My Bank Denied My Fraud Claim With the Same Form Letter. Is That an Investigation?

You reported transfers you did not make and filed a claim. The bank's letter said it found no error. When you wrote back with more detail, the next letter read much like the first.

That experience leaves many people asking whether anyone actually looked at their claim. Federal law does not let a bank simply decide a claim; it sets out a process. This article explains what Regulation E requires of an investigation and of the letter that reports its results, questions worth asking about a denial, and practical next steps. For the bigger picture, start with our guide, My Phone Was Stolen and My Bank Account Was Drained: Your Rights.

What Regulation E Requires Once You Report

Under 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(a)(1)(i), an "error" includes "An unauthorized electronic fund transfer." Notice of an error may be oral or written. Under § 1005.11(b)(1), the bank must follow the error-resolution rules for a notice it receives no later than 60 days after it sends the periodic statement on which the error first appears, as long as the notice identifies you and your account and indicates why you believe there is an error.

Then the clock starts. Under § 1005.11(c)(1), the bank "shall investigate promptly" and generally must determine whether an error occurred within 10 business days, report the results within three business days after completing its investigation, and correct an error within one business day of finding it. A bank that needs more time may take up to 45 days, but only if it provisionally credits your account within 10 business days, as explained in Your Bank’s 10-Business-Day Deadline: How Provisional Credit Works.

The Official Interpretations add guardrails. Comment 11(c)-2 says a bank "must begin its investigation promptly upon receipt of an oral notice. It may not delay until it has received a written confirmation." Comment 11(b)(1)-2 says that while a bank may request a written, signed statement, "it may not delay initiating or completing an investigation pending receipt of the statement." Comment 11(c)-3 says that if an error occurred, the bank "may not impose a charge related to any aspect of the error-resolution process (including charges for documentation or investigation)."

On what an investigation involves, the CFPB's published Regulation E FAQs (last updated January 2025) state that "The investigation must be reasonable, including a reasonable review of relevant information within the financial institution's own records." Those FAQs are a CFPB staff compliance aid, not a regulation, but they show how the agency has described the obligation.

What the Denial Letter Must Contain

A denial is not supposed to be a bare conclusion. 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(d)(1) provides: "The institution's report of the results of its investigation shall include a written explanation of the institution's findings and shall note the consumer's right to request the documents that the institution relied on in making its determination. Upon request, the institution shall promptly provide copies of the documents."

Two things follow. First, the letter should explain findings, not just announce a result. Second, you can ask for the documents behind the decision, and if an error occurred, comment 11(c)-3 bars the bank from charging you for them.

Questions to Ask About a Denial

A form letter is not automatically a legal violation. What matters is whether the bank actually investigated and whether its written explanation reflects findings about what you reported. A letter that repeats the same language without addressing the facts you raised is a reason to ask whether the investigation was reasonable. These questions can help you and an attorney understand what happened:

• Does the letter deal with the facts you reported? If you told the bank your phone was stolen, does the letter mention the theft at all? Comment 2(m)-3 to Regulation E says "An unauthorized EFT includes a transfer initiated by a person who obtained the access device from the consumer through fraud or robbery."
• Does it rest only on the fact that your device or password was used? Regulation E defines an unauthorized transfer by, among other things, who initiated it and whether that person had "actual authority." The CFPB's FAQs state that when account access information is obtained "through fraudulent means such as computer hacking" and used to make a transfer, "the transfer is an unauthorized EFT under Regulation E."
• Does it suggest you were careless? Comment 6(b)-2 says "Negligence by the consumer cannot be used as the basis for imposing greater liability than is permissible under Regulation E."
• Did your appeal get a different answer, or the same paragraph? If you supplied new information and the second letter repeats the first, it is fair to ask whether the new information was considered.

For more on the "you authorized it" denial specifically, see My Bank Says I Authorized the Transfer. I Didn't. Now What?

Appeals and the Reassertion Rule

Regulation E does not create a formal appeal. Instead, § 1005.11(e) says: "A financial institution that has fully complied with the error resolution requirements has no further responsibilities under this section should the consumer later reassert the same error," with one narrow exception. The key words are "fully complied." The rule protects a bank that followed the process the first time. Whether the first investigation complied is the real question, and the documents you request can help answer it. Writing back with new information is still worthwhile because it builds a record.

When Treble Damages Can Come Into Play

The Electronic Fund Transfer Act provides for actual damages, statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 in an individual action, and costs and a reasonable attorney's fee in a successful action (15 U.S.C. § 1693m(a)). In some situations, 15 U.S.C. § 1693f(e) goes further and allows treble damages, if the court finds either that (1) the bank did not provisionally recredit within the ten-day period and either "did not make a good faith investigation of the alleged error" or "did not have a reasonable basis for believing that the consumer's account was not in error," or (2) the bank "knowingly and willfully concluded that the consumer's account was not in error when such conclusion could not reasonably have been drawn from the evidence available" to it at the time.

These are findings a court makes on the evidence, and banks have defenses, including the bona fide error defense in § 1693m(c). In a case involving your liability for an unauthorized transfer, though, § 1693g(b) places the burden of proof on the bank to show the transfer was authorized.

New York's Deceptive Practices Law

New York General Business Law § 349(a) declares "Unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices" unlawful. A private person's right to sue, however, is narrower. Under § 349(h), a person injured "by reason of any deceptive act or deceptive practice" may sue for actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, with possible increased damages up to three times actual damages, capped at $1,000, for willful or knowing violations, and the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff. Claims about "unfair" or "abusive" practices are for the Attorney General. Whether a particular denial letter is deceptive depends on what it said and the circumstances.

What to Do Now

• Request the documents. Ask in writing for the documents the bank relied on, citing 12 C.F.R. § 1005.11(d)(1).
• Respond in writing. Restate the facts: when the phone was stolen, when you learned of the transfers, when you reported, and that you did not authorize them. Keep copies and note every call.
• Consider complaints. You can file with the CFPB, the New York Department of Financial Services, and the New York Attorney General.
• Watch the calendar. Under § 1693m(g), an EFTA action must be brought "within one year from the date of the occurrence of the violation." When that period began for you is a fact question worth raising with a lawyer early.

If the thief moved money between your accounts before draining them, see Thieves Moved My Savings Into Checking Before Draining It. When you are ready, you can tell us what happened, and an attorney at Rausa Russo Law can review it with you. Consultations are free.