Ramana v. Wells Fargo Bank

Background

Aarti Ramana alleges that fraudsters impersonating Wells Fargo employees and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents contacted her in December 2025. They referred to information about her accounts, told her that an investigation involved Wells Fargo branches, and claimed that FBI “investigative funds” had been placed in her checking account. In fact, the fraudsters allegedly transferred Ramana’s own money from her savings account to her checking account without authorization. Ramana then withdrew cash and gave it to the fraudsters. She alleges that the fraudsters transferred $125,000 and that she withdrew and lost $110,000.

Ramana sued Wells Fargo under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, citing 15 U.S.C. §§ 1693f and 1693g. Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. In opposing the motion, Ramana clarified that her claim was based only on the intrabank transfers between her savings and checking accounts, not on the cash withdrawals she made in person.

Issue and analysis

The issue was whether Ramana adequately alleged an “unauthorized electronic fund transfer” under 15 U.S.C. § 1693a(12). The statute requires that the transfer be initiated by someone other than the consumer without actual authority and that the consumer receive no benefit from it.

The court concluded that Ramana adequately alleged the first requirement because she claimed that the fraudsters initiated the transfers without authorization. Wells Fargo disputed the second requirement. It argued that Ramana benefited because the transfers credited her checking account and made funds available for her use before she personally withdrew the money.

The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. It reasoned that the transfers allegedly facilitated the fraudsters’ deception and induced Ramana to help them take her money, making the transfers a source of harm rather than a benefit. The court also noted that Ramana could likely have withdrawn the same money directly from her savings account, so the transfers may not have meaningfully improved her position. Moving the money out of savings could also have reduced interest Ramana might otherwise have earned.

The court acknowledged that this case differed from earlier cases because Ramana participated in the final withdrawal of the money. But it held that her voluntary withdrawal did not show that she benefited from the earlier unauthorized transfers. The court stated that the transfers’ downstream effects could help determine whether Ramana received a benefit under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act.

Disposition

The court denied Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss. It did not decide the proper measure of damages, including Ramana’s request for damages based on $125,000 when she alleges that she withdrew and lost $110,000. The opinion therefore leaves the underlying claim to proceed; it does not decide whether Ramana will ultimately prevail.