Consumer complaint received 2025-08-28 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Wells Fargo Online Account Takeover Alerted me on XX/XX/XXXX. I called and was told their was a suspicious transaction that was frozen and someone other than myself attempted to add a phone number ending in XXXX, which they told me was a XXXX phone, to push the fraudulent XXXX XXXX transaction through. I have XXXX  secondary phone, XXXX people authorized on my bank accounts, absolutely nobody ever has access to my phone or cards. I was told to go into my local bank branch with XXXX forms of identification. I did. My ATM card on the affected account was destroyed, though in no way was such a card involved. Online hack/online identity theft. 

Between the XXXX and the XXXX I received a number of calls/texts from a NON WELLS FARGO NUMBER, which I NEVER ANSWERED OR RESPONDED TO. I reported these. 

On XX/XX/XXXX Wells Fargo yet again alerted me about Online Fraud/Online Account Takeover Fraudulent EFT P2P Transactions FLAGGED AND FROZEN by Wells Fargo . The bank froze these and all of my accounts ( as well as Wells Fargo Online Banking App ). 

I immediately called the bank that same day, they told me yet again to urgently go into my local bank branch with two forms of identification to verify my identity with a banker, which I did, and complies with REGULATION E per reporting fraudulent online account takeover both verbally and in person.

1. What is an unauthorized EFT?

An unauthorized EFT is an EFT from a consumers account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ). Unauthorized EFTs include transfers initiated by a person who obtained a consumers access device through fraud or robbery and consumer transfers at an ATM that were induced by force. Comments 2 ( m ) -3 and 4.

2. If a transfer meets the Regulation E definition of unauthorized EFT, how does a financial institution determine the consumers liability, if any?

If a consumer has provided timely notice of an error under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) and the financial institution determines that the error was an unauthorized EFT, the liability protections in Regulation E section 1005.6 would apply. Depending on the circumstances regarding the unauthorized EFT and the timing of the reporting, a consumer may or may not have some liability for the unauthorized EFT. See 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ).

4. Does an EFT initiated by a fraudster using stolen credentials meet the Regulation E definition of an unauthorized EFT?

Yes. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution : Unauthorized EFT Question 1, Regulation E defines an unauthorized EFT as a transfer from a consumers account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ). When a consumers account access information is obtained from a third party through fraudulent means such as computer hacking, and a hacker uses that information to make an EFT from the consumers account, the transfer is an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E.

I was not told what the fraudulent transactions were until I cleared my credentials with 2 forms of identification. I did ask for the printout, which was given to me. 

On XX/XX/XXXX SOMEONE, not me, called into Wells Fargo and activated Online Wire Transfers via their app. I DID NOT DO THIS NOR DID I KNOW THAT THIS SERVICE WAS POSSIBLE ONLINE. It SHOULD NOT BE. Wells Fargo authorized a limit of {$25000.00}, which is shocking. 

Whoever stole my identity and gained online account takeover initiated an online wire for {$9500.00} from a SAVINGS ACCOUNT. And a XXXX from my personal checking for {$1100.00}. I did not/do not know these recipients, their names, contact information ( phone, email, bank info ). 

At that time the bank manager, XXXX XXXX, demanded I file a police report ( A VIOLATION OF REGULATION E ) in order to get the case moving. 

XXXX. Can a financial institution require a consumer to file a police report or other documentation as a condition of initiating an error resolution investigation? 

No. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral or written notice of error and may not delay initiating or completing an investigation pending receipt of information from the consumer. See Comments 11 ( b ) ( 1 ) -2 and 11 ( c ) -2. In the past, Bureau examiners found that one or more financial institutions failed to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations pending the receipt of additional information required by the institution. These examples can be found in the Bureaus Summer XXXX edition of Supervisory Highlights and Fall XXXX edition of Supervisory Highlights. The Bureau cited similar violations in XXXX. 

At the bank while on the phone with Online Fraud/Online Account Takeover, after a banker verified my identity, I was assigned a case number for both the illegal XXXX and XXXX : XXXX This is a significant amount of money, Im self employed and live alone with no secondary person who can contribute to my household. I worked very hard for it. 

Right after being assigned the case? I was assigned new account numbers from which the attempted Fraudulent EFT P2P account takeover transactions were in. In doing so Wells Fargo voided these holds on the frozen online account takeover EFTs I did not do. 

The unauthorized XXXX XXXX facilitated by a cyber hacker via XXXX for {$1100.00} via online account takeover/online fraud from my personal checking, initiated on XX/XX/XXXX by the fraudster, FROZEN and assigned a case number to, was then pushed by Wells Fargo XXXX XX/XX/XXXX from the NEW BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER without due diligence of investigation from XX/XX/XXXX when it was initiated, back to when my serious ongoing troubles to this day with Wells Fargo and XXXX fraud/online account takeover, beginning XX/XX/XXXX. 

The unauthorized EFT P2P cyber online account takeover Online Wire Transfer initiated via the fraudster on XX/XX/XXXX ( after a good deal of work I was recently told someone called in on XX/XX/XXXX to activate Online Wire Transfers, which I DID NOT KNOW EXISTED AND SHOULD NOT EXIST CALLED IN AND ACTIVATED ONLINE WIRES VIA WELLS FARGO PHONE WITH A {$25000.00} LIMIT! I DID NOT DO THIS! )? THAT came from a Savings Account which was the other account assigned a new bank account number. SOMEONE within Wells Fargo PUSHED THAT WIRE THROUGH ON XX/XX/XXXX, via the new account number! 

All of this violates Regulation E. I received letters from Wells Fargo after XX/XX/XXXX about the issue being lost or stolen checks. I dont have checks on a Savings Account, I DID NOT REPORT LOST OR STOLEN CHECKS. 

Wells Fargo refuses to refund the Fraud XXXX and XXXX. They refuse to tell me why except to say they believe I initiated the transactions. 

I was illegally told by a bank manager as well as a Senior Account Resolution Specialist to FILE A POLICE REPORT to facilitate the claim process. 

This is ILLEGAL under Regulation E.

4. Can a financial institution require a consumer to file a police report or other documentation as a condition of initiating an error resolution investigation?

No. A financial institution must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral or written notice of error and may not delay initiating or completing an investigation pending receipt of information from the consumer. See Comments 11 ( b ) ( 1 ) -2 and 11 ( c ) -2. In the past, Bureau examiners found that one or more financial institutions failed to initiate and complete reasonable error resolution investigations pending the receipt of additional information required by the institution. These examples can be found in the Bureaus Summer XXXX edition of Supervisory Highlights and Fall XXXX edition of Supervisory Highlights. The Bureau cited similar violations in XXXX.

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