Consumer complaint received 2025-11-25 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, THE
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX : Huntington Bank Subject : Misclassification of fraud-induced transfers ; failure to apply EFTA / Reg E ; refusal to investigate new evidence ; improper denial of reimbursement ; bank instructing customer to work with scammers I. Introduction and Overview I am filing this complaint because Huntington Bank has repeatedly refused to properly investigate a fraud-related loss involving a deceptive online job scam. Instead of treating the situation as a fraud-induced unauthorized electronic fund transfer ( EFT ) under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E, the bank incorrectly labeled the case as a merchant dispute, closed the case without evaluating new evidence, and told me repeatedly that I authorized the transfers even though I was induced to make them through misrepresentation, deception, and illegal instructions from scammers. 

Both XXXX and XXXX, who acted only as payment intermediaries, concluded their own investigations and confirmed that the funds were transferred to a scam XXXX  address and are irretrievable. The actual recipient was not XXXX nor XXXX, but a fraudulent organization posing as XXXX XXXX, which impersonated a legitimate XXXX XXXX  company. 

Because Huntington refuses to reclassify the dispute under EFTA despite the evidence, I am seeking CFPB assistance to require a lawful review.

II. How the Fraud Occurred 1. I was recruited into a fraudulent remote job scheme I responded to what I believed was a legitimate remote position connected to XXXX ( a real company, but this was an impersonation scam ). The scammers presented the opportunity as a paid online review job where I would : complete review tasks to earn compensation, deposit my own funds into a company working account, and withdraw my funds ( plus compensation ) after tasks were completed. 

I was repeatedly assured by the scammers that all deposited funds remained my own, stored in my working account, and that I could withdraw them at any time.

2. The job turned out to involve illegal activities Through multiple screenshots, I demonstrated : I was instructed to write fake positive reviews for destinations I have never been to. 
I was told workers provide positive reviews to enhance popularity. 
When I questioned the legality ( FTC violation ), the scammers refused to answer and told me to complete the tasks. 
When I filed a police report, my mentor disappeared from the chat group entirely. 

Because I hold a XXXX XXXX, I can not engage in illegal activity or any job involving counterfeit endorsements.

III. The Funds Transfer Process The scammers required me to move funds in the following forced sequence : 1. Deposit money into my bank account and send it to XXXX. 
2. Convert funds inside XXXX to XXXX. 
3. Transfer the XXXX  to XXXX. 
4. Send the XXXX  to a XXXX working address provided only by the scammers. 

I had no access to any final receiving wallet. The scammers controlled the endpoint. 

4. I attempted to withdraw my funds Once my internal XXXX balance appeared positive, withdrawal was denied, and I was told I could not access my funds unless I : added more money, and completed additional tasks ( which were illegal paid reviews ). 

Screenshots show support repeatedly dodging legality questions and urging me to send more deposits. 

This matches the DOJ definition of a progressive deposit scam. 



IV. Confirmation From XXXX XXXX XXXX Both entities completed investigations showing : the funds were transferred fully out of my wallets, I no longer have access to them, the receiving address belongs to a scammer, and no funds remain with XXXX  or XXXX. 

Both stated the funds are considered stolen and irrecoverable. 

This proves unequivocally that the final transfer was to a scammer not a merchant. 



V. Huntington Banks Mishandling of the Case 1. The bank repeatedly misclassified this as merchant dispute Despite providing : police reports, screenshots, confirmations from the XXXX  services, and evidence of deception and coerced transfers, Huntington classified the claim as : Cardholder willingly sent funds This is a merchant dispute. 

This is factually and legally incorrect. 

2. Huntington refused to review new evidence On a recorded call, Huntington stated : The case is already reviewed for accuracy. 
No new information will change the decision. 

Despite the fact that I did submit significant new information. 

3. The bank told me I needed to work with the merchant The representative read from the investigators notes : We encourage you to contact the merchant directly to resolve the issue. 

The merchant in this case is the scammer who already stole my funds and requires me to commit further illegal acts to pursue retrieval. 

When I explained this, the representative stated : That is what the investigators are saying you need to do. 

This placed me in the impossible position of being told by my bank to interact with criminals. 



VI. Required Legal Analysis Under EFTA / Reg E CFPBs own FAQ and supervisory guidance establish that : 1. Fraud-induced transfers are NOT authorized.

CFPB : Fraud or coercion that causes a consumer to initiate a transfer does not make the transfer authorized.

2. Authorization requires valid intent and understanding.

Scammers misrepresented the purpose of the transfers, making any authorization invalid.

3. Negligence can not be used to impose liability on the consumer. 
CFPB : Negligence by the consumer can not be used as the basis for liability. 
4. Banks must investigate using ALL available evidence.

Huntington closed the case while refusing to review new evidence. 
5. XXXX scams fall under Reg E when banks fail to prevent or properly classify unauthorized transfers. 

Because I was deceived into believing the funds were going into my own working account and would be fully retrievable, I did NOT authorize transfers to a scammer.

VII. Harm Suffered Significant financial loss Emotional distress due to being told to work further with criminals Risk to my professional license if I engage in illegal review activity Loss of trust in my bank Ongoing fear of retaliation or further scam contact VIII. What I Am Requesting from CFPB I respectfully request that the CFPB require Huntington Bank to : 1. Reopen my dispute under the correct legal standard ( fraud-induced unauthorized EFT ).

2. Review all evidence submitted, including police reports, chats, crypto tracing information, and screenshots.

3. Provide reimbursement as required under EFTA / Reg E, since I did not authorize transfers to the actual recipient. 
4. Explain why the bank repeatedly closed the case without investigating new evidence.

5. Cease instructing me to interact with scammers in order to retrieve funds.

IX. Conclusion This situation falls squarely within the protections of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. I initiated these transfers only because I was misled by criminals posing as a legitimate employer. The banks refusal to apply Reg E violates CFPB guidance and leaves me without recourse. 

I request immediate regulatory intervention. 

Below is a complete list of the deposits I was induced to make as part of the fraud scheme. These were not payments for goods or services ; they were deposits the scammers told me were going into my internal working account under the false promise of full withdrawal and compensation. These transfers ultimately went to a fraudulent crypto address controlled by scammers impersonating a legitimate employer. 

XX/XX/year> {$550.00} Deposited USD ( from XXXX ) XX/XX/year> XXXX XXXX  ( valued at {$850.00} ) Deposited from XXXX XXXX XX/XX/year> {$760.00} Deposited USD ( # XXXX ) {$5400.00} Deposited USD ( # XXXX ) {$4500.00} Deposited USD ( from XXXX XXXX ) XX/XX/year> {$150.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$200.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX  ) {$150.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$2900.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$600.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX ) {$600.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX ) {$500.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$600.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX ) {$400.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX  ) XX/XX/year> {$1700.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$600.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX ) {$500.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) {$600.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX ) {$400.00} Deposited USD ( XXXX XXXX ) XXXX Deposits ( Converted & forwarded per scammers instructions ) XXXX XXXX ( valued at {$240.00} ) Deposited from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( valued at {$260.00} ) Deposited via XXXX XXXX  These deposits represent the full sequence of funds I was manipulated into sending through XXXX XXXX XXXX to an external wallet belonging to the scammer. XXXX and XXXX have confirmed the funds are no longer in my possession and were transferred out to a fraudulent address. None of these transfers were authorized to the true recipient, making them fraud-induced unauthorized electronic fund transfers under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA / Reg E ).

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief