Consumer complaint received 2022-08-16 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I have recently been a victim of identity theft and financial fraud. Over the past two months I have been defrauded of {$19000.00} through my Bank of America EDD Debit Card account. I did not authorize any of the transactions in question. I was not involved, in any way, in any of the transactions in question. I have submitted multiple formal claims of fraud with BoA. I have supplied BoA with information and documents that verify the fraudulent nature of each of the transactions in question. Despite this, BoA has so far denied all of my claims, repeatedly. Prior to XX/XX/XXXX, BoA had made no attempt to explain the basis of their decisions. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received a phone call from XXXX XXXX, assistant to XXXX XXXX, Resolution Specialist with Bank of America 's Regulatory Complaints department. XXXX XXXX was calling to inform me that XXXX XXXX had completed her response to my complaints filed with the CFPB on XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX, and XX/XX/XXXX. This conversation was the only contact I had received from XXXX XXXX, or her office, since receiving an introductory email from XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX. 

In that XX/XX/XXXX email, XXXX XXXX said that she would need to speak with me directly by phone, by XX/XX/XXXX. I subsequently phoned XXXX XXXX 's office multiple times over the the following week, leaving a message, including my call back number, every time. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I had not received any response from XXXX XXXX, so I phoned BoA to inquire about the situation, noting that XXXX XXXX had stated in her XX/XX/XXXX email that she would be required to speak with me directly by phone, by XX/XX/XXXX. I subsequently spoke with two different BoA representatives regarding this. The first was not familiar with any of the details of the email, and initially suggests that the email may be fraudulent. They then conferred with a colleague, who seemed to have the same suspicions, but who similarly could not provide a definitive answer. I then spoke with a different BoA representative who also could not provide a definitive answer as to the validity of the email. Her only suggestion is to forward the email to XXXX. 

When XXXX XXXX first phoned me on XX/XX/XXXX, I was very suspicious of the call, given what I had been told by BoA representatives on XX/XX/XXXX. But, after accepting XXXX XXXX as being a legitimate BoA representative, I listened to what he had to say. I also accepted to receive XXXX XXXX XXXX response via email. 

I then asked to file a formal complaint regarding XXXX XXXX making herself entirely unavailable to me ever since sending me her XX/XX/XXXX email. XXXX XXXX advised me that I would need to speak with a Regulatory Complaints department supervisor in order to accomplish that, and that he was taking the step required for me to do so. XXXX XXXX told me that I would receive a phone call from a Regulatory Complaints department supervisor within the next 48 hours. 

I have never been contacted again by anybody from BoA Regulatory Complaints department. 

Additionally, since receiving XXXX XXXX 'XXXX  response via email ( case number XXXX ), I have further grievances. The response I received is entirely insufficient. Even qualifying it as a " response '' is generous. In it, XXXX XXXX does not once respond to the identity theft I am experiencing and that is a clear and underlaying factor in each of transactions in question. 

Regarding claim XXXX XXXX XXXX for two fraudulent online transfers which occurred on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$6000.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX states, " the claim was denied due to there was no aggressive use of the card, ''. Without an explanation as to what BoA does consider " aggressive use of the card '', this sentence tells me nothing. As far as I'm concerned, transferring more than 1/3 of my total funds, qualifies as extrtxemely aggressive. Additionally, this logic is in willful ignorance of the fact that I have prefaced each of my complaints with the fact that I have recently been a victim of identity theft. In the supporting documents I have submitted to both BoA claims dept, and the CFPB, I have provided a timeline of events and numerous details which verify, I was not involved in any of the transactions in questions, including the fraudulent online transfers which occurred on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, totaling {$6000.00}. In her reasoning behind the denial of this same claim, XXXX XXXX continues, " the transactions were several days apart, no declined attempts due to insufficient funds were found, ''. Again, while these may be metrics used by BoA to gauge the potential for fraud, neither account for identity theft. The reasoning concludes, " the activity starts after the account received the deposits indicating knowledge of when the account receives funding '', which also tells me nothing. To what account, and to what deposits, are XXXX XXXX referring? And, how does my knowledge of when an account receives funding, make somebody else transferring {$6000.00} from my BoA account to theirs, not fraudulent? 

Additionally, XXXX XXXX provided a response to claim XXXX XXXX XXXX, for XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX cash withdrawal in the amount of {$5000.00} which occurred on XX/XX/XXXX. According to XXXX XXXX, that claim was, " denied due to the transactions listed is a XXXX XXXX Charge which was verified by identification during pick up by Bank of America before the transfer to XXXX XXXX. '' My first grievance is with XXXX XXXX 's poor diction, which makes this reasoning, as well as a majority of her letter, hard to follow. The only reason I understand what XXXX XXXX is referring to here, is due to my own research, which has lead to my understanding of several key details regarding this transaction. When XXXX XXXX states the transaction was, " verified by identification '', I know that she means the transaction involved someone claiming to be me going into a BoA office, presenting ID, and being verified in-person. What is not included, is the fact that, this took place at a BoA in XXXX, XXXX  XXXX at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I live in XXXX XXXX, XXXX  and have not left the state since XXXX. I was verifiably at home on XX/XX/XXXX. I was not in XXXX, XXXX  on XX/XX/XXXX. Also, not addressed XXXX XXXX 's response, is the fact that this Emergency Cash Withdrawal was collected at a XXXX XXXX in XXXX XXXX, XXXX, according to the XXXX XXXX receipt by XXXX XXXX XXXX. Again, I was verifiably at home on XX/XX/XXXX. I was not in XXXX, XXXX, nor was I in XXXX XXXX, XXXX. I was not involved in, not did I authorize this transaction. XXXX XXXX 'XXXX  letter does not account for, or respond to that detail, whatsoever. 

XXXX XXXX 'XXXX  response to my complaints, as well as BoA Claims department 's response to my claims, continually neglect to account for the fact that I have recently been a victim of identity theft, and have not responded to any of the supporting evidence with which I have provided them.

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 monetary relief