Consumer complaint received 2023-10-16
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (CA)

I am filing this complaint because of Bank of Americas ( BOA ) failure to refund me the money that was fraudulently stolen by means of identity theft in the arms of the promulgated Unemployment Pandemic Fraud. I have been proactive in assisting with information regarding the victimization that led to my money being stolen, including but not limited to filing a police report, providing BOA pertinent information when requested, and have always been available to answer questions that might assist in resolving this matter. I have been denied several claims I filed with BOA, and requested the documentation that they used to deny those claims, but the only documentation I received from them was my statements during the period when the fraud was taking place. If my account statements are the sole source of information used to determine a denial of my claim, then I believe this matter needs meticulous review by the CFPB, or perhaps the Board of Directors at BOA, because I did not authorize any of the transactions, and the fraud that erupted with EDD is well documented, and BOA has an obligation to follow error resolution provisions which afford me certain rights as a banking consumer, and in violating those provisions they are ultimately holding me liable for unauthorized transactions. The actions BOA is now taking by denying my claims directly violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693, et seq., which protects consumers from liability for unauthorized transfers. It also breaches BOAs own promises regarding customer liability for unauthorized transfers. It makes no sense that using the same documentation one claim is approved and one is denied. Furthermore, the claim which was approved was done so after re-opening an earlier claim. Clearly, a mistake was made the first time, and BOA has admitted that when it approved that claim, so it is not unrealistic to not rely on the idea that the determination to deny my claim is made in error. They have an obligation to refund my money, yet they have only returned a small sum of it, and I demand that they follow error resolution provisions and return my money at once. This entire process should habe been completed no more than 90 days after they were made aware of it, and those 90 days turned into months, and now years. Its a slap in the face to Regulation E and EFTA provisions and a deliberate attempt to insulate themselves from liability as far as Im concerned. 

To be clear, the EFTA requires banks to investigate and correct errors relating to electronic fund transfers when notified of the error by a customer. Among the " error [ s ] '' for which a bank may be liable are " unauthorized electronic fund transfer [ s ]. '' 15 U.S.C. 1693f ( f ) ( 1 ). When a customer believes an unauthorized transfer has occurred and notifies his bank, " the bank has a duty to investigate the alleged error, determine whether an error has occurred, and report or mail the results of such investigation and determination to the consumer within ten business days.. 

Because the transactions were not authorized, the bank is required by the EFTA to refund the money stolen. Bank of America also failed to follow EFTA requirements once fraud had been detected. Banks must provide notice to customers of which materials and documents the bank used to determine that the transaction was authorized. I received account statements. If those statements are the sole source of information used, then how can one claim be approved and another denied? A letter dated XX/XX/XXXX   states that during the banks research, multiple factors indicated that the transactions were authorized. That statement is ludacris, and I requested the documents relied on and as I mentioned, I am under the impression that my statements were the only source. So Id like to know what BOA means when they say multiple? If more than my statements were used, then by not providing those documents to me as required, they have again breached the EFTA. 

There are still claims that are pending, but which remain denied. If BOA planned on taking this long to complete its investigation, I should have been given provisional credit. Id like to know why I have not. I have called in to customer service for these answers, but it seems that nobody has the answer. I have asked to speak with someone with autonomy to provide me this information and remedy the error resolution failures, but so far have been unsuccessful. I believe that this matter could not possibly have been investigated thoroughly, and this CFPB complaint is meant to alert the CFPB so that it may consider this matter for its meticulous review. 

As I interpret it, if in any action under section 1693m 1 m the court finds that the financial institution did not provisionally recredit a consumer 's account within the ten-day period specified in subsection ( c ), and the financial institution ( A ) did not make a good faith investigation of the alleged error, or ( B ) did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer 's account was not in error ; or ) the financial institution knowingly and willfully concluded that the consumer 's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available to the financial institution at the time of its investigation, then the consumer shall be entitled to treble damages determined under section 169 3m ( a ) ( 1 ) 1 of this title. 

I expect a swift response from BOA and also expect to be afforded my consumer rights outlined in the EFTA and Regulation E in a timely manner. Should BOA not refund my money, I intend to take legal action against them.