Consumer complaint received 2025-12-01 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
Navy Federal Credit Union purports to have extended credit to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through credit card account XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  in XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union filed lawsuit Case No. XXXX in the District XXXX XXXX XXXX  for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to collect {$26000.00} plus attorney 's fees from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX for breach of contract relating to this credit card account. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX executed a Limited Power of Attorney appointing me as Attorney-in-Fact to handle all credit, financial, debt collection, and consumer reporting matters on his behalf. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed CFPB Complaint No. XXXX as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX, documenting systemic fraud by XXXX  XXXX, Fair XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX 
The complaint documented that on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name " XXXX  XXXX '' with the XXXX  Secretary of XXXX preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX was incorporated in XXXX  as a separate XXXX deliberate act by XXXX XXXX XXXX to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for XXXX 's later filings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name " XXXX  XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. 
On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( the separate entity incorporated XXXX  months earlier ) changed its name to " XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created XXXX conflicting corporate identities existing in XXXX a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX entities were both called " XXXX XXXX '' XXXX  unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
This reckless name-swapping maneuver compromised XXXXC 's lXXXX continuity and introduced a fatal defect into its corporate record, effectively transforming the entity into a legally defective construct under XXXX  XXXX XXXX nullity that extinguished the lawful existence of both names. Under XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX XXXX  database of credit bureau XXXX. 
The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX XXXX entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. XXXX XXXX was authorized to use this data to build " Scorecards '' numerical grading tables assigning values to consumer attributes, which were then combined to produce a consumer " Score. '' The contract provided that all scoring models developed would be for the sole use of XXXX, integrated into a jointly developed " XXXX XXXX. '' These products would be sold to XXXX  's subscribers, with profits shared between the XXXX corporations. This agreement formalized the mechanism for mass consumer scoring, converting personal financial records into a quantifiable risk-assessment product sold to XXXX  XXXX, laying the commercial foundation for widespread adoption of credit scoring systems nationwide. 
The defect is that no such agreement could legally exist. By XXXX, XXXX XXXX corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. Again, under XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX, a dissolved or non-existent corporation lacks authority to contract. 
Because XXXX  had ceased to exist as a lawful entity on XX/XX/XXXX, the XXXX agreement was XXXX XXXX XXXX. The XXXX scoring model built upon itand all instruments derived from that modellack lawful foundation. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX directly participated in the formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a domestic limited liability company created in XXXX  ( File Number XXXX ). 
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX  purported owner, " XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX XXXX  corporate lineage stemming from the XX/XX/XXXX name-swapping violations, rendering its claimed 33 % ownership void and fatally undermining the legality of XXXX 's XXXX. 
Under XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX, an LLC must be formed by valid members. Because XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX did not legally exist, XXXXXXXX XXXX ownership structure was void, and the XXXX itself was statutorily defective from inception. 
The Supreme Court has confirmed that courts will not enforce contracts founded on illegality ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) ). Under XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) the operative provision at the time of the XXXX XXXX contractagreements opposed to public policy were void. XXXX  law ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX XXXX ) similarly voids agreements contrary to law. Under XXXX. XXXX ( b ), an instrument issued without value is unenforceable, and under XXXX. XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) ( ii ), enforcement of a negotiable instrument is barred where real defenses such as fraud in factum and illegality apply. 
XXXXXXXX XXXX  formation was XXXX XXXX XXXX. Every credit instrument derived from the XXXX infrastructure is void ab initio. 

The acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX 's personal identifiersincluding his Social Security number, legal name, address, and historical payment XXXX the purpose of generating and selling XXXX and XXXX credit scores constitutes identity theft as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). Those identifiers were employed without lawful authority to create risk-valuation products, which were then used to originate, price, and securitize credit. 
Under XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), the unauthorized use of another person 's means of identification in connection with the receipt of any thing of value is identity theft. The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrument that, consistent with Navy Federal Credit Union 's established business model, may have been sold to investors through securitization of credit card receivables. 
Every instrument executed by " XXXX  XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX is contaminated by identity falsification, false representation of the legal person signing, concealment of the true corporate actor, and use of documents created through deception. This conduct constitutes : 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( false statements and documents ) 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( identity theft ) 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( mail fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1956 ( money laundering of proceeds derived from fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 371 ( conspiracy to defraud ) 15 U.S.C. 77q ( a ) and 78j ( b ) ( securities fraud ) 7 U.S.C. 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) and 9 ( 1 ) ( commodities fraud ) On XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union was sent an identity theft report under 15 U.S.C. 1681c-2 and FCRA 603 ( q ) ( 4 ). The report documented that the credit scoring infrastructure used to underwrite XXXX XXXX XXXX 's credit was derived from entities operating under fraudulent corporate identitiesspecifically, the dissolved lineage of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX, which engaged in systematic corporate identity fraud between XXXX and XXXX. The report notified Navy Federal that both the XXXX scoring system ( established through the void XXXX contract between a defunct XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and the XXXX scoring system ( established through the void XXXX formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX with a nonexistent XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX as purported owner ) were equally invalid and derived from fraudulent corporate entities. 
The report established that the use of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifying informationSocial Security number, name, address, credit history, and payment datato generate XXXX or XXXX XXXX scores that were then used to price, approve, and extend credit constitutes identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). The scoring process appropriated personal identifiers without lawful authority and transformed them into synthetic tradeable assets.

Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ), a furnisher is prohibited from reporting information it knows or has reasonable cause to believe resulted from identity theft. The statute states unambiguously : " No person shall furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information results from identity theft. '' This is an absolute prohibition with no exceptions, qualifications, or discretion. 
By receipt of this notice on XX/XX/XXXX, Navy Federal Credit Union possessed actual knowledge that the XXXX XXXX used to underwrite the credit extension was derived from void contracts with legally nonexistent entities. Continued furnishing after receipt of this notice violates FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ) as a matter of law. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I was appointed Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of Attorney. Like XXXX XXXX XXXX, under Maryland XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am legally required to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and in the best interests of my principal. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, exactly XXXX  days after the original complaint was filed, XXXX XXXX responded : " We have confirmed that we are reporting accurate information to the XXXX nationwide credit reporting agencies regarding XXXX XXXX 's XXXX XXXX credit card account. We will not request the removal of valid data from XXXX XXXX 's credit file '' a direct refusal to comply with FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ) 's absolute prohibition on furnishing information known to result from identity theft. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, in response to XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX institutional refusal to comply with federal law, I filed XXXX Financing Statement No. XXXX with the XXXX  XXXX Department XXXX XXXX and XXXX, perfecting a {>= $1,000,000} security interest against all commercial assets of Navy Federal Credit Union XXXX On the same date, I filed XXXX XXXX XXXX. XXXX, assigning {$26000.00} of that security interest to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX was explicitly warned in the XX/XX/XXXX complaint. This was not a mistake. They chose to refuse compliance. The XXXX XXXX was perfected as promised. No further notice was required. 
Under XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( b ), common law set-off principles are preserved. When XXXX parties hold mutual liquidated debts of equal amount, those obligations extinguish automatically by operation of law. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Md. XXXX, XXXX ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ( XXXX ). XXXX XXXX claimed XXXX owed {$26000.00}. XXXX now holds a perfected {$26000.00} security interest in XXXX XXXX 's assets. The mutual obligations cancelled each other on XX/XX/XXXX when the XXXX assignment perfected. The debt ceased to exist. 
Accordingly, Navy Federal Credit Union is directed to preserve, without alteration, all records, communications, metadata, origination documentation, underwriting files, credit scoring data, collection activity logs, litigation files relating to XXXX XXXX. XXXX, trial preparation materials, attorney communications, and chain-of-custody materials relating to this credit card account and any credit reporting furnished to consumer reporting agencies. 
Under XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, and principles of unjust enrichment recognized in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX Md. App. XXXX ( XXXX ), when a credit extension is void XXXX XXXX  due to fraudulent underwriting, all payments made under that void obligation are recoverable. A party who receives benefits under a void transaction must make restitution " in the manner and amount necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. '' The interest charged on credit extended through identity theft and void scoring infrastructure constitutes an unlawful extraction of value. Borrowers are entitled to complete restitution of all funds XXXX, interest, fees, and penalties.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief