Consumer complaint received 2023-08-16
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A. (CA)

On XX/XX/2023, while reconciling my Citi Double Cash credit card statement ( statement date XX/XX/2023 ), I noticed a charge for {$540.00} for XXXX XXXX that neither my wife nor I recognized/authorized. The credit card statement line item included a flight ticket number, so I contacted XXXX XXXX. The customer service agent stated that a one-way ticket had been purchased by/for a XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XX/XX/2023 for travel on XX/XX/2023 ( see attached electronic receipt ). This ticket was fraudulently purchased using a virtual credit card number on my account ( i.e., not using the physical card itself ). 

The same day I noticed the fraudulent charge ( XX/XX/2023 ), I deactivated the virtual credit card number that was used in the purchase, and contacted Citi to inform them of the fraudulent charge. After being passed around between multiple fraud department agents, I was told a case was being opened to investigate the fraudulent charge and that a temporary chargeback would be placed on my account while they initiated and conducted the investigation. 

Following up two days later ( XX/XX/2023 ), I noticed that the temporary chargeback had not been applied to my account, so I called Citi again. After speaking with multiple agents, they eventually opened a case, provided me with a case number ( XXXX ), and applied the temporary chargeback. 

On XX/XX/2023, I received an email from Citi stating that they were reaching out to XXXX XXXX for more information as part of their investigation. 

On XX/XX/2023, I received an electronic letter in my online account from Citi ( dated XX/XX/2023, see attached ) stating that they had denied my fraud claim, because XXXX XXXX stated that a ticket had indeed been purchased and used by someone ( supporting information provided by the airline attached ). It appears Citi erroneously told XXXX XXXX that I had made my claim because a ticket had not been provided/used, instead of telling the airline that the ticket had been fraudulently purchased. As a result, XXXX XXXX requested that Citi reverse the chargeback, which they did. 

On XX/XX/2023, I called the Citi security department to explain that there had been in error in which my claim had been categorized and investigated, and that they needed to re-open this investigation properly as a fraud dispute ( not as a billing dispute ). I was told by the agent that this would be done. My existing physical credit card was deactivated, and I received a new account number. The same day I received an email that my fraud dispute claim had been received by Citi. 

On XX/XX/2023, I received an email and an electronic letter in my online account stating that my claim had been forwarded to the Citi security department for further review, that my fraud dispute had been re-opened, and that I could monitor the status of the dispute online. 

On XX/XX/2023, I received an email from Citi notifying me that I had a new letter in my online account regarding this dispute that required action on my part. However, no new letter was present in my online account. 

The next day ( XX/XX/2023 ), I called the Citi security department to follow up. The agent notified me that the letter I was supposed to have received the previous day was related to the billing disputes department ( not the security department ), and transferred me to that department. The billing disputes person said ( 1 ) the email I received on XX/XX/2023 may have been a duplicate communication from XX/XX/2023, ( 2 ) that this case will be handled by the security department ( not billing disputes ), ( 3 ) that she spoke with multiple security department agents ( including at least one supervisor ) while I was placed on hold to confirm that the case was, in fact, being transferred to the security department, but that it has not been fully transferred/opened yet, ( 4 ) that it may take up to one billing cycle for the Security department to re-open the case, and ( 5 ) if I dont receive any communication in the next 2-3 weeks, I should call the security department again to follow up. 

On XX/XX/2023, I contacted the security department again. As was initially miscommunicated to me on XX/XX/2023, the agent said my dispute was supposed to be an issue with the billing department. I said that I had gone through this same conversation a month ago, and that the case was supposed to have been re-opened by the security department. After more clarification from me, the agent said ( 1 ) they will be opening a new investigation, ( 2 ) that they will need to contact XXXX XXXX again, because the fraud department asks different questions than the billing disputes department, ( 3 ) that I will be notified when a response from XXXX XXXX is received, ( 4 ) that I should give them a week to investigate before following up, and ( 5 ) that Citi is prioritizing this investigation. At this point I still didnt see this fraud dispute showing up in my online account. 

On XX/XX/2023, I contacted the security department again. The agent again miscommunicated that this was supposed to be an issue with the billing department. I explained that they needed to review notes from my previous calls. They said they reviewed the notes, and said that they will open up an investigation. I asked why an investigation hadnt already been opened given the several previous calls where I had been told the same thing. They said they would forward this information to the investigator. I asked why I didnt see a fraud dispute listed in my online account. They said they would take care of this and it would be updated in 24-48 hours. I asked why a new chargeback had not been applied to my account. I did not receive a meaningful answer, although again they mentioned 24-48 hours to see an update. I asked specifically - would I ( 1 ) see the fraud dispute listed in my online account in 24-48 hours, and ( 2 ) would I have a new chargeback applied to my account in 24-48 hours. The answer they gave to both was yes. 

On XX/XX/2023 ( today ), I received a physical letter from the security department ( dated XX/XX/2023, attached ) that my dispute has been closed. It states that I accepted responsibility for the disputed charge when I provided my account number for the transactions somehow implying that I willingly gave my account number to the person who made the fraudulent charge. It also states that the charge will remain on my account ( I already had to pay the charge in full in a previous billing cycle due to delays associated with this dispute ). No additional information was provided regarding the investigation. Even today, there is nothing in my online account to indicate that I made a fraud dispute no case number, no updates, etc. 

Additional clarification : I am not familiar with any XXXX XXXX in the XXXX, XXXX XXXX. Although the XXXX XXXX supporting information shows that my home address was used with XXXX XXXX name in conjunction with the ticket purchase, there is no XXXX XXXX residing at my address in XXXX XXXX - although certainly my address can readily be found ( /abused ) by internet search. 

There are XXXX XXXX phone numbers ( XXXX and XXXX ) and two email addresses ( XXXX and XXXX ) associated with the ticket purchase noted in the XXXX XXXX supporting information that are not associated with me or my family ( nor any of our XXXX Airlines XXXX XXXX ) in any way. 

The electronic receipt from XXXX XXXX indicates that a separate XXXX account number was used to pay for luggage fees an account number I do not recognize, and perhaps also used fraudulently. 

Interestingly, according to the supporting information, it appears that when XXXX XXXX arrived in XXXX, they were not able to provide appropriate documentation to XXXX immigration authorities, and they were deported back to the XXXX the same day on another XXXX XXXX flight ( unrelated to my fraud dispute ).