Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Cashing a check
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
On Tuesday, XX/XX/2026, person A cashed a check at Truist that was addressed to both themselves and me. Specifically, the check was made out to person A AND me. The check was cashed absent my signature, valid ID, and presence. Person A, later dropped off an envelope with an approved third-party of my choosing without explaining the contents of the envelope. I called person A Thursday, XX/XX/2026 at XXXX, to inquired about how person A was allowed to cash a personal check made out to both of us without my signature, valid ID, and presence. Person A was evasive and refused to provide an explanation as to how he was able to cash a check made out to both of us with only his signature. I asked for the location of the Truist bank in which he cashed the check, which he confirmed to be located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX NC. 

I called the bank that same day at XXXX, to inquire further, but received no answer. Around XXXX, I arrived at Truist located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC and requested to speak with a banker regarding a check that was cashed. I spoke with the Branch Leader, who took my complaint seriously from the beginning and immediately began researching on their end. They confirmed that the check was indeed cashed on Tuesday, XX/XX/2026, with only the signature of person A. The Branch leader confirmed what I already knew- the check should NOT have been cashed with only person As signature. She confirmed with me that I did receive the money that was expected to be received from the cashed check. I explained to the Branch Leader that I was familiar with both applicable law and Truist policy as a former XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX ( now Truist ) employee, and that I was concerned that person A cashed the check made out to themselves and me, the day after a bank holiday, in the late afternoon, while either in law enforcement uniform or being readily identifiable as such ; absent my signature, valid ID, and presence. Specifically, that I believe there was a subconscious abuse of power displayed by person A IF they were in law enforcement uniform or readily identifiable as such and that I wanted to file formal complaint for that reason.

I was clear with the Branch Leader that I understand that mistakes are made and this was a coachable moment for all of her staff, but that my primary concern was the subconscious abuse of power that may have contributed to the check getting cashed outside of Truist policy and applicable law. Specifically, I shared that law enforcement are statistically more likely to financially abuse their partners by cashing checks in ways that are not in compliance with applicable law and bank policy. Further, I explained that while, person A and were not currently in a romantic relationship, my concern is how easy it was for this egregious act to be committed because person A was more than likely readily identifiable as a law enforcement officer. The Branch Leader understood my concerns and explained that a formal complaint would trigger an internal investigation in which camera footage would be reviewed. It was unclear at this time, whether the transaction was completed in the drive thru or in person and the teller involved did not recall interacting with person A on the Tuesday when the teller cashed the check for person A.

The Branch Leader explained to me the process of the formal complaint and that someone from Truists Resolution team would be reaching out to me via phone and confirmed my contact information. The Branch Leader explained that she did not have access to the video footage and that would be part of the Resolution teams investigation. 

On Monday, XX/XX/2026, at XXXX, I called and made contact with the Resolution Specialist that was assigned my complaint after missed calls and voicemails ( from both the specialist and me ) beginning on Friday, XX/XX/2026. The call was recorded on Truists end and the Resolution Specialist on multiple occasions attempted to get me to admit that I agreed for the check to be cashed and because I was made whole because I ultimately, received the cash, I would not be getting any further information regarding the investigation into the subconscious abuse of power that possibly lead the teller to cash a check in a manner that was in clear violation of applicable law and Truist policy. Specifically, I clarified that I at no point agreed for a check made out to person A and me to be cashed absent my signature, valid ID, and presence. The Resolution Specialist attempted to assure me that there was no subconscious abuse of power and said something along the lines of we have a good working relationship with law enforcement, which only raised more concern to which I reiterated that I believe there was a subconscious abuse of power and that is why I am requesting to know- not view the footage, but to notified if person A was in law enforcement uniform, or readily identifiable as such, when the check was cashed, absent my signature, valid ID, and presence.

Ultimately, I flat out asked the Resolution Specialist if I filed a police report and law enforcement requested, not subpoenaed- requested to review the footage would they comply with their request or stonewall as they were doing me. I was not surprised when the specialist said, they would absolutely cooperate with law enforcement if they requested to view the footage and doubled down to remind me that I would get no further resolution other than the phone call we were currently on.

Once I saw that Truist did not care about my consumer protections as a client of theirs, I informed the specialist of that clarity and that I would be filing a complaint with the CFPB so there was no need for me to speak with them any further, the specialist told me to have a good day and thanked me for banking with Truist.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation