Concern

An individual, residing in the Philippines but originally from the United States, has faced repeated issues with an online stock company (referred to here as ShareOwner Online). The company has allegedly debited their bank account for approximately three years without fulfilling requests to sell their shares. The individual has been informed their account is restricted due to an erroneous report from a crediting monitoring agency claiming they are deceased. Multiple sale requests have been sent via Federal Express, but the shares have not been sold, and no proceeds have been deposited into their bank account. The individual has also experienced inconsistent communication from customer service representatives and claims a lack of transparency regarding the status of their funds or shares.

∇ Legal Contemplator

Initial Observations and Clarifications

Key Facts:
- The individual has bank records showing consistent debits by ShareOwner Online for three years.
- They have been informed of account restrictions based on a third-party report from TransUnion stating they are deceased.
- Sale requests were submitted via Federal Express multiple times, yet no action appears to have been taken.
- The company claims checks for proceeds have been mailed, but the individual has not received any such checks or deposits.
Unanswered Questions:
- Why has the account restriction persisted despite evidence proving the individual is alive?
- Is the restriction a legal or procedural issue, and does it align with the terms and conditions of the account?
- Where are the proceeds from the sale of shares, and why has there been no clear evidence of their disbursement?
- Is there a pattern of negligence, fraud, or a combination of both on the company's part?

Breaking Down the Problem

Account Restriction Due to Erroneous "Deceased" Status:
- It is unusual for a financial institution to rely solely on third-party reports to restrict account access, especially when the individual is actively engaging with the company and providing evidence of being alive.
- TransUnion's role is critical here. Did they issue a correction to the erroneous report? If not, why hasn’t the individual been informed of their resolution process?
- ShareOwner Online’s refusal to address or resolve the issue despite obvious evidence of error raises questions about their internal processes and accountability.
Inconsistencies in Proceeds and Communication:
- The individual's portfolio fluctuates wildly, from under $300 to $10,000, despite market highs. This inconsistency warrants an audit of how the portfolio is managed.
- The claim that checks were mailed without confirmation of receipt suggests a lack of tracking and accountability on the company's part.
Legal and Procedural Obligations of the Company:
- Companies managing investments have fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of their clients.
- If funds or shares are mishandled, this could constitute breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, or even fraud.

Theories to Consider

Negligence by ShareOwner Online:
- The company may lack proper procedures for addressing account restrictions caused by erroneous reports.
- Repeated failure to resolve the issue or provide clear communication is indicative of systemic negligence.
Potential Fraud:
- The discrepancies in portfolio value and lack of proceeds raise red flags. Are the shares being misappropriated or mishandled?
- The fact that funds are being debited monthly without corresponding service or transparency could point to a deliberate attempt to exploit the individual.
Regulatory Non-Compliance:
- ShareOwner Online must comply with local (U.S.) and international (Philippines) regulations governing investment services. Failure to provide proceeds, maintain accurate records, or resolve disputes may violate these laws.

Doubts and Challenges

Proving Mismanagement or Fraud:
- Without access to the company’s internal records, it is challenging to determine whether the issue is due to systemic negligence or intentional misconduct.
Jurisdictional Complexities:
- The individual resides in the Philippines, while the company is presumably based in the U.S. This creates jurisdictional challenges for legal action.
Potential Defenses by the Company:
- ShareOwner Online may argue that they followed procedures dictated by the erroneous report.
- They could claim the checks were mailed as a good-faith effort, shifting the responsibility to postal services or external factors.

Steps to Take

Immediate Documentation:
- Gather and organize all communication with ShareOwner Online, including call logs, emails, and sale requests.
- Obtain detailed bank records showing the debits and any corresponding transactions or lack thereof.
Engage with TransUnion:
- Contact TransUnion to clarify the "deceased" report and ensure it is corrected. Request documentation of their actions in resolving the issue.
File Complaints:
- Submit formal complaints to regulatory authorities, such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), and the Philippines Securities and Exchange Commission, if applicable.
Legal Consultation:
- Engage a lawyer experienced in cross-jurisdictional financial disputes. They can assess whether to pursue legal action in the U.S., the Philippines, or both.
Media and Consumer Advocacy:
- If the issue persists, consider engaging consumer advocacy groups or media outlets to bring attention to the problem.

Final Answer

This situation suggests a mix of systemic negligence and possible regulatory non-compliance by ShareOwner Online. The individual should immediately document all interactions and transactions, engage with TransUnion to correct the erroneous report, and escalate the matter to regulatory authorities. Consulting with a lawyer familiar with cross-border financial disputes is essential to navigate jurisdictional complexities and hold the company accountable.