Consumer complaint received 2025-07-15 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — I do not know
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was paid
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: IL

Complaint narrative:
Citibank allegedly charged off an account purportedly opened in my name in XX/XX/XXXX. I was recently contacted by a third-party debt collector ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX attempting to collect a balance of {$16000.00}, which they claim originated from this Citibank account . 

I have formally disputed the alleged debt with XXXX, as I have not received adequate documentation validating the debt under federal law. XXXX provided a few partial statements from XXXX, an unsigned cardholder agreement, and a generic letter claiming the debt was sold to them but no transaction history from the time of origination, no signed contract, and no proof of legal ownership or chain of title. 

I am now seeking information directly from Citibank to determine what actions were taken when the alleged account was charged off. 

What I am requesting from Citibank : 1. Was any portion of the alleged account balance reimbursed, monetized, or recovered by Citibank through insurance, indemnification, tax offset, or third-party agreement after charge-off?

2. If so, has the account already been satisfied or recovered in whole or in part by Citibank? 

XXXX. Was the account sold, and if so, what documentation was transferred to the third-party buyer? 

XXXX. Has the debt been definitively closed or resolved by Citibank as part of a financial recovery or settlement? 

These are important questions, particularly if the debt was monetized and is now being pursued again for the full balance by a third party. As a consumer, I have the right to accurate, transparent, and non-duplicative collection practices. If a balance has already been recovered or offset, it should not be re-collected in full without disclosure. Courts have ruled that collecting on a fully indemnified or monetized account can violate the FDCPA and related laws. Some examples of that include : XXXX. Federal Trade Commission XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) In this case, the FTC pursued action against Asset Acceptance for deceptive practices in collecting on time-barred debts and failing to adequately validate or disclose key facts to consumers. The decision of the court reinforced that collectors must not misrepresent the status or collectability of a debt. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX was fined for collecting debts without disclosing that they had already received money through credit insurance. In this instance, the courts decided that its deceptive to collect a full balance from a consumer if the creditor has already received partial or full satisfaction through other means. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) This court decision reinforced that debt XXXX must not misrepresent any material fact about the debt, including its amount, status, or whether it is legally owed. 

I am seeking to understand whether any portion of the alleged balance has already been paid or recovered through other financial means, which would materially affect its enforceability and accuracy.

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