Consumer complaint received 2024-06-21
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: PNC Bank N.A. (CA)

I am the victim of an online XXXX fraud scam that I encountered on XXXX XXXX that in total stole {$2600.00} from me and attempted to steal much more than that. Last month I found an apartment advertised on XXXX that I indicated I was interested in. The lessor then responded to me and we began a 2.5 week communication. I just moved to the area and was in a temporary housing situation at the time. The lessor, going by the name XXXX XXXX sent multiple photos of the place as well as a video tour. I was told that I couldnt see it in person as there was a tenant currently in the space. The subject address is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, CA XXXX. 

I was very interested and the man told me there was another person also interested so I needed to make a quick decision. I signed a lease with him on XX/XX/XXXX for 3 months with an addition 3 month option. He insisted I provide some good faith money to to take the advertisement down from XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX I sent {$500.00} to his wife XXXX XXXX via XXXX to XXXX. But before I would send the funds I asked to see proof of ownership. So the texted me a pdf of his XXXX electric bill, in his. Name, at the unit. The bill appeared to be authentic so I sent the money as agreed, and he promptly emailed me a receipt. 

The rest of the money for the deposit, first months rent, and a cleaning fee was due when I received my first paycheck, on XX/XX/XXXX. On that day XXXX complained that his wife and him were having a dispute over the money and asked that I send the second installment to his daughter, after a couple of attempts to have it delivered to other email addresses ( aliases ) that didnt work on XXXX XXXX Finally I was able to transfer {$2100.00} to XXXX XXXX via XXXX to XXXX, and he promptly sent me another receipt. 

Then on XX/XX/XXXX I was sent an email chain between XXXX and the XXXX XXXX where in he told me I needed to pay the full rent amount upfront ( an additional {$3000.00} ) because the XXXX XXXX didnt approve of a short term lease. The person on the email chain is XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX CA XXXX No phone number was listed. I have no idea whether this person exists or whether this is another of his aliases. I refused to send the additional money because it violated our lease agreement, and frankly, because I didnt have it. So after back and forth for about XXXX hours he told me not to worry about it, that he had resolved the issue. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I was supposed to take possession of the place as agreed. That day XXXX stopped responding to me. His phones became disconnected. Emails to him bounced. And I realized I had been scammed. I had to arrange for an emergency place to move into in XXXX hours, a traumatizing and expensive experience. I contacted the XXXX Police Department and filed a report that evening. So far nothing has come of the investigation. XXXX and I have been trading phone calls for XXXX weeks but because they only call during business hours I have been unable to speak with them. There is no one to contact at XXXX. 

I disputed the charges with my bank, PNC, on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX, the earliest I could after I found out about the fraud. On XX/XX/XXXX, two letters were mailed to me denying the disputes. I am familiar with Reg E and I was never contacted by the bank requesting a copy of the police report, asking for evidence, or with questions. I do not believe a valid investigation was performed as is required by the law. The reason stated in the letters is that I had authorized the transfers, which I don't deny. But authorizing transfers on the basis of fraud is not authorization per Reg E. Once I found out these disputes were denied, I again filed another set of disputes and submitted evidence of the fraud as well as evidence of a police report. I was told by XXXX XXXX yesterday on the telephone however that both my disputes had again been denied, this time the basis for the denial was that XXXX disclosures state the app is only for use with family and friends. Again this is false, because PNC advertises XXXX for use with businesses on its website. You can not deny someone Reg E protections based on your disclosures, while at the same time promoting the use of XXXX for business reasons. This violates both the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Indeed many large banks are interpreting Reg E as applying to XXXX transactions, unfortunately my bank, PNC does not. That is unfortunate considering they are one of the largest owners of XXXX, which creates a conflict of interest as well as am obligation ( based on Reg B ) to do what is in the interest of their depositors. 

I feel like I have now been victimized twice. Once by an imposter who defrauded me. And a second time by my bank who benefitted from the fraud and did nothing to help me. They failed to perform a real investigation and they used their vague 'disclosures ' as a means to avoid liability that I believe I they legally have. I think the cfpb should investigate these practices and that banks like PNC, who are hiding behind disclosures and sketchy corporate relationships should be forced to change.