Consumer complaint received 2024-05-18 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Commencing on or about XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to a multi-layered scam operation run by XXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Navy Federal Credit Union account to fraudulent firm ( XXXX ). 
It all started rather innocently on XXXX when the scammer claimed to be the prince of XXXX and swooped into my life promising romance and adventure. Being a XXXX XXXX skepticism was a frequent companion, but his words created a compelling story that suited his situation well. Because the story was so captivating, I relaxed and allowed the seeds of trust to grow. As our virtual bond grew, he showed me a package that had been mailed to me from XXXX. I had no idea that this was only the start of a very sophisticated strategy. When he told me there was a seemingly harmless commission fee standing between me and the product, the net got tighter. 
I felt like I was getting closer to a love story with every payment. Being a XXXX XXXX every dollar was carefully thought out. 
A growing doubt crept in as the last money left my hands. Instead of the box arriving, I started to feel uneasy and like I was being watched. I started to become paranoid because I thought he was the prince of XXXX, following me around on my phone. 
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 Navy Federal Credit Union 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 Navy Federal Credit Unions 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 Navy Federal Credit Union promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether Navy Federal Credit Union was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether Navy Federal Credit Union owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether Navy Federal Credit Union did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether Navy Federal Credit Unions conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether Navy Federal Credit Union 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 required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that 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, Navy Federal Credit Union 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 Navy Federal Credit Union 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 learnt from the errors of the past.

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation