Consumer complaint received 2026-02-18 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint regarding Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.s handling of a reported criminal impersonation fraud involving my business account for XXXX XXXX XXXX. 

In 2025, my business sustained a loss of {$4500.00} after payments were induced through criminal impersonation and material misrepresentation. While I initiated the transactions mechanically, my authorization was obtained through deception and false identity. Upon discovering the fraud, I promptly reported the matter to Wells Fargo as fraud. 

Wells Fargo investigated and ultimately denied the claim. The bank stated that the transactions were authorized, that valid credentials were used, and that no bank processing error occurred. The claim was resolved as no-error-found. 

My complaint does not allege a transaction-processing malfunction such as duplicate posting, incorrect amounts, or system failure. Rather, it concerns Wells Fargos post-transaction fraud handling after criminal impersonation was reported. 

Specifically : The matter was treated under a framework focused primarily on authorization and credential usage rather than inducement by deception. 
Wells Fargo did not explain how it evaluated the impersonation and social-engineering elements I reported. 
The bank relied on conclusory statements that the transactions were authorized without addressing whether that authorization was obtained through material misrepresentation. 
The bank declined to identify the specific regulatory authority under which reimbursement is prohibited in cases involving authorized push payments induced by impersonation. 
The final denial letter stated that details of the internal investigative process are confidential and can not be disclosed. 

Additionally, during the review process, Wells Fargo communicated that additional time was needed to complete research, but subsequently issued a final denial before the extended review date had concluded. 

As a XXXX XXXX business owner, I also raised concerns regarding whether vulnerability factors were considered. Wells Fargo stated it complies with elder-protection laws but did not explain how such considerations were applied in this case. 

Wells Fargo has formally closed the case and declined reimbursement, stating it can not assume liability for authorized transactions even if the receiving party is later determined to be fraudulent. 

The central issue is whether Wells Fargo conducted a reasonable and documented fraud investigation once criminal impersonation was alleged, and whether reliance solely on authorization satisfies fair claim-handling standards in the context of social-engineering fraud affecting a small business account. 

In light of the improper classification of the reported fraud, the absence of a clearly articulated investigative analysis, and the resulting financial harm, I believe reimbursement of my documented {$4500.00} loss is warranted as appropriate remediation. 

I respectfully request that the CFPB review whether Wells Fargos handling of this matter complies with applicable standards governing fraud claim evaluation and whether the banks reliance on authorization alone constitutes an unfair or abusive practice in the context of reported criminal impersonation. 

Submitted by : XXXX XXXX Owner, XXXX XXXX XXXX Email : XXXX XXXX

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