Consumer complaint received 2022-04-20
Company: DISCOVER BANK
State: IL
Product: Credit card or prepaid card
Sub-product: General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Getting a credit card
Sub-issue: Card opened as result of identity theft or fraud

Complaint:
Dear CFPB : Please find my Complaint against Discover for false claims of debt collection and demand for disclosures of the following information, as required under FDCPA and other laws. 
This is not a refusal to pay, but a demand for validation of debt if any ; and demand for disgorgement and refund of illegally collected from me profits, and pay me 20 % of revenues obtained from trades backed by my identity without my knowledge and consent. 

I dispute account XXXX with Discover and demand compensation for damages. On XX/XX/XXXX I received unsigned letter from someone on Discover 's letterhead while it is likely was prepared by a separate fintech company and mailed by someone else. 
The letter lacks any names of Discover employees ; or address of the office where I can call and talk to these employees ; or any evidence that Discover was the creditor. 
According to Discover, it was the original creditor and had not sold the account. Which is partially true since nobody sell any loans to anyone, only information about loans. 
My demands to produce me a copy of my original Agreement with Discover, as recorded as an asset on Discovers Account receivable was ignored.

Instead, Discvover referred to billing statements which are not evidence of any debt since it is hearsay and it is not clear who actually issued and sent me these billing statements ; and under which authority.

I demand Discover to make following disclosures : 1. Provide me copy of my original Contract ( application for the credit card ) and proof that it was recorded on Discover account receivable as an asset. 
2. Disclose if this credit card was funded via securitization ( which apply to 100 % of all installment contracts ) 3. Show me where securitization clause was disclosed to me in this Contract,.

4. Copy of the account receivable for this credit card, which show it from the origination on XX/XX/XXXX, with all disbursements to me and all deposits from me. 
5. Provide me full name and contact information for Discover employee who sent me letter on XX/XX/XXXX, so I can contact this person directly and discuss my questions. 
I have reasons to believe that the presumed debt is extinguished in the process of securitization, and Discover ( or whomever sends me letters on their stationary ) claims to administer, collect or enforce an alleged debt when it does not exist. In nutshell, there is no debt because none was intended by the counterparty to my agreement, who was not who I thought it was. 
Put simply, if there is no Claimant and there is no claim at all, why must I pay to someone who can not even provide me names of their responsible employees whom I can contact for explanations? 
On XX/XX/XXXX I entered into a transaction which appeared to be a lending contract purportedly with Discover who offered credit cards via online advertisement. 
In fact, I do not know who was my counterparty since I never communicated with any Discover employee ; and never received back my signed copy of the Contract as it is recorded on Discovers account receivable as their asset. 
I learned from securities experts that XXXX XXXX XXXX secretly entered lending marketplace and changed it from legal to completely illegal, to generate enormous revenues from speculative trades, under glimpse of false securitization which are backed by information about transactions with customers, commonly known as identity theft ; unjust enrichment. 
Since the beginning of this century, the initial transaction with customers was the product of multiple layers of paperwork, most of which were neither identified nor accessed by consumers or their professional advisers. About 100 % of all so-called installment contracts are funded via securitization where large Investment Banks borrow money from outside sources ( for example, XXXX XXXX XXXX to purchase from customers security instruments promissory Notes ( promises to repay debt ) which generates enormous profits to the Banks, without disclosing nature of these transactions with customers and without sharing any profits which customers whose information is used to back indefinite sales of bets ( derivatives ) to investors. 
Worse, Banks mislead customers about the real nature of their transactions sales of securities based on customers identities to induce them to return the only compensation for customers ' financial services which is commonly known as involuntary servitude and theft of wages. 
From my perspective, I asked for a loan, and I was given false paperwork for me to read and sign. From the perspective of the disclosed counterparty to my transaction, the originator selling the transaction which was used as a basic for securitization masqueraded as a loan. 

The funding for my transaction was an elaborate scheme unto itself. Once the paperwork was completed by the investment bank, the investment bank borrows the amount of money needed to pay customers at or near the time of credit cards are issued. The loan from, for example, XXXX XXXX, is collateralized by the impending sale of certificates to investors. The certificates do NOT represent any status as a creditor to whom the customers payments set forth on the Agreement are payable. 

The sale of the certificates pays back the loan to XXXX XXXX, plus a fairly large ( e.g. 30 % ) profit partly directly arising from a yield spread premium ( the difference between the amount of money paid by investors for unsecured IOUs from the investment bank and the amount paid to customers. Additional money is generated as the proceeds or revenue of either sale of the additional derivatives securities created and issued by the investment bank. 

Contemporaneously with the origination of the transaction, several things are happening. In broad strokes, they are divided into the money trail and the paper trail. In the paper trail, none of the documents correctly identify or describe a transaction much less memorialize any transaction. Because everyone has received all the money they intended from participation in the securitization scheme the essential ingredient of a loan account receivable is eliminated thereby making nobody the lender. 

Simply stated, since there isnt anyone who maintains any record on the accounting ledger of an account receivable owed by me, there is no creditor. Nonetheless, in order for the securitization scheme to work ( justifying more sales of certificates and other derivatives to investors ), it must appear as though an underlying obligation is created, owed to a specifically named lender. 

When the origination cycle is complete, the status of the transaction is that there is no counterparty who has a stake in the viability or success of that transaction because nobody loses money if the customer does not make a scheduled payment that is simply not due to anyone. The absence of a lender and all that entails under law means there is no loan. The finance side of the transaction knows this but sets out to create a false paper trail to make it seem like this is a standard credit card loan. 

The financial community in coordination with lawyers willing to play the game used strategies and tactics to not only make it appear that the transaction was a loan but to actually have the court presume that the transaction was a loan and that the complaining party has hired counsel to seek a remedy. The status of such claims is always this : there is no obligation, loan account, or other claims for money allegedly due from the customer. 

The primary tactic utilized by the financial community is the volume of paperwork [ here : billing statements coming from unknown to me source. ] The thicker the pile of paperwork the more likely it is that a customer will conclude that the transaction was real as a loan. And that is why we witnessed the birth of a major industry creating false, fabricated, backdated documentation making it appear that several brand name institutions were funding, trading, purchasing, and selling the loans. In reality, no such transactions existed, but the paperwork said the transactions had occurred. 

My situation is certainly closely aligned with the typical playbook of strategies and tactics

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation