Consumer complaint received 2026-03-17 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION
State: NY

Complaint narrative:
Capital One CID : XXXX CFPB Complaint ID : XXXX I am disputing the bank 's response. The bank failed to conduct a XXXX XXXX XXXX ' as required by 12 CFR 1005.11. They characterized this as a merchant dispute, ignoring the evidence of Identity Misrepresentation. As per CFPB Official Interpretation ( 2021 ) to 1005.2 ( m ), a transfer is unauthorized if the consumer is misled regarding the identity of the recipient. I have provided written confirmation from XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) stating they have no contract with me. Therefore, the funds were received by a legal entity with no authority to hold them. The bank is misapplying Regulation E by ignoring the fraudulent inducement regarding the recipient 's identity. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX has formally confirmed in writing that it has NO contract with me. Capitol Bank is ignoring federal law. The bank is acting as if it is above regulatory requirements and above federal statutes. This is a violation, it is unlawful, and it constitutes unauthorized conduct. I have provided all necessary evidence demonstrating that my transfer was unauthorized under applicable federal law. This situation involves misrepresentation : through misleading actions, one company obtained funds from my third companyan entity with which I had no negotiations, no agreements, and no contractual relationship. Below, I am providing the detailed information again for your careful review. I kindly ask you to pay close attention to these facts so that we can resolve this matter without escalating it to legal proceedings. I am formally disputing Capital Ones decision to deny my claims ( listed in their letter dated XX/XX/XXXX ). The bank has failed to conduct a " Good Faith Investigation '' as required by 12 CFR 1005.11 ( Regulation E ) and is mischaracterizing a clear case of Identity Misrepresentation as a simple merchant dispute. Legal Basis for Reconsideration : 1. Unauthorized Transfer under 12 CFR 1005.2 ( m ) : According to the CFPB Official Interpretation ( 2021 ), a transfer is considered " unauthorized '' if the consumer is misled regarding the identity of the recipient. 2. Identity Misrepresentation : I was induced into sending four XXXX transfers totaling {$5200.00} to a U.S. entity, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), under the false impression that I was paying Moovert OOO ( XXXX ), with whom I have a valid contract. XXXX. Lack of Authority : XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) is a separate legal entity and is not a party to my contract. Crucially, XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) has confirmed in writing that no contractual relationship exists between us. 4. Failure to Investigate : Capital One ignored this written confirmation and the evidence of visual identity deception in the XXXX interface. By law, the bank can not treat this as a commercial " dissatisfaction with services '' because the recipient had no legal authority to receive the funds in the first place. Demand : I demand that Capital One reclassify these transfers as Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers ( EFT ) due to fraudulent inducement of the recipient 's identity, as per Regulation E, and credit the amount of {$5200.00} back to my account immediately.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation