Consumer complaint received 2026-04-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
Complaint regarding improper denial of unauthorized transaction following an armed robbery XXXX XXXX transaction {$1500.00} SUMMARY I am filing this complaint on behalf of my business ( an LLC registered in XXXX ) against Bank of America regarding the improper denial of a fraud claim arising from an armed robbery in which my mobile phone was forcibly stolen at gunpoint. Bank of America has denied the claim based solely on evidence provided by XXXX XXXX showing that the transaction was executed from my own device the very device that was taken from me by armed perpetrators. Under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005 ), use of a stolen device can not constitute authorization, and the burden of proof to demonstrate authorization rests with the financial institution. THIS COMPLAINT IS TIME-SENSITIVE. Bank of America has notified me in writing ( letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ) that the temporary credit of {$1500.00} will be removed from my account on XX/XX/XXXX. I respectfully request that CFPB process this complaint with appropriate urgency. THE ARMED ROBBERY ( XX/XX/XXXX ) On XX/XX/XXXX, at approximately XXXX XXXX local time, I was the victim of an armed robbery in XXXX, XXXX, while traveling as a passenger in an XXXX vehicle. XXXX perpetrators on motorcycles intercepted the vehicle. XXXX pointed a firearm at me and at the XXXX driver, while the other forcibly took my XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The phone was unlocked at the moment of the robbery because I was responding to a message. The phone contained my financial applications, including the Bank of America app and the XXXX XXXX app, with a saved Bank of America debit card as the payment method. THE UNAUTHORIZED TRANSACTION IN DISPUTE Approximately XXXX hour and XXXX minutes after the robbery, the perpetrators executed an unauthorized transaction using my stolen device : - Date/time : XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX - Amount : {$1500.00} USD - XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX - XXXX XXXX Case Number : XXXX - Payment method : Bank of America debit card ( ending XXXX XXXXXXXX ) - Beneficiary : a person unknown to me, in XXXX, receiving funds via XXXX XXXX XXXX - Bank of America Claim Number XXXX XXXX I did not authorize this transaction. I did not provide my PIN, banking credentials, XXXX XXXX credentials, or any form of permission to a third party. I did not consent to the use of my debit card. I do not know the beneficiary that person is not a contact, vendor, business partner, or service provider associated with my business or with me personally. CONTEXT : THE RELATED TRANSACTION FROM THE SAME CRIMINAL INCIDENT During the same robbery and from the same stolen device, the perpetrators also executed an unauthorized wire transfer of {$4900.00} USD on XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX ( Bank of America Claim Number XXXX ). After I submitted my formal appeal by fax on XX/XX/XXXX with the supporting documentation, Bank of America issued a credit of {$4900.00} to my account on XX/XX/XXXX, which remains credited to date with no further action by the bank. This is relevant because both transactions the {$4900.00} and the {$1500.00} were executed minutes apart, from the same stolen device, during the same criminal event documented by Colombian authorities. IT IS INTERNALLY INCONSISTENT FOR BANK OF AMERICA TO RECOGNIZE XXXX OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AS UNAUTHORIZED FRAUD WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY CLASSIFYING THE OTHER AS AUTHORIZED. BANK OF AMERICA 'S DENIAL AND WHY IT IS IMPROPER On XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America issued a letter stating : " The charge was authorized by you or made by someone who has permission to use the card or account. '' The letter indicates that the temporary credit of {$1500.00} will be removed on XX/XX/XXXX. This determination is legally and factually deficient for the following reasons : 1. DEVICE RECOGNITION IS NOT AUTHORIZATION. The denial relies on evidence showing the transaction was executed from my XXXX. This is not evidence of authorization it confirms that the perpetrators executed the fraud using my stolen, unlocked device, taken under threat of deadly force. Under 12 CFR 1005, use of a stolen device can not constitute consumer consent. If device recognition alone could defeat a fraud claim, no theft of an unlocked phone could ever result in consumer protection which is precisely the harm the statute is designed to prevent. 2. BANK OF AMERICA HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Under 12 CFR 1005.6 and 1005.11, when a consumer reports an unauthorized electronic fund transfer, the financial institution bears the burden of demonstrating that the transfer was authorized. Bank of America has not provided evidence of authorization only evidence of device access. Under federal law, these are not the same thing. 3. THE XXXX XXXX " EVIDENCE '' DOES NOT ESTABLISH AUTHORIZATION. I obtained the chargeback response XXXX XXXX provided to Bank of America, and the documents themselves do not prove authorization : - The " Terms & Conditions Acceptance '' screenshot XXXX XXXX submitted only demonstrates that someone checked a box on my stolen phone. Anyone in possession of an unlocked phone can check a box. This is not consumer consent it is mechanical interaction with a screen by whoever physically holds the device. - The AVS ( Address Verification System ) match is not authorization either. The registered address was stored within my phone and accounts. The perpetrators had access to my phone where this information was saved. - The " transfer history '' XXXX XXXX submitted as supposed proof of legitimate use is inconsistent with the disputed transaction. It shows only XXXX prior transfer dated XX/XX/XXXX, for {$320.00} to a completely different beneficiary, using a completely different credit card. This single, much smaller, completely unrelated transaction does not establish a pattern of authorized behavior. On the contrary, it demonstrates that the disputed {$1500.00} transfer to a person I do not know is anomalous compared to my actual usage history. 4. THE TRANSACTION PROFILE IS CONSISTENT WITH FRAUD, NOT AUTHORIZED USE. - The transaction was executed within XXXX hour and XXXX minutes of an armed robbery documented by XXXX authorities ( criminal case number XXXX XXXX ). - The funds were sent to a beneficiary completely unknown to me. - The funds were sent to a XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, a XXXX instant-payment service that allows rapid extraction of funds a method commonly used in post-theft fraud schemes precisely because it is difficult to recover. - The transaction occurred in immediate temporal proximity to a violent crime that I formally reported to law enforcement. 5. BANK OF AMERICA 'S OWN ACTIONS DURING THIS SAME INCIDENT CONTRADICT ITS DENIAL. During my initial call to report the fraud, Bank of America successfully intercepted and stopped additional unauthorized transaction attempts on my account. The bank itself recognized fraudulent activity in real time and took protective action. It is internally inconsistent for Bank of America to acknowledge fraud was actively occurring on the account while simultaneously concluding that the earlier transactions in the same fraud sequence executed minutes apart, from the same stolen device were authorized. 6. BANK OF AMERICA ALREADY RECOGNIZED THE FRAUD IN THIS SAME INCIDENT BY ISSUING A CREDIT FOR THE {$4900.00} TRANSACTION. As stated above, the bank issued a credit for the related {$4900.00} transaction executed minutes apart from the same stolen device. There is no legal or logical basis to treat the XXXX transactions differently both were executed by the same perpetrators, from the same stolen device, during the same criminal event. 7. I REPORTED WITHIN THE PROTECTED TIMEFRAME. I notified Bank of America within hours of the robbery, well within the timeframes established by Regulation E for maximum consumer protection. DOCUMENTED IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TAKEN - Filed an official police report with the XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX in XXXX, obtaining criminal case number XXXX XXXX. - Requested IMEI block of the stolen device with my mobile carrier ( XXXX ) less than XXXX hours after the robbery. The device is also confirmed as BLOCKED in the public XXXX stolen-device registry and in XXXX XXXX 's IMEI block system. - Reported the fraud to Bank of America. During my initial call, the bank intercepted and stopped additional unauthorized transaction attempts. - Submitted a formal appeal package to Bank of America by fax on XX/XX/XXXX with all supporting documentation. - Provided detailed supplemental information to the Colombian Fiscala on XX/XX/XXXX, including precise location, time, beneficiary information, device specifications, and full transaction details. RESOLUTION REQUESTED I respectfully request that Bank of America : 1. Reverse the denial of the {$1500.00} claim. 2. Cancel the scheduled removal of the temporary credit on XX/XX/XXXX. 3. Permanently credit the {$1500.00} unauthorized XXXX XXXX transaction. 4. Reclassify the transaction as " unauthorized electronic fund transfer due to stolen device under armed robbery. '' 5. Apply the protections of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1693 ) and Regulation E ( 12 CFR Part 1005 ), including the bank 's legal burden to demonstrate authorization rather than relying solely on device recognition. 6. Provide a written explanation that addresses the specific legal points above, rather than relying on automated device-recognition reasoning. The XXXX official documents are issued in XXXX, the official language of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, and constitute valid official records of the criminal incident.

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