RESPONSE : XX/XX/2018 Per XXXX  and Citibank Unauthorized Transfers from XXXX XXXX XXXX   To Whom It May Concern : Per conversation with both banks they admitted that these schemes involving bank fraud is happening to thousands of people. Meaning its not safe, yet how could it not be comprehensible and obvious that these scammers are targeting banks for the reason that there is a flaw with their External wire transfers service. 

The incident began when the first {$1000.00} was allowed to be transferred to my bank account without signatory validation. These banks gave me the money from what I believed was another business/ persons account and a confirmation number which indicated to me that : my name is on the account, the account has the requested funds, I am authorized and this was a valid transaction. There were no messages that stated anything otherwise. 

>External wire transfer means that money is being taken from an outside bank account and its being put into another bank account. Two bank accounts are involved for bank to bank transfers. 

An External wire transfer service is what was used when funds were transferred from outside bank XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX  and Citibank. However XXXX commented in their response about an ACH system, Im not familiar with ACH system definition, system origination, who uses it and for what reason. 

A loophole for unverified fraudulent transactions to occur exists and its allowing scammers to take advantage and nothing is being done to stop this fraud. I believe that the stolen bank account numbers were used by scammers because they knew the banks were not going to verify whether or not the accounts were authorized before funds were transferred, and that banks delayed verification without notifying consumers, this is the loophole, and they were right! 

XXXX  response letter dated XX/XX/2018 stated it takes 60 days to dispute a withdrawal to verify whether or not sender/receiver is authorized. First of all if it takes this time frame to validate an account, then no funds should have been put into my account until verified especially due to the awareness of fraud occurring this rapidly by this means. If banks know these rules they could of used a hold or alerts to control and stop fraudulent banking. Second, the message given with the confirmation numbers after transfers, has failed to educate nor mention this essential 60 day rule. This may have provided protection for uneducated consumers. 

The point of my complaint is to show : If I go to a bank and ask for money from another persons account it would be inconceivable and an error that an educated bank would give me access if Im not the owner. This is the basics of the banking the foundation, they the banks are in control not I. 

Note : These banks are attempting to misdirect blame for these fraudulent banking schemes on uneducated consumers ; the person who made the purchases ; the online fraudulent probationary employer who stole the bank account numbers and blame cell phone mobile banking. However these are all trivial, impractical, an improbability and smokescreens to not take responsibility for the real problem which is they have created loopholes for banking fraud to occur. My purchases are the outcome initiated because I received $ XXXX funds from these banks without them verifying bank account ownership. 
Thus the error and elephant in the room : If I go to a bank or ATM to withdraw funds they would verify owner before and not 60 days after giving me the money. A response to accept a withdrawal from an account is immediate after a common sense owner validation it would be either rejected or allowed- no in-between delayed responses/confirmations. If this process is no longer being used then consumers are not being educated. 

Ive not been educated about any other banking policy/protocols, therefore what has changed from then to now has not been disclosed. As far as I know, banks would require of someone trying to access another person 's account to be a signatory to that person 's account. This was accomplished thru a " signatory index card. The bank would pull the index card and confirm the ID presented from the requestor on the index card, if they were not, the transaction would be immediately denied. However with these online banking transactions consumers are not aware/ educated/mislead that the External bank accounts are not being verified before funds are transferred to their bank account. 

Show me my name was a signatory on any of the bank accounts before these banks initiated transferring money to my bank account. Only banks control account owner verification however they are delaying this process without informing consumers. If this system was still in place and the banks didnt provide the unauthorized money supply " none of these fraudulent transactions '' would have ever made it thru the banks front door. 

Citibank Response statements XX/XX/2018 : Sent a letter to the customer to explain that payments totaling {$18000.00} were made to their The Home Depot account with bank account information submitted by the customer via our Account Online service and the payments were returned XX/XX/18 as unauthorized. 

Citibank Letter XX/XX/2018 : " When a payment is made to your The Home Depot account via Account Online, a confirmation number is provided for the payment after it has been submitted. Citibank then submits the payment to the financial institution on which the payment is drawn and the payment may be returned due to various reasons. '' Citibank admitted above in their response dated XX/XX/2018, that when funds/payments are transferred from an External Bank Account Online ( XXXX XXXX ), a confirmation number is provided after the payment is submitted to my bank account. They further state Citibank then submits the payment to the financial institution on which the payment is drawn and the payment may be returned due to various reasons. 

Here lays the problem with these transactions : Citibank put funds into my bank account Before verifying if I owned the External bank account then After they depositing funds they submitted a signatory verification request to XXXX XXXX XXXX. Meaning they give me the money to spend before verifying I was authorized without warning funds were never verified. I Respectfully disagree that these protocols were within my control. 

Conclusion : As I have stated Only banks control account owner verification and who an account belongs too. Im not responsible for these banks putting funds in my account if I was not verified as a signatory on External bank account. 

What initiated the fraudulent transactions was the bank putting funds in my account without disclosure it was a bank loan because they were unable to verify if I was a signatory on External bank account. The $ XXXX funding for purchases came from these banks not I. It was their responsibility to verify sender/receiver before providing funding into my account this shows the system is flawed. If bank account verification cant be done before a transfer then consumers will need to be warned because there are no consumer protections being provided by banks to stop these increasing fraudulent schemes creating victims like me. 

Confirmation numbers are given for External payment transfers without verifying authorization and this is misleading consumers to believe that the transfer is safe. There are no messages/education that confirmation numbers were bogus because it only shows that bank put funds in your bank account and not that the transfer is authorized. 
XXXX  responded, it takes banks 60 days to flag yet they allow External transfers to continue with misleading confirmation numbers when what would have protected consumers was placing a hold then validate or providing education for safety protections. I the victim should not be held responsible to pay for fraud banks are allowing and based on the interest thats going to be charged on the fraudulent balance, they will be profiting. 

When these transactions were submitted, I had no knowledge/education that I was being given random funds meaning bank loans until the External bank account signatory could be verified nor the time it would take of 60 days for verification ; I did not request a loan until a verification could be completed nor did I agree or signed a promissory note to pay back the funds if determined to be unauthorized. As stated, I only received a confirmation number from XXXX  and Citibank bank that the funds were transferred to my bank account from the External XXXX XXXX bank account> This indicated to me that I was authorized and the bank accounts were valid. If instead of holding the transfer until verified they processed a bank loan then this was without disclosure that they were doing so and without an agreement that I would owe the bank if funds were found to be unauthorized. 

I firmly disagree that I was involved in this process nor in control or responsible for these banking undisclosed business practices. These banks were unauthorized to put funds in my bank account without disclosure that they were bank loans. Giving a bank loan before verifying signatory was not what the advertised intent of the External wire transfer transaction used. Confirmation numbers were Falsely given to mislead that the bank account transfer transaction was valid. When in fact it was never verified and it actually takes months to verify. There were no consumer warnings that these banks were unable to validate the bank account ownership and the money transferred was just bank loans until they could validated signatory. Additionally if the transfer is found to be unauthorized the consumer will have to pay back the bank loan, this was never disclosed. Therefore I should not owe for the fraudulent balances because these banks gave funds without notice/agreement that they were loaning me the money ; that was spent, months before verifying signatory of the External bank accounts. They improperly gave me the money without disclosure then say its my fault- Further that I owe them back the money because it was spent. Banks are in control not I the victim of these banking errors. 





Status of my accounts : XXXX  : Response I have to pay because of purchases made. They have not accepted a payment plan until issue resolved. They stand to profit by charging interest and fees on the fraudulent balance and they continue to lock my savings. 

Citibank : Closed credit without warning claiming the notice attached to their response to this complaint was mailed. 
The reason for closing my account they sited is for : One or more occurrences of late or returned payment in the last 6 months. 
So they are trying to ruing my credit because they allowed unauthorized funds into my account before verifying signatory and without warning. Now blaming me. 
Citibank also stated I have to pay for fraudulent balance because I made the purchase. Note they also stand to profit by charging interest and fees on the fraudulent balance.