Consumer complaint received 2026-01-01 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CULLEN/FROST BANKERS, INC.
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
* * REGULATION XXXX VIOLATION - Frost Bank Denying XXXXe Fraud Claim * * * * ACCOUNT XX/XX/XXXXFROST CASE XX/XX/XXXXAMOUNT : * * {$8100.00} * * DATE : * * XX/XX/XXXX, 2025 * * EXECUTIVE SUMMARY : * * Criminals impersonating Frost Bank installed remote access software on my phone and used it to initiate XXXX XXXX transfers totaling {$8100.00} without my knowledge. I believed I was blocking fraudulent transactions - I never saw XXXX screens, recipient information, or any indication money was leaving my account. 

Frost denied my claim saying I authorized these transfers because they came from my authenticated device. * * This ignores that criminals had remote control of my phone and I was completely deceived about what was happening. 

* * * * WHAT HAPPENED : * * On XX/XX/year>2025, I received a call from someone claiming to be Frosts fraud department. They had specific account details that made them seem legitimate. They said fraudulent transactions were pending and needed to be blocked immediately. 

They had me download an app that I believed was fraud prevention software. This app gave them remote access to my phone with the ability to mark my screen with purple highlights showing me where to click. They told me every action was blocking a fraudulent transaction or verifying my identity to stop fraud. The withdrawals continued several days even though I was not on my phone with the fraudster. 

* * I NEVER saw : * * - XXXX payment screens - Recipient names or phone numbers- Dollar amounts being sent - Warnings that transfers were irreversible - Anything indicating money was leaving my account * * I discovered on XX/XX/XXXX that XXXX XXXX transfers totaling {$8100.00} had been sent to multiple people I dont know. I reported it in person at Frost on XX/XX/XXXXXX/XX/XXXXWHY THESE TRANSFERS WERE UNAUTHORIZED XX/XX/XXXXRemote Access Technology Enabled Fraud * * I did not authorize XXXX transfers. Criminals used remote access software to control my phone and initiate transfers while deceiving me about what was happening. The apps screen annotation feature ( purple markers ) guided me through actions I believed were fraud prevention. 

* * This is not a case of I willingly sent money to a scammer. This is unauthorized device access through malicious software. * * Under Regulation XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), authorization requires that I granted authority to make specific transfers. I never did. I was deceived into believing I was preventing fraud while criminals remotely controlled my device. 

* * XXXX. Bank Impersonation Fraud * * Criminals impersonated FROST BANK ITSELF. I believed I was following my own banks fraud prevention instructions. This is the most serious category of fraud - not a romance scam, fake invoice, or poor purchasing decision. 

* * XXXX. Unprecedented Pattern - Frosts Monitoring Failed * * I am a XXXX Frost customer. I had used XXXX before, but only for : - Small amounts ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX {$100.00} ) - Sending to specific people I know personally - Occasional transactions These fraudulent transfers were : XX/XX/XXXXtransfers over multiple days * * - Unprecedented frequency - * * {$8100.00} total * * - Far exceeding any prior XXXX usage - * * Multiple unknown recipients * * - Several different people, some repeated - * * New payees Id never sent to before * * - * * Withdrew funds from my investment account to the savngs and checking accounts emptying all XX/XX/XXXXto negative balance. 
* * Frosts fraud detection sent me XX/XX/XXXX alerts despite this pattern being completely outside my XXXX account history. * * * * FROSTS WRONGFUL DENIAL : * * Frosts XX/XX/year>2025 denial letter ( CaseXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) states : XXXX. Mobile device not reported lost or stolen XXXX. Challenge questions answered correctly XXXX. Transactions completed via mobile device using secure login * * These reasons ignore the fundamental issue : Criminals had remote control of my authenticated device through malicious software. * * * * FROSTS CRITICAL ERROR : AUTHENTICATION AUTHORIZATION * * Yes, my device was authenticated - because * * the criminals were controlling it remotely while impersonating Frost Bank. * * Frosts denial rationale would mean : - Any fraud involving remote access tools is automatically the customers fault - Banks have no obligation to detect suspicious patterns on authenticated devices - Malicious software attacks are never covered by Regulation XXXX XXXX Bank impersonation fraud receives no consumer protections * * This contradicts the fundamental purpose of Regulation XXXX consumer protections. * * * * REGULATION XXXX REQUIRES AUTHORIZATION, NOT JUST AUTHENTICATION : * * Under XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ), authorized means I granted authority to a specific person to make a specific transfer. The XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( a ) ( XXXX ) XXXX acknowledges that access obtained through fraud may not constitute genuine authorization. 

* * I never authorized : * * - {$8100.00} to leave my account - XXXX transfers to unknown criminals - Any transactions- I believed I was PREVENTING transactions * * Remote access fraud combined with bank impersonation means these transfers were unauthorized under Regulation XXXX, regardless of device authentication. * * * * PROVISIONAL CREDIT - PARTIAL AND REVERSED : * * Frost issued provisional credit of only {$2100.00} ( not the full {$8100.00} stolen ), then reversed even that partial credit when denying my claim. 

* * This suggests Frost failed to investigate the full scope of fraudulent activity over the multiple days this fraud occurred. * *

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation