Consumer complaint received 2024-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
For the record and prior to me laying out the matter in question my occupation is a first responder as a traveling ( RN ) nurse for the past XXXX  years. On or around XX/XX/XXXX I received a concerned message from my accountant who was reviewing and getting ready my documents for tax season both personal and for our additional business. Upon having an indepth discussion I was informed that he noticed two ( 2 ) which later became ( 3 ) checks that was not accounted for and he needed copies of the checks which were not availiable in my monthly statments. 

Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX I went to my local branch and was given three ( 2 ) photo copies of check ( s ) the first one dated XX/XX/XXXX with a check number XXXX and a second check dated XX/XX/XXXX. Upon reviewing these check ( s ) with the bank it was pointed out by the manager that these check ( s ) were not converted to an ACH or any other electronic processing type. In addition, it was determined that the checks in question all had different signatures. Upon noticing and veryfying with the Bank that these checks were forged I was put in contact with Wells Fargo 's fraud department to open a claim. During the process of opening this claim I outlined the check ( s ) in question were forged and I had made a police report pursuant to our findings. I was instructed on XX/XX/XXXX that if their department needed anything additioanlly they would reach out. In an effort to protect my account from any further fraud I was instructed by the Branch and Law Enforcement to close down the account in question to safeguard me from any further losses. 

On XX/XX/XXXX I was contacted by law enforcement who noticed a third ( 3 ) check all made out to the same person and not authorized and it was determined that this check in addition to the other two possesed a forged signature that resembled nothing even close to any of my signatures. Subsequently, on XX/XX/XXXX I recieved a super generic letter inidacting that have completed thei research for the first two cehcks but they were unable to do anything further based on the amount of time that has passed. Furhtermore, " Wells Fargo Stated that it is my responsibility for reviewing my monthly statments and letting Wells Fargo know within 30 days about any errors or unauthorized transactions. : Upon reading this generic response I immediately reached out to my attorney who then put me in touch with the Office of the Controller & Currency. I was asked several questions including did Wells Fargo ask for any additional supporting documentation from a Afidavidt to a Police Report substantiting the claim in question. Based on other than taking the claim over the phone Wells Fargo did very little to address the matter in question but rather leaned on the UCC 4-406 guidline. However, as outlined to me from the ( OCC ) this is a guid and under subsetion ( c ) it clearly states the customer must exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statemnt provided. Furthermore, in a review of the statements provided under ( Exhibit A & B ) you will see these checks only showed line items but not actual signatures to compare the validity of the deduction. Moreover, the ( OCC ) outlined the preclusion of Section 4-208 surrounding forgery and unathorized signatures as it relates to our dicover less than a year. In addition to the questionable handeling process UCC 4-401 provides that a bank can only charge those items which are " properly payable ''. Since forgery has been determiend in each of the signatures and in the attached police report and findings marked ( Exhibit C ). Wells Fargo had ample time based on the payment form and the amount to validate the signatures. Based on this act and this act alone, the bank 's responsibility to the account holderr is not a negligence standard, Instead, as a general rule. the UCC places a duty made through a fradulant check and since the check ( s ) in question were not properly payable these trasactions need to be refunded and the account holder made whole. In closing and for the record UCC 4-406 states that the account holder must expercise reasonable proptness in
discovering and notifying of a forgery or alteration. Based on the fact that I'am a XXXX XXXX I reported the forgery once we were givin difinative proof of a forgery. Due to the statements provided it is very very clear that copies of signatures do not exist and forgery could not be detrmined at an earlier time until we requested copies of the checks in question. Furthermore, according the Ca Penal COde 470 the statue of limitations is four years from the time of discovery and under the UCC code its one year upon discovry. At this present time I am requesting that the monies fradulantly stolen due to the neglangence and review of my signature for such high dollar amounts and the enclosed police report and findings that these amounts be placed back into my account immediately to prevent any further action ( s ).

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 non-monetary relief