Consumer complaint received 2026-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am submitting this complaint regarding a series of unauthorized XXXX transfers totaling approximately {$81000.00} processed from my consumer account through XXXX. I reported the fraudulent activity promptly upon discovery on XX/XX/year>. Despite timely notice, full cooperation, and the submission of a notarized affidavit explicitly denying authorization, Capital One denied the claim on XX/XX/year> without providing any verifiable supporting evidence. The bank concluded that the transactions were authorized but did not produce any authentication records, authorization logs, device or IP linkage, or any other verifiable data demonstrating that the transactions were initiated or authorized by the account holder. The determination appears to have been made without a reasonable, evidence-based investigation. Following the denial, I submitted a formal dispute and request for reopening, along with a fraud report and additional documentation. However, no meaningful reinvestigation was conducted, and the prior determination was maintained without substantive explanation. The transactions exhibit a clear pattern inconsistent with my account history, including repeated high-value transfers, escalation in amounts, and activity involving a merchant with whom I have no prior relationship. These characteristics are indicative of unauthorized or externally initiated activity. Notably, a separate financial institution independently investigated and confirmed unauthorized activity affecting me and issued reimbursement following its investigation. This strongly supports the presence of an external compromise rather than isolated or user-authorized behavior. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act and its implementing regulations require financial institutions to conduct a reasonable investigation and provide a substantiated basis for their determinations in cases involving unauthorized electronic fund transfers. In this case, no such substantiated evidentiary basis has been provided. No provisional credit was issued despite timely reporting of the disputed transactions. The impact of these events has been severe and ongoing. The disputed transactions resulted in the removal of a substantial portion of my personal funds, directly affecting my financial stability and my ability to meet ongoing obligations, including those related to real estate activities and existing financing commitments. At the same time, I was left without any meaningful mechanism to challenge the banks determination. The conclusion that I authorized the transactions was maintained without providing the evidence necessary for me to understand or respond to that finding. This created a condition in which I was required to defend myself against an allegation of authorization while being denied access to the information required to do so. Despite submitting a notarized affidavit under oath explicitly denying authorization, my statement was effectively disregarded without reconciliation or evidentiary response.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation