Consumer complaint received 2026-01-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: MD

Complaint narrative:
Truist Bank has engaged in gross negligence and willful misrepresentation regarding the management of my checking account ( ending in XXXX ) following a Writ of Garnishment served on XX/XX/XXXX. The banks conduct involves a failure to comply with 31 C.F.R. Part 212 and Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. 8-106. 

1. Illegal " Stealth Adjustment '' and Contradictory Records : On XX/XX/XXXX, Truists legal counsel served me with sworn " Answers to Interrogatories '' in which the banks Vice President certified under penalty of perjury that the bank was " indebted '' to me in the amount of {$450.00}. 

However, at approximately XXXX PM on XXXX XXXX following my notification to the banks Deputy General Counsel regarding a Notice of XXXX XXXX  suddenly altered my ledger. They reduced a previous administrative hold of - {$6300.00} down to - {$1100.00}. This latest action creates a new forensic conflict. Truist is currently holding {$1100.00} of my funds, despite having previously sworn to the Court that they were holding only {$450.00}. The bank is now holding {$720.00} in excess of their own sworn confession of assets. 

2. Failure to Protect Exempt Unemployment Benefits : Despite the partial release of funds tonight, Truist continues to illegally withhold {$930.00} in XXXX  XXXX  XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) unemployment benefits and a directly deposited retirement distribution. These funds are comprised of XXXX distinct direct deposits ( {$350.00} and XXXX from XXXX, and {$280.00} from XXXX ), which are 100 % exempt from garnishment under Md. Code, L & E 8-106. Truists " Account Review '' process failed to identify these " XXXX '' tagged funds as exempt. 

3. The " Date Swap '' Fraud ( 31 C.F.R. 212.6 ) : Truist intentionally utilized an account balance from XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ) to process a Writ served on XX/XX/XXXX. By " rolling back '' the date, the bank bypassed its duty to protect the {$350.00} XXXX deposit that arrived on the actual date of service. 

XXXX. Deprivation of Survival Funds through " Negative Ledger '' Tactics : For XXXX months, XXXX maintained an administrative hold of - {$6300.00} against a posted balance of approximately {$1300.00}. This created a negative available balance of over - {$5000.00}, which effectively obliterated my {$500.00} Maryland statutory exemption. The bank falsely told the XXXX this {$500.00} was " available for withdrawal '' during a time when my ledger proved it was frozen by the bank 's own over-reaching hold. 

XXXX. Failure of Timely Notice and Defective Content ( 31 C.F.R. 212.7 ) : Under 31 C.F.R. 212.7, a bank is federally mandated to send a notice to the account holder within two business days of completing the account review. Truist Bank failed this requirement entirely. I did not receive the purported XX/XX/XXXX notice until XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX months lateand only then as an attachment to a FedEx discovery packet. 

Furthermore, the document produced is legally deficient ; the line titled " State exemption amount available for withdrawal '' contains no indication of the {$500.00} XXXX  XXXX exemption. Producing a " notice '' XXXX months after the fact that does not contain the required information is a bad-faith attempt at damage control that violates both the letter and the spirit of federal consumer protection laws. 

XXXX. Gross Negligence and Reckless Indifference to Accuracy : " The Interrogatories received via XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX, appear to be a rushed and slapdash attempt at damage control. The errors contained thereinspecifically the 'Alphabetical Impossibility ' in Answer No. XXXX a level of reckless indifference to the facts of the record. These are not mere clerical oversights ; they are sworn statements provided to the XXXX that demonstrate a hostile disregard for the actual account ledger. It appears the drafter was more concerned with providing a defensive response than an accurate one.

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