Consumer complaint received 2025-08-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Closing an account — Company closed your account
Company: SOFI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
State: MA

Complaint narrative:
Regulatory Complaint Regarding SoFi Bank, N.A.Unsubstantiated Fraud Accusation, Account Closure, and Failure to Consider Federal Authentication of USPS Money Orders Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Phone : XXXX Email : XXXX Respondent : SoFi Bank, N.A. ( National Bank ) Address : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Regulators Addressed : CFPB ; OCC ; FDIC Consumer Response Center ; State Banking Regulator ; FTC ( for UDAP concerns ) ; Specialty CRAs ( notification re potential inaccurate reporting ) Executive Summary I am submitting this complaint to report SoFi Bank, N.A.s repeated, unsubstantiated written assertion that I attempted to deposit altered money orders, its rejection of my deposits, immediate restriction and closure of my account, and its refusal to reconsider despite my providing primary, federal documentation validating the instruments. I obtained and paid for United States Postal Service ( USPS ) verification and a USPS General Accounting Branch letter confirming authenticity/validity consistent with good tender ; I also produced the original USPS point-of-sale receipts and USPS website verification. Notwithstanding this federal confirmation, SoFi issued at least XXXX separate letters on XX/XX/XXXX, stating as a fact that I deposited altered money orders, declined to produce the underlying evidentiary basis, and refused relief. This conduct raises significant consumer protection, unfair/deceptive acts and practices, and accuracy-of-reporting concerns. 

Background and Timeline - On or about XX/XX/XXXX, I deposited XXXX USPS money orders to my SoFi account in the amounts of {$400.00} and {$80.00}. 
- On XX/XX/XXXX, SoFi restricted my account citing deposit concerns. 
- On XX/XX/XXXX, SoFi closed my account citing irregular activity. 
- I immediately provided : ( 1 ) the original USPS point-of-sale receipt for Money Order Serial No. XXXX ( {$400.00} ) and ( 2 ) USPS website verification confirming issuance/status ; and ( 3 ) I paid USPS to conduct a formal inquiry/physical review, after which USPS issued a letter from its General Accounting Branch indicating the inquiry was processed and confirming validity consistent with good tender/replacement protocol if not cashed. 
- Despite this, on XX/XX/XXXX SoFi sent multiple near-identical letters stating as fact that I attempted to deposit XXXX altered money orders, refused reconsideration, and declined compensation, while providing no images, reason codes, vendor/forensic analysis, or policy basis. 

Key Facts and Federal Evidence- USPS Money Orders are federal instruments with prescribed verification procedures. See USPS guidance : Verifying U.S. Postal Service Money Orders XXXX XXXX XXXX 
- I provided the original USPS point-of-sale receipt for Serial No. XXXX and supporting documentation for the {$80.00} money order. 
- I used the federally maintained USPS verification website to confirm the instruments issuance/status. 
- I paid USPS for a formal inquiry/physical inspection ; USPS responded in writing from the General Accounting Branch confirming processing and indicating the items validity consistent with good tender and replacement if not cashed.

- Rather than engage these primary federal records, SoFi repeatedly asserted altered money orders without disclosing any specific alteration modality ( no claim of chemical wash, amount/payee alteration, serial number tampering, XXXX manipulation, or image manipulation ) and without furnishing images, return reason codes, or vendor tool outputs. 

A practical point : If I had altered these instruments, it would be irrational for me to pay the U.S. Government to physically inspect them and memorialize their status in writing. I did so precisely because the instruments were legitimate.

Consumer Harm - Account restriction and closure, loss of access to funds and basic banking functions.

- Written branding as engaged in criminal activity ( depositing altered instruments ) with reputational harm and emotional distress. 
- Out-of-pocket losses, costs to re-establish banking, transaction delays, and potential negative reporting to specialty consumer reporting agencies XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

Legal Concerns and Framework- Unfair or deceptive acts or practices : SoFis categorical fraud assertion, refusal to produce any substantiation, and disregard of federal USPS verification suggest unfair/deceptive conduct. See 15 U.S.C. 45 ( FTC Act Section 5 ) and the CFPBs UDAAP authority under 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq. 
- Truth-in-lending/consumer protection orientation : While my matter centers on deposits ( not credit disclosures ), the overarching federal consumer financial protection framework under 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq. is implicated. 
- Negotiable instruments and holder-in-due-course concepts under U.C.C. 3-302 underscore the importance of objective, verifiable authenticity rather than conclusory labels. Here, federal issuer ( USPS ) verification supports authenticity ; SoFis bare assertion of alteration without particulars contradicts the federal issuers records.

- SoFis advertising and consumer-facing commitments versus actual practices present potential deceptive conduct under 15 U.S.C. 45. 

Note : I recognize the banks contractual discretion to close accounts for irregular activity. That discretion does not authorize publication of false statements of criminality, nor does it excuse refusal to consider federal issuer verification. Even where banks rely on risk tools, conclusory, unsubstantiated fraud claimsstated as fact and repeatedcross the boundary into unfair/deceptive practices and risk inaccurate reporting to consumer reporting agencies. 

Separately, if compelled into arbitration by account terms, federal policy under XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX reflects rigorous enforcement of arbitration agreements. I am preserving all rights and remedies in any forum and advising regulators of systemic issues regardless of forum-selection mechanics. 

Consistent with this, I ask regulators to focus on two core issues : ( 1 ) SoFis repeated assertion of altered instruments as a matter of fact despite federal issuer verification to the contrary; and ( 2 ) SoFis refusal to produce the evidentiary basis or to reconcile its assertion with USPS confirmations.

Requested Regulatory Actions - Require SoFi to produce a complete evidentiary file supporting its altered determination, including : - All images/scans ( front and back ), raw and enhanced, with audit logs and chain-of-custody ; - Return reason codes and any ECCHO/Reg CC data ; - All third-party fraud tool outputs and risk scores used ( and the vendor identification ) ; - Any laboratory/forensic analysis indicating alteration modality ; - Internal policies and training defining altered versus damaged/faded instruments and SOPs for USPS money orders ; - Internal communications and notes referencing my deposits and the decision to use the term altered.

- Direct SoFi to reconcile its statements with USPS documentation ( point-of-sale receipt, website verification, and USPS General Accounting Branch letter following paid inquiry/inspection ). 
- Require XXXX to issue a written retraction/correction of its fraud/alteration accusation to me and to any third parties to whom the accusation was published, including regulators and any specialty CRAs, and to remove internal and external notations suggesting fraudulent conduct. 
- Ensure compliance with federal consumer protection standards under 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq. and 15 U.S.C. 45, including remediation and process improvements for evaluation of government-issued money orders that are water-damaged or faded but otherwise authentic and verifiable.

- If any negative specialty consumer reporting occurred, require reinvestigation and correction, providing me with all relevant notices and results.

Why Immediate Intervention Is Warranted - A federal issuer ( USPS ) verified issuance/status via the federal website and, after I paid for a formal inquiry, issued a written confirmation consistent with validity and good tender procedures. SoFi refused to engage this record and instead repeatedly labeled the instruments as altered without substantiation.

- Repetition of a categorical fraud assertionfive letters on the same datewithout any disclosed evidentiary basis is not a good-faith risk concern ; it is a definitive, unverified accusation that causes substantial consumer injury and is not outweighed by any demonstrated benefit. 
- Consumers can not reasonably avoid such injury, as the banks refusal to specify a basis or to consider federal verification leaves no meaningful avenue for correction. 

Attachments Offered Upon Request - USPS point-of-sale receipt for Money Order Serial No. XXXX ( {$400.00} ), dated XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). 
- USPS website verification screenshots confirming issuance/status. 
- USPS General Accounting Branch letter following paid inquiry/physical inspection indicating validity consistent with good tender/replacement protocol if not cashed. 
- SoFi letters dated XX/XX/XXXX repeating the assertion of altered money orders. 
- CFPB portal excerpts documenting SoFis Closed with explanation responses and refusal to provide evidence. 

Relief Requested - Supervisory direction requiring SoFi to substantiate its alteration claim with specific, verifiable evidence or to retract/correct its accusation. 
- Remedial relief including removal of any negative internal/external fraud flags, prevention/correction of any specialty CRA reporting, and compensation for documented losses flowing from the account restriction/closure and reputational harm. 
- Policy and training improvements ensuring government-issued money orders, including those with non-material water/fading damage, are evaluated against federal verification before any fraud designation is made. 

I certify the information provided is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I request that all regulators coordinate to ensure a prompt, evidence-based resolution and to prevent recurrence of unsubstantiated fraud labeling. 

Respectfully submitted, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  References - Statutes : U.C.C. 3-302 ; 15 U.S.C. 45 ; 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq. ; 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq. 
- Case : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( forum/arbitration enforcement note, rights preserved ). 
- USPS : Verifying U.S. Postal Service Money Orders : XXXX XXXX XXXX Citations : Cases : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX : U.C.C. 3-302 15 U.S.C. 45 12 U.S.C. 5481 et seq.

15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation