This digital case file documents the unlawful seizure of $194,253.11 in legitimate business funds by Truist Bank. On April 10, 2025, Truist unilaterally closed the account and withdrew the entire balance. Nine months later, the bank fabricated a false statement claiming "HSBC" demanded return of funds — a claim entirely unsupported by any documentation, contradicted by transaction records showing KEB Hana Bank as the originator, and confirmed as fabricated by HSBC's own non-appearance in the interpleader action.
The following exhibits demonstrate the contradiction between Truist Bank's stated justification for withholding funds and the objective transaction records.
Note: Counsel explicitly identifies "HSBC" as the originating bank and the party demanding return of funds.
Note: Official wire receipt identifies "KEB Hana Bank" as originator. No reference to HSBC exists in the transaction record.
Note: Establishes Truist's documented pattern of insider theft at the exact dollar range of the seized funds.
Three independent lines of evidence converge: (1) Truist's counsel falsely named HSBC as the originating bank when official records show KEB Hana Bank; (2) HSBC has appeared in neither the interpleader action nor produced any demand documentation; (3) a Truist employee was convicted of stealing $195,000 from customer accounts — within $747 of the seized amount — establishing a documented pattern of inadequate internal controls. Under New York common law and UCC Article 4A, a bank that relies on a demonstrably false justification to retain customer funds is liable for conversion, fraud, and punitive damages.
Note: Truist's official July 2025 response never mentions HSBC — directly contradicting Kerner's January 2026 representation.
Truist Client Advocacy: "Cannot disclose exact reasons" — no mention of HSBC, closure attributed to "routine review"
Kerner (Truist counsel): "HSBC demanded return of funds" — specific bank named, specific demand asserted
These two statements cannot both be true. If HSBC had demanded return of funds, that would be a disclosable reason — and Truist's own Client Advocacy department would have stated it in July 2025. The HSBC narrative appears to have been constructed between July 2025 and January 2026, after litigation became imminent.
Chronology of events regarding Account #11800097382844
Legitimate wire transfers totaling $646,006.77 received from Korean partners TYM Corp and Root Corp via KEB Hana Bank.
Truist blocks the account citing vague "suspicious activity" with $194,253.11 remaining. No specific reason provided to account holder.
Truist unilaterally closes account and withdraws entire $194,253.11 balance via "ACCOUNT CLOSE OUT" transaction (CFO-2025040764). Funds seized without notice or due process.
Comprehensive documentation of legitimate business activities submitted to Truist. Account already closed for over a month. Request for release of funds ignored.
Truist's counsel claims "HSBC" demanded funds back. This statement is entirely unsubstantiated — Truist has produced no SWIFT messages, no written demand from HSBC, and no communications with HSBC. HSBC has not appeared in the interpleader action and has asserted no claim.
Ten months after seizing funds, Truist files interpleader action in SDNY (Case 1:26-cv-01462). Rather than curing the false statement, Paragraph 7 compounds it — hedging only that HSBC "may have been" an intermediary, a speculative claim unsupported by any documentation. HSBC has not appeared in the action and has asserted no claim, confirming the HSBC justification was fabricated.
Settlement Demand Letter v4 issued April 11, 2026 demanding $2,447,135.15 (366 days accrued interest). Incorporates all Bates feedback: 12(b)(1) motion, neutral CFPB disclosure (Bates-approved), corrected citations. Martin conviction, Exhibit D (10 admissions), and Count VII class action allegation ($435M–$2.54B) included. CFPB complaint to be filed April 25, 2026 regardless of outcome.
Truist must respond with a settlement offer by April 24, 2026. Failure to respond triggers: CFPB complaint filing (April 25), OCC complaint, state AG referral, and class action allegation escalation. Answer and Counterclaims due April 28, 2026.
Per Waiver of Service, Answer and Counterclaims (7 counts including Count VII Class Action) must be filed in SDNY by April 28, 2026. Filing-ready document prepared and available in Case Files.
Quantified damages as set forth in the Settlement Demand Letter (Seiller Waterman LLC, April 2026). Prejudgment interest accrues daily at 9% per annum under CPLR § 5004.
| Component | Amount |
|---|---|
| Principal — Funds Seized (April 10, 2025) | $194,253.11 |
| Prejudgment Interest (377 days @ 9% p.a., $47.90/day) | $18,057.56 |
| Consequential Damages — Lost Business Profits | $250,000.00 |
| Consequential Damages — Operational Disruption | $150,000.00 |
| Compensatory Subtotal | $612,310.67 |
| Punitive Damages (3:1 ratio) | $1,836,932.00 |
| TOTAL SETTLEMENT DEMAND | $2,449,242.66 |
Amalfitano v. Rosenberg, 12 N.Y.3d 8 (2009). Cough Zero will pursue the theory yielding the greater recovery at trial.
12 U.S.C. § 5565(b)(3). CFPB complaint to be filed April 25, 2026 if no settlement. Wells Fargo precedent: $3.7B (Dec. 2022).
Complete legal binder with all exhibits, filings, forensic analysis, and demand letters — ready for attorney review or legal AI analysis.
This website serves as a digital repository for legal counsel and regulatory authorities.
© 2026 Cough Zero Inc. All rights reserved.