Consumer complaint received 2026-05-06 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint as a follow-up to a previously closed complaint [ XXXX ] against Wells Fargo Bank. I am refiling because Wells Fargo 's official CFPB response contained a material factual error that invalidates their denial, and because my original filing was brief and unaccompanied by documentation. I am now providing the full picture with supporting attachments. I. WHAT HAPPENED THE FRAUD In XX/XX/XXXX, I was targeted by a sophisticated multi-layered employment fraud scheme. I was referred by a known contact to " XXXX XXXX, '' presented as a legitimate employer ( XXXX XXXX ) seeking an executive assistant immediately. I submitted my resume, completed a job application, and communicated via email and text throughout what appeared to be a standard professional hiring process. XXXX XXXX informed me he would be sending two cashier 's checks digitally to fund my home office setup, representing this as standard onboarding practice. I deposited both checks through Wells Fargo 's mobile deposit application. Wells Fargo accepted both deposits and made the funds available with no hold, no flag, and no warning. I relied on my bank 's acceptance of those deposits as confirmation of their legitimacy a reasonable expectation for any consumer. Based on the available funds and direct instructions from my purported employer, I made three payments to " XXXX XXXX, '' represented as a company-partnered supplier : XX/XX/XXXX {$400.00} via XXXX XX/XX/XXXX {$430.00} via XXXX XXXX ( debit card ) XX/XX/XXXX {$400.00} via XXXX XXXX ( debit card ) Total : {$1200.00} These were not discretionary purchases. They were payments made under explicit fraudulent instruction, funded entirely by deposits Wells Fargo had accepted and cleared. Two days after the deposits, Wells Fargo closed my checking account of nearly 30 years citing " altered checks '' with no prior warning, no hold notice, and no guidance. At that point, {$1200.00} in payments had already been made because Wells Fargo had made those funds available without detection. The supplies I paid for were never delivered. All parties XXXX XXXX, the referring contact, and XXXX XXXX ceased all communication. Every identity involved was fabricated. II. WELLS FARGO 'S ROLE IN THIS LOSS Wells Fargo 's mobile deposit system accepted and cleared two altered cashier 's checks without detection and made those funds available to me. Had Wells Fargo 's system flagged or placed an extended hold on those instruments, I would not have made a single payment. The bank 's failure to detect altered instruments at the point of deposit was a direct and proximate contributing cause of my total financial loss. This is not addressed anywhere in Wells Fargo 's response. III. THE DISPUTE PROCESS FAILED ME I filed a dispute on XX/XX/XXXX. The claim was opened and closed the same calendar day with no outreach to me, no review of my submitted documentation, and no written denial explanation. On XX/XX/XXXX, I spent the majority of the day on calls with at least eight Wells Fargo representatives, each of whom confirmed the claim was still open. It closed immediately following those calls, just after XXXX PST. I also submitted comprehensive documentation email correspondence, text message screenshots, and payment records none of which was reviewed before closure. A same-day closure without investigation, without provisional credit, and without written denial explanation does not satisfy the requirements of a reasonable investigation under Regulation E, 12 CFR Part 1005.11. Wells Fargo subsequently conducted an ECMO review in response to my escalation, which also failed to correct the errors identified below. IV. WELLS FARGO 'S CFPB RESPONSE CONTAINS A MATERIAL FACTUAL ERROR This is the most critical issue in this refiled complaint. Wells Fargo 's official CFPB response references " two XXXX XXXX transfers totaling {$830.00}. '' A Wells Fargo claims representative also stated repeatedly by phone on XX/XX/XXXX around XXXX PST that the transactions could not be reversed because they were made via " XXXX XXXX. '' This is factually incorrect. I have attached transaction screenshots that clearly show both payments were processed directly from my Wells Fargo debit card not from an XXXX XXXX account. XXXX XXXX and debit card transactions are governed by different dispute frameworks, different chargeback rights, and different regulatory standards under Regulation E. If Wells Fargo investigated and denied these transactions under an XXXX XXXX classification, they investigated the wrong transaction type entirely. A denial built on a misclassified transaction is not a valid denial it is evidence that no proper investigation occurred. I am requesting that the CFPB note this factual error as part of Wells Fargo 's official response record and require Wells Fargo to reinvestigate under the correct transaction classification. V. WELLS FARGO 'S " NO FRAUD INDICATORS '' FINDING IS UNSUPPORTED Wells Fargo 's response states their investigation found " no indicators present confirming fraud. '' I submitted email correspondence, text message screenshots, and payment records documenting every stage of the fraudulent scheme fabricated employment, fraudulent cashier 's checks accepted by Wells Fargo 's own system, explicit payment instructions, promised delivery that never occurred, and complete disappearance of all parties. Wells Fargo 's response does not identify what evidence they reviewed, what investigative standard was applied, or why fabricated professional identities, altered financial instruments cleared by their own bank, and a vanishing supplier do not constitute fraud indicators. A conclusion of " no fraud '' that does not engage the submitted evidence is not an investigation it is a predetermined outcome. VI. WELLS FARGO DIRECTED ME TO CONTACT THE MERCHANT MULTIPLE TIMES Wells Fargo 's response and their Executive Office representative advised me to " resolve this with the merchant directly. '' This advice confirms that Wells Fargo either did not review my submitted documentation or chose to ignore it entirely. There is no legitimate merchant to contact. Every party involved the employer, the referral, and the supplier was a fabricated identity operating as part of a coordinated fraud scheme. Directing a documented fraud victim to contact a fictitious scammer is not a resolution. It is a deflection that further demonstrates the inadequacy of Wells Fargo 's investigation. VII. THE AUTHORIZATION DEFENSE DOES NOT APPLY Wells Fargo 's position is that I authorized these transactions and therefore bear full liability. Authorization requires informed and voluntary consent. My consent was obtained entirely through fabricated employment, false professional identities, and fraudulent financial instruments. There was no legitimate transaction every element was manufactured to deceive me. Authorization induced by fraud is not valid authorization. The CFPB 's own guidance recognizes that " authorized '' does not mean " voluntary and informed '' in the context of scam-induced payments. Wells Fargo has not addressed this distinction in any of their responses. VIII. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED -Wells Fargo 's official CFPB response referencing XXXX XXXX misclassification -Debit card transaction screenshots rebutting the XXXX XXXX classification -Email correspondence documenting the fraudulent hiring process and payment instructions -Text message screenshots documenting payment instructions and delivery promises XXXX and XXXX XXXX payment confirmations showing dates, amounts, and recipient Message documenting promised check reissuance after account closure Active complaint reference numbers : FBI IC3 [ XXXX ], FTC [ XXXX ] , OCC [ filed XX/XX/XXXX , awaiting case # ], California DFPI [ XXXX ]. I have been a Wells Fargo customer for nearly 30 years with no prior fraud history. I am requesting a thorough, lawful reinvestigation and the reimbursement I am entitled to under federal consumer protection standards.

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