Consumer complaint received 2026-03-20 00:00:00
Product: Payday loan, title loan, personal loan, or advance loan — Installment loan
Issue: Problem with additional add-on products or services — 
Company: Royalty Lending Financial Services Inc.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
" XXXX ADDITIONAL XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. Complainant has obtained XXXX XXXX XXXX statements for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Account XXXX ) and XXXX XXXX I XXXX ( Account XXXX ), XXXX. XXXX XXXX, XXXX CO XXXX, covering XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. These statements reveal the following : ( 1 ) MULTI-VICTIM OPERATION Statements show excess royalty payments and advances to at least XXXX other named borrowers including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX confirming this is a multi-victim predatory lending scheme, not an isolated dispute. ( XXXX ) INVESTOR DISTRIBUTION NETWORK XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account shows XXXX XXXX distributions on XX/XX/XXXX to over XXXX named parties including XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX totaling over {$100000.00} in one day. Company appears to operate an unlicensed investment fund using diverted borrower royalties to pay investor distributions. ( 3 ) MISSING ROYALTY DEPOSITS Multiple operator payments confirmed in operator records do not appear in these bank statements, confirming diversion to undisclosed accounts : XXXX {$3500.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX {$220.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX {$1300.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), XXXX {$5200.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ). ( XXXX ) INTER-ENTITY FUND TRANSFERS Statements show quarterly wire transfers totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX labeled as quarterly distributions commingling funds across entity lines. ( 5 ) COMPLAINANT PAYOFF CONFIRMED XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX wire transfers totaling {$30000.00} appear on statements labeled Borrower Payoff, confirming loan was paid in full. Company continued collecting royalties for months after payoff. ( 6 ) CONNECTED DEFENDANT Payoff wires routed through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX same individual named as defendant in XXXX XXXX TX Declaratory Judgment Cause No. XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX. ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX MAIL FRAUD COMPLAINTS filed XX/XX/XXXX against same company. IRS Form 3949-A filed XX/XX/XXXX Certified Mail XXXX. Colorado SOS confirms XXXX related entities operating since XXXX targeting XXXX mineral interests across XXXX counties. Requesting immediate escalation to CFPB Enforcement Division for formal multi-victim investigation. Cross-reference open complaints XXXX and XXXX. " " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX ), operating also as XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX, originated a predatory mineral royalty loan without a Colorado supervised lender license license not obtained until XX/XX/XXXX, making all prior loans potentially void under C.R.S. 5-6-114. Stated loan amount was {$85000.00} but only {$29000.00} was disbursed. Lender executed a fraudulent Special Warranty Deed falsely classifying complainant 's fee simple mineral interest as a life estate, used to redirect royalty payments from multiple oil operators to lender without authorization. Lender intercepted complainant 's US mail including royalty checks, 1099 tax forms, ratifications, and division orders from XXXX through XXXX by fraudulently changing complainant 's address of record with oil operators to lender 's own XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Complainant obtained lender 's XXXX XXXX bank statements ( Account XXXX ) showing : ( XXXX ) excess royalty payments to at least XXXX other named borrowers confirming multi-victim operation ; ( XXXX ) XXXX XXXX distributions to over XXXX named investors from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account totaling over {$100000.00} in one day suggesting unlicensed investment fund using diverted borrower royalties ; ( 3 ) multiple operator payments confirmed in operator records not deposited in bank statements confirming diversion to undisclosed accounts ; ( 4 ) inter-entity transfers of hundreds of thousands of dollars between XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX labeled quarterly distributions. Lender issued fraudulent 1099s in complainant 's name for royalty income lender collected and kept, causing complainant to pay taxes on income never received. Lender required complainant to purchase XXXX whole life insurance policies as loan condition. Lender charged {$2200.00} for property taxes but remitted only {$300.00} to taxing authorities. Complainant paid off loan via wire transfer {$20000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX and {$10000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX total {$30000.00}. Lender continued collecting royalties for months after payoff. Payoff wires routed through XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX same individual named as defendant in XXXX XXXX TX Declaratory Judgment Cause No. XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX. Company called prior CFPB complaint a nuisance, falsely claimed arbitrator ruled in company 's favor when arbitrator awarded XXXX dollars to both parties, and filed California lawsuit XXXX XXXX. XXXX three days after complainant 's third CFPB complaint seeking court order to stop complainant from filing CFPB complaints a potential UDAAP violation under 12 U.S.C. 5531. Company has failed to respond to XXXX open CFPB complaints XXXX and XXXX. XXXX USPS Mail Fraud complaints filed XX/XX/XXXX. IRS XXXX XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX Certified Mail XXXX. Colorado XXXX confirms XXXX related entities operating since XXXX across XXXX counties XXXX mineral interests on file. " " Colorado Secretary of State records confirm deliberate entity cycling strategy : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX registered XXXX expired, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX registered XXXX now delinquent, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX formed XXXX reactivated XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX formed XXXX dissolved XX/XX/XXXX exactly when XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was formed, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX dissolved XX/XX/XXXX exactly when fraudulent SWD was recorded against complainant. Pattern confirms deliberate entity cycling to evade regulatory oversight new entities created as old ones accumulate complaints. ''

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation