Consumer complaint received 2025-10-14 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: M&T BANK CORPORATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
CFPB complaint id XXXX and XXXX show as being closed without lawful explanation or resolve as per this date XX/XX/XXXX and time XXXXXXXX XXXX. i assert the following my contact telephone number is XXXX and as such : FORMAL REBUTTAL TO M & T BANK : FINAL NOTICE OF JUDGMENT IN COMMERCE AND DEMAND FOR FULL FAITH AND CREDIT AND REPARATIONS TO : Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB )/ Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( FDIC ) FROM : XXXX XXXX, man and M & T Banks UNLAWFUL TAKING AND TRESPASS OF THE {$100000.00} WIRE TRANSFER AND PROPERTY. 
This communication is a formal, all-inclusive Common Law Assertion andl Notice of Judgment by Default against M & T Bank , its predecessors, subordinates, and all agents acting under color of law. I categorically reject M & T Banks determination that " a bank error has not occurred '' regarding the withdrawal of {$97000.00} on XX/XX/XXXX. M & T Bank 's actions constitute wrongful actions and takings of paper and money because they disregarded constitutional protections, violated explicit regulatory termination rules, acted without consent, and violated EFTA liability standards. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- I. Constitution Foundation l and Common Law Violations The seizure of funds and property violates inherent rights, which can not be abrogated by subsequent corporate actions. 
A. Sovereign andnd Inviolable Rights I am sovereign : Articles of Confederation : My rights as a " free inhabitant man are rooted in the Articles of Confederation, which are PERPETUAL AND INVIOLABLE ''. The rights flowing from this supreme " can not be abrogated by subsequent corporate statutes or the actions of M & T Bank Pennsylvania Constitution ( XXXX ) : The seizure of funds and property violates my inherent rights. " No part of a mans property can be justly taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent '' ( Article VIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, XXXX ).. 
Explicit Non-Consent : I have explicitly and repeatedly asserted that I " do not consent Furthermore, I " clearly have not consented, nor do I consent, to the unlawful actions taken by M & T Bank '' B. Judgment by Unrebutted Affidavit and Full Faith and Credit M & T Bank 's refusal to honor my demands is a violation of the highest law of the land : XXXX. XXXX  Mandate : This final judgment is " entitled to Full Faith and Credit pursuant to Article IV, 1 of the U.S. Constitution and the holding in XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ''. The XXXX mandates that M & T Bank, as a financial institution, recognize and give conclusive effect to this judgment. 
3. Judicial Trespass : By acting against my property is violation, M & T Bank has committed a " deprivation of property ''. If an official acts " without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. all persons concerned in executing such judgments, or sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ). 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- XXXX. Unlawful Taking : Regulatory and Factual Breaches M & T Bank 's alleged claim of reversal of the transfer was unauthorized because both the cancellation window had expired and the transfer was misclassified.

A. Failure of Cancellation Authority ( 12 CFR 1005.34 ) The Bank had no statutory authority to execute a reversal or refund : 1. Termination of Right : The statutory right of cancellation and refund for certain electronic transfers, as governed by 12 CFR 1005.34, is strictly limited. This right terminates if the request is received " no later than 30 minutes after the sender makes payment '' 38 or if the transferred funds have been " deposited into an account of the designated recipient '' 38. 
XXXX. Breach by M & T Bank XXXX M & T Bank 's records show the {$100000.00} wire was " posted to the account '' on XX/XX/XXXX. The withdrawal was executed 46 days later on XX/XX/XXXX. Since the funds were deposited/credited, and the 30-minute window had long expired, M & T Bank had no legal mandate under 12 CFR 1005.34 to process a recall or refund.

B. EFTA Liability and Misclassification of Funds Therefore although M & T Bank never substantiated a reversal if I had occurred it must be treated as an unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer ( EFT ) subject to Electronic Funds Transfer Act liability : 1. Domestic Wire vs. Federal Depository Funds ( Juxtaposition ) : The funds originated as per clear and conspicuous disclosures on the transmittal are written domestic wire which are funds that could only have be held for consumer by XXXX XXXX. M & T Bank unlawfully identified the transfer as a " Fedwire Funds Transfer. This is " untrue as all fedwire funds originate at either Federal Reserve banks or other depository institutions per Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.3 ( c ) ( 3 ) distinct from senders commercial account. The consumer 's funds, held domestically at a commercial bank, are conceptually " foreign to federal reserve banks as they are not federal depository funds '', making M & T Bank 's identification as a XXXX source inapplicable and not refundable. 
2. EFTA Coverage via Case Law : The federal district court ruling in New York v. Citibank , N.A . ( XXXX ) establishes that a bank is " liable under EFTA for unauthorized consumer wires initiated using a banks electronic banking platforms ''. This precedent uses a " piecemeal analysis '' to ensure EFTA protects the " consumer portions of transactions ''. M & T Bank 's seizure of funds constitutes an " unauthorized or fraudulent withdrawal of funds '' subject to EFTA protection. 
XXXX. Contradictory Claim : M & T Bank 's fraud claim is further invalidated by the fact that the sending XXXX XXXX  branch manager and customer wire sender both collectively indicated XXXX XXXX  never complained and further stated neither had ability to retrieve wire.. 
XXXX Violation of Mandatory Error Resolution ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) M & T Bank violated its duty to investigate and document the alleged error : 1. Definition of " Error '' : M & T Banks conduct falls under multiple definitions of " error '' in 12 CFR 1005.11 ( a ), including an " unauthorized electronic fund transfer ''. Critically, the error includes " The consumer 's request for documentation or for additional information or clarification concerning an electronic fund transfer ''. The repeated request for " any written proof or substantiation for their claim of fraud, or for their assertion that the funds were returned to the sender '' is an error that triggers investigation procedures. 
XXXX. Failure to Provide Written Explanation : Although M & T Bank determined that " a bank error has not occurred '', it failed to comply with Regulation E, which dictates that its report " shall include a written explanation of the institution 's findings ''. M & T Bank 's " documented failure to provide any written proof or substantiation for their fraud claim, despite repeated requests, demonstrates a refusal to adhere to basic error investigation and resolution transparency requirements ''.

D. Common Law and UCC Commercial Misconduct M & T Bank 's overall course of conduct constitutes a breach of commercial and common law duties : 1. UCC Wrongful Dishonor : M & T Banks misconduct extended to dishonoring checks and withdrawals in other company accounts.... This arbitrary action is a violation of the Uniform Commercial Code ( UCC ), where a payor bank is " liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item ''. These actions directly caused the " destruction of vital business relationships '' and " severe financial hardship ''. 
XXXX. Trespass on the Case : The underlying Partnership Buy-In Agreement is governed " according to long antecedent strict Common Law Rule ''. M & T Banks entire course of conductincluding the unsubstantiated claims, actions, failure to provide proof, and the demand for client-privileged information are clears circumstances that require restitutionconstitutes a significant breach of duty and aligns with the common law action of trespass on the case. 
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- V. Demands for Conclusive Remedy Based on this Final Judgment in Commerce , M & T Bank must provide immediate remedy and reparations under the maxim : Ubi jus ibi remedium ( " Where there is a right, there is a remedy '' ). 
XXXX. Documentation : M & T Bank must be required to provide detailed documentation supporting their actions, and lawful adherence to the reversal challenges of the {$100000.00} wire, as mandated by Regulation E 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ). 
XXXX. Restoration of Funds : M & T Bank must be required to restore funds {$100000.00} wire. 
XXXX. Compensation : M & T Bank must provide compensation for the damages and injury caused by M & T Bank 's misconduct, including the unlawful reversal, unauthorized account interference, and wrongful dishonor of checks, as regulated and according rights as stated herein. 

Congruent with United States Supreme Court ruling Chisolm v. Georgia declaration and witness shall be forwarded to the United States Attorney General, Pennsylvania Attorney General and Pennsylvania Governor.

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