Consumer complaint received 2015-09-14
Company: REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: LA
Product: Bank account or service
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Using a debit or ATM card

Complaint:
On XXXX XXXX 2015 ( Monday, XXXX/XXXX/15 ), I was the victim of an identity theft on my personal checking account from Regions Bank. My account was defrauded {$500.00}. Additionally, as the ATM used for the fraudulent transaction was operated by XXXX, my account was deducted {$4.00} in ATM usage fees from XXXX, {$2.00} in ATM usage fees from Regions, and {$2.00} in account balance verification fees from Regions. Altogether, my personal checking account from Regions was defrauded {$500.00}. Upon discovering that I was the victim of an identity theft, I immediately contacted Regions Bank and informed them of the fraud. I explained to Regions that my debit card was in my possession the entire time, was never stolen/missing, and was never given to any other individual for use. Whether by skimming or another card hacking device or technique, my card and pin were compromised and used at a local ATM for theft. I was instructed by Regions to destroy the current debit card in my possession as that card would be cancelled in the Regions system. Per Regions Bank, a new card would be sent to me and the fraudulent transactions would be flagged and investigated. I was instructed to stop by at a local Regions Bank branch to sign the requisite forms, including affidavits, verifying that the withdrawal was indeed a fraudulent transaction. As this happened on XXXX XXXX, the banks were closed. The very next morning ( Tuesday, XXXX/XXXX/15 ), I stopped by the XXXX branch in XXXX, LA to complete the forms. I checked in with Regions Bank on Friday morning, XXXX/XXXX/15 to inquire about the pending investigation. I was told that my claim was denied for a return of the stolen funds as this was an ATM withdrawal and, per Regions, the only way money could be withdrawn was with the use of my card and my pin. Additionally, as I was " in the area '' ( XXXX XXXX is not that big of a city ), my claim was denied. A notice would be mailed to me and arrive shortly explaining their denial of the claim. Their " investigation '' took less than 2 business days. I asked them to take a look at the ATM video footage of the withdrawal in question in order to verify the identity of the actual person who committed the crime. Per Regions, as this happened at a XXXX location, they can not review ATM footage unless the local police department conducts an investigation and receives the video footage ; to then hand over to Regions Bank. It was at that moment, days later, that the bank advised me to contact a police department and file a police report. Currently, this matter is being investigated by XXXX as the crime happened in XXXX XXXX, LA. I 'm filing this complaint for several reasons:1. Regions Bank advised me to contact the local police AFTER their investigation and claim denial. If a police report is a vital part of a bank 's fraud investigation, then the consumer and identity theft victim should be advised upon reporting a fraud. 
2. Regions is apparently not up to date on current fraud techniques and, as such, can not provide adequate consumer protection. 
3. I do not do business with XXXX. If Regions and XXXX allow account holders to access funds using each others ATMs, they should be able to exchange information regarding cases of fraud or other financial crimes. 
4. Throughout the claim process, I was treated like the perpetrator, not the victim. I was told by several Regions associates ( names withheld ) that as the withdrawal was at an ATM, the individual accessing the funds had to have been me. I was told that as I was " in the area '', the fraud was most likely committed by me. The only way that I, the victim, can expect any level of consumer protection and restitution is to do the legwork of the bank : Providing data, contacting XXXX to request a release of the video footage to the police, and acting as an intermediary between the banks.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation