Consumer complaint received 2018-12-07 00:00:00
Product: Credit card or prepaid card — Government benefit card
Issue: Problem with a purchase or transfer — Charged for a purchase or transfer you did not make with the card
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
XX/XX/2018, I learned of several unauthorized charges ( highlighted in attachment A ) totaling approximately {$630.00} on my Bank of America ( B of A ) prepaid debit card. This card is issued on behalf of the California XXXX XXXX Department to pay unemployment insurance benefits. I immediately informed B of A that the charges were fraudulent and, after reviewing my statement ( which had to be emailed to me because B of A had not yet sent me any ) submitted a claim on the next business day, XX/XX/XXXX. 

I was informed on XX/XX/XXXX that my claim was denied ( Attachment B : Denial Letter ). Initially, it was because some of the transactions used my pin ; however, after I corrected their error -- my claim explicitly excluded in person transactions -- they still could not prove fraud. Though the unit supervisor said that the claim was denied for many reasons, she could only articulate one : my  information was inputted correctly at checkout. She again refused to provide additional details. ( I confirmed name, address, cvv, and possibly captcha would be required. ) B of A refused to contact any of the mobile payment services to see whose account was used or the address where the food was delivered, or even XXXX the restaurants to see where they were located. Instead, they confirmed that my name, address, and cvv code were correctly inputted at checkout ( all on the card or easily found online for free ) and sent a form template to me stating that the bank had reviewed the claim, found no errors, and considers the matter closed. They also indicated in the What you need to know section, that the transactions were authorized. 

I did not authorize the transactions in question and have both stated this on the record when I submitted the claim to B of A and under penalty of perjury when I filed the police report ( Attachment C : Police Report ). A cursory look at information B of A has or could have easily accessed provides the following indicators of fraudt ] : 1. I did not place any of the orders. My XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX accounts were not used and I didnt even have a XXXX account. ( XXXX and XXXX representatives confirmed that my account was not used/I dont have an account. They are legally prohibited from sharing the account or delivery information, but B of A can request it ). 
2. I can not be in two places at once. ( Evidence : XXXX XXXX ... Based on the vendors locations throughout XXXX, AZ, some exclusively, I would guess they dont deliver anywhere close enough to XXXX for me to have made a pinned purchase in XXXX stores within minutes of ordering food for delivery from an establishment solely serving Arizona and get to the delivery location within the quoted 1-2 hour delivery time.

3. I dont spend like that. The charges significantly diverge from my normal shopping habits and occur in a short, four-day period of time. The attached transaction history lists 64 transactions, 13 of which are not purchases ( unemployment payments, Cash withdrawals, EDD payments, and returns ). From the remaining 51, one can infer the following to establish fraud and determine which transactions that are likely to be fraudulent : a. Aside from utility payments, I rarely ( in this case never ) shop online. The charges are exclusively online. ( Evidence : Out of 51 purchases, only 12 are online and they curiously all occur in the four-day period prior to my claim ( XXXX XXXX ). 
b. I rarely eat out and when I do, its on the cheap -- Delivery services are not cheap! ( Evidence : 12 total dining out expenditures, 8 of which are online over the four-day period XXXX XXXX, the remaining four dispersed throughout the XXXX transaction history are within 1 mile of my home. 3 out of these 4 were under {$10.00} ). XXXX delivery fees, service fees, and the tip can easily increase food costs by {$10.00}. For example, a {$20.00} meal at XXXX XXXX ( transaction 57 in XXXX. A ) would cost {$32.00} ( Per XXXX website, stated {$6.00} delivery fee, stated 11 % service fee = {$2.00}, and recommended 15 % tip = a {$3.00} ). 
c. I tend to shop at certain types of stores ( thrift shops, discount stores, convenience stores & drugstores ) and rarely ( per Att. A, had never ) patronized any of the payment services or vendors listed, except for during the four-day period ( XXXX XXXX ). 
4. Can you even buy a sprinkle at XXXX XXXX for {$.00}? and other questions that B of A should have asked. In addition to the fact that all of the transactions in question are atypical, exclusively online, used an account other than mine, and had goods delivered to an address other than mine ( likely in AZ ) while I was still using my card with my pin in XXXX, a review of the following transactions suggests something nefarious was occurring : a. Two separate sets of transactions occur within one second of each other ( Transactions 50 and 51 and 56 and 57 ) b. Two of the transactions ( XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX are {$.00} ( fifty cents ). Neither has anything on the menu that costs {$.00}, and this exceeds XXXX service fee state above. 
The XXXX purchases were returned. According to XXXX, B of A denied the transaction, though they did not know why. There was clearly enough money to pay the transaction because it was taken out with subsequent purchase, but unsurprisingly B of A hasnt a clue what happened. 
Twenty-five percent of all of the purchases over the three month period shown in XXXX. A occurred during the four-day period of XXXX XXXX. 

My bank ledger is full of signals of fraudulent activity ( e.g., a significant and sudden divergence from normal spending, abnormal transactions, short burst of online spending, and transactions even B of A flagged and declined ). B of A was derelict in its fraud prevention duties, and, in refusing to investigate or refund the money, is in violation of law. When I brought the charges to their attention, they should have apologized profusely for their oversight and immediately refunded the money. Instead, they opted to send an insulting letter that basically calls me a liar and says the matter is closed. 

This matter is not closed to me and will not be closed until B of A has compensated me for my loss. Their failure to do so is in conflict with law and their stated policies.

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