Consumer complaint received 2025-05-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit 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: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Between late XXXX and early XX/XX/year>, I was the victim of a highly sophisticated fraud scheme involving impersonation, psychological manipulation, and coercion. Individuals posing as recruiters from a legitimate digital marketing firm used forged onboarding materials, spoofed email domains, and multi-channel communication across XXXX, XXXX, and email to build trust and credibility. These tactics were engineered to circumvent traditional fraud detection by mimicking real onboarding flows. 

Once trust was established, the fraud escalated dramatically. I was subjected to coercive threatsincluding explicit threats of XXXX against my familyif I did not carry out specific financial transactions. Under extreme emotional duress and with no understanding of the criminal intent behind these transactions, I made multiple large payments using my Capital One credit card, totaling over {$11000.00}. I received no benefit from these transactions and acted solely out of fear for my safety. 

I promptly reported this incident to the FBI via the Internet Crime Complaint Center ( IC3 Report # [ INSERT ] ) and to the FTC. I have retained extensive evidence : chat logs, forged documents, spoofed email headers, screenshots, IP data, and records of the threats made. I am also in the process of documenting the resulting emotional and psychological harm with a XXXX XXXX The distress included XXXX XXXX, XXXX, and ongoing anxiety. 

Capital One denied my dispute on the grounds of " authorization and/or participation. '' This determination is fatally flawed and violates federal protections under Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ). Capital One appears to rely on a superficial definition of authorizationi.e., that I entered the card detailswhile ignoring the context in which those actions occurred : under coercion and threat. 

As a legal principle, consent obtained under duress is not valid. Courts have consistently held that contracts or transactions performed under threatphysical or psychologicalare null and void. Regulation Z reflects this by requiring issuers to fairly investigate billing errors, including unauthorized use, even where the cardholder initiated the transaction but did so under fraud, manipulation, or duress ( 1026.13 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( ii ) ).

Furthermore, Capital Ones own Cardholder Agreement claims that cardholders are never liable for unauthorized charges, but it fails to define what unauthorized means in the context of social engineering, psychological coercion, or impersonation fraud. This ambiguity works against victims and leaves Capital Ones interpretation open to challenge under consumer protection law. 

Capital One may attempt to argue that the pattern or volume of transactions indicates participation or authorization. However, fear-based behavioral compliance does not equate to free and informed consent. A repeated action performed under sustained threat is a sign of coercionnot willful participation. The threats I received escalated over time and were both credible and specific. 

I also have no prior history of disputes or chargebacks, and this was an exceptional and involuntary event. I followed reasonable security precautions but was overpowered by deception, psychological conditioning, and explicit threats to my safety. 

I respectfully request CFPB assistance in compelling Capital One to conduct a second-level review of this case, with full consideration of the psychological and criminal dynamics involved. If Capital One maintains that these were valid transactions, I request a formal written explanation of how the bank interprets unauthorized use under both Regulation Z and its own internal dispute policiesspecifically in cases involving coercion, impersonation, and documented emotional duress. 

As a nationally chartered bank, Capital One is supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ). The OCC expects regulated entities to uphold a high standard of investigatory fairness and consumer protection. If the CFPB believes this case warrants further scrutiny, I request that it be referred to the OCC for independent review under 12 USC 1 et seq. 

This is not a case of buyers remorse or mistaken identity. This is a clear example of cyber-enabled coercion and human-targeted fraud. Capital Ones failure to acknowledge that coercion invalidates authorization violates the spirit and letter of federal consumer protections.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation