Consumer complaint received 2021-06-29
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (NY)

Company : Citibank, " XXXX XXXX '' card Summary : While I was being in my home state with my credit card in my pocket, I received a fraudulent charge from another state, which I reported it immediately after being notified. Two weeks later the bank closed the dispute saying that a chip reader was used and I said the card was in my possession it couldn't have been fraud and that I'm responsible for the charges. After calling them again and saying that I had proof of being in a different state at the time, they ignored my request to reopen the dispute. 

Detailed timeline : On XX/XX/XXXX I spent my entire day at or around my home in XXXX, NY. At XXXX EST I received a text message from my bank asking if I " attempted {$280.00} at QT XXXX INSIDE ''. I immediately opened my banking app, and saw that there were 3 other transactons, all of which were in North Carolina. The banking app had a notification asking the same question ( whether I committed the transaction ), which I answered with No. The app offered me to report all fraud transactions, and I selected all 4 of them. The transactions were {$170.00} | XX/XX/2021 XXXX XXXX  ET | XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC {$110.00} | XX/XX/2021 XXXX XXXX  ET | XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX NC {$100.00} | XX/XX/2021 XXXX XXXX  ET | XXXX* XXXX  XXXX NC {$57.00} | XX/XX/2021 XXXX XXXX  ET | XXXX* XXXX  XXXX NC The app asked me if I was in posession of my card. I opened my wallet and my card was in there, so I replied Yes. 

A few days later the bank 's security department reached with a few other questions. I've confirmed that I was in the possession of my card and told them where I was physically present at the time. 

Almost 2 weeks later, On XX/XX/XXXX I received a letter stating that the dispute was closed. The letter said " The card 's XXXX chip was used to make the disputed transaction ( s ) at a chip enabled card reader. You verified that your card was in your posession at the time of the transaction ( s ), so we don't consider thatis fraudulent activity ''. 

To me it sounded like the aforementioned statement from the letter was implying to things : 1 ) The card used at the transaction must've been my card. 
2 ) I must've been the one inserting it in the card reader. 

Since neither of those assumptions were true, I decided to immediately call the bank 's security department. They paraphrased the statement from the letter and declined to continue investigating despite me offering proof. I asked for a phone number of email to talk to someone who would be willing to receive additional proof for me, but my request was declined. I was told that the only way my case would be reopened was if I could show them proof that I " did not commit the transaction ''. 

I can obtain cell phone records showing my location in XXXX, NY and witness willing to attest my physical location at the date of the transactions, but the bank refused to listen. I also did my own research on what constitutes a " Reasonable investigation '' and I found this https : //www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1026/interp-12/ # 12-b-Interp-3, and I do not believe the bank did the investigation in good faith. Looking at individual points i. " Reviewing the types or amounts of purchases made in relation to the cardholder 's previous purchasing pattern. '' - The fraudlent charges were out of my pattern. In the past 6 months, I've had only 1 recurring charge of < {$50.00} and only 2 charges, which both were < {$50.00}. 

ii. " Reviewing where the purchases were delivered in relation to the cardholder 's residence or place of business. '' - I've never been in North Carolina. I do not have friends, relatives, or work-related points of interested in that state. 

iii. " Reviewing where the purchases were made in relation to where the cardholder resides or has normally shopped. '' - I only normally shop in NY, but in the past 5-6 months I haven't used this card in person in NY, and only had the 2 charges in Florida. 

iv. " Comparing any signature on credit slips for the purchases to the signature of the cardholder or an authorized user in the card issuer 's records, including other credit slips. '' - The bank did not mention any signature, but even without seeing that signature, I would be willing to testify that it's not possible to be mine. 

v. " Requesting documentation to assist in the verification of the claim. '' - The bank refused to take any proof of my location from me. 

I stand by my statement that I did not commit those charges, and I believe my bank is intentionally avoiding fullfiling my right to be protected from liability. 

I've attached the letter they received and redacted Text records from my mother 's phone showing that she sent messages to my phone number in NY on the date of the transaction.