Consumer complaint received 2025-12-22 00:00:00
Product: Prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Unexpected or other fees — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
XXXX / CFPB Complaint Document Integrity & Ledger Authentication Failure Institution : Bank of America Arizona XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Primary Card Account : Ending XXXX Issue : False recordkeeping, fabricated dispute documentation, contradictory ledgers, unresolved {$2000.00} fraud claim Status : Ongoing unresolved since XXXX Summary This complaint focuses on the authenticity, accuracy, and credibility of Bank of Americas documentation, ledgers, and dispute records. The bank has produced inconsistent, contradictory, and newly fabricated documents to support its position including two additional contradictory records, multiple conflicting ledgers, and three sequentially numbered denial letters dated XX/XX/XXXX. 

A financial institution can not rely on unreliable documentation to claim closure of a dispute. 
If the records are false, inconsistent, or newly generated, then the investigation is invalid.

Document Integrity Failures 1 Wrong Account Wrong Closure Bank of America asserts resolution on an account ending XXXX, while my legitimate XXXX card account is XXXX. 
No lawful Reg XXXX closure can apply to an unrelated account. 
Any claim of closure tied to the wrong account is invalid on its face.

2 Conflicting Ledgers that Can not Both Be True Bank of America submitted multiple different ledgers throughout the investigation, including two additional contradictory records created during active review. These ledgers differ in : transaction counts total dollar amounts ( over {$22000.00} variance ) whether provisional credits exist whether reversals exist whether zero-outs exist A bank can not present multiple versions of history. 
Only XXXX ledger can be true and Bank of America refuses to authenticate which one.

3 Ledger Evidence Proving Internal Manipulation Even Bank of Americas own records contradict their story. 

They claim the dispute was resolved on XX/XX/XXXX. 

Yet their ledger shows : On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX identical debits equaling {$2000.00} processed within the same second followed by another {$2000.00} posting. 

This is internal batch dispute activity NOT XXXX, not merchant behavior. 
If the claim was resolved, this activity would not exist.

4 Frozen Account Claim Disproven by Their Own Records Bank of America states my account was frozen from XX/XX/XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 
Yet their own documents show : 70+ transactions totaling over {$5000.00} during the supposed freeze.

A frozen account can not transact.

Therefore, Bank of Americas documentation is false or manipulated. 

XXXX XXXX Confirmed They Did NOT Remove Funds Arizona XXXX Custodian of Records confirmed : XXXX does not debit claimant accounts XXXX issued no debit authorization There is no trace code or ACH request Meaning : Bank of America removed funds but continues to issue documents implying XXXX involvement. 
That is misleading and deceptive. 

New Evidence : Three Suspicious XX/XX/XXXX Denial Letters Recently, Bank of America mailed three re-evaluation denial letters, all dated XX/XX/XXXX, claiming final determinations. 
However, these letters : reference three different account numbers list three different claim amounts provide different denial stories Worse : Claim numbers are sequential : XXXX XXXX XXXX Sequential numbering proves they were newly created in the same batch, not historic independent investigations. 
This is not archived record retrieval this is administrative fabrication. 

These letters also appear on : outdated, legacy-style letterhead low-quality formatting inconsistent document design This raises authenticity concerns : Who created these? 

When were they actually created? 

Why do they not match legitimate BoA correspondence standards? 

This mirrors conduct BoA was sanctioned for previously : mass-generated dispute outcomes with no real investigation.

Bottom Line Bank of America can not : claim closure on the wrong account present multiple conflicting ledgers claim a freeze while transactions exist attribute debits to XXXX when XXXX confirms no involvement generate three sequential final decisions and still assert this claim is legitimately resolved Their documentation collapses under scrutiny. 
If the records are false, the resolution is false. 
Therefore, the claim remains open. 

Proof Account Remains Legally Open Federal Relief Funds Tie CARES Act unemployment benefits are federally protected emergency funds. Account closure prohibited while federal claim unresolved.

Wrong Account Attempt Closure claimed on XXXX, not real XXXX card. Invalidates any closure. 


Post- '' Closure '' Activity XX/XX/XXXX : XXXX mirror debits ( {$2000.00} ) in 1 second AFTER XX/XX/XXXX " resolution '' proves account active.

70+ Transactions During " Freeze '' XXXX XXXX XXXX  " freeze '' shows $ XXXX activity. Frozen accounts don't transact. 

Ongoing Federal Investigation Active CFPB probe + federal relief status prevents closure. 


Batch Denials Confirm Activity Three sequential XXXX letters ( # XXXX ) prove current system processing, not historical closure Requested Regulatory Actions Require Bank of America to : 1 Provide one authenticated, certified ledger for the entire dispute period 2 Explain and justify two additional contradictory records submitted during review 3 Provide an explanation of the 21-mirror reversal batch and identical {$2000.00} posting 4 Explain why three sequential denial letters were newly created in XXXX XXXX Certify whether XXXX removed funds ( with proof ), or formally admit they did not 6 Confirm, in writing, that the {$2000.00} dispute remains open 7 Explain the legal and factual basis for freezing and closing the account Conclusion This complaint is not about disagreement. 
This complaint is about false records, manufactured documentation, contradictory ledgers, and lack of authentication. 

No consumer should have to fight multiple versions of their own financial history. 
Bank of America must be held accountable, and this claim must be corrected and resolved. 

Conflicting Explanations for the Same {$1.00} Bank of America recently issued documentation concerning a {$1.00} balance tied to my unemployment card account. However, the bank provided two completely different explanations for the exact same {$1.00}, which can not both be true.

In one communication, Bank of America states the {$1.00} represents interest accumulation, implying the account remained active, maintained, and financially engaged long after they claim the matter was closed. Interest does not accrue on a dead account. Interest requires an account that is recognized, monitored, and still administratively alive. 

In another communication, Bank of America claims the {$1.00} represents a closing balance payout, suggesting it was simply leftover money from final reconciliation at account closure.

These two positions directly contradict each other.

Either : the account was still active and generating compliance-based interest, or it was closed and simply paying out a leftover balance. 

Both can not be true. 

This contradiction reinforces the broader pattern : Bank of America can not maintain a consistent factual narrative about this account or dispute. Their own records conflict with one another, further proving the account was never truly finalized, the dispute was not properly resolved, and the banks documentation lacks credibility and authenticity.

Federal Emergency Relief Funds Heightened Responsibility The funds involved were federal emergency relief benefits issued during the COVID-19 disaster period, designed specifically to protect financially vulnerable individuals during a declared national emergency. These were federally backed unemployment relief funds, not discretionary deposits or routine consumer transactions. Because these benefits existed to stabilize families, prevent homelessness, maintain access to food, transportation, and continuity of life necessities, Bank of America carried a heightened duty of accuracy, care, integrity, and urgency when handling them. 

Instead, Bank of America : removed federal relief funds without lawful authority, failed to conduct a compliant Regulation E investigation, produced contradictory and newly fabricated documentation, misrepresented account status and activity, and delayed fair resolution for years.

Mismanaging federal emergency relief funds while issuing false or unreliable documentation to justify it is not just a consumer issue ; it is a public-interest and federal-integrity issue, because these funds were created to protect Americans in crisis. Bank failures here harm not only the claimant, but the intent of federal relief policy itself.

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