Consumer complaint received 2024-02-06 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Virtual currency
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: COINFLIP LLC
State: PA

Complaint narrative:
Commencing on or about XXXX XX/XX/2023, I fell victim to XXXX multi-layered scam operations run by XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD through CoinFlip utilizing their XXXX ATM services. When determining whats reasonable and fair, we should focus on the issue of liability ; common queries include, but are not limited to, the following ( i ) whether CoinFlip did not take notice of any rule, law, or regulation, and/or possibly missed any material elements of the relevant bylaws or codes of conduct, that may have prevented them from protecting my financial safety ; ( ii ) whether by virtue of CoinFlips custodianship over my funds or by its control over them, they owed a fiduciary duty to the me and if so, whether that duty was breached ; ( iii ) whether CoinFlip promoted the transaction ( s ) in question despite being aware of the nature of the transaction ( s ) in question ( iv ) whether CoinFlip was in compliance with its own policies and procedures ; ( v ) whether CoinFlip owed duties to myself, what the scope of those duties was, and whether CoinFlip did not uphold those duties ; ( vi ) whether CoinFlips conduct was unfair ; and ( vii ) whether CoinFlip has within its power the ability to, and should, compensate me for the harm that has befallen me. 
Upon identification of such unusual or suspicious activity, it is crucial that the relevant staff member adequately describe the factors making an activity or transaction suspicious, thoroughly depict the extent and nature of this activity and properly communicate to the customer that such activity meets the relevant criteria of fraud. 
In providing its services to a customer, a financial institution is required by law to exercise the care and skill of a diligent, prudent banker. In this case, this means that the payment service provider should not turn a blind eye to known facts pointing to a real possibility that their customer is being scammed. In other words, CoinFlip must have had special knowledge of what was occurring or been alerted to a real possibility of fraud taking place. The financial institution must have known or reasonably ought to have known that I was dealing with a scammer. Granted, there is room for diversity of view insofar as reasonableness is concerned. Indeed, there is a sense in which the standard of care of the reasonable person involves in its application a subjective element. However, it must be remembered that the correct test is always reasonable care in all circumstances, not average care. The fact that most people behave in a certain way may be good evidence that the conduct is reasonable, but this is not necessarily the case. Although reasonableness is a very fluid concept, all of the evidence suggests that CoinFlip did not foresee the fraud and disregarded even the most obvious dangers in this respect. Situations do tend to repeat themselves and it is advisable to examine previous outcomes to see how the standard of the reasonable person should be applied, and that lessons can be learnt from the errors of the past.

Company public response: Company believes complaint caused principally by actions of third party outside the control or direction of the company
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation