Consumer complaint received 2015-10-16 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals — 
Company: SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I have had repeated customer conflicts with a branch manager at Suntrust Bank, XXXX. in XXXX XXXX, GA XXXX. At my local Suntrust Bank branch, I have a multi-year checking and savings account. Recently I 've confirmed a suspicion that a XXXX XXXX XXXX, Branch Manager and Assistant Vice President, Suntrust Bank, has both intentionally and maliciously been committing " wire fraud '' like distortions on certain of my checking account deposits ( and, periodically, the delay of check drafts, which have also created overdraft incidents and fees ). Consequently, scheduled deposits from state government and corporate sources are fraudulently being returned or " delayed '' on the federal funds wire system by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and/or subordinate Suntrust personnel as directly or indirectly encouraged by XXXX XXXX XXXX and checks I 've written in good faith on these delayed deposits are returned or penalized with an overdraft fee of {$36.00}. I believe the basis of these actions are primarily a product of gender ( or age and/or race ) bias by XXXX XXXX XXXX ; as well as a general disregard for my majority female and XXXX '' that XXXX XXXX XXXX so poorly serves. I believe I have grounds for prosecution of these regulatory violations and punitive damages against Suntrust XXXX for this breach of fiduciary responsibility on behalf of its ' agent, XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
Documentation for the XXXX recent instances of deposits obstructed are attached:1. A refund of {$59.00} processed on XXXX XXXX, 2015 by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX was held out from deposit to my account, past the " 5 day processing term '' stated by XXXX XXXX, until deposit on XXXX XXXX, 2015 and posting to my checking account on XXXX XXXX, 2015. This deposit was deliberately delayed effectively for 43 days in order to cause overdrafts, overdraft fees, and my personal emotional frustration by XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
2. A recurring payment of {$170.00} by the State of Georgia on XXXX XXXX, 2015 was returned, I suspect, by XXXX XXXX XXXX while I was sitting with him on the next day afternoon to discuss a returned check and fees, and the mystery of the said " deposit gone missing ''?! In retrospect, I believe an adjoined complaint with the State of Georgia and XXXX XXXX is in order in this instance. As while XXXX XXXX XXXX knowingly misdirected this deposit, quite likely in my presence during said meeting, he deliberately directed me to " seek redress against the State of Georgia '', ( and implicitly XXXX XXXX for the previous wire deposit delay dated XXXX XXXX, 2015, which had not deposited as of the date of said meeting on XXXX XXXX, 2015 XXXX. This misdirection/sabotage was intended to have escalated me into a " fraudulent legal redress '' against the State for seeming neglect-to-deposit court-ordered funds to the court-ordered recipient, me. To-date, this wire deposit has not been discovered by the sending agency, and Suntrust has not deposited these funds into my checking account. XXXX, personal financial damage and emotional distress to me continues. 
I would also draw attention to the fact that XXXX XXXX XXXX uses electronic customer account notation to vilify targeted customers by " framing the account holder '' as the bad actor. This also serves to " cover his tracks '' as the Suntrust Bank-side violator embedded in these account transactional violations. My experience has been that this " toxic '' notation " poisons '' the professionalism and good judgement of other employees, making them also prone to blame the customer ( me ), for apparent problems referenced on the account. In fact, at my local Suntrust branch, I believe it is internal policy to routinely seek opportunities to penalize the customer in the course of doing business when possible. 
My overall Suntrust customer service experience is markedly better in communities other than, or like, my own.

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation