Consumer complaint received 2026-04-22 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Credit card debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt is not yours
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Citibank , N.A . in connection with a separate, pending CFPB complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Complaint ID : XXXX, filed XX/XX/XXXX ). The two complaints are directly related and should be reviewed together. BACKGROUND I had a credit card account with Citibank ending in XXXX. On or about XX/XX/XXXX, Citibank purportedly sold this account -- with a balance of {$35000.00} -- to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX '' ), a subsidiary of XXXX XXXX XXXX. Citibank alleges they sent me a letter on XX/XX/XXXX, stating the account " has been sold to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and is no longer owned by Citi. '' CITIBANK SOLD MY ACCOUNT TO A KNOWN REPEAT FEDERAL OFFENDER At the time of this alleged sale, XXXXXXXX XXXX parent company XXXX XXXX XXXX was operating under a XXXX CFPB consent order and enhanced monitoring -- the result of violating a prior XXXX consent order. XXXX had already paid over {$27.00} XXXX in CFPB penalties for systematic FDCPA violations including filing lawsuits without adequate documentation. Citibank allegedly sold my account to this company knowing its enforcement history. In fact, Citibank and XXXX have an ongoing " forward flow '' purchasing arrangement -- this is not a one-time sale but a systematic business relationship between two entities with extensive CFPB enforcement histories. CITIBANK 'S OWN REGULATORY HISTORY WITH DEBT SALES Citibank itself was the subject of a XXXX CFPB Consent Order ( File No. XXXX ) specifically for illegal debt sale practices : overstating APR information for approximately XXXX accounts sold to debt buyers, and failing to timely remit over XXXX post-sale consumer payments totaling {$700000.00} to debt buyers. Citibank 's total CFPB penalties and consumer relief since XXXX exceed {$1.00} XXXX across multiple enforcement actions. THE SALE STRUCTURE ENABLES DOWNSTREAM FDCPA VIOLATIONS The documentation Citibank provided for this sale is inadequate to establish a valid chain of title. XXXX has produced only a redacted Bill of Sale ( purchase price, sale balance, and number of accounts all concealed ), with no Asset Schedule tying my specific account to the transfer and no XXXX Purchase and Sale Agreement. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX Superior Court Judge XXXX XXXX denied XXXXXXXX XXXX Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that the bill of sale " is a bulk document that does not identify Defendant or his account '' and that the master purchase agreement " appear [ s ] central to the terms and scope of the alleged assignment. '' In plain terms : Citibank sold accounts using a transaction structure so poorly documented that XXXX can not prove it owns any specific account -- and a court has now confirmed this. CITIBANK DIRECTED ME TO XXXX, THEN WASHED ITS HANDS Citibank 's XX/XX/XXXX letter directed me to " send any future payments or correspondence to XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' I had previously sent a cease and desist letter to MCM ( received XX/XX/XXXX ). XXXX then violated that cease and desist three times : - An XX/XX/XXXX collection letter ( 18 days after receiving the C & D ) - A XX/XX/XXXX demand letter through its attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX - An XX/XX/XXXX lawsuit All three violations occurred during XXXXXXXX XXXX CFPB monitoring period. In its XX/XX/XXXX response to CFPB Complaint XXXX, XXXX XXXX Senior Group Manager of Operations stated that a cease-and-desist request " only applies to attempts to contact you by phone '' -- inserting words that do not appear in 15 U.S.C. 1692c ( c ). XXXX misquoted the statute to a federal regulator. MY CEASE AND DESIST OFFERED TO WORK WITH THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR My XX/XX/XXXX cease and desist letter to XXXX explicitly stated my willingness to work with the original creditor -- Citibank. Yet Citibank has made no effort to communicate with me or resolve this matter, instead hiding behind an alleged sale it can not document. If the sale is valid, Citibank should be willing to produce the XXXX Purchase Agreement proving it. If the sale is not valid, Citibank remains the owner of this account and is responsible for the collection activity conducted in its name using its records. CITIBANK CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS Citibank can not claim it sold the account and bears no responsibility while simultaneously failing to provide the documentation necessary to prove that sale occurred. The XXXX XXXX -- signed by a Citibank employee around the time of the alleged sale -- attests to the transfer but provides no purchase price, no identification of specific accounts, and references documents that have never been produced. If Citibank completed a legitimate sale, the documents exist. If the documents don't exist, the sale was not legitimate. A court has now independently confirmed that the documentation is insufficient. Citibank 's sale structure has enabled a company under active federal monitoring to pursue collection activity -- including filing a lawsuit -- on a debt it can not prove it owns, against a consumer who invoked his federal rights and was ignored. REQUESTED ACTION I request that the CFPB : ( 1 ) Investigate Citibank 's debt sale practices to XXXX XXXX XXXX , specifically whether adequate chain-of-title documentation is being provided in compliance with Citibank 's XXXX Consent Order requirements . ( 2 ) Determine whether Citibank bears responsibility -- as seller, principal, or aider -- for XXXX XXXX documented FDCPA violations committed using Citibank 's account records and supported by Citibank 's closing affidavit. ( 3 ) Evaluate this complaint in conjunction with CFPB Complaint XXXX against XXXX to assess the full scope of the Citibank-XXXX relationship and its impact on consumers. ( 4 ) Assess whether Citibank 's ongoing forward-flow sales to XXXX XXXX XXXX -- a company that has violated two CFPB consent orders -- constitutes providing substantial assistance to a covered person engaged in unfair or deceptive practices under 12 U.S.C. 5536 ( a ) ( 3 ), the same provision under which Citibank was penalized in XXXX. This complaint is filed in connection with active litigation : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX.

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