Consumer complaint received 2025-11-17 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: U.S. BANCORP
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
This is a supplemental complaint updating our two prior CFPB filings ( Case # XXXX and XXXX # XXXX ), which U.S. Bank closed without addressing key evidence of fraud. 

For context : the fraudulent activity began when an unknown individual accessed our U.S. Bank business account, added a fake employee ( XXXX XXXX ), changed our business address and phone number, and opened a credit cardall without any verification by U.S. Bank. The fraudster later initiated the first external XXXX debit ever on our account : a {$13000.00} transfer on XX/XX/year>, sent to a new and unfamiliar bank account. U.S. Bank denied our fraud claims on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX on the basis of consistent login patterns, despite internal records showing the opposite. 

Since our last complaint, law enforcement uncovered new evidence that directly contradicts U.S. Banks findings and shows that the XX/XX/XXXX transaction was not authorized and was part of a criminal scam. 

The most important new information is this : On XX/XX/year>, the receiving financial XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX that the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX debit was suspicious and returned {$3300.00} back to U.S. Bank ( the remaining balance in the fraud recipients account ). This fact was confirmed to us by XXXX XXXX of the XXXX Police Department ( Report # XXXX ). 
U.S. Bank never notified us of this recovery and never credited these returned funds back to our account. Instead, in its XX/XX/XXXX response to the CFPB, U.S. Bank inaccurately stated that the request to recover the funds from the receiving financial institution was " denied, which is factually incorrect based on the documentation the police obtained. 

Additionally, the police investigation found that the individual whose account received the funds is likely a romance-scam victim who was instructed by a third-party fraudster to receive and move stolen money. This further confirms that the XX/XX/XXXX payment order was not authorized by us and was part of a broader criminal scheme. 

This new evidence must be evaluated alongside the earlier facts already submitted to the CFPB : XXXX. The fraudster added a fake employee ( XXXX XXXX ), opened a credit card under our business name, and changed our address and phone numbernone of which U.S. Bank verified before processing. 

XXXX. The {$13000.00} debit on XX/XX/XXXX was the first external XXXX debit ever on our account, sent to a new and unfamiliar bank. 

XXXX. XXXX Banks internal log shows the debit originated from a new IP address in XXXX, Oregon and a new device first seen XX/XX/XXXX, contradicting their assertion that it came from a consistent login pattern. 

4. A failed {$8000.00} transfer from our personal account occurred on XX/XX/XXXX, but U.S. Bank did not notify usmissing a critical early warning sign of the account compromise. 

5. U.S. Bank only notified us of these changes by postal mail, which arrived after the fraud. This reliance on postal mail prevented us from identifying the fraud in time. 

6. U.S. Bank denied our fraud claims on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX without addressing any of these red flags. 

Despite clear evidence that the account was compromisedand despite now receiving a partial recovery from the receiving bankU.S. Bank continues to deny the claim and has not refunded any portion of the loss. 

We request that U.S. Bank to explain in writring : When did U.S. Bank receive the {$3300.00} returned from Minnesota XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX? 
Why were we not notified of this recovery? 
What is the basis for stating that the recovery request was denied, when law enforcement records show the opposite? 
Why have these recovered funds not been credited back to our account? 
What support is U.S. Bank relying on to characterize this as a consistent login despite the login originating from a new device in a new location that has no connection to our business or historic logins? 
Is it standard practice for U.S. Bank to notify customers of address or phone number changes only by postal mail, without any real-time alerts ( email, text, or in-app )? 
Is it standard practice to complete such changes without verifying them directly with the authorized signor or account holder? 
What support or verification did U.S. Bank rely on in asserting that XXXX XXXX was an authorized employee of XXXX XXXX XXXX? 

Total unreimbursed loss : {$13000.00}.

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