Consumer complaint received 2026-04-24 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: STATE EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION
State: NC

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Rebuttal to XXXX Response CFPB Complaints XXXX & XXXX XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NC XXXX Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX XXXX Rebuttal to XXXX Response CFPB Complaint IDs : XXXX & XXXX Dear CFPB Dispute Resolution Team, I respectfully rebut the response from State Employees Credit Union ( SECU ), XXXX XX/XX/year>. XX/XX/XXXX denial relies on the facts that the disputed transactions originated from my device, IP address, and phone number, and that I confirmed authorization. This reasoning does not address the core issue : I did not knowingly or willingly authorize these transfers. My actions occurred while I was being deceived in real time by individuals impersonating my financial institution. Key facts : XXXX. On XX/XX/year>, I received a text message appearing to be a fraud alert from XXXX regarding a XXXX XXXX transaction for {$3800.00}. XXXX. After I replied No, I received a call that displayed XX/XX/XXXXnumber on my caller ID ( spoofed ). XXXX. The callers identified themselves as XXXX fraud personnel and stated my account was compromised. XXXX. Relying on that representation, I followed their instructions under the belief I was securing my account. XXXX. As a result, {$1700.00} ( {$1500.00} and {$250.00} ) was transferred via XXXX XXXX in XXXX back-to-back transactions. XX/XX/XXXX conclusion equates system validation ( device/IP match ) with true authorization. That is incorrect in a social engineering event. The use of my device does not establish knowing, intentional consent when actions were induced by deception. I would like to clarify that at no point did I knowingly or willingly authorize these transactions. Any actions taken were done under the belief that I was communicating with my financial institution and attempting to protect my account. I was being actively deceived as part of a bank impersonation scam at the time. If any prior statement suggested that I authorized the transactions, it was not intended to indicate that I knowingly approved them, but rather that I was misled during the interaction. Additionally, the transactions occurred within XXXXXX/XX/XXXXof each other, which is inconsistent with my normal behavior and indicative of fraudulent activity. I request thatXX/XX/XXXXdetermination be reconsidered under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( Regulation XXXX ), taking into account that I did not provide knowing authorization for these transfers. I further request that XXXX provide the specific evidence relied upon in its decision, including : * Authentication logs and timestamps * Any records of customer confirmation they interpret as authorization * Details of how authorization was established in this case I have reported this incident promptly and can provide supporting documentation, including a police report, call logs, text records, and XX/XX/XXXX transaction records. Requested resolution : XXXX. Reconsideration ofXX/XX/XXXX determination XXXX. Reversal of the disputed transactions totaling {$1700.00} XXXX. Provision of the documentation used to deny my claim Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, XXXX XXXX [ XXXX ] XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation