Consumer complaint received 2022-07-28 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA
State: KY

Complaint narrative:
This complaint is being filed under Power of Attorney on behalf of consumer XXXX XXXX by XXXX XXXX of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX is a victim of identity fraud, and has retained the services of XXXX ( and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) and its employee XXXX XXXX to assist in resolving these matters. Thus far matters with a variety of banks and companies have been resolved. XXXX remains unresolved and uncooperative. The victim attemtped to report fraudulent charges on her account without success and XXXX XXXX has reported the fraudulent charges as well without success. XXXX XXXX in his report provided a POA, police report, vicitm affidavit, and other supporting documentation. XXXX XXXX reported the following charges as fraudulent. 

Charge : XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX, KY {$200.00} Charge : XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  # XXXX XXXX, KY {$200.00} Charge : XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX, KY {$200.00} Charge : XX/XX/XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX # XXXX XXXX, KY {$600.00} A plain reading would raise flags. Three charges of {$200.00} at the same XXXX XXXX location in the same day? Really? This didn't strike as fraud. Then the following week another {$600.00} transaction at the same XXXX XXXX Location? These are clear indicators or fraudulent transactions, but XXXX 's official written response is that the " merchant has provided information matching our records to verify the transactions as legitimate and not the result of fraud. '' The store 's records will match XXXX 's records but only demonstrate the card number was run. This does not mean that the victim was present or in any other way authorized or participated in the transactions. That the records of the transaction match in no way establish legitimacy. TO further the matter XXXX in a telephone conversation about this written response that the victim had with XXXX the victim was as advised by XXXX that they " had a recording of a phone call '' and that the " voice matched '' her voice. What does this mean? XXXX refused to provide details of this alleged call of when it happened, who it happened with, where the recording comes from, etc. So they claim transaction records match so its not fraud and then they have a recording of the call they have match to her voice ( presumably they employed and expert audio recording voice matching XXXX who advised them of this determination ) that also proves no fraud. 
XXXX 's claims are specious at best. XXXX XXXX for XXXX arrived at a completely different conclusion for charges at the SAME XXXX XXXX  location as well as other charges in the next town over that occurred in XX/XX/XXXX with patterns very similar to those that occurred on the XXXX  account ( dollar amounts and frequency along with locations ). 
XXXX XXXX and the victim XXXX XXXX have successfully resolved fraud and identity theft that occurred with XXXX XXXXXXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX. These matters began in XXXX of XXXX and continued into XXXX before actions by the victim and XXXX were able to bring a halt.

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