I have retained dated emails showing requests for detailed and unredacted bank statements. Later solicitations raised the question of who had copies of my redacted documents. The source chain has not been independently proven.
The source is a preserved Outlook email chain titled Equipment Financing - WE JUST SPOKE. These are attributed text excerpts, not a screenshot of the original message; original .msg files are retained privately.
Received, any chance we can get May , June, and July unredacted as well?
Lanny Brown, copied to Richard Brzezinski, asked whether bank statements could show descriptions of the deposits. This earlier email helps explain why later requests for less-redacted material were discussed.
Brzezinski said PMFUS did not sell client financial information to brokers or authorize sharing for marketing. He acknowledged requesting an unredacted statement for evaluation and suggested that a lender might have subsequently shared information, while saying the facts were still under review.
This response is relevant and should be weighed with the later contact claims, not omitted.
Established by the email: PMFUS requested unredacted May–July statements on September 9. My account: I provided redacted statements and did not knowingly approve the broad secondary circulation described by callers. Callers' claims: certain outside contacts said they had statements, including one who said a redacted copy came from PMFUS. Not independently established: who sent each copy, who actually saw its contents, whether unredacted material was ever distributed, or exactly what the original funding authorization permitted.
Business records, including redacted statements, during a PMFUS financing inquiry. I say I did not individually provide them to the many unsolicited contacts.
Some said they had statements, an application or a file from brokers. A caller on October 15 specifically attributed a redacted statement to PMFUS.
Which entities received what documents; when; on what terms; whether a copy was passed onward; and whether an applicable authorization covered each transfer.
Unlike a generic funding pitch, a statement that an outside caller has the applicant's actual bank records raises a traceable question: where did that copy come from?
An individual identifying himself as an underwriter said he received the funding file from another company and discussed having bank statements. That account may provide a lead for investigators, but the other company’s participation is not independently verified by that statement alone.
Recorded conversation · reported contentA caller said he possessed a redacted copy of my bank statement and said PMFUS supplied it. I retained the caller's identifying information and the conversation privately. This is a specific allegation made by the caller, not proof that PMFUS transferred the document directly.
Attributed caller statementA recipient list, dates of access, copies of applicable authorizations and any forwarding records would help distinguish normal funding review from unauthorized onward distribution.
See the records requestedThe same business line used for loads, customers, drivers and urgent transportation matters was being occupied by unsolicited financing outreach. I was extremely frustrated. Broadly blocking callers was not an option without risking legitimate calls. The concern extends beyond privacy to the disruption of my daily business.
See the reconstructed contacts in time orderOriginal exports, communications, relevant call recordings, delivery-failure notices and the redacted bank records I actually submitted. Their integrity and dates matter if formal review becomes necessary.
Account identifiers, document PDFs, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, complete phone numbers, private names and recordings that could expose uninvolved people. Public display adds risk without establishing the transmission path.
Public PMF-associated financing forms include broad language about sharing applications with financing recipients. I recall not selecting a marketing opt-in, but the precise version and all applicable authorizations must be examined before any conclusion about whether sharing was permitted. Read the consent discussion.