Consumer complaint received 2023-11-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Card was charged for something you did not purchase with the card
Company: TRUIST FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
Background Information Credit Cardholders : XXXX XXXX XXXX ( primary ) resides in XXXX, GA and XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) resides in XXXX, FL Date of Fraud : XX/XX/2023 ( possibility XX/XX/XXXX XXXX date ) Bank Issuer of Credit Card : Truist Bank ( Regional US Bank ) Credit card limit : {$25000.00} ( US dollars ) Credit Card number : XXXX Summary of Fraud On or around XX/XX/2023, there were 4 fraudulent activities associated with XXXX XXXX XXXX accounts with Truist Bank as follows : 1. Fraudulent charges totaling nearly {$25000.00} were made to XXXX credit card on XX/XX/XXXX. All charges were foreign ; XXXX and XXXX. These charges were reported as fraud to Truist on XX/XX/XXXX within 3 hours of the charges being posted on his credit card. A summary of charges and related merchants is detailed below. 

XXXX. Upon reporting the fraudulent charges to Truist on XX/XX/XXXX, we were told by a Truist representative that in the days leading up to XX/XX/XXXX, Truist received a call requesting an unauthorized {$11000.00} increase to the credit limit. Truist denied the request but failed to verify that the request was made by XXXX or notify him of the request. 

XXXX. An unauthorized transfer of {$4300.00} was made from XXXX saving accounts to his checking account on XX/XX/XXXX. XXXX contacted Truist and froze his checking and savings accounts shortly after he was made aware that the unauthorized transfer was made between accounts. His checking and savings accounts were closed on XX/XX/XXXX and new accounts were opened that same day. 

XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, two Truist branch employees ( at two different branches ) told XXXX that the history of sign-ins to his account included sign-ins from more than one IP address. XXXX only signs into his Truist account from a single device. 

Details of Credit Card Charges Transaction Date Merchant Name Amount XX/XX/20XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX {$9500.00} XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX Total Fraudulent Charges {$24000.00} Response from Truist Upon reporting the fraudulent credit card transactions on XX/XX/XXXX to Truist, the charges were removed from the credit card pending review by Truist. Truist put the charges back on the credit card on XX/XX/XXXX. A letter was sent dated XX/XX/XXXX stating we have not been able to determine that the transaction ( s ) were fraudulent. Upon our request, a second review of the transactions was initiated. We provided substantial information on the sequence of events on XX/XX/XXXX to Truist for the second review. On XX/XX/XXXX, Truist sent a letter stating that their position was unchanged and are holding XXXX responsible for the charges. 
Our attorney, XXXX XXXX, also sent a letter to Truist demanding that the fraudulent charges be removed as Truist was in violation of the the Fair Credit Billing Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. Truist sent a letter dated XX/XX/XXXX stating there is no new information concerning this matter, the Banks position remains unchanged and we consider the associated case resolved and closed. 


Clear Indicators of Fraud As outlined by the Fair Credit Billing Act, a reasonable investigation of the transactions is required by the credit card company for unauthorized transactions. Factors outlined in the Fair Billing Act include : o Reviewing the types or amounts of purchases made in relation to the consumers previous purchasing pattern. 
o Reviewing where the purchases were delivered in relation to the consumers residence or place of business. 
o Reviewing where the purchases were made in relation to where the consumer resides or has normally shopped. 
A cursory review of the fraudulent charges show that they are all to merchants located in the XXXX XXXX XXXX and XXXX. Foreign transactions of this nature and amount are inconsistent with previous purchasing patterns. 
A total of {$23000.00} of the fraudulent charges were to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX a residential developer in XXXX. 
All of the charges were made on the same day and total just under the {$25000.00} credit limit. 
XXXX does not have a passport ( current or expired ). 
As noted above, the transactions seem very unusual given the customers typical pattern of behavior. The majority of his purchases are for gas, food and living expenses in the XXXX area, or online shopping. XXXX maintains a low balance and rarely has a charge that exceeds {$1000.00}. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, two employees at Truist ( at two different branches ) said when they pulled up XXXX account that they could see where more than XXXX IP address had signed into his account at Truist. 
Above all, the transactions were reported immediately to Truist as fraud. XXXX credit card was canceled and his bank accounts were frozen. 
Given the actions taken of immediately reporting the fraud to Truist, the fact that all the transactions were foreign and were large amounts coupled with the fact that more than one IP address had signed into his accounts, it is unclear how Truist could conclude there is no evidence of fraud. As indicated in the opening, there were 4 elements of fraud all related to the credit card fraud in question. 

Reports Filed Federal Bureau of Investigations Federal Trade Commission Consumer Financial Protection Bureau XXXX Police Department Attempted to file a report with the XXXX Police Department. Was told that a non-XXXX  resident would need to have an official department / authority ( agency ) in your current location file a report. XXXX spoke with the FBI, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the XXXX Police Department about filing a report and none would help in this matter. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau suggested XXXX contact the US State Department about filing a report. She was unable to get through to anyone at the State Department. She also spoke with the XXXX Police Department ( XXXX ) to see if they would file a report with the XXXX Police Department and XXXX stated that since this was clearly fraud, they told XXXX she should go to the court house and file suit rather than trying to file a report with the XXXX Police Department.

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