I contacted the bank on XXXX XXXX, 2017, to request that chargebacks be initiated for transactions that were processed under a variety of different merchant descriptors. At the time, I told the bank that these transactions were fraudulent as I had not had any dealings with any of the merchants who appeared on my statements. I was told by the bank that they had all of the information needed at this time and would proceed with disputing these charges. Over the next three months, I was in contact with the bank on multiple occasions and was constantly told that my case was " being reviewed '' or was " in process ''. 
After three months, the bank confirmed that all of the disputed transactions would be refunded in full to my account. The bank issued the refunds ( after confirming that the case had been reviewed and checked by " senior management '' due to the amounts involved ). 

Nearly a full month after my funds were returned, I received a call from the bank that had received the funds in which I was informed that Citibank requested that the wire transfer ( which was the refunded disputed transactions ) be returned to them. Citibank did not provide my bank with an explanation, nor was I contacted by Citibank. It took Citibank nearly a full month to send me a letter ( all the while making repeated requests to my bank to return the funds ) in which they provided an " explanation '' for the recall of the funds. Citibank stated that they had conducted an audit of my case and found that the funds should not have been returned since the transactions were approved by me. 

Citibank had not raised disputes on all of the transactions I requested. They raised disputes on 7 transactions ( which were all successfully recovered ). The actually disputed transactions were not recalled. On the remaining transactions, the bank provided " security credits '' and it is these credits which were recalled. 

I had dealt with a single merchant that identified themselves to me as " XXXX ''. At the time I made my transactions to this merchant ( on the payment page on their website ), Citibank contacted me to verify these transactions as authorized. I confirmed that I had made these transactions, assuming that the different merchant names were just variations of the " real '' name of the merchant I was dealing with. When I started to have issues with the merchant and attempted to recover my funds from them directly, I discovered that the various names on my statements were actually independent companies on their own right that have no connection to the merchant on whose page I made the payments. The transactions were fraudulent in the sense that I received no goods, services or material benefit from any of the companies who received my funds, nor was I made aware that these companies were all third-party entities that seem to be involved in some type of money laundering scheme involving XXXX. I did approve transactions to XXXX, not to any of the other companies. 

I notified the bank of these issues as well as pointing out the improprieties that Citibank engaged in while handling my case. In multiple calls to Citibank, I was informed that no one at the bank could speak to me about my case and I could only communicate via mailing a letter to a PO box . I mailed the letter well over three weeks ago and have received no response from the bank. 

In summation : - The bank did not act my request to initiate disputes in a timely and appropriate manner as required by the card networks - The bank only raised actual disputes on a few of the disputed transactions. The provided " security credits '' on the remaining balance. The dispute that was raised were all successful - The bank claims that they conducted an audit on my account, but failed to notify me of the results at all, and it took them nearly a month to provide their explanation letter despite repeated calls - Citibank contacted my bank requesting a recall of the transferred funds without notifying me - Citibank has not responded to my letter in which an answer was provided to the " issues '' they stated were the basis of recalling the funds