Consumer complaint received 2022-07-02 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: CO

Complaint narrative:
Commencing on or around XX/XX/XXXX, I fell victim to two multi-layered scam operations run by XXXX which involved me making deposits for a total amount of XXXX USD from my Bank of America account to these fraudulent investment companies.

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. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America wrote in a letter Contrary to your letter, Bank of America did not breach their duty of care as we followed the instructions that you provided. We did not have any involvement in the scam. The account that received the funds from your wire transfer was held at XXXX XXXX XXXX, and we do not have any knowledge of the status of the accounts held at their bank. 
It is unfortunate you were a victim of a scam and you have our sympathies. However, Bank of America is not liable for the transaction you sent. We did what we could in attempting to recover your money on your behalf. We understand that this is not the response you were seeking however it is Bank of Americas final position in this matter. 

As regards to the detection of fraud and financial abuse, it says the organization should have measures in place across all payment channels and products to detect suspicious transactions or activities that might indicate fraud or financial abuse such as sudden changes to the operation of the account ; Unusual transactions are transactions whose amount, characteristics and frequency bear no relation to the economic activity of the customer, exceed normal market parameters or have no apparent legal justification. 
Bank of America are yet to show, or otherwise provide me with, a compelling argument that their wide-ranging experience and wealth of specialist knowledge in detecting transactional anomalies were not sufficient to avert the fraud at issue. 
If it was, indeed, solely my responsibility, we must then believe at least one of the following clauses : a ) financial institutions have absolutely no role whatsoever in preventing and detecting fraud, b ) the fraud in question was not reasonably foreseeable, or c ) the transactions in question were not sufficiently alarming. It is extremely unfortunate that Bank of America pushes quite hard for me to believe all three of these thingsdespite evidence to the contrary. 
In summary, I respectively ask your organization to consider my points, given your personal and companywide obligation to provide a fair and reasonable investigation into the complaint. I look forward to your input and would gladly cooperate to reach a fair and reasonable outcome.

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