Consumer complaint received 2024-11-14
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: U.S. BANCORP (CA)

Page XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 1500 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC XXXX
[WITHOUT PREJUDICE]
URGENCY: HIGH
IMPORTANCE: HIGH
This is to complain against U. S. Bank.
U. S. Bank account ending in: XXXX
I wish to practice my right as a customer of U. S. Bank to use your organisation's service, seeking a
formal, impartial investigation to amicably settle my dispute with U. S. Bank.
In order to clear up the myriad of letters and correspondences I have hitherto sent to U. S. Bank
respecting my complaint, I believe it will substantially strengthen both my case and your understanding,
by taking a deeper look at the happenings of my case, and analysing the relevant facts in an objective and
comprehensive fashion.
It is crucial to note that I have been manipulated, socially-engineered and coerced to engage these
fraudulent criminals. Much to my embarrassment, I recognise that I am the victim of an investment scam.
My complaint to the CFPB has arisen as I do not consider, by any stretch of the imagination, the conduct
of U. S. Bank to be commensurate with their legal role and responsibility to their customers. They sell a
service to look after their customers, protect their money and are a financial institution that maintains a
traditional relationship and way of working with its customers.
During the complaints process with U. S. Bank, I found their communication ineffective, which further
hides their conduct to management and diminishes the service offering to their clients. They are
struggling to adapt their business offering in the ever-changing world of IT development. The internet is
presenting a real problem which they choose to manage in a way which is not in line with rules and
regulations of CFPB as well as their own internal policy and procedures sold to their clients.
General Obligation:
Commencing on or about XXXX  2024, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operations run by DML Markets under the domain m.dml-markets.cc which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX  USD from my U. S. Bank account to fraudulent investment firm(s).
When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability; common queries
include, but are not limited to, the following (i) whether U. S. Bank did not take notice of any rule, law, or
regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that
may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety; (ii) whether by virtue of U. S. Banks
Page XXXX of XXXX
XX/XX/2024
custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so,
whether that duty was breached; (iii) whether U. S. Bank promoted the transaction(s) in question despite
being aware of the nature of the transaction(s) in question (iv) whether U. S. Bank was in compliance
with its own policies and procedures; (v) whether U. S. Bank owed duties to myself, what the scope of
those duties was, and whether U. S. Bank did not uphold those duties; (vi) whether U. S. Banks conduct
was unfair; and (vii) whether U. S. Bank has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me
for the harm that has befallen me.
Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member
adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent
and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant
criteria of fraud.
In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and
skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not
turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In
other words, U. S. Bank must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real
possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have
known that I was dealing with a scammer.
Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a
sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective
element.
However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not
average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is
reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of
the evidence suggests that U. S. Bank did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious
dangers in this respect.
Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the
standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the
past.
U. S. Banks Position:
OnXX/XX/2024 U. S. Bank wrote in a letter We regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter
may have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a scam can be confusing, time consuming,
and inconvenient.
Upon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire
Department on XXXX XXXX which debited your account ending XXXX  on XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX in the amounts
of XXXX and XXXX  A request was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.
Please know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The
elapsed time from the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of
recalling the funds. We recommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement
officials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.
Page XXXX of XXXX
XX/XX/2024Refuting U. S. Banks arguments from a purely logical perspective:
U. S. Banks position is that the features of the situation at hand do not generate a genuine obligation to
protect innocent and helpless victims; they are essentially arguing that common-sense-based approaches
are doomed to fail, leaving their exclusively technical account of the subject matter as the only
meaningful choice. For reasons which are unclear, this extremely serious situation barely gets the
attention it deserves even though ample evidence has been offered in support of this complaint.
In U. S. Banks view, it is implied that we should not home in (and consequently rely) on unwritten laws,
practicality, good judgement, reasonableness, sharpness, sensibleness, past outcomes, and insight, when
taking appropriate precautions. To underscore, once again, such views are at odds with common sense
and are wildly irresponsible.
Imagine a view according to which the one and only thing that can make U. S. Bank morally obligated to
do something is having it written down somewhere. Pursuant to this view, if U. S. Bank encounter the
suffering of totally naive victims, they are only obligated to intervene in or remedy the situation, to the
degree required by written material. This is unbecoming for a reputable establishment such as U. S. Bank.
I have reviewed the material hereto sent by U. S. Bank carefully, and it unfortunately provides no
response to my fundamental argument concerning the degree of care. Given its size, influence, and the
resources at its disposal, this establishment clearly had a far greater capacity than an individual such as
myself had, to determine the level and likelihood of risk that a client such as myself is subjected to and
had a duty to intervene as they now do to query in particular out-of-pattern transactions of this kind.
It is perfectly obvious that U. S. Bank, inadvertently, employs a subtle approach in addressing some of the
key questions in a manner which neither provides me with adequate support nor protects anything other
than its own interests.
It is U. S. Bank here, who has the burden of proof, to show that it has exercised the duty of care, that is to
say, that U. S. Bank adhered to a standard of reasonable care in relation to the matter at issue given its
extensive experience compared to mine. It is U. S. Bank that claims that the damages which I have
suffered in connection to this matter have not been reasonably foreseeable, and that my proposed degree
of care is not, and has not been, commensurate with U. S. Banks capacity, experience, expertise, or scope
of services in any way. To reemphasize, U. S. Banks indisputable overriding purpose is by no means to
purely execute transactions in a blind and blank fashion, but rather to strike a balance between executing
those transactions and capitalising on its undeniably vast capabilities to protect consumers thereby
enhancing market integrity.
Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all U. S. Bank has done in this regard is set up a
dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go
one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, has maintained that financial institutions
can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.
U. S. Bank is obliged to take some action if it is sufficiently aware of a real possibility that a fraud may
be being perpetuated. If you don't question its customers instructions or raise the possibility of a scam
with the customer in these circumstances, it may be liable if the red flags indicate the customer is:
 particularly vulnerable, or
Page XXXX of XXXX  XX/XX/2024
 if the possibility of fraud was serious or real, not just suspected.
There are some recommendations to organisations for protecting customers from financial harm that
might occur as a result of fraud or financial abuse; and gives guidance on how to recognise customers
who might be at risk, how to assess the potential risks to the individual and how to take the necessary
actions to prevent or minimise financial harm.
These recommendations are established as a general principle, the organisation should deliver a
service that:
XXXX) Takes a proactive approach to minimising risks, impact and incidences of financial harm and it
sets out systems and tools for the prevention and detection of fraud and financial abuse. As a general
point, it says organisations should ensure that all systems are developed using technologies and
methodologies that are effective in the prevention of fraud and financial abuse, through authorised
and unauthorised payments, thereby minimising the risk of financial harm to customers. As regards to
the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organisation:
A) should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious
transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse. It then lists the following
examples of suspicious activity on customer accounts:
a. multiple cheque books;
b. sudden increased spending;
c. transfers to other accounts;
d. multiple password attempts;
e. logins from new devices, multiple geographical locations;
f. sudden changes to the operation of the account; Unusual transactions are
transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the
economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no
apparent legal justification.
g. a withdrawal or payment for a large amount;
h. a payment or series of payments to a new payee;
i. financial activity that matches a known method of fraud or financial abuse.
B) organisations should have a process in place to ensure that staff make contact with the
customer to verify the financial activity, challenge its authenticity, explain the nature of the
suspected or detected fraud and discuss an appropriate plan of action.
U. S. Bank are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging
experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to
avert the fraud at issue. By contrast, I have provided a multitude of sound and powerful reasons by which
Page XXXX of XXXX
XX/XX/2024requiring their involvement has not only been pressingly relevant but also eminently reasonable and well-
justified.
Rather than empathising with and undertaking substantial efforts to convey their knowledge of the
existence of such regulations abroad and thereafter use it to protect and proactively relieve the plight of
consumers who have been cheated out of their money and whose role in society is properly fulfilled,
positively contributing to local economic growth, development and sustainability  U. S. Bank adopts a
rather insouciant attitude toward my financial predicament portrayed herein.
I am deeply convinced that the disastrous results that I have previously elaborated upon will continue to
ensue if no responsibility is adopted by U. S. Bank in relation to this matter. I have also thoroughly
detailed why they cannot simply dismiss this problem by strictly adhering to legal technicalities which,
after careful reflection, struck me as being nothing more than self-interest. Indeed, it seems to me utterly
unfair to disregard fragile, sensitive, and vulnerable consumers who are afflicted by such allegedly
malevolent acts, thereby keeping an unjust status-quo that is corrupting our society at its core.
Conclusion:
Based on my analysis, and as confirmed by various authorities concerned with such matters, there is
abundant evidence that forward-thinking financial institutions ought to take reasonable steps to forestall
fraud, or at least mitigate its risk by using an effective risk management system, demonstrating their
undisputed ability to responsibly and pre-emptively respond to questionable transactions in the digital
arena. The use of such systems, largely based on newly adopted technologies aimed at effectively
navigating the evolving threat landscape, is only one of a number of possible endeavours undertaken in
this connection, alongside the application of past knowledge and experience related to popular fraudulent
practices.
Astonishingly, I am pondering how it is that, despite being shown that U. S. Banks business conduct was
insufficient insofar as background checks are concerned, they keep refuting their indisputable role and
responsibility in connection with the matter herein discussed. The points that I have hitherto made are too
crucial to be taken lightly. U. S. Banks non-observance of the fundamental principles of justice  that is,
to completely overlook and not even remotely try to mitigate the suffering of vulnerable consumers is
inexcusable given the size of the establishment and the vast resources at its disposal as the direct result of
the patronage of clients like myself.
If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses: a)
financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b) the fraud in
question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming.
It is extremely unfortunate that U. S. Bank pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these things
despite evidence to the contrary.
In summary, I respectively ask your organisation to consider my points, given your personal and
companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint.
I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.
Thank you.
XXXX XXXX XXXX  Page XXXX of XXXXXX/XX/2024
THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Demand for Return of Funds
XX/XX/2024
U.S. Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX MN XXXX Re: XXXX XXXX XXXX Account number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Demand for Return of Funds Dear XXXX  or XXXX, I am writing to you concerning my account referenced above to notify you that the transactions described below were fraudulent, and to demand that funds in the amount of XXXX  be returned immediately.
The Transactions
I made the following transfers from the Account:
Date Amount Recipient InstitutionXX/XX/2024 XXXX XXXX  XX/XX/2024 XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
All of the foregoing transfers were the result of fraud. Specifically, I bonded with an individual online and
got introduced to investing in a seemingly innocent manner. She directed me to a carefully replicated
XXXX  Markets website, under the domain m.dml-markets.cc. Initially, I seemed to be profiting from my
investments, according to their platform. However, I was later notified that my account and funds had
been frozen due to suspicious activity and leveraged on my trust and fear of slipping into an unfortunate
financial situation, successfully tricking me into depositing additional funds in order to resolve the issue.
Ultimately, I was unable to complete further transfer requests they made. Despite the highly irregular
nature of these transactions compared to my usual patterns, I was never approached for clarification by
any institution involved.
Please note the following:
 I have never transacted with cryptocurrency in such a manner before.
 The pattern of the Transactions fits within well-known fraudulent schemes.
 I am an elderly individual.
 The bank failed to implement adequate safeguards to protect elderly customers from known fraud
schemes, potentially violating the "reasonable security" standard under various state laws.
 The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's guidelines on preventing elder financial abuse
suggest that banks should have systems in place to detect and prevent this type of fraud
 The bank did not attempt to contact me to verify this large, unusual transaction before processing
it, which may be considered a failure in their duty of care.
Demand for Return of Funds
Basis For Demand
The foregoing Transactions were fraudulent, and I am therefore entitled to have the amounts set forth
above returned to my account pursuant to the representations made by you. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX. Further, the Transactions had all the clear markings of well-known scams, about which you have been
repeatedly warned by law enforcement and other government agencies. Your facilitation of the
Transactions is another basis for the return of the Funds. See XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX (applying the should have known standard under statute); see alsoXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX).
Right to File Claim
Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of my rights to damages not expressly set forth
herein. It is my hope that the Funds are returned quickly, and that no further action is necessary.
If we cannot reach a resolution, then I will have no choice but to file an arbitration claim pursuant to your
terms and conditions.

u s D a n K . XXXX XXXX  CA XXXX U.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING U.S. Bank National Association Card Withdrawals (continued) Card Number: XXXX Date Description of Transaction R e f Number Uni-Statement Account Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Statement Period: XXXX XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX
Page XXXX of XXXX
(CONTINUED)
Account Number XXXX
Amount
Card XXXX Withdrawals Subtotal
Total Card Withdrawals
Ref Number
XXXX XXXX
Other Withdrawals
Date Description of Transaction XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Wire Transfer Fee XXXX XXXX Wire  Debit XXXX
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX SA
Checks Presented Conventionally
Check
XXXX
Date Ref Number XXXX XXXX XXXX  Amount XXXX  Check
XXXX  Total Other Withdrawals
Date
XXXX XXXX  $
Ref NumbeXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Amount XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-
Amount XXXX
u s b a n k JXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXXXXXX
U.S. BANK SMARTLY CHECKING
U.S. Bank National Association
Card Withdrawals (continued)
Card Number: XXXXXXXX
Date Description of Transaction Ref Number
Uni-Statement
Account Number:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX
Statement Period:
XXXX XXXX XXXX through
XXXX XXXX XXXX
Page XXXX of XXXX XXXXCONTINUED)
Account Number XXXX
Amount
Other Withdrawals
Date Description of Transaction
XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX
Card XXXX  Withdrawals Subtotal
Total Card Withdrawals
Ref Number
To XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX-
A m o u n t
XXXX XXXX XXXX  Wire Transier Fee XXXX XXXX  Wire Debit REFXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX
XXXX XXXX Electronic Withdrawal
REF=XXXX XXXX
Checks Presented Conventionally
Check Date Ref Number
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  Total Other Withdrawals
Amount
XXXX  Check XXXX Date Ref Number
XXXX XXXX XXXX  Conventional Checks Paid (2)


u s b a n k .
usbankXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX  Re: Account ending in XXXX
Dear XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX:
The Office of the President received your request for assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your
c o n c e r n s .
We regret any frustration or inconvenience this matter may have caused you. We understand that being the victim of a
scam can be confusing, time consuming, and inconvenient.
Upon receiving your request for assistance, our records confirm two claims were opened with our Wire Department on
XXXX XXXX  which debited your account ending XXXX on XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in the amounts of XXXX XXXX XXXX. A
request was sent to the beneficiary bank for recall of these funds.
Please know, the receiving institution is not obligated to return these funds or respond to our request. The elapsed time
from the time of the transfers to the time of the claim submission limits the chances of recalling the funds. We
recommend you also continue working directly with your local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your
money from the beneficiary of this payment.
Please refer to the section of the Your Deposit Account Agreement (Agreement) titled Funds Transfers, which states, "A
wire transfer is irrevocable once payment has been transmitted to the beneficiary's bank. At your request, we may
request that the beneficiary's bank return funds previously transferred. However, you acknowledge that the beneficiary's
bank is under no obligation to comply with this request." The most current copy of the Agreement is available on
usbank.com or at your local U.S. Bank branch. The Agreement is also included with the documentation provided when a
new account is opened.
Our customers are generally protected from liability for unauthorized transactions or fraud. Any transactions you initiate
are considered authorized by you. Also, if you send funds to someone for products or services, and they fail to deliver the
desired service, it becomes a civil matter and unfortunately falls outside of our ability to recover those funds. We
recommend you continue to work with the recipient of the funds to request a refund. You may also consider working with
your local law enforcement officials to attempt to recover your money from the beneficiary of this payment.
In your correspondence you enclosed a statement and mention four additional fraudulent transfers on your account
ending XXXX  in the amounts oXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Please note, we were unable to locate any claims on
the transactions mentioned above. If there are transactions you believe should be disputed, please contact our Fraud
Dispute Intake team at XXXX to file a claim, where representatives are available to assist you XXXX  hours a day,
seven days a week (we accept relay calls).
Additionally, in your correspondence you also expressed concern regarding our alleged failure to prevent the above
transactions from occurring. A review of the wire interaction confirmed the branch representative asked appropriate
verification questions and determined you had previously sent similar wires.