Consumer complaint received 2026-05-03 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this complaint under Regulation E and EFTA regarding two fraudulently induced unauthorized electronic fund transfers totaling {$2600.00} from my XXXX XXXX checking account via debit card through XXXX XXXX. Transaction XXXX : {$2000.00} to XXXX XXXX user XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, a stranger not in my contacts. Initiated XX/XX/year>, posted to XXXX XX/XX/year>. XXXX XXXX transaction number XXXX. Payment source confirmed as XXXX XXXX debit card ending XXXX. Transaction XXXX : {$600.00} to XXXX XXXX user XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, also a stranger not in my contacts. Initiated XX/XX/year>, posted to XXXX XX/XX/year>. XXXX XXXX transaction number XXXX. Payment source confirmed as XXXX XXXX debit card ending XXXX. The {$2000.00} transfer was fraudulently induced. My XXXX XXXX activity log shows that immediately before this transaction, the same user XXXX generated a failed {$2000.00} transaction labeled XXXX this helps - a deliberate manipulation designed to create the false impression that money was coming TO me, causing me to accidentally accept what was actually a payment request that sent {$2000.00} FROM my account. Critically, the memo note on the {$2000.00} transaction reads For for help - the double word For for is a typo that proves I did not compose or type this note. The requester pre-filled it. This is direct evidence I did not knowingly set up this payment. I did not authorize this transfer, received no goods, services, or benefit, and immediately requested a refund which XXXX actively and deliberately declined. The {$600.00} transfer occurred days later without my separate knowing authorization. Its memo note similarly reads For for helping me with mra - the same double For for typo pattern, again proving the note was pre-filled by the requester, not composed by me. XXXX XXXX also actively declined my refund request. Both recipients are strangers not in my contacts who deliberately refused to return the funds. Under Regulation E, once a consumer reports an unauthorized transfer, the burden shifts to the financial institution to demonstrate the transfer was authorized. XXXX has not met this burden. XXXX denied my dispute shortly after filing, citing only lack of information and that the transactions were authentic and genuine. This does not address whether I knowingly authorized these transfers, and does not satisfy XXXX 's burden under 12 CFR 1005.11. A technically processed transaction is not the same as a knowingly authorized one, especially where deliberate fraud is involved. XXXX also failed to provisionally credit my account during investigation as required under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ). When I called for an explanation XXXX refused to provide the basis for the denial, inconsistent with my rights under 12 CFR 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ). I can not locate the mailed denial letters and request XXXX produce all denial correspondence and all evidence relied upon.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation