Consumer complaint received 2025-07-24 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
Between XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>, I was defrauded out of {$39000.00} through XXXX via Bank of America. These payments were made under false pretenses, the result of a well-coordinated criminal fraud ring posing as attorneys, developers, and federal agents. These individuals used fake business entities, impersonated licensed USPTO attorneys, and exploited Bank of Americas XXXX platform using XXXX  masking, non-verified emails, and false domain registrations all while Bank of America failed to flag or block a single transfer. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence of criminal fraud, impersonation, and deception, Bank of America denied my dispute. They justified this using internal terms of use that are expressly subordinate to federal law, specifically : Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ( 3 ) ) : Covers any unauthorized electronic fund transfer induced by fraud or misrepresentation. 
Electronic Fund Transfer Act : Protects consumers from liability when fraud is involved even if the transaction was initiated by the user. 
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ( GLBA ) : Mandates the safeguarding of consumer data and transaction transparency, both of which were violated.

Bank of America allowed these scammers to receive payments through XXXX  phone numbers, suspicious email aliases, and nonexistent business registrations. IP tracing confirms that multiple recipients were registered through fraud-prone telecom infrastructure such as XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX XXXX  , commonly used in cyber fraud and robocall operations. Some recipient numbers had no identifiable carrier of record, yet were still permitted to transact through BoAXXXX. 

Zelles no-refund disclaimer does not apply when fraud or impersonation is involved. This was not a case of buyers remorse or commercial disagreement it was wire fraud, deception, and impersonation of government-licensed legal professionals. I have also reported this to the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline, the OCC, and the FTC, and submitted case files to federal agencies showing impersonation of attorneys XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX, as well as manipulated legal filings submitted through the USPTO. 

BoA failed to : Detect or flag XXXX XXXX transfers to multiple high-risk, unregistered recipients Provide any real-time alerts or escalation protocols Investigate fraud evidence submitted after initial denial Address repeated requests to review how these XXXX-based accounts were verified or enrolled in XXXX Furthermore, BoA refused to provide call records where I requested fraud hold preservation and declined to explain what risk scoring or due diligence was performed if any. 



I am demanding : Full and immediate reimbursement of {$39000.00} Written admission of XXXX risk filter failure, including how VoIP phone numbers, non-business domains, and high-risk emails passed onboarding Confirmation of investigation into internal fraud handling failures, including why red flags were ignored despite known FTC/XXXX  risk factors Assurance that my case will be reviewed under federal law, not BoAs internal terms, which were used as a shield to block rightful recovery If this is not resolved, I am prepared to escalate to arbitration, civil litigation, and the press. I have already submitted the full package to the OCC, CFPB, and FTC, and will pursue recovery by all legal means.

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