Consumer complaint received 2026-01-20 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Banking errors
Company: BANK OZK
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Continuing Statement of Facts and Request for Immediate Regulatory Intervention Following the filing of my initial CFPB complaint, Bank OZK has represented through regulatory channels that I am a victim of fraud. However, Bank OZK has operated in no manner consistent with that position, as the following facts, testimony, documentation, and evidence will show. 

Since the filing of my prior complaint, I have continued to make repeated and documented attempts to obtain information, clarification, and resolution through both Bank OZK customer service channels and the XXXX branch. These efforts are reflected in call logs showing numerous outgoing calls, many of them lengthy in duration. Despite this, Bank OZK has not returned my calls, has not provided meaningful follow-up, has not escalated my complaints, and has not reached out to me proactively in any way. 

The only communications I received during this time were negative and punitive letters, each of which arrived shortly after I pushed the matter, challenged the banks actions, or attempted to defend my account. At no point did Bank OZK reach out to explain the situation, provide documentation, or walk me through any legitimate investigative process. 

Throughout this entire period, my account remained restricted, and I had little to no access to : account details, transaction history, investigative findings, documentation supporting the banks claims, or any meaningful dispute mechanism. 

The limited information I was eventually able to obtain was extremely difficult to acquire and came only through persistence and outside channels, not through any cooperation by Bank OZK. 


XX/XX/XXXX Escalation and XXXX of Federal Student Aid The next major escalation occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, when I contacted the XXXX  branch at approximately XXXX XXXX to determine how I could access my Federal Student Aid funds, which had deposited into my account and were not supposed to be touched. 

During this call, I spoke with XXXX XXXX, a Client Service Specialist at the Bank OZK XXXX branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. I asked XXXX XXXX about my student aid funds. She responded in a dismissive and disrespectful tone and stated, verbatim, We took it, followed by We can do that. 

The amount taken was {$540.00}, which corresponds exactly to the amount reflected in Bank OZKs own written correspondence. This {$540.00} was not an overdraft. It was legitimate Federal Student Aid, which Bank OZK seized via setoff and applied toward the balance associated with an incorrectly deposited check, reducing the alleged balance to approximately {$9600.00}. 

I challenged this action and explained that Federal Student Aid funds are not supposed to be seized in this manner, particularly while an investigation is ongoing and while I had no access to information. The call lasted approximately XXXX XXXX, during which XXXX XXXX refused to provide documentation, refused to explain the legal basis for the XXXX, and remained argumentative. I was ultimately told that if I wanted further information, I would need to physically come into the branch. 

I did so the same day, arriving at the XXXX branch between approximately XXXX a.m. and XXXX a.m., which will be verifiable through bank security camera footage. 


In-Branch Interaction, Risk System Discussion, and Discovery of Concealed Information Upon entering the branch, my initial point of contact was again XXXX XXXX XXXX The discussion expanded to include XXXX XXXX, identified as a Consumer Banking Relationship Specialist and believed to be branch management. 

During this interaction, I confronted them regarding : the seizure of my Federal Student Aid funds, the improper handling of the investigation, the lack of transparency, the refusal to provide documentation or account access, and the banks attempt to shift blame onto me rather than treat the situation as a bank error, which it was.

I specifically raised the point that I believed the funds were mine not only based on my own claim, but because Bank OZKs own internal risk and fraud-detection systems initially treated the funds as legitimate. I explained that the deposit cleared through the banks systems, despite my account being restricted, which means : the transaction passed the banks automated checks, internal controls did not flag it as irregular at the time, and no immediate system-based fraud hold or rejection occurred.

I further explained that the suggestion that no systems or checks would have stopped the transaction if it were irregular is not credible. Based on my long-standing experience with other major financial institutions, even routine and repetitive bill payments can trigger : card locks, transaction reviews, temporary holds, and verification requirements.

The assertion that Bank OZKs systems would not detect or interrupt a truly irregular transaction contradicts normal banking practice and undermines the banks position. 

Both XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX were dismissive, evasive, and refused to meaningfully address these points. 

The tone of the interaction changed abruptly once I disclosed that I had obtained previously concealed factual information from outside the XXXX  branchspecifically, that : the name associated with the deposited check was not mine, and the identifying information was multiple digits off, not a minor discrepancy. 

Once XXXX XXXX realized I was aware of this information, she became visibly flustered and belligerent, raised her voice, and repeatedly demanded to know how I obtained that information, stating that whoever told you that is going to get fired. 

The concern expressed was not that a grave and egregious error had been made against a longtime customer, but that someone had disclosed the truth. This reaction strongly indicates that the XXXX branch had access to this information and chose not to disclose it, instead continuing to act against me while concealing material facts. 

This interaction, including XXXX XXXX statements and demeanor, will be verifiable via bank teller and lobby camera footage from the stated time window. 


Pattern of Unfair, Deceptive, and Punitive Conduct Despite representing to regulators that I am a victim of fraud, Bank OZK has engaged in a pattern of conduct that includes : treating me as a debtor rather than a fraud victim, seizing {$540.00} in Federal Student Aid funds via setoff, restricting my account and access to information, refusing to provide documentation or explanation, escalating the matter to account closure, escalating to collections activity, reporting or threatening to report me to XXXX, and doing all of the above before providing transparency or allowing a meaningful dispute.This conduct is inconsistent with how a financial institution is expected to treat a consumer it claims is a fraud victim. 


Harm, Reputational Damage, and XXXX Impact The consequences of Bank OZKs actions have been immediate and severe. 

As a direct result : I have been unable to open even a basic checking account, I have missed multiple financial and business opportunities, my long-standing banking history and financial reputation have been damaged, and my ability to utilize my VA home loan benefit has been significantly impacted.

XXXX  reporting, even when later marked resolved, remains inherently derogatory and continues to affect : future banking access, lending decisions, interest rates, and institutional trust. 

I am a XXXX veteran, and this situation has now directly impacted my federal XXXX benefits and student aid tied to XXXX status. The ongoing uncertainty, public embarrassment of being denied banking services, and constant fear that additional accounts may be shut down have aggravated multiple XXXX, including anxiety and paranoia. 

This is not speculative harm. It is ongoing and escalating. 


Request for Immediate Regulatory Intervention and Relief Bank OZK is fully aware of what is occurring, particularly at the XXXX branch, and has continued its course of action despite knowing the harm being caused. I am therefore requesting immediate regulatory intervention before cascading or permanent damage is done. 

I respectfully request : immediate suspension, correction, or suppression of all adverse reporting, including XXXX  ; reversal and full accounting of the {$540.00} in Federal Student Aid funds seized via setoff ; written reconciliation and documentation supporting the alleged balance ; disclosure of investigative findings and transaction-level records ; independent review of the XXXX branchs conduct ; and oversight to prevent further deceptive, retaliatory, or punitive actions.

I am seeking assistance through multiple regulatory agencies, as this matter implicates unfair and deceptive practices, improper handling of federal benefits, and disability-related harm. 

Given the irreversible nature of reputational and reporting damage once it spreads, immediate intervention is necessary, not delayed review.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation