Consumer complaint received 2026-03-09 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: WY

Complaint narrative:
Subject : Procedural deficiencies, unsupported assertions, and contradictions in Wells Fargos Final Determination letter dated XX/XX/year>. Wells Fargos Final Determination letter contains multiple procedural errors and unsupported conclusions that prevent me from understanding the basis of the denial. The letter does not meet regulatory standards for accuracy, completeness, or transparency. 1. Unsupported claim of compelling evidence The letter states Wells Fargo found compelling evidence that I authorized the {$18000.00} withdrawal, yet no evidence is described or provided. No teller notes, authentication logs, ATM records, or surveillance were included. This violates my Right to Documentation, which the letter acknowledges was requested on XX/XX/year>. 2. Misrepresentation of teller interaction I did mention solar panels when I walked in, but the teller never asked the purpose of the withdrawal, never documented it, and Wells Fargo has not provided teller notes. The letter presents my offhand comment as if it were a documented, riskassessed justification. This is procedurally improper and misleading. 3. Contradictions regarding outbound calls The letter states the bank did not contact you and has no record of outbound calls. This contradicts prior statements made to me and to law enforcement. The letter does not reconcile these inconsistencies. 4. ATM investigation section contains false statements The letter claims Wells Fargo can not investigate the ATM deposit without the receiving account holders full name or account number. This is incorrect. Wells Fargo can investigate using ATM ID, date/time, electronic journal, cash cassette totals, and surveillance footage. A detective served a judgesigned search warrant, which requested these items, yet the letter avoids confirming whether the search warrant was received or processed. 5. Acknowledged legal requests but refuses to confirm receipt of the search warrant The letter states legal requests are handled by the Legal Summons & Subpoena Department but refuses to confirm whether the search warrant was received or processed. This contradicts statements made to the detective and prevents me from understanding whether the investigation was complete. 6. Factual errors and internal inconsistencies The letter contains multiple errors ( {$1800.00} deposit, ae, nonsensical phrasing ). These errors indicate the letter was not reviewed for accuracy and raise concerns about whether the underlying investigation was conducted properly. 7. Case closed despite unresolved issues The letter closes the case even though : my Right to Documentation request is still pending the detectives search warrant is still active no evidence was provided teller notes were not provided ATM investigation materials were not provided Closing the case under these conditions is premature and procedurally improper.

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