Consumer complaint received 2019-06-07
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: WA
Product: Checking or savings account
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Managing an account
Sub-issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint:
I write to allege that USBank is engaged in deceptive business practices with respect to opening consumer, business checking accounts, and XXXX accounts. 

I am a practicing attorney in XXXX. My law firm, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), previously held an Operational Account and an XXXX account, at USBank. 
XXXX practices in the area of recreational cannabis compliance. Specifically, we most commonly defend licensees from administrative actions initiated by various regulatory authorities, and advise licensees on regulatory compliance in efforts to minimize the likelihood of negative enforcement actions. 

XXXX was formed in XXXX of XXXX, and cannabis has been the firms practice area through this entire period, up until and as of this filing. 
I opened up a business checking account with USBank in XXXX. At that time, I disclosed the information, essentially, as contained in the preceding paragraph, including the disclosure of our involvement in cannabis. 

Further, in XX/XX/XXXX, my partner, XXXX XXXX, joined XXXX and was added to the business checking account. We visited the branch located at the address I indicated on the complaint. Once again, we disclosed our practice area revolved around cannabis, and again, the account was updated without issue. 

Sometime in XXXX of XXXX, XXXX XXXX visited the USBank branch to make either a deposit or a withdrawal from our firms XXXX account. At this time, Ms. XXXX was not a signor on the XXXX account. Apparently, USBank would not conduct the transaction unless Ms. XXXX agreed to add herself to the XXXX account that is in XXXX Law Groups name. Ms. XXXX acquiesced and the banker, XXXX XXXX, proceeded to add her to the account without notifying me. In so doing, he then asked her what about our specific practice area. 

Up to this point, aside from account opening, and adding Ms. XXXX to the account, I had visited USBank or had contact with USBank on approximately ( at least ) 25 different occasions at no less than five branches throughout the XXXX area. These contacts ranged in purpose from simple, counter transactions, to applying for a home mortgage, and providing follow up documentation. Relatedly, I also refinanced my home with USBank. 

At every one of these occasions of contact I disclosed the precise nature of my firms practice area, which is to say, that XXXX represents cannabis licensees. At no time during over two dozen points of contact, every one of which included disclosure from me regarding XXXX practice area, did any banker, teller, or other personnel raise any issues with it. 

However, as a result of XXXX XX/XX/XXXX visit, XXXX XXXX updated, in my view improperly and perhaps unlawfully, our USBank account profile, flagging it for review due to our representation of cannabis licensees. We subsequently learned the account would be frozen, but managed to close the account before any funds were withheld. 
I have taken this issue up with every level of management to which I can contact. These include the branch assistant manager, as well as the district manager. Today, XX/XX/XXXX, I received a call from XXXX XXXX, who calls himself the Regional President. Prior to this call, I asked, essentially, two questions, which Ive reproduced below with his explanations. 

1. How could USBank possibly justify adding someone to a trust account without the original signors express authorization or even knowledge? 

XXXX XXXX claims that it was proper to add XXXX as a signor to the XXXX XXXX account without the original signors permission. For clarity, while Ms. XXXX was added to the operational account in XXXX of XXXX, she had not been added to the XXXX account before her XX/XX/XXXX visit. 

Here, Mr. XXXX position was that because XXXX was listed as a governor on the Secretary of State website, then she was properly added to the trust account. 
Mr. XXXX explanation, if true, demonstrates USBank is not treating XXXX  accounts with the proper amount of care required by its agreement with XXXX. Such account maintenance practices are reckless, because the Secretary of State information page can be updated by literally anyone without any ID or other verification requirements. Thus, one could improperly add their name to an entity, and then, according to USBanks policies, be added to the trust account. It would be shocking to learn that this lax standard of care conformed with XXXX requirements. 

Mr. XXXX told me he had run this issue by USBanks legal team and the feeling was that they were probably in compliance with the state bar. 
In sum, Mr. XXXX has stated that the USBank branches in his region will not change policy based on these feelings though to be quite clear, Mr. XXXX offered absolutely no legal or even policy support for these feelings. 
Secondly, I asked USBANK 2. If Mr. XXXX acted appropriately ( as theyve repeatedly maintained ) How could it be that no banker ever raised this issue previously? 
USBank personnel has assiduously lined up behind the conduct of XXXX XXXX. Prior to my call today, I expected Mr. XXXX to tell me that, in essence, Mr. XXXX had essentially misunderstood our line of work, and mistakenly flagged our account, thus this was a regrettable, technical mistake, and nothing more. 
This expectation was built upon the fact that, on or about XX/XX/XXXX, we learned our account was being closed, and during this business crises the assistant manager willingly and immediately unflagged our account and took every step necessary to ensure our banking relationship would continue. In other words, in the immediate aftermath of the consequences of Mr. XXXX actions, USBank was quick to acknowledge the issue. Indeed, the branch even disbursed the funds in our account without issue, thus apparently involving itself further in a deeply problematic area. However, in the days that followed, management began to close ranks around this issue, and Mr. XXXX conduct. 

Specifically, Mr. XXXX sought information regarding our firms practice area in the guise of a friendly conversation. He never disclosed that the purpose for the conversation was to update our profile, and never disclosed it could result in account closure. 

Additionally, to reiterate, our firms limited, and lawful, connection to cannabis licensees was freely volunteered on over two dozen occasions to various USBank personnel without a single instance of said personnel raising this issue, or apparently flagging our account. 

I raised this topic, the fact that other personnel had not disclosed our firms connection to cannabis as an issue, with Mr. XXXX via an email to him on XX/XX/XXXX. However, during our call today, he falsely claimed this was new information, and that he would have to follow up. In reality, since we first became aware of the account closure, I have alerted every manager to whom I have spoken to the fact that dozens of its personnel were given this information previously and yet took no action. Yet, every manager,  including Mr. XXXX, has treated this as new information. 

Nonetheless, Mr. XXXX made clear, at least, that he had not looked into it. Thus, because he did look into other aspects of my complaint contained in my email to him and about which he presumably felt on firmer footing, I am left to conclude he intentionally failed to seek information on this subject. 

In sum, in addition to mishandling XXXX accounts, USBank is engaged in deceptive behavior with respect to how it treats business accounts. First, it intentionally disguises questions intended for regulatory compliance, and, if these questions are conditional to continuing account relationships, it similarly fails to disclose such condition. 

Regarding the next part of my complaint, to be clear, the heart of my complaint is not that USBank takes issue with our firms connection to cannabis. Mr. XXXX seemed keen, if not desperate, to reiterate this same point ad nauseum. However, my complaint, as I repeatedly told him, is that USBank intentionally failed to disclose this fact to me for over four years. 

USBank either acted deceptively in failing to alert me to the fact that my account could be subject to review, or alternatively, deceptively took action against my account in flagging it, when a law firm is not the sort of business intended to be covered by its cannabis banking policies. In other words, if Mr. XXXX is correct in defending Mr. XXXX, then his entire region, and the region for which he is responsible, is engaged in a pattern of behavior contrary to this stated policy, and is doing so deceptively, and causing damage to consumers such as myself, and my firm, in the process. 

To be clear, Mr. XXXX defended XXXX XXXX, but failed to defend his regions failure to notify us of this issue during the dozens of prior contacts with USBank that occurred before Mr. XXXX added someone to a trust account without the signors permission, and flagged our account in the process. 

Finally, Mr. XXXX doubted that we had properly disclosed our practice area. Therefore, I am prepared to provide a list of individuals to whom either XXXX or myself, or both told this information. Most notably, this list will likely include XXXX XXXX, who our records indicate added XXXX to our account in XXXX, two years before using the same information to flag the same account.

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