Consumer complaint received 2019-10-27
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: FinCo Services Inc DBA Current (IL)

On Tuesday, XX/XX/2019 the bank, Current with mailing address listed as Finco Services , Inc., XXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX, XXXX XXXX, NY XXXX sent me an email on or about XXXX XXXX CST stating that You are approved for instant deposits! Additionally the email stated that those funds will be available immediately. Despite taking Currents email in good faith, it has become clearly evident via a preponderance of evidence that both Current and XXXX XXXX XXXX located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, OH XXXX intentionally violated the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Titles X and XIV codified in relevant part at 12 U.S.C. 5301, 5481-5603, and in laws amended ( Title X ) ; and 12 U.S.C. 5481 note, 15 U.S.C. 1601 note, 1602, and 1631 et seq. ( Title XIV ) and have provided both regulatory bodies and their respective agents with a false certifications, fraud in the inducements or both with respect to their willingness to comply with statutory and regulatory oversight requirements on their own without the need of additional actionable regulatory oversight Additionally, in section 8 ( b ) ( 3 ) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1818 ( b ) ( 3 ) ), it provides that if the Board of Governors determines that a condition, practice, or activity of a depository institution subsidiary or functionally regulated subsidiary of a non-bank financial company supervised by the Board of Governors does not comply with the regulations or orders prescribed by the Board of Governors under this Act, or otherwise poses a threat to the financial stability of the United States, the Board of Governors may recommend, in writing, to the primary financial regulatory agency for the subsidiary that such agency initiate a supervisory action or enforcement proceeding. Furthermore there are provisions within 12 U.S.C. 5363 that provides for Acquisitions of Banks and Treatment as a Bank Holding Company for the purposes of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 ( 12 U.S.C. 1842 ). 

On or about XX/XX/2019, I opened an account with XXXX XXXX and declined to opt into overdraft protection per the Opt-In Rule. My checking account balance at the end of the business on XX/XX/2019 was {$740.00}. There were no transactions made on my account by me or anyone else from that time until approximately noon on XX/XX/2019 when I attempted to make a debit card purchase and my transaction was declined. I found that to be highly irregular and logged into my mobile banking application with XXXX XXXX and noticed that my checking balance is - {$1900.00}. It showed a list of strange " pending transactions '' that took my account from where legally and ethically it was at in the amount of {$740.00} to a high negative balance. On or about XX/XX/2019, Current using their elected electronic banking systems listed at least {$840.00} of valid deposits into my checking account within their bank that is not up to par or on the same levels as the go-to and industry gold standard of other electronic banking systems such as XXXX XXXX ( R ) with XXXX ( SM ). This electronic banking system did not allow for the transfer of funds that would cause overdraft in an account that did not opt-in to overdraft protection thus exposing them to tortuous liability whether that be initially a case of negligence or later found to be intentional as a result of the deliberate and willful actions chosen like that of XXXX XXXX XXXX and Current did and continue to do. 

The Opt-In Rule, 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ) at 1005.17 ( b ) ( 2 ), provides official interpretation of conditioning payment of other overdrafts on consumer 's  consent. This section requires banks to condition and decline the payment of any overdraft checks, ACH transactions, and other types of transactions on the consumer because the consumer has not affirmatively consented to the institution 's overdraft service for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. On XX/XX/2019, XXXX Bank willfully and deliberately violated this section of the law and changed my account from {$740.00} to XXXX. This violation came stemmed from an act of negligence on their part to maintain effective and efficient electronic banking systems and became libelous with intentional tortuous liability as a result of them willfully and deliberately using creative and artful means to cause me injury, knowingly violate 12 CFR Part 1005 and  erode more trust from not only the banking industry as a whole but specifically XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

12 CFR Part 1005 does not provide justification for violating the law by banks for any reason whatsoever and banks are actually the more egregious offender like that of contracts of adhesion but the intentional injury inflicted on my was likely from something that should have been commended for. Apparently, I randomly discovered via penetration testing a flaw within two banking systems that through my efforts and the methods that I used in particular, XXXX XXXX XXXX and I were actually able to stop and remedy this glitch that XXXX XXXX XXXX actually has an official and legal duty and obligation to correct, not me. XXXX XXXX XXXX apparently was either extremely cheap in acquiring their business assets like their software & information systems and/or seriously lacking in the acquisition and retention of skilled, competent, knowledgeable, ethical and professional personnel. 

Also, in regards to Current bank, is it not customary, required and expect that desiring to and having opened an account that was and is listed specifically as a checking account that it be industry standard that the account have the ability to write actual checks regardless of whether the bank specifically provides customers checks as stated by one of their employees or whether they obtain them from a different vendor that could likely charge less and consumers wouldnt be subject to unfair business practices that could result from vertical and horizontal integration of products and apparently wouldnt be found to be uncommon at this particular bank. This bank took nearly 15 days for a check that was a mere {$900.00} ( which was made to feel like it was {>= $1,000,000} ) to be made available when they could have simply called the issuing bank verified the availability of funds and made them available to the consumer in less than a day like what can happen at Check Cashing locations and payday lenders whose operations are not always the most cost effective solution when compared with a legitimate bank. Having mentioned legitimate with respect to a bank, does the Patriot Act not mandate that certain information when opening account be verified by the bank prior to opening the account in order to prevent potential funding of terrorism? What if I can be used as a direct example of the deliberate failure by Current bank to properly and effectively check and require specific forms of government identification in order to open an account or them actually being able to technically and effectively verify a consumers social security number when that consumer in question has an actual credit freeze from a XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX and did not lift said freeze in order to confirm ones identity, verify that the information is indeed accurate or whether it is the actual individual in question opening the account or responsible for it. The internet can open a world of possibilities whether that the benefits or liabilities. In a world of call centers and those companies like XXXX and XXXX that are most definitely not your mom and pop there is something to be said about that personal and human relationship that allows for those smaller business to continue to operate and compete but also whereby one might consider the job of someone whose face they see everyday before they decide to eviscerate an company or not engage in economic Darwinism from being an organization that one uses personification on relationships to things like corporations or flags. In Native American culture when they hunt using bows and arrows and by tracking, such an act can becomes an acceptable Spiritual practice when the animal gives up its spirit to the hunter versus a truly skill less sportsman who uses trickery pheromones or guns with scopes that can see or shoot from miles away.

While some may hold that some political, legal and most definitely Spiritual stances may be rather harsh, they are obviously missing human element that for many years within the his deceptive Republic has long been missing. The intentional withholding and/or the destructive of monetary funds can and has had a direct effect on the human species component of humanity with respect to things like life, health, safety, freedom, liberty as well as happiness. It should be assumed that at the time of birth into this world, choice of entry is not generally provided to infants. With that being said, things like food, shelter, water, clothing, healthcare, security are required in order to survive as well as thrive. While some may contend that these should be provided as basic human rights without cost regardless of quality as long as such are effective, they are nevertheless needed. Depriving someone of money to buy food to prevent malnutrition and starving, things like ruining ones credit report intentionally, in error or in the possibility of error by the involvement and placing the information of others at a level of regard to allow for negativity regardless of validity or in what public policy and popular public opinion might find that the responsible party for unfortunate creditworthiness lies no responsibility on the consumer by their direct or indirect but rather that of an other parties. If a consumer has historically met or went beyond expected debt repayment guidelines for the business standard business relationship and their employer terminated them unlawfully and their primary source of income was from wages is it their fault for the lack of accountability and an actual legitimate possibility of redress of grievances not just some mere window that is rather elaborate trickery that causes the statutory protections of other bedrock and fundamental protections that to become efficiently have existed for hundreds if not thousands of years or more throughout many countries and municipalities to become superfluous and eroded sacred common law that we cling to in times when unexpected and unprepared for events occur in the present that have a huge impact on the immediate future. An example of such is when proprietary and governmental organizations require certain information in order to do business whether there is choice or not in the matter and they have the legal and responsibility to perform certain duties.

Two agents that I met privately that were professionally employed by the XXXX XXXX XXXX made a comment that demonstrated officially agency policy regarding security clearances that was rather stupid and a determent. The listed the two major concerns to be drug use and financial or credit worthiness. Well with respect to drug use, I can see how an agency not specified charted with jurisdictional involvement in drug use to be ignorant. For professionals that understand and support drug use they understand that usage can reveal very quickly negative and unacceptable attributes and behaviors that might not reveal themselves until many years later or at a time when ones value as an asset becomes great enough where they become a liability for national security and beyond later. With respect to having relationships as a result of drug use, one might actually be mesmerized about how quickly certain individuals can be leveraged in support of locating those who wish to hide and those who wish to thrive. With respect to financial or credit worthiness being unable to pay ones debts should not immediately imply recklessness or responsibility for them happening at all or continuing. If certain agencies and organizations hold the belief that someone should accept any job or position to pay debts regardless of whether that debt is valid, then why should they expect one to stay at organization, be trusted to defend and enforce that which others are by no laughable means beyond reproach or be passionate and respected enough to perform at their highest levels as a result of many potentially inciting factors including compensation, benefits, enjoyment and work life-balance. However the main point that is being conveyed regarding the seriousness, reliability and reliance on financial metrics can jeopardize security clearances, equal housing opportunity, the ability to find employment with employers and even ability to become an employer for oneself by starting their own business and being able to receive financial credit or capital to startup that business. It allows the creation of such desperate cycle of bondage that is not truly conforming to term vicious cycle and challenges whether ones life on earth could be potentially XXXX. 

With respect to Dodd Frank, it lists the term Too big to Fail. At what point is there a moral, ethical and legitimate reason for these colossal giants of adhesion due to their actual and potential powers, abilities and their actual and constructive utility does a regulatory agency or oversight authority feel it a statutory obligation to enter the fray on behalf of the consumer whether that be in support of that specific consumer or the macroeconomic applicability of consumer without being a party to what could be deemed conspiracy ( whether be one of silence or otherwise ) or what the military would consider dereliction of duty or abandoning ones post without being properly relieved whether be accidental and accountable or intentional and treasonous by a domestic enemy of the Constitution?

The Opt-In Rule, 12 CFR Part 1005 ( Regulation E ) at 1005.17 ( b ) ( 2 ), provides official interpretation of conditioning payment of other overdrafts on consumer 's  consent. This section requires banks to condition and decline the payment of any overdraft checks, ACH transactions, and other types of transactions on the consumer because the consumer has not affirmatively consented to the institution 's overdraft service for ATM and one-time debit card transactions. On XXXX XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX willfully and deliberately violated this section of the law and changed my account from {$740.00} to XXXX. This violation came stemmed from an act of negligence on their part to maintain effective and efficient electronic banking systems and became libelous with intentional tortuous liability as a result of them willfully and deliberately using creative and artful means to cause me injury, knowingly violate 12 CFR Part  1005 and erode more trust from not only the banking industry as a whole but specifically XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

12 CFR Part 1005 does not provide justification for violating the law by banks for any reason whatsoever and banks are actually the more egregious offender like that of contracts of adhesion but the intentional injury inflicted on my was likely from something that should have been commended for. Apparently, I randomly discovered via penetration testing a flaw within two banking systems that through my efforts and the methods that I used in particular, XXXX XXXX and I were actually able to stop and remedy this glitch that XXXX XXXX XXXX actually has an official and legal duty and obligation to correct, not me. XXXX XXXX XXXX apparently was either extremely cheap in acquiring their business assets like their software & information systems and/or seriously lacking in the acquisition and retention of skilled, competent, knowledgeable, ethical and professional personnel.