Wells Fargo Bank, NA - Wells Fargo Home Mortgage will not remove or investigate a fraudulent loan taken out in my name. San Francisco, California

The following is the most recent letter being sent to the OCC and all WF parties involved. It should explain everything.

As a follow up to the above reference complaint, I thought it would prudent to express my concern and frustration with the on-going Wells Fargo Internal investigation. From my perspective, in an effort to prevent further liability (both civil and regulatory); Wells Fargo is attempting to protect their employee(s) of improper procedures and criminal activity instead of protecting the consumer and following proper banking regulations.

As you may know, after months of requesting information from Wells Fargo (WF) and their employee, Ms. XXXXX, with happens to be my ex-wife, I verbally filed a complaint about the fraud and forgery in February of 2009. As requested by Wells Fargo, I filled out their ID Theft Affidavit form and submitted various documents on March 10, 2009.

Since the completion of the complaint, I received a verbal denial of the complaint from Lori Talkington, who informed me that she was just following her supervisors orders. Subsequently, I received a letter dated, April 20, 2009, which denied the complaint because I had knowledge of the loan and I received a direct benefit. WF relied on various statements and documents (including forgeries) provided by MS. XXXXX, WF employee and the perpetrator.

On May 13, 2009, I responded to Wells Fargos allegations for the reason provided in denying the complaint and requested them to reopen the investigation of forgery and fraud. In addition, I filed a complaint wit the OCC on May 18, 2009.

On October 9, 2009, I received a letter from the OCC stated that the agency was informed by Edward Pacella, a WF employee, that I retained legal counsel regarding the dispute. This statement by WF was false and I promptly notified the OCC of the misinformation in a letter dated October 13, 2009. This false allegation appeared to be an attempt by WF to remove the OCC from being involved in the dispute and prevent any investigation by the OCC of violations of banking statutes, regulations and policies that are applicable to this institution.

It appears that WF has reopened the investigation; however, I must question their continued lack of diligence.

Examples are as follows:

I will receive numerous messages from Karen Sutherland, WF investigator, , however whenever I call the investigator back, the investigator seem to screen  calls and I am forced to leave a message that I was returning their call, however I  seldom receive a return call in the next couple of days. Their message never indicate the purpose of the calls and always are made while I am at work, even though I have indicated several times that the best time to reach me is after 2:30 CST. This process repeats itself a few weeks later. From my prospective, it appears that WF investigator are just documenting that calls are being made, even though nothing is being discussed. Furthermore, I have on several occasion have requested to communicate by email (in an effort to create a paper trail); however I been informed that they do not have access to external email. My thoughts are that they do not want a trail, as it can only be a liability to WF for their wrong doings.

In a conversation that occurred in December 14, 2009, with Rosemary, another WF investigator, I once again had to explain that I am not currently be represented by an attorney in this matter; (however I do reserve my right to seek counsel in the future), the attorney that I have is a Family Attorney and is only representing me in matters relating to the divorce. This appears to be another attempt to squash the OCC Complaint.

In addition, in the same conversation, the investigator questioned if I really want to pursue the complaint against Ms. XXXXX, as WF would then legally be obligated to pursue criminal charges against Ms. XXXXX, if the complaint was substantiated. As I have indicated in the original complaint, I am willing to proceed with a criminal complaint. In fact, after not being satisfied with WF investigation, I filed a criminal complaint with the local police in July of 2009. This information was discussed with Ms. Sutherland and then faxed on August 3, 2009. Rosemary requested the police report on December 14, 2009. The information on the previously sent fax of the Police Report was provided to Rosemary the next day and she informed me that she would get it from Karen. Furthermore, she informed me that she was going to contact the Detective investigating the criminal complaint; however, I am unaware if this was actually done. First of all, it I felt that WF was attempting to make me feel guilty of possible criminal charges being brought against Ms. XXXXX. Secondly, it became very apparent that WF is not well organized in their investigation and does not communicate effectively among the staff that is investigating the complaint.

Furthermore, based on various conversations, it appears that the majority of WF investigation includes the investigators having various conversations with WF employee, Ms. XXXXX, the perpetrator. Even though Ms. XXXXXs stories have changed numerous times as new facts are presented to her, Wells Fargo appears to be accepted the new stories, rather then pursuing further investigation into the actual truth.

Finally, Wells Fargo refuses to investigate each and every allegation in the complaint. In one conversation, I am being told that Wells Fargo will be denying my allegation of Fraud and Forgery; however later in the same conversation, I informed them they do not need to investigate each allegation, since if the original loan documents were based on a forgery, then all that happens afterwards does not matter.

In an effort to clarify my complaint and allegation, let me take this opportunity to list them individually. Additionally, where necessary, I will refute WF previous comments and/or attempts to deny the complaint.

1. Abuse of position: Ms. XXXXX used her position and inside experience at WF to obtain a loan in my name by completing an on-line application with fraudulent information. Ms. Baker used her knowledge at WF to circumvent various procedures to have the loan approved and processed. She also used her professional connections to have documents containing forged signatures improperly notarized.
2. Loan Application: WF needs to investigate the Loan Application, completed by Ms. XXXXX, which contained fraudulent financial information that resulted in the loan being approved. As previously discussed with WF, this is a federal criminal offense; however, WF continues to refuse to investigate this allegation.
3. Forged Documents
1. Modification to Home Equity Line of Credit dated July 27, 2006 ($35,000)

                                                              i.      Notice of Right to Cancel

2. Equityline with FlexAbility Agreement  processed date 8-22-07 ($105,000)

                                                              i.      Line of Credit Mortgage dated August 24, 2007

                                                            ii.      W-9

                                                          iii.      Agreement to Provide Property/Flood Insurance

                                                          iv.      4506-T

                                                            v.      Borrowers Affidavit

                                                          vi.      Correction Agreement Limited Power of Attorney

                                                        vii.      Settlement Statement (HUD 1A)

                                                      viii.      Affiliated Business Arrangement

                                                          ix.      Notice of Right To Cancel

                                                            x.      Authorization for New Automatic Transfer (ACH)

WF is alleging that I authorized these signatures thru Ratification. This is based on Statements made by Ms. XXXXX, the perpetrator and the language in the Marital Settlement Agreement. As evident in the first HELOC, I would execute legal documents as needed and never provided verbal authorization for Ms. XXXXX to sign on my behalf. Secondly, the Marital Settlement Agreement does not contain any specifics on the loans. As in the case of the 1^st mortgage, the 2^nd HELOC could have been in Ms. XXXXXs name and only hers.

4. Wire Transfer Request Form: This forged document requested $15,000 to be wired to a bank account for the benefit of myself; however, Ms. XXXXX was a joint signer and this account. As previously claimed, I did not receive any direct benefit nor did I have any knowledge of the funds existing until the after the forgery was found; rather Ms. XXXXX had complete control and direct benefit of the funds.
5. ACH
6. Check 1001: For $16,384, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her credit card Citibank.
7. Check 1002: For $14,305, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her credit card - Discover
8. Check 1003: For $210, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her credit card Bank of America
9. Check 1005: For $8,300, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her credit card American Express
10. Check 1006: For $13,511.81, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her credit card Citibank
11. Check 1007 thru 1021: For $36,300, was forged by Ms XXXXX and payable to her. 
12. Check 1022: For $500, was forged by Ms. XXXXX and payable to her. This transaction was completed after the divorce
13. Credit Report: WF is not reporting these loans In Dispute to the various credit bureaus. In addition, after I notified Equifax, WF actually informed the agency, on or about August 27, 2009, that the debt was valid - during WF investigation.