Consumer complaint received 2024-12-29 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Problem with a lender or other company charging your account — Transaction was not authorized
Company: PNC Bank N.A.
State: WA

Complaint narrative:
XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX Dear CFPB, On XX/XX/2024 I deposited a check ( # XXXX ) in the mail from my PNC Personal Checking Account. The check was made out to the United States Treasury in the amount of {$XXXX}. The check as cashed for that amount on XX/XX/2024, and I assumed that everything was fine. I was first notified by the IRS that I still owed them the money on XX/XX/2024 by mail. I immediately contacted PNC bank and requested an image of the cashed check and received that 48 hours later. Upon opening the image I saw that the check had been altered and cashed by a XXXX  XXXX XXXX for the same amount I had made the check out to the IRS for. The check was not endorsed by anyone, and no personal identifying information is on the back of the check. This represents non-compliant bank procedures and the bank made critical errors that led to my funds not being protected as they are legally obligated to do as a regulated entity. I immediately contacted PNC Bank and reported the fraud and theft. They mailed me an affidavit, which I completed and had notarized and reported to them on XX/XX/2024 ( Reference # XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX ). They received it on XX/XX/2024. On XX/XX/2024 they contacted me and informed me that my case had been denied and that the case was considered closed on their end, due to that fact that it was not reported within 30 days of the theft occurring, which they are claiming is their policy. 

I am specifically documenting when the IRS notification was received, as this represents the first reasonable opportunity I had to discover the fraud. This is important because under UCC 4-406 ( f ), the one-year period begins when the fraud was reasonably discoverable, not necessarily when it occurred.

Under UCC 4-406 ( e ), a bank 's failure to exercise ordinary care in paying an item shifts liability away from the customer. In this case, multiple required security measures for a high-value item appear to have been bypassed : 1. The check was processed without a valid endorsement XXXX. The {$23000.00} amount should have triggered enhanced security review under XXXX requirements XXXX. Electronic deposit of an altered check of this size should have required manual review and verification XXXX. No verification of deposit authority appears to have been performed '' Furthermore, as this check was stolen from the mail, I had no reasonable opportunity to detect this fraud before it occurred. Under UCC Article 4, time limitations for fraud reporting do not apply when : - The customer could not reasonably have detected the fraud - The bank failed to exercise ordinary care - Required security protocols were not followed '' I will be filing formal complaints with the police, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX  I appreciate any assistance you are able to provide here. 

Thanks, XXXX XXXX XXXX

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation