Consumer complaint received 2026-03-31 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Funds not handled or disbursed as instructed
Company: REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION

Complaint narrative:
I am filing a formal complaint against Regions Bank regarding their failure to protect my checking/savings account from repeated fraud, and their refusal to return approximately {$30000.00} in stolen funds. FIRST FRAUD ( XXXX, RESOLVED ) : I am a XXXX citizen residing in XXXX, XXXX, and I hold a joint account with my sister at the Regions Bank XXXX XXXX XXXX . In XXXX XXXX, an unknown individual impersonated me, requested a checkbook from the bank, and used it to cash three fraudulent checks : {$10000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), {$10000.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), and {$9500.00} ( XX/XX/XXXX ), totaling {$29000.00}. I traveled to XXXX at my own expense to resolve this matter. I filed a police report with the XXXX Police Department ( XXXX # XXXX ) and met in person with a bank XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, the bank issued a provisional credit of {$29000.00} and sent a formal letter acknowledging the fraud. IMPORTANTLY, this first case was also reported outside the standard 30-90 day dispute window, yet the bank resolved it in my favor. After the first fraud, the bank assured me that security measures would be reinforced. However, the provisional credit took several weeks to become available, and I had to return to XXXX before I could access the funds. Once available, I attempted an international wire transfer to move my money to a safer institution. The bank informed me that wire transfers were restricted for security reasons, and that I could ONLY access funds through the bank-issued credit card. The bank also explicitly told me that check withdrawals were prohibited on my account due to the fraud precedent. This meant withdrawing my money would have required me to travel back to the United States. Most critically, despite telling ME that checks were prohibited on my account, the bank then issued a new checkbook to an unknown impersonator, enabling the second fraud. SECOND FRAUD ( XXXX, UNRESOLVED ) : Despite promises to reinforce security, an identical fraud occurred again. An impersonator once again obtained a checkbook from Regions Bank, and three new fraudulent checks were cashed, draining approximately {$30000.00}. I reported this on XX/XX/XXXX, submitted the Unauthorized Check Dispute Form with supporting documentation on XX/XX/XXXX. The dispute was formally entered on XX/XX/XXXX. On XX/XX/XXXX, my claim was DENIED citing the 30-day reporting window. A second dispute was also DENIED on XX/XX/XXXX, citing the 90-day window. The case was escalated to the complaint department with a promise of contact within 48-72 hours. COMMUNICATION FAILURES : No one contacted me within the promised timeframe. Over two months of silence followed ( XX/XX/XXXX to XX/XX/XXXX ). A phone call was scheduled for XX/XX/XXXX at XXXX XXXX EST. I waited over an hour it never came. The bank claimed my number was not working and provided a disconnected number ( XXXX ). I also received an automated survey about a call that supposedly took place with my sister but no such call ever occurred. My repeated requests for a video call have been ignored. KEY POINTS : PRECEDENT : The bank resolved an identical fraud under the same reporting timeline in XXXX. It can not apply a different standard to the same customer for the same type of fraud. BANK NEGLIGENCE : The bank failed to implement promised security measures and issued a second checkbook to an impersonator without proper verification. BANK CONTRADICTION : The bank restricted me from wire transfers and explicitly prohibited check withdrawals on my account, yet issued a new checkbook to an impersonator directly contradicting its own security policy. COMMUNICATION FAILURES : Disconnected numbers, missed calls, phantom surveys, and months of silence demonstrate inadequate handling of a fraud case. APPLICABLE LAW : Under UCC 4-406, a bank that fails to exercise ordinary care can not assert the customer 's failure to report as a defense.

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