Consumer complaint received 2025-11-14 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.

Complaint narrative:
This complaint concerns a fraudulent domestic wire transfer of USD XXXX from my Citibank checking account ending in XXXX, on XX/XX/year>, reported under case number XXXX. The transaction was unauthorized ; I neither initiated nor approved it. Upon receiving the alert of the transaction at XXXX PM XXXX, I acted immediately and contacted Citibanks fraud line. After several failed attempts navigating the automated system, I reached a live agent at XXXX PM XXXX, only XXXX minutes after being notified of the unauthorized transfer.- During a XXXX call, I clearly reported that the transfer was fraudulent and requested both the cancellation of the transaction and the immediate blocking of my account. The agent confirmed that the funds had already left my account and were sent to another bank but assured me that Citibank would request a recall from the receiving bank, block further transfers, and secure my account. The agent also stated that the incident would be recorded as fraud and that an investigation would be opened. At the end of the call, the agent attempted to transfer me to the fraud department for additional verification. After more than XXXX minutes on hold, the call disconnected. I immediately tried calling XXXX more times that evening, without success.- On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX contacted me. They indicated they were already aware of the case and only needed to confirm routine questions ( for example, whether I had shared my credentials or been coerced to make the transfer ). After answering, I informed the agent that I still had full access to my online banking, which surprised him, and he then proceeded to block the account at that momentalmost XXXX hours after I had first reported the fraud. This delay represents a significant security failure.- Despite my prompt and good-faith actions, Citibank did not stop XXXX reverse the transaction. Internal records show that the transfer was posted on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX days after my report, which demonstrates that there was still time to intervene if the bank had acted diligently.- Weeks later, I received Citibanks denial letter dated XX/XX/year> ( received XX/XX/XXXX at my residence ). The letter stated that the payment order was accepted as your authenticated request, without providing any evidence, explanation, or documentation of the investigation. This response ignores the key facts that I reported the fraud within XXXX minutes of the alert, that Citibank acknowledged my request to stop the transfer, and that their systems failed to secure my account.- Inconsistent internal practices further highlight procedural flaws. For smaller, legitimate transfers that I personally initiated in the past, Citibank often delayed or held the transaction pending verification. Yet this high-value transfer of nearly USD XXXX was processed instantly, without additional checks or confirmation. This inconsistency shows a failure of Citibanks fraud prevention systems and procedures.- The banks reasoningthat the use of correct credentials equals authorizationis legally and factually incorrect. Under Regulation E of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ), banks must perform a reasonable and good-faith investigation into unauthorized transfers and limit consumer liability when the customer reports promptly, as I did. Even if Citibank attempts to treat this as a wire transfer under UCC Article 4A, that law requires the banks security procedures to be commercially reasonable and applied in good faith. Approving a large, atypical transaction without additional verification when smaller transfers were subject to checks does not meet that standard.- The investigation and response show serious deficiencies : ( XXXX ) The bank did not provide authentication or access logs, IP data, device fingerprints, or SMS validation records. 
( XXXX ) It did not clarify whether any recall requests, Suspicious Activity Reports ( XXXX ), or XXXX notifications were issued ; ( XXXX ) It failed to explain the three-day gap between the date I reported the fraud ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and the date the transaction was posted ( XX/XX/XXXX ), during which recovery was still possible ; ( XXXX ) It closed the investigation without addressing these key elements or providing transparency.- The evidence clearly shows that Citibank failed to : XXXX XXXX ) Provide accessible and effective fraud reporting channels ; ( XXXX ) Act immediately upon notification to stop or recall the transfer ; ( XXXX ) Block the account in a timely manner ; ( XXXX ) Conduct a transparent and adequate investigation in compliance with Regulation E and UCC Article 4A ; XXXX XXXX ) Provide documentation to support its denial.- Citibanks conclusion that the transaction was authenticated does not constitute proof of authorization. It disregards the facts, timing, and procedural obligations. The case was closed superficially, without a proper review or regulatory compliance.- Given these circumstances, I am filing this complaint to request CFPB oversight and a formal review of Citibanks handling of this matter. The banks actions ( and inaction ) show a lack of diligence, internal control, and compliance with XXXX consumer protection law. I am opening a new complaint because Citibanks prior response did not address the substantive deficiencies outlined above, failed to provide any of the requested documentation, and did not resolve the issues surrounding its investigation. The unresolved procedural failures, unanswered questions, and lack of transparency justify reopening the matter under a new CFPB case, as the original investigation remains incomplete and non-compliant with regulatory standards.-

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