were returned / denied by XXXX XXXX, XXXX but this was not due to the account being frozen, but was due to a case of fraud as identified and noted in the Sheriff 's Investigation, Case # XXXX. As per the Investigating Detective : ACTIONS TAKEN : I received this case for further follow up. After reviewing the case, I submitted a subpoena to XXXX XXXX XXXX in order to obtain transaction history, as well as owner information for the account that XXXX had initially transferred the money from. XXXX XXXX XXXX responded to the subpoena and provided the documents to me dated XX/XX/XXXX. The owner of the account for XXXX XXXX XXXX is listed as XXXX and XXXX from XXXX California. On XX/XX/XXXX, I located a phone number for XXXXand made contact with him on the phone. I explained to XXXX why I was calling. XXXXexplained that in XX/XX/XXXX, they noticed some unauthorized transfers from their account into a Bank of America account. XXXX stated they had reported the fraud to XXXX XXXX XXXX, and had closed the account. XXXX  stated they had opened a different account with XXXX XXXX XXXX, and that he had been reimbursed for the fraudulent transactions. I asked XXXX if he had any idea how someone would have obtained his bank account information. XXXX  stated he did not know and credited. Also, it was noted in the complaint : There has been no fraud claim filed on the transactions with the merchant XXXX XXXX # XXXX totaling {$34000.00} This is not true. Again from the Sheriff 's Report : In XX/XX/XXXX I had also made contact with XXXX, who is a loss prevention associate with XXXX. I provided XXXXwith the XXXX gift card numbers that XXXX  had purchased. XXXX stated he would research the cards and see what he could provide me with. I received an email from XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. The email contained copies of transactions where the gift cards had been used. The gift cards were all used within a few days of XXXX purchasing them. 
This case information was provided at a Bank of America branch office in XXXX, Colorado. I drove 600 miles to provide this information, as there were no Bank of America offices in Utah. 
Another concern I have is why I would not be protected from liability due to the guidelines provided by Regulation E : Authority. The regulation in this part, known as Regulation E, is issued by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection ( Bureau ) pursuant to the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ). The information-collection requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.  and have been assigned OMB No. XXXX. Purpose. This part carries out the purposes of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, which establishes the basic rights, liabilities,  and responsibilities of consumers who use electronic fund transfer and remittance transfer services and of financial institutions or other persons that offer these services. The primary objective of the act and this part is the protection of individual consumers engaging in electronic fund transfers and remittance transfers. Why this loss would not be covered by Regulation E was never addressed by the Bank Of America. In conclusion, I do not believe that the Bank Of America response was an accurate or complete investigation of the circumstances of the fraud.

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