On XXXX/XXXX/17, initial contact was made with XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX regarding a {$240000.00} transaction that was conducted with Discover Bank. Discover Bank contacted XXXX directly, with the us on the telephone, in regards to a transaction that had occurred on or about XXXX/XXXX/17. Discover Bank had made a withdrawal from an account in our name for {$240000.00} on XXXX/XXXX/17, as well as a withdrawal for {$1000.00} on the same date. These withdrawals were made to fund an account with Discover Bank. It was discovered by us that the {$240000.00} deposit was not in the Discover Bank account, which prompted the above telephone call. Discover Bank was claiming no fault and no knowledge of the funds ever hitting the checking account. 

Based on research conducted by XXXX, the {$240000.00} deposit was rejected and returned by Discover Bank. Upon speaking with Discover Bank on or about XXXX/XXXX/17, Discover Bank stated that the deposit was returned due to the XXXX account and Discover Bank account being differently titled accounts. The deposit was returned to XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/17. By this time, we had closed the originating account, and XXXX returned the deposit back to Discover based upon the fact that the account was closed here. As of XXXX/XXXX/17, the funds were returned to Discover. 
Discover Bank conducted research with their finance department, and they then indicated that the funds were not with them, but did not confirm what kind of research was done or what general ledger accounts were checked. This took two business days. The situation was then escalated to a manager at Discover, XXXX, as XXXX confirmed through their Operations Department that the funds were returned on XXXX/XXXX/17 and were no longer with XXXX. Based on research done by XXXX, the funds appeared to pass through XXXX XXXX XXXX, as that was the routing number attached to the original transactions form Discover Bank. XXXX escalated the issue to their Finance department yet again. On XXXX/XXXX/17, Discover contacted the us and XXXX ( XXXX ), and indicated that they were told by XXXX XXXX XXXX that they would not work with Discover Bank, and that XXXX would need to send a letter to XXXX XXXX XXXX in order to retrieve the funds. This information was provided by Discover, not XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
On XXXX/XXXX/17 and XXXX/XXXX/17, two separate letters were faxed to XXXX XXXX XXXX in order to retrieve the funds from the {$240000.00} transaction, as Discover Bank indicated that the funds were being held with XXXX XXXX XXXX. Based on phone calls made by XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX 's ACH Department and Research and Adjustment Department on XXXX/XXXX/17 and XXXX/XXXX/17, XXXX XXXX XXXX stated that there was no way to confirm that the funds were with them, and that the transaction did not appear anywhere in their system. The trace number attached to the Discover transactions was stated ( by XXXX XXXX XXXX, and a partner, XXXX which is a payment processor ) to be a XXXX transfer trace number. XXXX contacted XXXX XXXX on XXXX/XXXX/17 - XXXX XXXX confirmed with XXXX that Discover Bank purchased a portion of XXXX XXXX to use internally, and this trace number indicated that XXXX XXXX was used in the transaction internally at Discover Bank. 
Discover Bank was contacted on XXXX/XXXX/17 - XXXX spoke to XXXX, a Documentation Specialist Supervisor. The research conducted by XXXX was provided to Discover Bank. Upon receiving this research, Discover Bank indicated that they may not have check all general ledgers ( and may have only check their ACH ledger ), and that the issue has been escalated to upper management and is now a top priority, as not all proper general ledgers may have checked. XXXX is awaiting an update from Discover Bank at this time as to what the status of the new research request is showing. 
On XXXX/XXXX/2017 XXXX contacted us and Discover. Once again a new agent was assigned to assist us without any previous knowledge of the situation.