Consumer complaint received 2025-10-29 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: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
I have had a continued dialogue with Citi about XXXX and the fraudulent activity that has taken place in my account since XX/XX/year> when the incident occurred. Yesterday, I was partially reimbursed for the money that was stolen out of my account and now the Compliance team is purporting to claim a distinction between the " types '' of XXXX transaction where they refuse to return the remainder of the funds stolen out of my account ( which is the bulk of the outstanding amount : I was reimbursed ~ {$970.00} out of {$2400.00} ). The bank is trying to make this issue go away with " partial restitution '' as a compromise to go away and be quiet. 

The money from my account was taken on XX/XX/XXXX with several transactions totaling {$2400.00} ( under the grand larceny threshold ). Apparently from what I've been told, there is a " code '' in the back end of the XXXX system to distinguish what I should and shouldn't be compensated for, for which I have not receive an explanation. At the time of the incidents, I was in distress and told that funds were being stolen from my account so when asked to verify XXXX amounts with " codes '' that were given to me by the perpetrators, you can imagine I would follow instructions for fear of the situation getting worse. Because there is a " warning alert '', Citi is telling me that I am liable for the funds being removed? That alert is a strong enough protection for Citibank consumers? When you're under attack and your cash accounts are vulnerable, you will take any action necessary to come to a resolution. Being told to input codes into the XXXX system does not seem like a red flag when I'm literally being told by Citi itself that there are certain codes in the back end that distinguish the types of transactions being made in XXXX and whether restitution is an available avenue to the consumer. The perpetrators masked themselves as fraud monitors, a common practice. They had and still have my information. 

Lastly post my complaint, now there are error messages related to the phone numbers of the perpetrators on my XXXX account that say the phone number/person can not receive funds via XXXX. At what point was that alert put on? 

Despite the facts laid out above, Citi is telling me I'm at my fault for authorizing the removal of funds. All I am asking for is what was stolen from me, which is further supported by a police report I obtained and provided to the bank ( which has still not been acknowledged as received ), numerous conversations I've had with several employees at Citi, ( from wealth management to branch managers ) and the numerous CSFB complaints I've made. 

The banking system of our country is a complex one. I am a former Citi compliance officer and I can tell you that I am appalled and dismayed at how I have been treated, the incompetence of how my claim has been handled, and the lack of transparency and communication that has been purposefully misleading to me as a consumer. 

It appears from all the fraud occurring on XXXX that perhaps the banking industry needs to strongly reconsider its purpose and the integrity of this " safer '' system.

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