Consumer complaint received 2025-12-03 00:00:00
Product: Credit reporting or other personal consumer reports — Credit reporting
Issue: Incorrect information on your report — Information belongs to someone else
Company: MARINER FINANCE, LLC
State: DC

Complaint narrative:
I serve as Attorney-in-Fact for XXXX XXXX XXXX under a valid Limited Power of Attorney. Pursuant to XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, I am obligated to act with care, competence, diligence, loyalty, and exclusively in the best interests of my principal. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I filed CFPB Complaint XXXX against Mariner Finance , LLC on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX That complaint included a Limited Power of Attorney that contained technical defects in form. A corrected Limited Power of Attorney dated XX/XX/XXXX has since been executed that complies with XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The corrected LPOA is attached to this complaint and supersedes all previous versions. 
This complaint incorporates all factual allegations from the original XX/XX/XXXX complaint and documents Mariner Finance 's XX/XX/XXXX response, Mariner Finance 's failure to rebut the certified public records documenting void corporate infrastructure, and Mariner Finance 's continued violations. 
Mariner Finance , LLC received CFPB Complaint XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX and responded on XX/XX/XXXX through XXXX XXXX XXXX Assistant Vice President, Customer Relations. 
Mariner Finance , LLC is a creditor and furnisher as defined in 15 U.S.C. 1681s-2. Mariner originated an unsecured installment loan to XXXX XXXX XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( account number XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) with a high credit amount of {$1200.00}. Mariner reports this account to XXXX XXXX  and XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
The loan Mariner originated never legally existed. The original loan was underwritten using XXXX or XXXX credit scoringinfrastructure derived from void contracts with a legally defunct corporation. The evidence is as follows : On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX formally reserved the name " XXXX  XXXX '' with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX preemptive action demonstrating clear evidence of premeditation to evade legal accountability for mounting FTC antitrust charges. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX was incorporated in XXXX  as a separate entitya deliberate act by XXXX XXXX XXXX to manipulate the corporate record and fabricate a false appearance of continuity. This incorporation was never intended to operate independently but to act as a placeholder for XXXX 's later filings. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX amended its Articles of Incorporation to adopt the name " XXXX  XXXX '' a superficial rebranding designed to distance the company from its tarnished reputation. 
On the same day, XX/XX/XXXX, the XX/XX/XXXX XXXX  XXXX ( the separate entity incorporated 11 months earlier ) changed its name to " XXXX XXXX XXXX. '' This contradictory and circular name swap created two conflicting corporate identities existing in tandemfor a split second on XX/XX/XXXX, two entities were both called " XXXX  XXXX '' simultaneouslyan unlawful duplication of names in direct violation of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( c ) ( XXXX ), which required that corporate names " be distinguishable upon the records of the XXXX  of XXXX  from the name of any other corporation. '' Both filings falsely certified under 22-302 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( 1975 ) that the name was " available for use. '' Under 22-504 ( a ) ( 1975 ), any charter " issued or any action taken by the XXXX of XXXX in reliance upon any false, misleading or fraudulent statement or certificate filed with him shall be null and void ab initio . '' The XXXX  of XXXX  accepted both amendments. Both charters became null and void ab initio the instant the second filing was accepted. From XX/XX/XXXX forward, there has been no lawful XXXX  entity named " XXXX  XXXX '' capable of entering contracts. Under 22-1421 ( a ) ( now recodified as O.C.G.A. 14-2-401 and 14-2-501 ), a dissolved or non-existent corporation can not lawfully contract. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX executed the Analytic Products and Services Master Contract ( Contract No. XXXX ). This agreement authorized XXXX XXXX to create and market consumer scoring products using XXXX  's credit bureau database. 
The contract granted XXXX XXXX direct access to XXXX  's entire credit file system, including trade line data, inquiry data, public records, and demographic information. XXXX XXXX was authorized to use this data to build " Scorecards '' numerical grading tables assigning values to consumer attributes, which were then combined to produce a consumer " Score. '' The contract also provided that all scoring models developed would be for the sole use of XXXX, integrated into a jointly developed " Software Facility. '' These products would be sold to XXXX  's subscribers, with profits shared between the two corporations. 
This agreement formalized the mechanism for mass consumer scoring, converting personal financial records into a quantifiable risk-assessment product sold to third parties, laying the commercial foundation for widespread adoption of credit scoring systems nationwide. 
The defect : By XXXX, XXXX  's corporate existence was already nullified by the unlawful name-swapping on XX/XX/XXXX. There was no lawful XXXX  entity named " XXXX  XXXX '' capable of entering contracts. The XXXX agreement was void ab initio. 
In XXXX, XXXX XXXX and XXXX unveiled a new, generic credit bureau model that would soon become the industry standard. This modelseparately branded as Beacon for XXXX, XXXX for XXXX XXXX XXXX, and the XXXX XXXX XXXX Modeltranslated risk rankings into numbers ranging from XXXX to XXXX. This systematic deployment propagated the void XXXX contract across all three major credit reporting agencies, establishing the XXXX scoring range as the universal standard for consumer creditworthiness assessment in the United States. Every lender, every mortgage originator, every auto finance company, and every credit card issuer adopted this scoring system derived from XXXX XXXX XXXX 's void XXXX contract with the legally defunct XXXX  XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, the three major credit reporting agencies created XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  File Number XXXX ) with XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ), and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 25 % ) as owners. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, OLDE 's formation was void ab initio because XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX did not legally exist. 
OLDE serves as the managing entity for XXXX, the centralized platform processing all consumer disputes under FCRA. Beginning XX/XX/XXXX, all three major credit reporting agencies required data furnishers to process disputes exclusively through XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX directly participated in the formation of XXXX XXXX XXXX, a domestic limited liability company created in XXXX  ( File Number XXXX ). 
XXXX 's third purported owner, " XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' never lawfully existed due to fatal defects in XXXX  's corporate lineage stemming from the XX/XX/XXXX violations. Under 6 Del. C. 18-201, an LLC must be formed by valid members. Because XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX did not legally exist, XXXX 's ownership structure was void, and the LLC itself was statutorily defective from inception. XXXX 's formation was void ab initio. 
The acquisition, use, and monetization of XXXX XXXX XXXX 's personal identifiersSocial Security number, legal name, address, and historical payment datafor the purpose of generating and selling XXXX and XXXX credit scores constitutes the unlawful appropriation of identity to create a thing of value. This conduct meets the definition of identity theft under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ). The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets derived from void contracts and corporate shells. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrumentthe Mariner Finance loanthat generated {$1200.00} in principal, ongoing interest revenue for Mariner Finance , LLC, and securitization proceeds through Mariner Finance XXXX XXXX ( XXXX  ). 
Under 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ), the unauthorized use of another person 's means of identification in connection with the receipt of any thing of value is identity theft. The resulting credit scores functioned as derivative, revenue-producing assets. XXXX XXXX XXXX 's identity was used to fabricate a financial instrumentthe Mariner Finance loanthat continues to generate revenue through monthly payments, interest charges, and securitization cash flows to investors who purchased asset-backed securities issued by XXXX. 
Mariner Finance operates a securitization program through XXXX, which has issued over {$2.00} billion in asset-backed securities since XXXX. XXXX XXXX alone securitized {$300.00} million backed by over XXXX consumer loans originated between XXXX and XXXX, managed by XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX Unsecured installment loans like XXXX XXXX XXXX 's XX/XX/XXXX origination fit the exact collateral profile : loans originated through Mariner 's branch network, underwritten using credit scores from XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX XXXX, with original terms averaging 45 months. The {$1200.00} loan extended to XXXX XXXX XXXX was pooled as collateral backing registered securities sold to institutional investors under false representations that the underlying credit scoring infrastructure was lawfully derived and that the collateral loans were valid, enforceable obligations. 
Every instrument executed by " XXXX  XXXX '' after XX/XX/XXXX is contaminated by identity falsification, false representation of the legal person signing, concealment of the true corporate actor, and use of documents created through deception. This conduct constitutes : 18 U.S.C. 1001 ( false statements and documents ) 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) ( identity theft ) 18 U.S.C. 1341 ( mail fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1343 ( wire fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 1956 ( money laundering of proceeds derived from fraud ) 18 U.S.C. 371 ( conspiracy to defraud ) 15 U.S.C. 77q ( a ) and 78j ( b ) ( securities fraud ) 7 U.S.C. 6 ( c ) ( 1 ) and 9 ( 1 ) ( commodities fraud ) Mariner Finance , LLC is attempting to enforce a loan that does not legally exist. This violates : TILA 1638 Disclosure requirements for void instruments FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) Furnishing false information derived from identity theft XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX et seq. Licensing requirements for enforcement of void instruments On XX/XX/XXXX, Mariner Finance received CFPB Complaint XXXX containing : Certified XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX records documenting XXXX  's XXXX corporate defects XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX filings documenting OLDE 's void formation ( XXXX ) and XXXX 's void formation ( XXXX ) The XXXX Analytic Products and Services Master Contract ( No. XXXX ) SEC tip/complaint XXXX  XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) CFTC tip/complaint XXXX  XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) XXXX Office of the Attorney General complaint XXXX The Illegality of XXXX and XXXX ( comprehensive legal analysis ) Exhibit Verification Index with blockchain verification Mariner Finance 's XX/XX/XXXX response completely ignored the evidentiary record. Mariner claimed : " Reporting accurate data is an essential obligation of data furnishers under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mariner makes accurate account information available to the XXXX XXXX XXXX ( " XXXX  '' ) on a monthly basis ... Because the information furnished by Mariner as it pertains to XXXX XXXX 's account is accurate, Mariner is unable to accommodate his request to remove or alter the information. '' Mariner 's response addressed payment timing but provided zero rebuttal to : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX certified records documenting XXXX  's void corporate existence The void XXXX XXXX contract The void OLDE formation The void XXXX formation The identity theft framework under 18 U.S.C. 1028 ( a ) ( 7 ) The UCC void instrument analysis The securities fraud implications of pooling void loans into XXXX The {>= $1,000,000} UCC lien consequence for obstruction Under UCC 1-308 ( a ), when a party receives notice of a commercial claim and fails to respond or rebut within a reasonable timeframe, that silence operates as acceptance of the claim for purposes of commercial law.

Mariner Finance is reporting loan account data to consumer reporting agencies based on a void instrument derived from identity theft. Upon receipt of CFPB Complaint XXXX, Mariner Finance became prohibited from reporting any information relating to this account pursuant to FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ). The statute states : " No person shall furnish any information relating to a consumer to any consumer reporting agency if the person knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the information results from identity theft. '' This is an absolute prohibition. By receipt of the XX/XX/XXXX complaint, Mariner Finance possessed actual knowledge that the credit score used to underwrite the XX/XX/XXXX loan was derived from void contracts with legally nonexistent entities. 
FCRA 605B requires consumer reporting agencies to notify furnishers when information is blocked due to identity theft. Under FCRA 1681s-2 ( a ) ( 6 ), furnishers receiving such notice are absolutely prohibited from continuing to report that information. The notification mechanism operates exclusively through XXXX. 
Block Notifications are transmitted from consumer reporting agencies to data furnishers via XXXX Block Rescission Requests are submitted by data furnishers through XXXX  to challenge identity theft determinations. All communication regarding blocked tradelines flows through XXXX. The entire statutory mechanism for identity theft reporting obligations exists within XXXX 
Because OLDE is void ab initio and XXXX operates without legal authority, there is no lawful mechanism for Mariner Finance to receive valid block notifications, submit valid responses, or process any account updates related to identity theft. Every Block Notification transmitted through XXXX since XX/XX/XXXX has been sent through a void entity. Every Block Rescission Request submitted through XXXX has been processed by a void entity without legal authority. 
Mariner Finance can not lawfully comply with FCRA identity theft reporting obligations because the statutory compliance mechanism does not legally exist. Every dispute filed by every consumer in America since XX/XX/XXXX has been processed through a void entity operating without legal authority. The entire dispute resolution infrastructure required by FCRA is void. 
Mariner Finance 's XX/XX/XXXX response stated : " Should XXXX XXXX have additional questions regarding this inquiry, he may contact Mariner 's XXXX  XXXX  Department at XXXX. '' This invitation to contact violates XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( d ), which imposes liability on any party that refuses to honor or obstructs a valid power of attorney. All communications must be directed to the undersigned as Attorney-in-Fact. Any direct contact with XXXX XXXX XXXX constitutes interference with fiduciary authority and triggers immediate commercial consequences. 
For the reasons listed above, I am filing this CFPB complaint through the CFPB Complaint Portal against Mariner Finance , LLC, documenting the systematic fraud underlying the loan originated XX/XX/XXXX using void credit scoring infrastructure, Mariner Finance 's securitization of void loans into XXXX asset-backed securities sold to investors under false representations, Mariner Finance 's receipt of actual notice on XX/XX/XXXX, Mariner Finance 's failure to rebut certified public records, and Mariner Finance 's continued furnishing of information with actual knowledge that the loan resulted from identity theft.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation