Consumer complaint received 2022-12-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/22, I opened a new checking account with Citibank on the incentive that if I maintained a balance of {$30000.00} for 90 days, I would receive a {$500.00} cash bonus. I was told that the qualifying funds would have to be from funds not already in possession of Citibank. Days later, I deposited a bank check for {$25000.00} into the account. During the next XXXX weeks, I deposited funds into this account, both qualifying and non-qualifying. 

On XX/XX/22, I deposited, by ATM at the same location as opening the account, a {$3500.00} check from my husband 's XXXX account. Unfortunately, this was a mistake on my husband 's part. The bank account had been closed for about XXXX year. The original reason for this account closure was caused by XXXX bank -- another account was immediately opened by XXXX in my husband 's absence. I am open to elaborating on this XXXX account closing, but it would lead any reasonable person to understand my husband 's confusion. 

This check is the source of the problem with Citibank -- or so they claim. On XX/XX/22, I received a phone call from Citibank 's " fraud department '' presumably in a far-away land. I answered their security questions, which I believe should have cleared everything up. Thereafter, Citibank put my account on " blocked '' anyway, including over {$27000.00} of my money. 

It has been weeks now. After many phone calls to XXXX XXXX, banker ( XXXX ), all the local Citibank can do is tell me to contact the " fraud department. '' The " fraud '' department does not provide me with any Citibank policy guidelines, other than to angrily state the account is " under review '' and will likely close at some indeterminant time. They further tell me that when they do choose to close the account, that it will take another 70 days to receive a bank check from them after that. 

I can not help but believe that minor mistakes are frequently made when funding accounts such as this, and Citibank uses this as an excuse to entirely tie up large sums of funds they did not originally have - a very punitive and draconian measure. It is interesting to note that my funds will be tied up for just about the same time I was going to be leaving the money in the account to begin with -- but at my own election. These are very suspicious circumstances. 

Upon information and belief, as of today, the account is not even closed. The indefinite waiting period, bereft of any underlying bank policy to support it, with my money out of my control, along with passing the buck on to a foreign " fraud '' department, as well as a collective " shrugging of shoulders '' is very unsettling considering the substantial sum of money that is tied up -- leading me to ask ask myself if Citibank is truly trustworthy. The lack of personal discernment in this situation is appalling. This is arbitrary, whimsical and erratic behavior on the part of a national bank. Would this have happened if there were only {$500.00} in my account? Is there an end to this? If so, what is their policy in this regard? What is driving the decision making? 

Remember that the totality of all of these transactions occurred on an extremely local basis -- all within a two-mile radius. And yet, the fraud department ( are they the actual " fraud '' here? ) in a far away land having nothing to do with our very local issue, by local people, who are real and available to personally show up, present identification, PIN numbers, etc. 

Further, please note that no one would expect a check written and deposited on a closed account to ever be paid into another bank, so that is indicia of a lack of fraud. No goods or services were procured. My husband was legitimately confused -- we were merely trying to fund a new account in order to take advantage of the {$500.00} offer. Also, he HAD the money in a XXXX account that XXXX themselves set up in my hisband 's absence, as a substitute -- that was the account that my husband thought he was writing a check on. 

In short, this was merely a mistake between a husband and wife, and now I am left with a inordinately severe and very unsettling punishment. Further, I am not the one who even wrote the check, so why is my account being affected?

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