Consumer complaint received 2026-04-26 00:00:00
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Problem with a purchase shown on your statement — Credit card company isn't resolving a dispute about a purchase on your statement
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: NJ

Complaint narrative:
I am filing this formal complaint against Bank of America ( BOA ) for gross negligence and violation of Regulation Z ( 12 CFR 1026.13 ) regarding the " Reasonable Investigation '' requirement for billing errors and fraud claims. BOA has unfairly denied my claims totaling {$10000.00} despite clear evidence of a sophisticated, coordinated criminal scam involving identity theft, document forgery, and professional misrepresentation. 1. Failure of Reasonable Investigation ( Regulation Z Violation ) BOA accepted a 71-page rebuttal from an entity called XXXX XXXX XXXX a company I have never contracted with or emailed. BOA failed to perform a basic cross-comparison between the evidence I provided ( authentic invoices from XXXX XXXX ) and the merchant 's fabricated documents. 2. Evidence of Mathematical Forgery & Document Fabrication The merchant submitted a fabricated invoice ( Exhibit B ) for exactly {$10000.00} claiming it was for " Website Development & Marketing ''. This is a mathematical impossibility and a blatant forgery. This amount is the exact sum of my four separate trademark legal service claims : {$3000.00} + {$3000.00} + {$2600.00} + {$1800.00} = {$10000.00} The merchant engineered a fake invoice to match the disputed total, yet BOA ignored this " smoking gun '' evidence of fraud. 3. New Evidence : Coordinated Fraud Network ( The " XXXX XXXX '' Connection ) The 71-page document includes an individual named XXXX XXXX , claiming to represent XXXX XXXX XXXX However, his actions prove a coordinated conspiracy : Infrastructure Hijacking : XXXX XXXX first contacted me on XX/XX/XXXX, using the Legacy Trademark email domain, phone numbers, and SMS. Proof of Fabrication : I possess an email from him dated XX/XX/XXXX, sent from a XXXX XXXX account. This confirms that XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX, and XXXX XXXX are not separate entities but a single, organized criminal enterprise using multiple shell names to bypass bank security and defraud consumers. 4. Identity Mismatch & Forged Credentials Merchant Identity : I purchased XXXX XXXX XXXX from XXXX XXXX. The merchant responded through XXXX XXXX, an IT shell company. Forged Signatures : The contract submitted by the merchant contains a forged signature that is not mine. Fake Correspondence : The 71-page rebuttal includes fabricated email threads that never occurred in my actual communication history. 5. Ghost Company & Unfair Banking Practices Despite being informed that XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX is a known scam entity using virtual offices and AI-generated identities, BOA chose to believe the merchant 's fabricated documents over the consumer 's legitimate evidence. This lack of due diligence has facilitated professional identity theft and financial fraud. 6. Urgent Request for Assistance on Prior Transactions ( {$19000.00} ) In addition to the {$10000.00} above, I have paid this merchant an additional {$19000.00} between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX. While these are outside the standard 120-day window, I have only now discovered the fraud through the XX/XX/XXXX admission and the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXecent intervention. 7. Institutional Failure and Erosion of Trust It is deeply distressing and unacceptable that a major financial institution of Bank of Americas stature has failed to investigate and filter out such blatant fraudulent acts. When a bank of this scale fails to fulfill its most basic duty of due diligence and consumer protection, it raises a grave question : How can individual customers and businesses ever trust and conduct transactions with any bank again? This negligence does not just cost money ; it destroys the very foundation of trust in the banking system. 8. Desired Resolution I demand an immediate reversal of the full amount of {$10000.00} + {$19000.00} = {$29000.00} and a full investigation into the merchants fraudulent activities. I also request BOA to explain why they ignored the blatant discrepancies in merchant names, service descriptions, and the verified mathematical forgery during their initial review.

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