Consumer complaint received 2026-04-15 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
FORMAL CFPB COMPLAINT REGULATION CC VIOLATIONS, FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR FUNDS, MISREPRESENTATION, AND ARBITRARY ACCOUNT CLOSURE I am submitting this complaint against Bank of America for multiple violations involving improper funds handling, failure to provide required disclosures, contradictory transaction reporting, and arbitrary account closure following my attempts to obtain lawful information. I. MATERIAL FACTS AND DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE On XX/XX/year>, I deposited XXXX checks in the amount of {$6000.00} each into my checking account. At the time of deposit, I was explicitly informed that no hold would be placed. This representation was relied upon and materially influenced my decision to proceed with the transaction. Later that same day, holds were applied retroactively and inconsistently, accompanied only by vague explanations including pending funds verification and refer to maker. At no point was I provided with a specific, factual basis identifying any defect, insufficiency, alteration, or fraud indicator associated with the checks. I independently confirmed with XXXX XXXX, the paying bank, that the funds were debited and the checks cleared without issue. This was further verified directly with the maker of the checks, whose account was charged the same day the checks were issued. I possess documentary evidence, including screenshots, confirming that the funds were available, debited, and not subject to return for insufficient funds or stop payment. Despite this, Bank of America later asserted that the checks were returned unpaid with a Refer to Maker designation. However, no documentary evidence has been provided to support this claim, including : No return transaction record No interbank return trace No return settlement confirmation No evidence that funds were transmitted back to the issuing bank This creates a direct contradiction between financial institutions and establishes a failure by Bank of America to properly account for the disposition of deposited funds. II. REGULATION CC VIOLATIONS Under Regulation CC 229.13 ( e ), a bank may invoke an exception hold only where it has reasonable cause to believe a check is uncollectible, and such determination must be based on specific, articulable facts. Bank of America failed to provide any such facts. Further, 229.13 ( g ) requires that when an exception hold is applied, the bank must provide a clear and specific statement of the reason for the delay, sufficient to allow the customer to understand the basis for the action taken. Statements such as pending verification and refer to maker are conclusory and do not meet the specificity requirement mandated by regulation. Additionally, 229.16 ( c ) requires that disclosures be clear, conspicuous, and meaningful. The explanations provided were vague, non-informative, and prevented any meaningful understanding or verification of the banks actions. III. FAILURE TO ACCOUNT FOR FUNDS / TRANSACTION DISCREPANCY Bank of America has asserted that the checks were returned unpaid while the issuing bank has confirmed no such return occurred. This contradiction, combined with the absence of any trace documentation, establishes a failure to properly reconcile or account for the funds. A banks obligation is not satisfied by assertion alone. It must be supported by verifiable transaction records. The failure to produce such documentation raises serious concerns regarding internal controls, reconciliation accuracy, and the handling of customer deposits. IV. MISREPRESENTATION AND UNFAIR PRACTICES At the time of deposit, I was informed that no hold would be placed. This statement was later contradicted by subsequent actions. This constitutes a material misrepresentation. Further, the use of vague, non-specific explanations, combined with contradictory statements regarding the status of the funds, constitutes an unfair and deceptive practice that prevented me from understanding or protecting my financial position. V. DENIAL OF INFORMATION AND OBSTRUCTION During multiple attempts to resolve this matter : Representatives refused to provide specific information Stated no additional details were available Refused escalation to a supervisor Terminated calls when escalation was requested Refused to provide identifying information This conduct interfered with my ability to obtain information regarding my funds and demonstrates a failure to provide reasonable access to account-related information. VI. ARBITRARY AND POTENTIALLY RETALIATORY ACCOUNT CLOSURE Following my repeated attempts to obtain information and escalate the issue, my account was closed with the sole explanation that my account activity put the bank at risk, with no factual basis provided. While banks may close accounts, the timing and circumstances of this closureimmediately following my efforts to question and escalateraise serious concerns that the action was arbitrary and potentially retaliatory in nature. The refusal to provide any explanation further compounds concerns regarding transparency and fairness. VII. DISPARATE AND UNPROFESSIONAL TREATMENT On XX/XX/year>, at a branch in XXXXXXXX XXXX, I was treated in a dismissive and demeaning manner by a branch manager who explicitly stated she did not have to answer my questions. During the same visit, I observed other customers receiving polite and cooperative assistance. Additionally, during a subsequent call, a representative identified as XXXX refused to provide identification, laughed when I requested escalation, and terminated the call. This pattern reflects inconsistent treatment and a failure to uphold professional standards. VIII. DEMAND FOR REGULATORY ACTION Based on the foregoing, I am requesting : Immediate investigation into the handling and disposition of my deposited funds Production of all transaction records, including any alleged return documentation A formal check trace and reconciliation review Determination of compliance with Regulation CC Review of internal controls and decisioning processes Correction of any inaccurate reporting or account records Accountability for failure to provide required disclosures CONCLUSION This matter involves more than a routine deposit dispute. It reflects a systemic failure to provide required disclosures, properly account for funds, and maintain transparency in customer transactions. The inability to reconcile contradictory statements between banks, combined with the absence of documentary proof and the refusal to provide information, raises serious concerns that warrant immediate regulatory intervention. I respectfully request that this matter be reviewed with urgency and that corrective action be taken.

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