Consumer complaint received 2023-08-08
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: PNC Bank N.A. (MD)

On or about the time and date of XXXX, PNC Bank was contacted by my person to ensure the transparency of a transaction involving a Negotiable Instrument. An electronic communication was established with PNC Bank in order to transact using the instrument in question. After sending e-mail communication, I was informed as a consumer that a deposit of the Negotiable Instrument in-question, could be processed at the local PNC branch located at : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX MD XXXX. This local branch does not handle bank transactions exceeding {$50000.00}. However, PNC XXXX  Bank made clear, that submission of the negotiable instrument for transaction could be processed at a local branch. Prior to presenting the Negotiable Instrument in drive-thru, I had informed the PNC bank officer, XXXX XXXX , that the instrument was in transit for analysis prior to submission for process. There was no follow-up communication provided from PNC Bank to ensure that analysis of the instrument had initialized, prior to contacting my person in real-time. The instrument was processed by the local branch with local branch work-product ( all media processed in the local bank, [ situated at the local branch cashier cage ] ). This assessment was not conducive to the instructions provided in the memo of the instrument used in contract, thereafter, the instrument was processed with regular work from the cashier operation area at the bank ( as determined by the copy of the instrument sent to my person by postal mail ( Dated XXXX ), after the incident in question transpired at the local branch ). The PNC location in question processed the instrument presented without notifying my person that offer, agreement, and acceptance was acknowledged. The instrument was processed as a Check, which clearly conflicts the terms, conditions, and instructions submitted beneath the memorandum section of the Negotiable Instrument in-question, where identified legal language is present stating Reference prepaid personal item ; exchange acknowledgement Void Where Prohibited by Law This draft is an offer of tender and discharges the obligation per, UCC 1-103 , 1-104, 3-603 ( a ) ( b ) and Public Policy House Joint Resolution 192 XXXX  XX/XX/XXXX. In the event that the instrument could or could not be processed, I should have been provided an explanation as to how that could transpire via compliance, regulation, or other binding legal authority and whether I could retain my property back without further incident, in the event that transaction could not be processed. This did not occur and it is for this reason, I am presenting cause for complaint before your office and request formal investigation by your staff. Upon receiving an official letter from PNC Bank dated XXXX, a copy of the instrument processed by PNC was mailed to my home address. The copy indicated that the instrument was indeed processed as a check on the date aforementioned herein ( XXXX ). At the top-right/ front-side of the instrument there is a stamp indicating service by the bank, beneath this is a description from the bank stating This is a LEGAL COPY of your check. You can use it the same way you would use the original check. Beneath this message is administrative explanation for not fulfilling transaction in accordance with the instructions provided on instrument, per, RETURN REASON-N ALTERED/FICTICIOUS. I will also note that before the transaction at the local PNC bank occurred, I was already contacted by the PNC XXXX Bank and informed that PNC XXXX Bank staff would assist me with my banking needs presented. Thereafter, I was informed by XXXX XXXX that the minimum amount in order to transact within the PNC XXXX bank was {>= $1,000,000} dollars. However, the amount of funding on the instrument in-question exceeds that standard by XXXX times the amount, a XXXX  Account was established, which should have allowed availability of funds. The communication by the Relationship Strategist was assessed prior to PNC bank providing endorsement of the instrument as shown in the attachment ( furnished for review ). Communications as described herein are attached for review for attachment to complaint, and verification of fact sequence in construct of complaint. Closing questions : Why did the PNC branch location issue a stamped endorsement to the credit of the payee, yet not deposit the funds appropriately? ( See also the reverse side [ for confirmation that transaction was mishandled, and funds misappropriated, absent a Good Faith measure ] ). In addition, the reverse side of the copy of the processed instrument, indicates that there were other subsequent transactions processed as it pertains to the immediate matter-in-question. Where is the negotiable instrument involved the instant complaint? Why has the bank confiscated my property without lawful authorization? are both relevant questions. On the date of XX/XX/XXXX, there was a telephonic communication with PNC Branch Manager, at XXXX XXXX Branch, XXXX XXXX, which stated that the instrument was processed as a check, in addition, the branch manager informed me that the instrument was now property of PNC bank ( even though there was at no time a hand-to hand exchange of the instrument presented in transaction to authorize said reference ), and would not be returned to my person. After the incident in question, my PNC bank accounts were closed without any basis as to why, when the primary matter-in-question was pending a very significant deposit as displayed on original instrument used in transaction. This is a clear breach of fiduciary responsibility of PNC Bank. At no time did I ever or would I ever agree to the business practice encountered by this financial institution. Legal questions continue to exist as to how this may have transpired. Why couldn't Section 4A of the U.C.C. be acknowledged, per, governing claim of bank negligence related to electronic transfer given the local branch had access to wire instructions ( See also attachment ), It is not commercially reasonable, per, U.C.C. 4A-201 to fail to acknowledge security procedures in the transaction described in complaint, even though instructions were provided in memorandum on negotiable instrument. This item should have been acknowledged in legal language provided prior to transaction. The presence of the XXXX XXXX XXXX  emails identify familiarity in the function requested as similar to other Private XXXX  Account holders in said XXXX XXXX, ( U.C.C. 4A-202 ( c ) ). The bank was contacted to rectify this incident numerous times to no avail following this incident. The instructions on the negotiable instrument, in concert with XXXX XXXX  communication articulate what the proper fund transfer should have been executed, per, U.C.C. 4A-104 ( A ) U.S.C. under title 5 has also been breached in that my privacy is now somewhere at-large due to the business practice of PNC Bank . It is a relative consideration that this matter is observed as time-sensitive in categorization. There are on-going closures of PNC banks throughout the country due to undisclosed reasons made to the general public. Albeit, this concludes the formal complaint-in-chief as it relates to the incident experienced via the transaction involving PNC Bank.