Consumer complaint received 2026-05-17 00:00:00
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
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
COMPLAINT NARRATIVE AGAINST BANK OF AMERICA , N.A . SUBJECT : Statutory Non-Compliance, Illegal Internal Offset of Exempt Federal Benefits ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ), Violation of the Treasury " Protected Amount '' Rule ( XXXX CFR Part XXXX ), and Regulation E / EFTA Violations. STATEMENT OF FACTS : I am filing this formal regulatory complaint against Bank of America , N.A . for engaging in an illegal internal offset and conversion of my federally protected XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) benefits. The bank has frozen and seized my incoming XXXX check totaling {$1500.00} to satisfy an unsecured internal bank debt stemming from an ongoing, improperly investigated fraud dispute. The origin of this dispute involves Claims # XXXX and # XXXX. In XXXX, unauthorized electronic fund transfers occurred on my account. Provisional credits were temporarily granted and subsequently revoked by the bank, creating a steep negative balance. Bank of America closed these fraud claims under the boilerplate assertion that the transactions were executed by " someone I know, '' entirely refusing to address the core security compliance issue : the transactions were achieved by a minor who bypassed active XXXX XXXX XXXX parental security locks. Following the denial of these claims, Bank of America immediately intercepted my direct-deposited XXXX funds when they posted to the account, absorbing the entire deposit to cover the bank-created negative balance. FEDERAL LAW & STATUTORY VIOLATIONS : XXXX. Illegal Offset of Social Security Benefits ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX of the Social Security XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ), Social Security benefits are strictly exempt from execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or " other legal process. '' The U.S. Supreme Court ( Philpott v. Essex County Welfare Board ) and federal banking regulators have established that a financial institution 's contractual " Right of Setoff '' is an execution of legal process and can not be used to seize exempt XXXX funds to pay off an internal bank debt or overdraft balance. When Bank of America used my direct-deposited XXXX check to satisfy its own debt recovery, it committed an illegal administrative offset. 2. Direct Violation of the Mandatory " Protected Amount '' Rule ( XXXX CFR Part XXXX XXXX Bank of America is in willful non-compliance with the Department of the Treasury regulation XXXX XXXX Part XXXX. Under XXXX CFR XXXX and XXXX, when an account experiences an enforcement action or an internal debt-collection review, the bank is legally mandated to execute a XXXX look-back assessment. Any covered federal benefit paymentssuch as my directly deposited XXXX within that XXXX window must immediately be classified as a " Protected Amount. '' The bank is required to provide me with " full and customary access '' to these protected funds within 2 business days of the account review. Bank of America has continuously denied me access to this protected amount, failing its clear statutory mandate. 3. Regulation XXXX and Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( XXXX ) Violations ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ( m ) / XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) Under XXXX CFR XXXX ( m ), an electronic fund transfer is defined as unauthorized if it is initiated by a person without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. The bank 's position that liability is waived because the user is " someone I know '' directly violates the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ). Because active, explicit digital security controls ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) were physically bypassed to execute these transfers, the actor possessed XXXX actual, implied, or apparent authority. The breach of a digital security gate constitutes a systemic security failure that the bank is liable for under Regulation XXXX guidelines. 4. Unfair, Deceptive, or Abusive Acts or Practices / UDAAP ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) By ignoring documented evidence of a digital security breach, arbitrarily closing active fraud claims, and aggressively seizing a XXXX consumers primary federal survival income via an illegal internal offset, Bank of America has engaged in " Abusive '' and " Unfair '' practices as defined by the XXXX XXXX XXXX Reform and Consumer Protection Act ( XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ). Taking advantage of a consumer 's lack of access to their legally protected XXXX income to force the resolution of a disputed debt meets the exact statutory threshold for an abusive practice. DEMAND FOR IMMEDIATE REMEDIAL ACTION : Regardless of Bank of Americas internal conclusions regarding the Regulation XXXX claims, the negative balance on my account is an unsecured, private civil debt. The bank has zero legal authority to use my protected XXXX benefits as a self-help collection tool. I demand that federal compliance investigators compel Bank of America , N.A . to immediately perform a manual override, cease its illegal administrative offset, and return the full {$1500.00} in exempt XXXX funds to my direct custody.

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 monetary relief