Claimant says: " ”
...Show more »
Claimant says: "
On August 12, 2018, at 9.41 p.m. (PDT) I, Alexey Ukhnalev (hereinafter referred to as a “Plaintiff”) had the legally binding deal with Bank of America (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) Defendant's client Dasith Silva on the https://localbitcoins.com/ website platform. The deal was performed at the plaintiff's home address.
According to the Receipt Contact #26532635 from the website platform, the plaintiff (Alexey Ukhnalev, username auhnalev on the mentioned platform) sold to the Defendant's client Dasith Silva (username kylez64) 0.36816899 BTC (Bitcoins) for $2500.00, which is proofed by the receipt (attached to the case file) and by the chat transcripts from the website platform (attached either). The user's kylez64 real name (Dasith Silva) was VERIFIED by the website the platform they traded on (had the legally binding contract), which can be also confirmed by the chat transcripts and by the plaintiff's wife Mariia Ukhnaleva testimony either.
As per Contact #2653263 on the website platform, the Defendant's client Dasith Silva (username kylez64) sent to the plaintiff’s checking account the payment of $2500.00 via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) from his checking account in Bank of America ending - 3952 to the plaintiff's Bank of America Checking Account ending - 1037, which is proofed by text message the plaintiff received on August 12, 2018, at 9.58 p.m. (PDT) and by the bank statement (confirmation #8b551b897, attached to the case file).
On August 13, 2018, approximately between 3-4 p.m. (PDT) the plaintiff opened the Online Banking and saw that the defendant (Bank of America) placed the unreasonable hold on his account made it negative - $888 888.88).
The plaintiff immediately called the Check Fraud Department at the Bank of America TX1-160-04-01 (+18003176345). Michelle (defendant's representative) said that the Defendant's client Dasith Silva reported an unauthorized transaction (fraud claim #13aug2018-178676) against the plaintiff by saying that he allegedly didn’t authorize the payment of $2500.00 via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system).
To prove to the defendant that the plaintiff had the legal deal with the Defendant's client, the plaintiff sent a fax to the defendant, which cost him $41.91 in Office Max store (20 pages of fax) along with some other sufficient documents (such as The Receipt Contact #26532635 from the website platform, chat transcripts along with my wife's evidence of this fact).
The plaintiff also sent to the defendant express and regular mail with a copy of all mentioned above documents that cost him $24.70 and $5.57 (the copy of the receipts are attached to the case file).
Later the defendant's representative informed the plaintiff about the claim #13aug2018-178676 was resolved not in his favor because the plaintiff supposedly hadn't verified the person who he had the deal with.
However, the above defendant's statement is based on the wrong understanding of the letter of the law regulation, established on the wrongful interpretation of the defendant's Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure because of the following facts:
1. According to paragraph 5 Section 3 of the Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure:
“5. Receiving Money; Money Transfers by Network Banks
Once a User initiates a transfer of money to your email address or mobile phone number enrolled with the Service, you have no ability to stop the transfer. By using the Service, you agree and authorize us to initiate credit entries to the bank account you have registered.”
“6. Sending Money; Debits by Network Banks
You may send money to another User at your initiation or in response to that User’s request for money. You understand that use of this Service by you shall at all times be subject to (i) this Agreement, and (ii) your express authorization at the time of the transaction for us or another Network Bank to initiate a debit entry to your bank account. You understand that when you send the payment, you will have no ability to stop it. You may only cancel a payment if the person to whom you sent the money has not yet enrolled in the Service. If the person you sent money to has already enrolled with Zelle, either in the Zelle mobile app or with a Network Bank, the money is sent directly to their bank account (except as otherwise provided below) and may not be canceled or revoked.”
In violation of the above Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure, the defendant had illegally revoked the Zelle transfer from the plaintiff’s checking account (ending *1037) to the defendant’s client’s Dasith Silva BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending – 3952 which is directly prohibited by the above paragraph of the Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure.
2. According to the paragraph “C” Section 5 of the Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure:
“1. Zelle is intended for sending money to family, friends, and people with whom you are familiar.”
The plaintiff was familiar with the defendant’s client (account holder) Dasith Silva. Moreover, the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to verify the defendant’s client Dasith Silva as much as was required by Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) reflected in Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure.
At the moment of the transfer, the plaintiff had the following information about the defendant’s client Dasith Silva proving that the plaintiff is familiar with the person:
o Real full legal name: Dasith Andradige Silva;
o Age: 28;
o Phone number: (410) 369-5200
o Current address: 5834 Wyndham Cir Unit 301, Columbia, MD 21044
o Two Previous addresses:
§ 10596 Twin Rivers Rd #C2 Columbia, MD 21044-2114;
§ 854 College Pkwy #T2 Rockville, MD 20850-1934 (Feb 2014 - Feb 2015);
o Relatives: Andradige Senani Silva, Dasith Andradige, Silva Savanthi Andradige;
o Associates: Ambalangodage D Kularatna, Andradege Piuma Kularatna, Andradige P Kularatna, Dhammika A Kularatna).
o Sender’s personal photo of Dasith Andradige Silva (attached to the current reply).
o Information about his places of education and work. Defendant’s client Dasith Andradige Silva was a student computer programmer at Tomson University. He is a second-year graduate student studying computer science at Towson University. He has been working as a computer programmer with the Division of Innovation and Applied Research (DIAR) for one year.
Based on these facts, defendant’s client Dasith Silva real legal name was fully verified by the plaintiff along with his age, relatives, current, previous addresses and his places of study and work upon the transfer of $2500.00 via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) from the defendant’s client checking account in Bank of America ending - 3952 to the plaintiff's Bank of America Checking Account ending – 1037.
The plaintiff also verified the defendant’s client Dasith Silva as the account holder of BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952.
3. According to the paragraph “B” Section 5 of the Online Banking and Transfers Outside Bank of America Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure:
“When you give someone your Online Banking ID and passcode, you are authorizing that person to use your service, and you are responsible for all transactions that person performs while using your service. All transactions that person performs, even those transactions you did not intend or want performed, are authorized transactions.
Transactions that you or someone acting with you initiates with fraudulent intent are also authorized transactions.”
To make the transfer of $2500.00 via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) defendant’s client Dasith Silva used the following personal information and data:
• The online banking account login and password to log in into the defendant’s Online Banking System;
• 16-digit debit card number associated with the BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952 printed on the front side of the debit card along with the full name on the card with the card expiration date;
• CVV code printed on the back side of the debit card associated with the BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952;
• One-time text message code associated with the BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952 which was sent to account holder (defendant’s client Dasith Silva) registered in the Bank of America cell phone number.
All these mentioned facts clearly and indisputably testify the person who actually made the transfer of $2500.00 via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) defendant’s client Dasith Silva.
Taking into account that the only person who physically could obtain all the data to make the $2500.00 transfer via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) from the BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952 to the plaintiff’s checking account (ending *1037) was the actual account holder (defendant’s client Dasith Silva), the unauthorized transaction (fraud claim #13aug2018-178676) against the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant in the violation of current legislation and its own terms of service (Service Agreement and Electronic Disclosure).
The defendant had wrongly interpreted the $2500.00 transfer via Zelle Bank of America (defendant's payment system) from the BofA Checking Interest Account in Bank of America ending *3952 to the plaintiff’s checking account (ending *1037) as a fraudulent transaction that caused the plaintiff an unreasonable $2500 expense that should be recovered to him by the defendant.
Due to the unlawful money recovery by the defendant from the plaintiff’s bank account, the plaintiff had been suffering and continues to suffer from the severe mental distress, expressed in a shaken confidence in the American banking system, which was not receptive to the obvious evidence from the plaintiff’s arguments.
The plaintiff is a bona fide money receiver with a sufficient degree of awareness about the money sender’s identity who did not know and could not know that he had acquired property from a person who does not have the right to alienate him.
In addition, the plaintiff has broken a healthy sleep and appetite associated with experiencing the weight loss because of the amount of $ 2500.00 the defendant took from his checking account is significant to the plaintiff’s family of 4 people (2 adults and 2 kids). The defendant even closed the plaintiff’s bank account by sending the report to ChexSystems, which is a consumer reporting agency for financial institutions. This caused irreparable damage to the plaintiff ‘s honor and dignity because the plaintiff has been a bank client since 2014 and has never performed any illegal or fraudulent actions against the defendant or any of the defendant’s clients.
The plaintiff is the only employed person in the household which is considered a low-income family. The defendant’s representatives in the telephone conversations did not want to listen to him, because the plaintiff is not a native speaker, treating the plaintiff with a smirk, offering to sue the defendant in court.
The plaintiff sincerely asks to consider the case in his favor obliging the Defendant to return the illegally withheld from the plaintiff’s bank account the amount of $ 2500.00.
Best Regards,
Alexey Ukhnalev (The Plaintiff)
*” ...Show less »