Consumer complaint received 2026-06-02 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: RI

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint against Capital One for denying reversal of a fraud-induced ACH payment of {$22000.00}, and for applying an " authorized transaction '' standard that does not address authorization obtained through documented criminal fraud. BACKGROUND : On XX/XX/XXXX, I initiated an ACH payment of {$22000.00} for XXXX tuition to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( shown in my records as XXXX XXXX XXXX ). The school 's Executive Director, XXXX XXXX, had solicited pre-payment of full-year tuition from families in exchange for a 6 % discount, which he launched on XX/XX/XXXX three days after executing a lease using a forged {$500000.00} letter of credit. I paid in reliance on that offer. On XX/XX/XXXX, Given confessed to fraud : forging a {$500000.00} letter of credit, maintaining two sets of books, and concealing XXXX XXXX in debt. ThXXXX XXXX XXXX Department confirmed an open investigation ( Report I # XXXX ), and at least two civil suits have been filed : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX ( characterized as a XXXX XXXX ). Notably, Given launched the tuition campaign three days after forging the lease document. This is felony larceny under R.I. Gen. Laws 11-41-4 and 11-41-5. These laws state that every person who obtains property " designedly, by any false pretense or pretenses ... with intent to cheat or defraud '' is guilty of larceny, and that amounts over {$1500.00} are classified as felony larceny. The statute does not require that the victim was unaware they were making a payment only that the payment was obtained through false pretenses with intent to defraud. Both elements are confirmed by law enforcement, two courts, and the school 's own Board. The school 's Board of Directors notified families of the Executive Director 's actions on XX/XX/XXXX. I promptly disputed the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX charge with Capital One ( original claim XXXX ). BANK 'S RESPONSE : Capital One denied my original claim on the grounds that the merchant had initiated the transaction before I revoked authorization treating the payment as an " authorized '' transfer. This applies the wrong legal standard. The relevant question is not whether I initiated the transfer ; I did. The question is whether my authorization was legally valid, and it was not, because it was obtained through deliberate criminal fraud, which renders it void. Capital One 's denial does not address this distinction, and there is no indication that it independently verified the police report, the two civil complaints, or the Board-confirmed confession. I have refiled the dispute as a fraud claim ( claim XXXX ). PEER BANK REVERSALS : Capital One itself reversed identical XXXX ACH payments for other customers on XX/XX/XXXX, yet denied mine an inconsistent result on identical facts. XXXX XXXX XXXX issued a formal claims-resolution letter on XX/XX/XXXX ( claim XXXX ), and TD Bank XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and numerous other institutions have reversed identical Croft ACH payments under the same XXXX framework XXXX Capital One is an outlier.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation