Consumer complaint received 2026-03-10 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: WY

Complaint narrative:
XXXX Complaint : Wells Fargo FraudInvestigation Procedures Subject : Structural Concerns Regarding Wells Fargos FraudInvestigation Process and Its Impact on Fair Consumer Outcomes Summary : This complaint is not about a single representative or a single denial. It concerns the overall structure of Wells Fargos fraudinvestigation process, which appears to contain systemic barriers that prevent consumers from receiving a fair, evidencebased review. The issues below reflect patterns observed across multiple departments and interactions. -- - 1. Lack of Evidence Preservation Across numerous complaints, Wells Fargo has been unable to produce : ATM deposit evidence ATM electronic journal logs ATM video documentation showing what was reviewed any record of a complete investigation If the banks process does not preserve the evidence required to evaluate a claim, the outcome is predetermined. A process that can not produce evidence can not produce a fair result. -- - 2. TemplateBased Denials Without Substantiation Responses from Wells Fargos Executive Office consistently rely on : generic template language unsupported conclusions no explanation of investigative steps no documentation provided no reconciliation with prior statements A denial without supporting evidence does not constitute a meaningful investigation. -- - 3. Contradictions Across Departments Different Wells Fargo departments have provided conflicting information regarding : whether an investigation occurred what evidence exists what steps were taken whether the case was closed prematurely how the determination was made A fair process requires internal consistency. The current structure produces the opposite. -- - 4. Failure to Honor WrittenOnly Communication Requests Despite multiple writtenonly requests, Wells Fargo continued to : call by phone leave voicemails attempt verbal communication This creates pressure, confusion, and a lack of documentation. A fair process requires respecting communication boundaries, especially when the consumer requests written communication for clarity and accountability. -- - 5. Premature Closures and Missing Investigation Steps Across multiple filings, Wells Fargo has : closed cases before completing an investigation failed to document required steps provided no timeline of actions taken offered no explanation of how conclusions were reached A process that closes cases before reviewing evidence is structurally incapable of producing accurate outcomes. -- - 6. Systemic Incentives That Favor Denial Based on the pattern across 34 complaints, the process appears structured in a way that : does not preserve evidence does not document investigative steps does not provide transparency does not allow consumers to meaningfully challenge decisions relies on templates rather than analysis produces contradictory explanations avoids written communication closes cases quickly without review These are systemic issues, not isolated errors. -- - 7. Inconsistent and Unsupported Reclassification of Fraud as ConsumerAuthorized Across multiple responses, Wells Fargo reclassified the incident from fraud ( as documented by law enforcement ) to consumerauthorized without providing : evidence supporting the reclassification documentation of investigative steps an explanation of how the determination was made reconciliation with the sheriffs classification any record showing a review of the law enforcement report If the banks process allows a fraud event to be reclassified as consumerauthorized without evidence, the process may not be capable of producing accurate or fair outcomes. -- - 8. Misclassification of Consumer Income and Financial Status In multiple responses, Wells Fargo representatives inaccurately described my income and financial status, including : stating I was XXXX stating I received monthly XXXX XXXX attributing my XXXX XXXX benefit to me personally ignoring documented weekly income disregarding tax records and prior clarifications 9. Misclassification of Consumer Income and Financial Status In multiple responses, Wells Fargo representatives inaccurately described my income and financial status, including : stating I was XXXX stating I received monthly XXXX XXXX attributing my XXXX XXXX XXXX to me personally ignoring documented weekly income disregarding tax records and prior clarifications These misclassifications were used as part of the banks rationale for denying the claim. A process that relies on incorrect assumptions about a consumers income or financial status and does not verify or correct those assumptions raises concerns about fairness, accuracy, and potential bias in the investigation process. This issue is not about a single error ; it reflects a structural problem in how consumer information is interpreted and applied.

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