Consumer complaint received 2026-04-12 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: CITIBANK, N.A.
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Regulation E Violation and Falsified Fraud Investigation by Citibank Institution : Citibank , N.A . Account Type : Checking Account ( Now Closed by Bank ) Account Number : [ Ending in XXXX ] Disputed Amount : {$3500.00} Date of Unauthorized Transaction : XX/XX/year> Statement of Complaint : I am filing this complaint against Citibank for severe failures in their fraud investigation process, including providing a demonstrably false justification to deny a Regulation E claim for an unauthorized {$3500.00} electronic fund transfer. On XX/XX/year>, my checking account was compromised, and an unauthorized transfer of {$3500.00} was pushed via Citibanks Bill Payment Service to a merchant listed as " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' I have absolutely no relationship with this merchant, have never held an XXXX XXXX, and did not authorize this payment. I immediately reported this fraud to Citibank. The bank issued a provisional credit on XX/XX/year> but subsequently reversed it on XX/XX/year>, denying my claim. In their official denial letter, Citibank explicitly stated : " Our records show that you have consistently paid the merchant, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX through Citibank 's Bill Payment Service and used an established device to schedule the payment ... '' This statement is factually false. I am submitting attached photographic evidence of my continuous, complete Citibank Bill Pay history from XX/XX/year>, to XX/XX/year>. As the attached documentation proves, there are XXXX prior transactions to this merchant. The {$3500.00} theft on XX/XX/year> is the only time this merchant has ever appeared in my Bill Pay history. Citibank has fabricated a " consistent '' payment history to avoid liability for their failure to detect a high-dollar, anomalous transfer. Further proving that my account was subjected to a malicious Account Takeover ( ATO ), the bad actors retained access to my online banking profile and attempted a second attack in XX/XX/year>. A second, completely different XXXX XXXX account number was added to my Bill Pay payee list under this same checking account profile. I discovered this secondary intrusion and manually deleted the fraudulent payee to secure the account. Legitimate consumers do not cycle through multiple, different XXXX XXXX account numbers in a 30-day window ; this is a classic XXXX of a fraud ring. Because I deleted this fraudulent payee, it will not appear on a standard statement. Therefore, under Regulation E, I formally demand that Citibank produce the backend user audit logs showing the exact date, time, and IP address of when this second XXXX XXXX payee was added, which will further prove the account was compromised by a third party. Furthermore, Citibanks fraud detection system is highly inconsistent. Two months prior to this theft, Citibanks fraud department blocked a legitimate {$3900.00} debit cad payment I attempted to make to a law firm, despite my active attempts to verify my identity and authorize the charge. Yet, the bank allowed an entirely uncharacteristic {$3500.00} transfer to a brand-new payee to clear without any verification and then blamed me for the transaction. Citibank has since closed my checking account, locking me out from generating official PDF statements to further prove my case. However, the attached Bill Pay records definitively contradict the specific justification Citibank provided in their denial letter. Resolution Requested : 1. I demand Citibank immediately reopen this fraud investigation and reverse the {$3500.00} debit from my account, as their original denial was based on a factually false premise regarding my Bill Pay history. 2. Under Regulation E, I formally demand that Citibank produce all documents, uncensored transaction ledgers, backend user audit logs, IP addresses, and device identifiers they claim to have used in their investigation to reach their erroneous conclusion. 3. I request that regulators examine Citibank 's practice of utilizing boilerplate, false justifications to deny legitimate consumer fraud claims.

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