Consumer complaint received 2019-10-26
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY
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: Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX, the CitiGold MasterCard on which my spouse and I were the sole cardholders was used to make two charges in the amount of {$1000.00} each at XXXX XXXX. Neither of us made or authorized the charges or had ever heard of XXXX XXXX. That day, I received a call from CitiCards on the phone number associated with the card, saying that the two charges described above had been made and that an attempted third charge had been denied. After I responded that neither I nor my spouse had made or authorized any of the charges, the account number was cancelled, and the two charges of {$1000.00} each were credited back to the account pending investigation. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a phone message at the number associated with the card from a person who identified himself as XXXX, a fraud investigator for CitiCards. When I returned his call, XXXX said that to continue his investigation of this incident, he would need copies of my and my spouses drivers licenses and that he would send two email messages with the information needed to transmit the license copies to him securely. By the time I was ready to send him the copies on XX/XX/XXXX, no emails had arrived from XXXX and when I called the number he had given me, he did not answer either on that day or on XX/XX/XXXX. Both days, I left messages on XXXX voice mail to say that the copies of the drivers licenses were ready to be sent and that I needed the promised instructions, but my calls were never returned and I never received the promised emails. 

Although neither XXXX nor anyone else at CitiCards had followed through on his purported attempt to investigate, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received the attached letter from CitiCards dated XX/XX/XXXX saying that their investigation was complete and that the two disputed charges of {$1000.00} would each be rebilled to my account. 

Shortly thereafter, I contacted XXXX XXXX, a Personal Banker ( and later Branch Manager ) at the XXXX XXXX XXXX, New York branch of CitiBank, to say that neither my spouse nor I had made the disputed charges, that neither XXXX nor anyone else had followed through on his purported investigation, and to ask that the two charges of {$1000.00} each be refunded. In response, Mr. XXXX made a notation on-line to escalate the investigation XXXX his phrase ). A few months later, I discussed the matter with him again and again he escalated the matter. 

After no one at either Citibank or CitiCards followed up on Mr. XXXX escalations, I sought an appointment with XXXX XXXX, CitiGold Relationship Manager at CitiBank at XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, in XX/XX/XXXX. When my spouse and I met with him on XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX found out, after several phone calls, that XXXX had failed to follow up on his purported investigation because he had left CitiCards. Instead of informing me that XXXX was no longer an employee and referring me to another person with whom to pursue the investigation, Citicards had summarily concluded that I was responsible for the two charges of {$1000.00} each. 

After learning of CitiCards dereliction in regard to XXXX, Mr. XXXX advised me to write the attached letter dated XX/XX/XXXX to XXXX XXXX, In care of : Presidential, advising them of my repeated efforts to resolve this matter and requesting that the {$2000.00} that had been wrongly billed to my account be refunded. In response, a CitiCards Investigator telephoned me to say that she had been unable to reach XXXX XXXX because the telephone number listed on their website had been disconnected. Although she had not contacted XXXX XXXX or done anything else to investigate, the investigator nonetheless concluded that fraud was impossible and that the two charges of {$1000.00} must have been made with my wifes card because the card had an embedded chip and had admittedly been in my wifes possession at the time the charges were made. To the contrary, security professionals, including those whom my wife taught in a XXXX XXXX  in XXXX XXXX and XXXX  from 2004 until her retirement at the end of XX/XX/XXXX, are aware that ( 1 ) the numbers of all credit cards in the United States are digitally stored, ( 2 ) the ease of hacking a credit card number does not depend on whether it is associated with an embedded chip or a magnetic stripe card, and ( 3 ) chip duplicators have been in existence since the introduction of chip-and-PIN cards in XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX, enabling a hacker who obtains the credit card number of an embedded chip card to embed it in the chip of another card. 

In the enclosed letter dated XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX of the Executive Response Unit, Citibank, N.A., Office of the President, endorsed the investigators fallacious reasoning and manifest ignorance of the security problems with chip cards, stating that my spouses card which had an embedded chip, was present for the two {$1000.00} XXXX Multiservices charges billed on XX/XX/XXXX. Because you confirmed that both you and [ your spouse ] were in possession of your cards when these charges were transacted, we consider the charges to be valid. 

Either cynically or recklessly, the letter advised that I would need to contact the merchant directly if I wished to dispute the charges further. Unsurprisingly, when my spouse and I made repeated calls to the number listed on the XXXX XXXX website, we found, as had Citibanks investigator, that the number had been disconnected.

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