Consumer complaint received 2015-08-14 00:00:00
Product: Bank account or service — Checking account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals — 
Company: BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO
State: PR

Complaint narrative:
The XXXX is utilizing the banks of XXXX XXXX to wrongfully loot the accounts of taxpayers in the Treasury 's pursuit of efforts to mitigate their cash crisis. I have found XXXX acquaintances in my small circle of fellow taxpayers who have had similar situations this year. My accountant tells me it is not uncommon : Filing my PR income tax for XX/XX/XXXX, I went to the government office that collects taxes, fees, etc. and dutifully paid {$240.00} on time. The clerk stamped my return paid. My check was processed. But, on the XX/XX/XXXX, a certified letter was sent to me indicating that Treasury had contacted banks throughout PR to locate any accounts in my name and upon finding any, they were to freeze {$410.00} that they claimed I owed ( {$240.00} plus penalties & interest ). 

There was a hold my Banco Popular for that amount and a garnishment charge by the bank for {$50.00} on XXXX XXXX. The government phone number to call to discuss the situation, was never answered, so I went to my accountant to remedy it. He made a call to the tax office contact and said we needed proof of payment by XXXX XXXX, which I provided, and he sent to them. 

XXXX XXXX, I received another letter from the Treasury dated XXXX XXXX stating that a period of amnesty had been declared, and that if I paid the {$240.00} that they alleged I owed by XXXX XXXX, they would waive the penalties and interest. On XXXX XXXX a levy of {$410.00} was swept from my account. 

Apply the " smell '' test for fraud : The information for XX/XX/XXXX showing that I owed {$240.00} was only available from the form I submitted to them, and that form showed paid right on the face of it. 
That was seven years ago, and they never sent a request for more information or for a payment, or for anything else even remotely related. The first indication that they had an issue was a certified letter and a simultaneous impounding of my funds. 
They did n't answer their phones forcing me to hire a third party for assistance. 
Given the proof that they were in fact paid, they elected to take the money anyway, perhaps invoking the same defense that local thieves use " I needed it! '' This was all done during a period of amnesty which has precedence preventing this exact action. 

Government claims the right to waive due process and relieve us of our assets when certain bureaucrats deem it appropriate. The officials can go to a bank and impound accounts at will, and the banks are required to comply. As partners, the banks are awarded a garnishment fee of {$50.00} at the account holder 's expense. 

The PR government has shown an overwhelming tendency to create and attach new taxes to those who file properly rather than go after the 50 % who evade taxes because it is easier and quicker. They are using this approach to systematically and illegally raid smaller amounts from numbers of taxpayers to raise desperately needed cash. This is organized crime at the highest levels, and the naked boldness of their actions reflects the true lack of integrity within the government officials and the corruption of a system masked by incompetency. These FDIC banks are accomplices to this scheme. 

Many in XXXX refuse to open bank accounts because they do n't trust the bank, bankers, or the government. Banks are so controlled by Federal and XXXX governments that they are appendages. While the amount of money at play in my case ( under {$600.00} out of pocket ) is n't trivial, it serves as a warning about having one 's life savings in a bank account. Come the end of the month, PR will need a bunch more cash. Does that mean they will grab larger sums through their banking partners? It will cost a significant amount to sue to get my funds returned, and even when I win, they wo n't pay. 

Once the public discovers their new, current approach, who will dare leave their money in a bank?

Company public response: Company chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation