Consumer complaint received 2024-01-23 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: U.S. BANCORP
State: AZ

Complaint narrative:
I XXXX  an office girl to help with data entry and reconciliations in XXXX of XXXX, as my husband and business partner had been diagnosed with XXXX and I knew I would be out more than usual. She DID NOT have any access to checks or writing any checks or paying any bills. In the following months my husband had some other health issue pop up and ended up passing away at the end of XX/XX/XXXX. Needless to day, I was devastated and it took me a month to get my head back in the game. At that point, our shop manger had almost destroyed our business and I had to let him go. Two of my old XXXX returned to help turn the business around. At the end of XXXX, I had a vendor reach out and tell me that I had an old invoice open. I checked my XXXX XXXX file and told them that I had paid that invoice back in XXXX. They informed me, that the check had bounced. Which I never received ANY notice of from US Bank. I had them forward to me what they received from their bank. At that point I asked my office gal to get out the reconciliations she had done because she must have done something incorrectly. She ignored my request for several days and on XX/XX/XXXX, I grabbed the statements from the file and started going through them. That is when I discovered She had been " Redepositing '' her direct deposit payroll checks, via mobile deposit at XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, all of which were paid out by US Bank. 
These were NON-NEGOTIABLE payroll checks, that NEVER would have been accepted by a real teller. She hand wrote an amount next to the dollar sign and proceeded to mobile deposit them, over and over for a total of 37 times! 
I was at US BANK Saturday morning XX/XX/XXXX, filing fraud claims on all the checks. And filed a police report as well, since I did have her escorted out by the XXXX Police Department when she came into work the following morning after I discovered this. 
After waiting for 2 months! I received a letter from US BANK the first week of XXXX in which they denied my request because I was suppose to catch this earlier and they referenced the UCC 4-406 subsection c. However, subsection e state that if the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item then subsection c is void. 
This is clearly a serious problem with the mobile deposit software if it can not pick up NON-NEGOTIABLE on the signature line. 
At that point I contacted the US BANK sales manager for the state of Arizona and she tried to get them to do a " cash back '' against XXXX XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Today when she finally called me back, she informed me the fraud department was not going to budge because too much time had passed! 
It took them TWO MONTHS just to respond to my initial fraud claim and they sure show no signs of even trying to fix the issue. 
These NON-Negotiable checks were deposited not once or twice but 37 TIMES! For a grand total of {$20000.00}.

I AM NOT to blame for this, this is clearly a mobile deposit issue with three different banks and this needs to be addressed and fixed!

I have attached several copies of what these checks looked like and several of them were deposited multiple times. 
As a small business owner that has been with US Bank since XXXX and runs a million dollars plus through their accounts almost every year and who has never had one issue with their accounts. I am deeply troubled. Maybe if they had sent me a notice of a returned check, I would have caught it sooner. 
copied and pasted subsection e of UCC 4-406 ( e ) If subsection ( d ) applies and the customer proves that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item and that the failure substantially contributed to loss, the loss is allocated between the customer precluded and the bank asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of the customer to comply with subsection ( c ) and the failure of the bank to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss. If the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith, the preclusion under subsection ( d ) does not apply.

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