Consumer complaint received 2024-08-22 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: SC

Complaint narrative:
On XX/XX/XXXX I authorized Capital One Bank [ CO ] to wire funds in the amount of {$24000.00} from my CO account to an account at XXXX XXXX XXXX [ XXXX or XXXX ]. This was the direct result of unsolicited fraudulent activity and specific instructions received over the Internet and telephone from an unknown person posing as a Capital One Bank fraud investigator. The very next day Saturday, XXXX XXXX I telephoned Capital Ones Account Activity office to report the suspected fraudulent transaction and to request that the wire transfer be cancelled. Instead of taking immediate action, the CO agent advised that I would have to call back on Monday, because the bank could not take any action with respect to canceling a wire transfer on Saturday or Sunday. I objected and said that I thought immediate action by CO was necessary because wire transfers transfer funds very quickly ; however, the CO agent only repeated that my request should be made on Monday. 

On Monday XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX  [ ET ] I again telephoned the CO Account Activity office and reported the fraudulent transaction on XXXX ; and I requested the immediate cancellation of my {$24000.00} wired to XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ]. Later in a phone call that same day or the following day a CO agent advised me that on XXXX XXXX at XXXX XXXX an electronic request was sent to XXXX wire office requesting the return of my wired funds because of suspected fraud. 

During the next 10 months I made numerous and frequent inquires to both CO and XXXX about the return of my funds. Finally on or about XX/XX/XXXX CO advised me that XXXX had responded saying that there were no funds available for return from the customers account. No further explanation was provided as to why my funds were not available at the time COs return request received on XX/XX/XXXX. My further requests to CO and XXXX for additional information were unsuccessful. 

On XX/XX/XXXX my local law enforcement agency, XXXX XXXX, SC Sheriffs Office, served an evidence subpoena upon XXXX  requesting detailed information about its handling of my funds wired on XX/XX/XXXX, and also information about any other transactions in that XXXX receiving account. On XX/XX/XXXX XXXX responded with detailed information showing that within the 3-day period from XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX three [ 3 ] separate wires of funds totaling {$110000.00} were received into that same XXXX  account, as follows : a wire from one other victim [ hereafter referred to as Victim 1 ' ] on XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$47000.00} ; and a second wire on XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$47000.00} from that same Victim 1 ; and a third wire from me [ hereafter sometimes referred to as Victim 2 ' ] also on XXXX XXXX in the amount of {$24000.00}. XXXX stated that those three wires were the only deposits received before that customers account was first frozen and then later closed. 

XXXX stated that on XXXX XXXX it thereafter received a Letter of Indemnity [ previously referred to as a Hold Request ] from Victim 1s bank before it received the Letter of Indemnity from Capital One in connection with my wired funds. Thereafter on XXXX XXXX and XXXX, XXXX XXXX returned funds totaling {$70000.00} to Victim 1s bank, which amount represented all remaining funds in the its customers closed account. As a result of those returns there were no funds remaining for XXXX to return to CO in connection with its request for the return of my funds. 

XXXX advised the Sheriffs investigator that Letters of Indemnity [ LOI ] are handled on a first-come, first-served basis in other words, whichever bank gets the LOI submitted first gets access to the money left in the suspect account. Accordingly, XXXX returned all the remaining funds to Victim 1 's bank and nothing to CO [ Victim 2 ]. Information in the XXXX report does not include details about the precise times of receipt of these separate LOIs from CO and XXXX. I have requested that information from XXXX, but it has not been provided. 

From the facts presented above, it seems clear that if Capital One had taken action to immediately send its Hold Request or LOI to XXXX when I first telephoned CO on Saturday XX/XX/XXXX to report the fraud incident, there would have been a very different outcome. COs return request/LOI for my wired funds would have been received substantially before the LOI was received from Victim 1 's bank on XX/XX/XXXX. Then pursuant to XXXX  first- come, first-served procedure, it is clear there would have been sufficient funds in its customers account for XXXX to return the full amount of {$24000.00} to CO for my benefit. 

Conclusion Based on the above information and analysis, I believe Capital One negligently failed in its duty to take immediate action on XX/XX/XXXX, as I requested, to request the return of my funds wired to XXXX XXXX on the previous day. That negligence directly resulted in XXXX actions several days later to return all the available funds to Victim 1 's bank. Accordingly, Capital One should be held responsible for the return of my {$24000.00}. In addition, CO should pay me interest at the same rate that those funds would have earned if they had been returned by XXXX on XXXX XX/XX/XXXX and immediately re-deposited into my CO Performance Savings Account.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation