Consumer complaint received 2025-05-16 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX account of events depicts that in XX/XX/XXXX, he reached out to XXXX XXXX  at XXXX and XXXX. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX introduced XXXX XXXX to a XXXX XXXX purchase opportunity involving XXXX XXXX Encouraged by XXXX  XXXX  and the supporting material he provided, including a contract, banking payment instructions, and a valuation for insurance purposes, XXXX XXXX decided to proceed with the purchase. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX made a wire transfer totaling {$1000.00} USD to an account registered with XXXX XXXX. Later that day, he made another wire transfer of {$57000.00} USD to the same entity. On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX requested an additional {$40000.00} USD to finalize the purchase, asking XXXX XXXX to process a payment to XXXX XXXX. Trusting XXXX and the rationale provided, XXXX XXXX complied. 

As part of their strategy to maintain trust, XXXX and XXXX provided fake confirmations and reassurances. On XX/XX/XXXX, another contact from XXXX XXXX, XXXX, confirmed that the item had shipped and would arrive within XXXX week via XXXX XXXX. 

After XXXX week, XXXX XXXX was unable to reach anyone at XXXX XXXX. The website remained active. He contacted XXXX XXXX, and after a series of emails over the course of a week, they confirmed that no item had been shipped. 

Realizing the fraudulent nature of the operation, XXXX XXXX requested a wire reversal from Bank of America ( his bank ) and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, which stated that the account was controlled by XXXX. When he reached out to XXXX, he was met with an unhelpful response, as they claimed the website was still active and asked for an investigation into whether XXXX XXXX was a company that failed to supply goods. 

XXXX XXXX then submitted reports to the FTC and FBI IC3. His final conversation with XXXX XXXX representatives took place in late XX/XX/XXXX, after which all communication ceased. 


The XXXX Regulations are : a. Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. ) - To address concerns raised by the increasing prevalence of electronic banking transactions, Congress enacted the Electronic Fund Transfer Act of XXXX ( EFTA ), 15 U.S.C. 1693 et seq. Lawmakers viewed such transactionsprocessed through computer networks without human interactionas " much more vulnerable to fraud, embezzlement, and unauthorized use than the traditional payment methods. '' XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank of AmXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). 

b. Regulation E - According to Regulation E - an unauthorized Electronic Funds Transfer ( EFT ) includes any transfer initiated by a person who obtained an access device through fraud, robbery, or force. Regulation E affirms and clarifies that if a consumer is fraudulently induced into sharing account access with a third party, the subsequent transfer is an unauthorized EFT.

Refund Requirement ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) : ( c ) The f nancial institution must investigate any reported unauthorized transaction and must provide provisional credit for the amount of the alleged error within 10 business days after receiving the notice.

Limitations on Ability of Financial Institutions to Avoid Liability : No Reliance on Separate Agreements : the EFTA includes an anti-waiver provision that provides that an agreement with a consumer may not contain any waiver of any right conferred or cause of action created by the EFTA. 

Denials based on a consumer 's alleged negligence are expressly prohibited under the EFTA 's implementing regulations. See Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Comment for 1005.6 Liability of Consumer for Unauthorized Transfers, 6 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( " Negligence by the consumer can not be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E. Thus, consumer behavior that may constitute negligence under state law, such as writing the PIN on a debit card or on a piece of paper kept with the card, does not affect the consumer 's liability for unauthorized transfers. " ).

The EFTA places the burden of proof on the financial institution to demonstrate that challenged transfers were authorized or if they were unauthorized, that the consumer can be held liable for them. See 15 U.S.C. 1693g ( b ).

c. Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing : It is well established that a financial entity has a duty to act with reasonable care in its transactions with its depositors ... '' ( quoting XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ) ). " [ D ] epositors as used in XXXX refers a bank 's duty to act with reasonable care in its transactions with account holders as an implied term in the contract between the financial entity and its depositor. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). 



XXXX XXXX of Ordinary Care ( Including Uniform Commercial Code Article 4-A ) Under both common law and the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ) XXXX when a financial entity is sued for the negligent release of a depositor 's money, it must show by a preponderance of the evidence that, under the circumstances, it exercised due care and diligence..... See also Am.XXXX Banks and Financial Institutions. 



In XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX ), the court found the public policy interest in safeguarding the interests of ... depositors against the negligent release of their funds, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, carries similar force in the present context, and supports the imposition on [ ] of a dutyindependent of its contractual obligationsto process withdrawal requests from its customers ' accounts in a non-negligent fashion. See XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( The very nature of a contractual obligation, and the public interest in seeing it performed with reasonable care, XXXX give rise to a duty of reasonable care in performance of the contract obligations, and the breach of that independent duty will give rise to a tort claim [. ] ). 

Such a duty is independent of and extraneous to its contractual obligations, although it springs from the parties ' contract. See XXXX XXXX XXXX at XXXX. Rather than arising out of the will or intention of the parties, the duty is predicated largely on considerations of sound social policy. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX 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