Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem caused by your funds being low — Overdrafts and overdraft fees
Company: FIRST FINANCIAL BANCORP
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
What Happened ( Final Version for CFPB Submission ) Between XX/XX/XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX, First Financial Bank repeatedly charged and reversed overdraft fees on my business checking account ( ending in XXXX ) even though all deposited checks were marked Accepted and funds were made available. 

During XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited {$6500.00} through XXXX mobile XXXX XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX  ) transactions. Each deposit initially appeared as cleared and available. Days or weeks later, the bank reclassified multiple deposits as Deposited Check Charged Back and Return Deposited Item Fee, despite having already released the funds for use. 

When these reversals posted, the bank treated the previously authorized payments as overdrafts and began repeatedly assessing {$25.00} XXXX XXXX Item charges. At least XXXX overdraft fees were applied between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, followed by multiple Refund Overdraft Fee Reversal entries. 

Although some overdraft fees were refunded, the bank continued applying new fees for the same transactions. The banks own statements also show Provisional Credit entries being added and later removed, artificially moving the account in and out of negative balance. 

Importantly, First Financial Bank claimed that all of these reversals were chargebacks, but only XXXX deposit was actually sent through the Federal Reserve System meaning the remaining items were internal reversals rather than true chargebacks. This indicates that the overdrafts and fees were generated by the banks internal processing, not by returned checks from other financial institutions. 

By XX/XX/XXXX, my official statement showed a balance of {$1400.00}, and by XX/XX/XXXX, the balance had worsened to {$1900.00}, even though no new withdrawals or purchases were made. 

This situation appears to result from the banks internal system error or improper handling of provisional credits and deposit reclassifications. The negative balance and accumulated overdraft fees are not due to overspending but to the banks own fee-cycling and false chargeback practices. 

Addendum Exhibit XXXX : Transaction Record ( Sep 1420, 2025 ) Records from September 1420, 2025 show the precise week that the overdraft and chargeback pattern began. Only XXXX deposited check during this period was actually processed through the Federal Reserve XXXX and legitimately returned. All other items labeled as Deposited Check Charged Back were internal reversals initiated by First Financial Bank. These internal reversals immediately triggered new overdraft and return-item fees and were followed by provisional credits and reversals. 

This data proves that the banks claim that multiple chargebacks caused the overdrafts is inaccurate. The overdrafts were created solely by First Financials internal accounting actions, not by any external returned checks. 

Addendum Exhibit F : First Financial Insights & Net Worth Dashboard According to my First Financial Bank XXXX dashboard, my Net Worth as of XX/XX/XXXX, is shown as down 13.39 %, with total assets of {$1900.00} and liabilities of {$0.00}. The percentages are calculated based on linked account balances since XX/XX/XXXX. 

This internal bank record verifies that I have no recorded liabilities or outstanding debts, yet the account continues to display a {$1900.00} balance created entirely by overdraft reversals. The Insights system recognizes the negative balance as an asset reduction, not an external obligation, confirming that the loss exists only due to First Financials own internal ledger adjustments. 

This further disproves the banks claim that the balance reflects legitimate returned checks or unpaid obligations. It demonstrates that the negative account balance is the result of system-generated overdraft reversals, not customer activity. 

Summary Confirms no external debt, meaning no legitimate liability exists. 

Shows the loss is treated as a change in assets, proving a ledger-based accounting error. 

Supports that the negative balance was fabricated internally by First Financial Banks fee-cycling process.

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