Consumer complaint received 2026-01-27 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Telecommunications debt
Issue: Attempts to collect debt not owed — Debt was result of identity theft
Company: Kriya Capital, LLC
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
I am a confirmed victim of identity theft and filed FTC Identity Theft Reports under penalty of perjury in XX/XX/XXXX. Those reports expressly identified a fraudulent XXXX XXXX account that was opened using unauthorized and compromised personal identifiers, including a known fraudulent address, XXXX XXXX XXXX Ct, XXXX, TX XXXX, an address at which I have never lived and which has been repeatedly identified as fraudulent across my identity-theft filings. 

Following receipt of my FTC Identity Theft Reports, I exercised my rights under XXXX U.S.C. XXXX ( a ) and disputed the fraudulent XXXX XXXX tradeline with all three nationwide consumer reporting agencies. As a result of that mandatory identity-theft block, the tradeline being furnished by Credence Resource Management , LLC for XXXX XXXX was removed from my three-bureau disclosures. 

After the tradeline was blocked and removed due to identity theft, I provided direct written notice to Credence Resource Management advising that the account was fraudulent, had been identified in my FTC Identity Theft Reports, and that Credence was required to cease all collection, processing, and furnishing activity. Credence had actual notice of the identity theft no later than XX/XX/XXXX. 

Months later, after the account had already been identified, blocked, and removed under XXXX ( a ), I obtained a new set of three-bureau disclosures and discovered that the same fraudulent XXXX XXXX obligation had XXXX XXXX a different collector name, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX This tradeline reflected a new assignment date of XX/XX/XXXX and was reported by XXXX  with a status and balance date of XX/XX/XXXX. The underlying account, amount, creditor, and fraudulent identifiers, including the XXXX XXXX XXXX  address, were the same despite the prior identity-theft block. 

This sequence of events demonstrates that XXXX Credence Resource Management, and XXXX XXXX XXXX participated in the continued sale, transfer, and re-furnishing of a debt that had already been identified as identity theft and blocked under federal law. Once an FTC Identity Theft Report is received, XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) imposes a mandatory duty to block the information and prohibits any further reporting, reinsertion, reassignment, or association of the account. There is no legal exception that allows a furnisher or collector to evade an identity-theft block by transferring the same fraudulent account to a different collector or by re-aging it with a new assignment date. 

XXXX acceptance and publication of the XXXX XXXX XXXX tradeline after an identity-theft block had already been exercised constitutes unlawful post-notice furnishing and a failure to maintain maximum possible accuracy under XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( b ). Credence Resource Managements transfer or continued processing of the fraudulent account after identity-theft notice constitutes unlawful furnishing and data sharing in violation of XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( a ) and XXXX ( a ). XXXX XXXX XXXX attempt to collect and report the account after identity theft had already been documented and enforced constitutes unlawful collection activity and the processing of identity-theft data without a permissible purpose. 

This is not a dispute regarding accuracy. It is a pattern of conduct in which an account identified as identity theft was blocked, then effectively laundered through reassignment and re-reporting, allowing the same fraudulent obligation to reappear on my credit file despite clear statutory prohibitions. The use of a new collector name, new reporting dates, or internal reassignment does not cure the underlying identity theft and does not restore any permissible purpose to possess, collect, or furnish the account.

Company response to consumer: Closed with non-monetary relief