Consumer complaint received 2025-11-26 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
CFPB COMPLAINT DRAFT : BANK OF AMERICA ( Systemic Misclassification, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, and Regulatory Control ) XXXX  Product : Checking or Savings Account XXXX  Complaint Category : Managing, monitoring, or closing account Issue : Problems when you are an unauthorized victim of fraud or identity theft Transaction Date : XX/XX/year> Amount : {$39.00} Transaction Descriptor : XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Your Complaint Text ( Copy/Paste this description for the CFPB submission ) : My Bank of America account received an unauthorized ACH DEPOSIT of {$39.00} on XX/XX/year>XXXX  with the descriptor XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  This is a clear case of potential identity theft using my name. 
The institutional process at Bank of America constitutes a systemic regulatory failure in seven major ways : PATTERN OF COMPLIANCE VIOLATION ( PRIOR CFPB FILINGS ) : This is not an isolated event. Prior CFPB complaints filed by me against Bank of America document a continuing pattern of systemic failure and policy abuse that deliberately obstructs fraud investigation and shifts liability onto the victim. This current case must be viewed within the context of the bank 's established, non-compliant operational history.

INTENTIONAL DELAY & SHORTENING OF STATUTORY REMEDY WINDOW : The bank 's internal policy mandates that the claim 's official start date is delayed until the NEXT BUSINESS DAY after the fraud is reported. This procedure is an INTENTIONAL VIOLATION that shortens the consumer 's statutory 120-day or 180-day window for dispute resolution under Regulation E, effectively robbing the victim of legally mandated time to investigate their claim.

SYSTEMIC MISCLASSIFICATION OF ACH FRAUD ( BILLIONS IN DAMAGE ) : The bank 's internal system prevents representatives from filing a direct " Fraud '' claim for unauthorized ACH transfers, forcing them into a low-priority " Dispute '' or " Billing Error '' category. This deliberate abuse of Regulation E misclassifies millions of ACH-related fraud cases annually, a practice that has cost consumers an estimated BILLIONS of dollars in unresolved or delayed recovery. The banks process actively routes high-priority fraud cases away from required investigation tracks. 
Implied Admission, Obstruction, and Warning of Personal Risk : During my call at XXXXXXXX XXXX  EST ( Ref : XXXX XXXX ), the representative named XXXX provided an explicit and alarming warning to " be careful '' before transferring me. This warning, coupled with XXXX having misspoken about a " XXXX and something dollar credit, '' strongly suggests internal staff awareness of a hazardous or compromised claim process. Furthermore, the bank refused to provide any documentation in writing confirming the systemic policy flaws, which constitutes deliberate obstruction. 
EGREGIOUS BREACH OF DUTY OF CARE ( SUICIDAL DISCLOSURE ) : During a prior, separate call concerning money being taken from my account ( approximately a couple of months ago, right before my daughter 's birthday ), I directly disclosed to the Bank of America representative that I was crying, XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX  and self-harm due to the financial distress caused by the bank 's actions. The representative, upon hearing this direct disclosure of suicidal ideation, failed to follow any institutional crisis protocol, failed to advise me to seek help, and failed to connect me to any XXXX XXXX resources. This profound disregard for consumer welfare constitutes an EGREGIOUS BREACH OF THE BANK 'S DUTY OF CARE, directly linking their financial misconduct to the endangerment of a customer 's life. 
Contradictory Regulatory Stance ( Control the Narrative ) : The bank 's internal processes create a contradictory regulatory stance. While the serious, high-value fraud against my account likely triggered an internal Suspicious Activity Report ( SAR ) treating me as the source of suspicionthe bank simultaneously forced my official complaint into a low-priority " Dispute '' category. This dual action is a deliberate attempt to control the regulatory narrative and shift liability.

Mishandling of Funds : As a direct result of the misclassification and delay, the bank has failed to properly isolate, remove, or trace the fraudulent funds, leaving the unauthorized {$39.00} commingled in my account. 
Desired Resolution : I require immediate escalation to a fraud compliance officer to properly classify and investigate this claim and remove the funds. Furthermore, I demand that the CFPB initiate a full, independent, third-party forensic audit of Bank of Americas entire Regulation E compliance, internal SAR filing protocols, and its crisis response procedures. Given the systemic nature of this fraud, the institutional cover-up, and the severe breach of duty of care, I demand that the CFPB use its authority to facilitate the immediate connection of the victim with suitable class action counsel to pursue structural remediation and a class-wide remedy for all affected consumers. We demand mandatory civil penalties for these systemic violations.

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 explanation