Consumer complaint received 2025-10-25 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
Request for Supervisory Review and Reopening CFPB Complaints XX/XX/XXXXXXXX &XX/XX/XXXXXXXX Wells Fargo Bank , XX/XX/XXXX Unauthorized Business-Account Wire | UCC Article XXXX Violations | False and Misleading Representations Complainant : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
Transaction : Unauthorized Wire {$24000.00} Business Acct XXXX XX/XX/XXXX XXXX Supervisory Review Request This filing is a formal Request for Supervisory Review and Reopening of CFPB Complaints XX/XX/XXXXXXXX and XX/XX/XXXXXXXX against Wells Fargo Bank XX/XX/XXXX 
Both complaints were closed on XX/XX/XXXX2025 with identical Closed with Explanation letters that contain factually false and misleading statements, conceal key evidence, and misrepresent the nature of the banks investigation. 
I ask that this filing be treated as a new complaint seeking CFPB supervisory-level review and referral to the XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX 

XXXX Purpose This submission documents that Wells Fargos Closed with Explanation letters dated XX/XX/XXXX2025 contain factually incorrect and misleading statements that conceal the true nature of this fraud event. 
The banks own phrase Even in cases of fraud acknowledges that the transaction was fraudulent. 

If Wells Fargo later claims that this phrase did not constitute an acknowledgment of fraud, that position would itself contradict the plain language of its letter. The wording Even in cases of fraud expressly presupposes the existence of a fraudulent event and was used by the bank to justify why it would not reimburse me. Regardless of any subsequent reinterpretation, the written record shows that the bank recognized this as a fraud scenario and therefore triggered the duties and refund obligations imposed by XXXX XXXX ( a ) and XXXX ( b ). 

Having recognized a fraud, Wells Fargo was obligated under XXXX XXXX ( a ) to refund the loss. Instead, it issued duplicate form letters that misrepresented investigative actions and ignored every question of fact and law raised in my complaints. 

XXXX Undisputed Facts At XXXXXX/XX/XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX2025 an unauthorized wire for {$24000.00} left my business account. 

Before the transfer, the intruder disabled my text-message verification alerts confirmed by Wells Fargos email Changes to Your Delivery Preferences. 

I never received or approved any verification text or call. 

Bank personnel acknowledged the alert changes. 

Fraud & Claims closed the case in XXXX business days as No Fraud Found Approved by Customer. 

No authentication logs, device/IP records, or dual-authorization evidence have been produced. 

XXXX Misrepresentations and Evasions XXXX Even in cases of fraud a bank does not have authority to debit a customers account without consent. 
Fact : This concedes the transaction was fraudulent yet denies restitution. 
Legal Significance : Contradicts XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( a ), which requires refund once a payment order is unauthorized. 

XXXX XXXX trace XXXX was performed. 
Fact : This is an internal tracking code, not a lawful XX/XX/XXXXXXXX inter-bank trace ; no filingXX/XX/XXXXXXXX, or legal record exists. 
Legal Significance : Creates a false impression of compliance and misleads both the customer and the CFPB. 

XXXX Customer approved transaction. 
Fact : Verification alerts were disabled before the transfer ; no text or call ever reached me. 
Legal Significance : Violates the banks burden under XXXX XXXX ( b ) to prove its security procedure was commercially reasonable and that the order was accepted in good faith. 

XXXX Funds are gone ; seek beneficiary. 
Fact : Improperly shifts liability despite the banks internal-control failure. 
Legal Significance : Directly contradicts XXXX XXXX ( a ), which keeps liability with the bank until it proves commercial reasonableness and good faith. 

XXXX False accusation of authorization. 
Fact : The banks statement that I approved the wire is demonstrably false ; its own records show that verification alerts were disabled and no confirmation occurred. 
Legal Significance : A knowingly inaccurate representation of fact mischaracterizing an unauthorized transaction as authorized. 

XXXX False claim of XXXX XXXX trace. 
Fact : The cited reference is internal only ; no lawful XXXX filing through legal or wire-operations channels was made. 
Legal Significance : A material misrepresentation of the investigation performed and procedures followed. 

XXXX Duplicate template responses. 
Fact : XXXX identical letters were issued for XXXX distinct CFPB complaints. 
Legal Significance : Shows no individualized review and a systemic effort to close exposure with form language, evidencing lack of good-faith investigation. 

XXXX Concealment by omission. 
Fact : The bank withheld authentication logs, device/IP data, and the Security Procedures Agreement. 
Legal Significance : Blocks independent verification and deprives the bank of its evidentiary burden under XXXX Article XXXX. 

XXXX Controlling Law and Precedent Statutes and RegulationsXX/XX/XXXXXXXX ( b ) Bank must prove a commercially reasonable security procedure and good-faith acceptance. 

XXXX XXXX ( a ) If a payment order is unauthorized, the bank shall refund any payment received from the customer. 

XXXX XXXX A trace requires formal inter-bank filings through wire-operations/legal departments. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) Requires layered, out-of-band verification for high-risk business wires. 

XXXX XXXX. XXXX Prohibits unfair or deceptive acts in connection with financial products. 

Case Law Illustrating Liability XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) single-factor authentication for business accounts held not commercially reasonable. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Bank XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXXXXXX ) bank liable for ignoring fraud signals ; lack of good faith. 

XX/XX/XXXX v. XXXX Bank, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX XXXX. XXXX ) bank avoided liability only after proving dual control was offered and declined. 

Wells Fargo has produced no evidence of dual control or out-of-band verification. Its system allowed alerts to be disabled a design failure that fails the XXXX and XXXX standards. 

XXXX Bad-Faith Indicators XXXX identical letters for XXXX different complaints no independent review. 

Case closed in XXXX business days no forensic investigation. 

Internal reference substituted for legal XXXX trace false representation of process. 

Admission of fraud without refund breach of Article XXXX refund mandate. 

Instruction to resolve with beneficiary unlawful shift of statutory risk. 

Collectively, these actions constitute bad-faith handling under XXXX ( b ) (XX/XX/XXXX ) and a pattern of misrepresentation to avoid liability. 

XXXX Systemic Process Failure Allowing an unauthorized user to disable all security notifications and immediately initiate a wire is an internal-control failure. No system meetingXX/XX/XXXX standards permits that sequence without secondary verification or dual authorization. This defect is structural, not user error, and places liability squarely on the bank under XXXX ( b ). 

XXXX Requested CFPB Action Re-open and consolidate both complaints for joint review and further investigation. 

Compel Wells Fargo to produce authentication logs, device/IP records, and the Security Procedures Agreement.

Refer the matter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) for supervisory enforcement under XXXX XXXX. XXXX. 

Assess whether the banks false statements about a XXXX trace violate XXXX XXXX. XXXX ( False Statements to a Federal Agency ). 

Require restitution of {$24000.00} under XXXX XXXX ( a ) and a written remediation plan to prevent alert disabling without verified contact with the account owner. 

XXXX Closing Statement Wells Fargos responses demonstrate awareness of fraud, failure to refund, and misrepresentation of its investigative actions. By admitting that fraud occurred yet relying on boilerplate language to deny relief, the bank acted in bad faith and violated its duties under XXXX Article XXXX and federal consumer-protection law. These statements constitute false and misleading representations to both the customer and the regulator. I request that the CFPB treat this as a serious regulatory breach, refer it to the OCC for enforcement, and require full restitution and corrective action. 

XXXX Supervisory Referral I respectfully request that this matter be escalated for Supervisory Consumer Response review within the CFPB and, if appropriate, referred to the CFPB XXXX XXXX and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) for coordinated regulatory action. 

XXXX Signature Respectfully, XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
XXXX | ( XXXX ) XXXX

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