Consumer complaint received 2025-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
The following is a clear timeline of the events : XX/XX/XXXX : We mailed our XXXX tax payments from the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) via Certified Mail. 
Check # XXXX ( IRS ) : Tracking # XXXX. This check was successfully delivered on XX/XX/XXXX. 
Check XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX  : {$10000.00}. Tracking # XXXX. This envelope was compromised. 
XX/XX/XXXX : Check XXXX XXXXXXXX, which was made out to the " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' was washed and fraudulently altered to be payable to a " XXXX XXXX '' and was subsequently paid/cashed by Truist Bank and cleared from my XXXX  account. 
XX/XX/XXXX : Having filed for a tax extension, this was the deadline to finalize our filing. On this day, we were notified by the XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX that our {$10000.00} tax payment was never received. 
XX/XX/XXXX : On the same day we were notified of the fraud, we took immediate action : Filed a fraud claim with my local XXXX XXXX  branch. 
Filed a mail theft claim with the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( Ref # XXXX ). 
Filed a fraud report with the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX ). 
Filed a Fraud Report with the Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) ( Report # XXXX ) XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX notified us that my claim was denied, citing that we had failed to report the fraud within the 60-day time limit. 
XX/XX/XXXX : After escalation of our first claim through our local branch, XXXX once again notified us that our claim had been denied. 
1. Basis for Dispute : Unjust Denial Based on Reporting Timeframe The denial of our claim, based on a XXXX reporting limit, represents a misapplication of the rule. XXXXXXXX XXXX position incorrectly focuses on the check 's cashing date ( XX/XX/XXXX ) rather than the date the fraud was discoverable by us. 
As customers, not forensic accountants, we had no reason to suspect impropriety when the funds left our account. We could not have reasonably known about this fraud until the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX notified us of non-payment. Crucially, we reported the fraud to XXXX, the XXXX, the police, and the FTC on the very day of discovery ( XX/XX/XXXX ), demonstrating prompt and immediate action. 
To hold a customer responsible for third-party fraud is contrary to the principles of customer protection. 
2. Legal Basis for Reversal of Denial : Liability Under the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) As a large, FDIC-insured bank, XXXX  and Truist have a clear legal obligation to protect its customers from check fraud. 
Under the UCC, a bank ( XXXX XXXX XXXX  ) may only charge an item against a customer 's account if it is " properly payable. '' A check that has been " washed '' to alter the payee is the definition of an altered instrument. 
An altered instrument is not properly payable. 
Therefore, Truist is liable for negligently cashing an obviously altered check and must re-credit my account. 
Demand for Resolution We have diligently fulfilled all customer responsibilities : we utilized XXXX XXXX Mail for security, immediately notified XXXX upon discovering the altered check, and filed comprehensive reports with all relevant authorities. 
We request full reimbursement of {$10000.00} to our checking account. The payment of this fraudulently washed and altered check was an error by the banking system, for which we, the customer, are not responsible.

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