Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Closing an account — Funds not received from closed account
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
The account at issue was closed by Citibank on XX/XX/year>, and approximately {$190000.00} in funds has been held by Citibanks Fraud / Risk Operations Department continuously since that closure a period of approximately 90 days as of the date of this complaint. The account had been in good standing prior to the hold, and the funds at issue derive from ordinary business deposits. On XX/XX/year> 82 days after the closure I contacted Citibank by telephone to request resolution. During that call, a Citibank representative confirmed that the matter was eligible for re-review and committed to a response within 24 to 48 hours. That commitment necessarily implies that the funds remain on deposit with Citibank and have not been returned to any originator, escheated, or otherwise disbursed. That 24-to-48-hour window expired on XX/XX/year>. As of today, Citibank has provided no response verbal or written on the re-review, has not disbursed any portion of the balance, and has not provided a revised timeline. Separately and earlier in the dispute, other Citibank representatives have verbally asserted that the funds were fraudulent and that I was no longer the owner of the balance. That position is internally inconsistent with Citibanks XX/XX/XXXX confirmation that the matter is eligible for re-review and that the funds remain on deposit. Citibank has refused throughout to : Provide any written notice, determination, or documentation supporting any fraud determination. Identify which specific deposits or transactions are alleged to be fraudulent by date, amount, or originator. Identify the legal authority under which Citibank claims to have extinguished my ownership of the balance. Provide written confirmation of the XX/XX/XXXX re-review commitment or any update on its status. Provide any written timeline by which the matter will be resolved. Timeline : XX/XX/year> account closed by Citibank ; approximately {$190000.00} frozen. XX/XX/year> XX/XX/year> verbal communications only ; verbal assertions by some representatives that the funds were fraudulent and ownership extinguished ; no written notice, determination, or documentation provided. XX/XX/year> Citibank confirmed by telephone that the matter was eligible for re-review and committed to a 24-to-48-hour response. XX/XX/year> committed response window expired. XX/XX/year> ( today, 90 days after closure ) no response received ; funds still held ; no written communication of any kind. Citibanks conduct raises concerns under, at minimum : 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( UDAAP ), because holding {$190000.00} of customer funds for 90 days, verbally asserting forfeiture without any written determination, then committing to a 24-to-48-hour re-review and ignoring that commitment, causes substantial injury the consumer can not reasonably avoid ; UCC Article 4A and the NACHA Operating Rules, which impose specific bases and time limits on the return of wire and ACH transfers none of which has been disclosed ; 12 C.F.R. Part 229 ( Regulation CC ) and the banks own deposit-account agreement ; the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing ; and Illinois common-law conversion, given the continued retention of identified funds after demand without any disclosed legal basis. A bank can not extinguish a customers ownership of deposited funds by verbal assertion, then offer a re-review, then ignore its own commitment. If Citibank has determined any specific deposit was fraudulent, it must say so in writing, identify the transaction, cite the legal mechanism it is invoking, and either return the funds through a proper mechanism or disburse the balance to the customer. I respectfully request that the Bureau direct Citibank to provide, in writing : 1. The status and result of the re-review committed to on XX/XX/year>. 2. A specific written explanation of the legal and factual basis for the continued hold and for any prior assertion that ownership of the funds has been extinguished. 3. Identification of each specific transaction Citibank contends was fraudulent, including dates, amounts, and originators. 4. The legal mechanism Citibank claims to be invoking, with citation. 5. Written confirmation that the balance remains on deposit, and a definite written timeline for disbursement. 6. Confirmation of whether any consumer reporting ( XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, or otherwise ) has been or will be made, and the basis for any such reporting. I am not asking the Bureau to second-guess Citibanks risk judgment. I am asking the Bureau to require Citibank to honor its own XX/XX/year> commitment, put its position in writing, and either return the funds through a proper mechanism or disburse the balance. The continued retention now 90 days, with a broken commitment as of XX/XX/XXXX is causing substantial financial harm, including impairment of ongoing business obligations.

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