Consumer complaint received 2024-03-07 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: Digital Access, LLC
State: MI

Complaint narrative:
I want to draw your attention to XX/XX/XXXX - XXXX sent my complaint letter to Cash2Bitcoin, in which I clearly stated how this scam has affected me personally, psychologically, and financially. 

I am afraid I have had to go through so much " bureaucracy '' thus far to catch their attention to my concerns. This really doesn't show their complaints department in a good light, to say the least ; and certainly, does not contribute to my overall satisfaction and peace of mind. My complaint is against the bank that did not do its job properly ( could not prevent/foreseen fraud and could not conduct a proper investigation ) and not against the vulnerable customer who fell victim and lost all the savings due to the misconduct of the bank. 

I feel very distressed and cheated, all because no one took action immediately and practice their duty of care, therefore I only request what I believe to be rightfully mine, as all institutions were more than negligent in protecting my account and handling the complaints. I comprehensively provided explanations and proof to my claim, even so, Cash2Bitcoin never acknowledges my complaint, therefore, I have approached you XXXX and I would like to receive your assistance on this matter. 

Please note the following : I have never purchased cryptocurrency before./ I have never transacted with cryptocurrency in such a manner before. 
The pattern of the Transactions fits within well-known fraudulent schemes. 
I am an XXXX  XXXX individual. 
General Obligation : Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by Scammers which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Cash2Bitcoin account to fraudulent investment firm ( XXXX ). 

When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether Cash2Bitcoin did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of Cash2Bitcoins custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether Cash2Bitcoin promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Cash2Bitcoin was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Cash2Bitcoin owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Cash2Bitcoin did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Cash2Bitcoins conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Cash2Bitcoin has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me.

Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity, and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud.

In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is legally required to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, Cash2Bitcoin must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer.

Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element.

However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that Cash2Bitcoin did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect.

Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learned from the errors of the past.

Apropos of the fluidity of the concept of reasonableness, all Cash2Bitcoin has done in this regard is set up a dichotomy of having or not having the legal obligation under consideration, however, that does not go one-inch toward explaining why various regulatory authorities, have maintained that financial institutions can, and should, protect consumers using their systems, advanced technologies, and rich experience.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation