An 80-year-old Queens woman who lost her life savings after a stroke has won a major court victory against one of the country’s largest banks, illuminating a broader crisis in financial abuse of older adults. In December, a New York judge ordered Citibank to pay nearly $3.5 million to Leileth Faye Graham after finding the bank failed to stop years of suspicious withdrawals and wire transfers from her accounts and then hid key evidence during the lawsuit. Despite the ruling, Graham, who is legally blind, bedridden, and reliant on Medicaid, has yet to receive any money while Citibank pursues an appeal.
Life Savings Drained After Stroke
Graham’s ordeal began in February 2020, when a stroke left the former legal secretary, once employed by the prominent law firm Shearman & Sterling, unable to see, walk, or speak clearly. The longtime Queens resident, who immigrated from Jamaica in the 1970s and later earned degrees from Manhattan College and Pace University, could no longer manage her own finances.
In 2023, her niece, Ingrid Gayle, discovered the severity of Graham’s condition and alerted Adult Protective Services. By then, Graham’s financial circumstances had collapsed. Despite a lifetime of careful saving and a professional background that suggested strong financial literacy, she was surviving on public benefits.
Court filings later revealed that, between 2020 and 2023, more than $772,000 disappeared from Graham’s Citibank accounts. Another niece, Joan Hope Bowden, allegedly made 211 ATM withdrawals in Massachusetts—where Graham had never been—while 15 wire transfers moved roughly $638,000 more. The money funded family travel to Jamaica, a property in Washington, D.C., and gifts to relatives, even as Graham lay confined to her bed in Queens.
Alarms Missed, Evidence Withheld
The pattern of withdrawals and transfers bore multiple hallmarks of suspicious activity. Repeated ATM withdrawals of roughly $3,660 far exceeded typical daily limits. Large wire transfers averaging about $42,500 were sent out of Graham’s accounts without any meaningful verification. All of this occurred in the name of a client who, by that point, could not independently visit a bank branch or reliably authorize complex transactions.
According to court papers, Citibank’s own security rules should have flagged the sudden shift in account behavior. The bank had decades of history with Graham’s accounts, giving it a clear baseline for detecting anomalies, especially as federal regulators have long emphasized that abrupt large withdrawals, frequent maximum ATM use, and sudden involvement of a new caregiver or family member are red flags for elder financial exploitation.
Yet when Graham’s court-appointed property guardian and legal team sought answers, Citibank initially claimed in February 2024 that it had “no knowledge or information” about unauthorized transfers. Fourteen months later, in May 2025, the bank produced audio recordings it said captured authorizations for the disputed wire transfers. Those recordings became central to the question of whether Graham had genuinely approved the transactions or had been impersonated—and to the court’s view of the bank’s conduct.
A Sharp Rebuke From the Court
On December 19, 2025, Queens Supreme Court Justice Bernice Siegal issued a sweeping ruling against Citibank. The court found the bank liable not only for failing to stop the fraudulent withdrawals and wires, but also for concealing crucial audio evidence for more than a year in defiance of court directives.
The judgment totaled nearly $3.5 million. It included triple damages on the roughly $772,000 in unauthorized transactions, $242,828 in interest, and $150,000 in additional damages. The judge also imposed a $10,000 sanction on Citibank for what she described as the concealment of “the most critical evidence” in the case—the recordings of the purported wire authorizations—and for causing “substantial and irreparable prejudice” to Graham’s side.
Citibank has denied wrongdoing, insisting it followed relevant laws and its own procedures. The bank appealed the ruling, and Graham’s family has asked the Appellate Division, Second Department, to dismiss that appeal. Graham’s attorney, Raymond Dowd, has said that “not one nickel” of the award has been paid and accused the bank of “blocking everything” while the case moves through the appellate courts.
A Test Case in a Growing Elder Fraud Crisis
Graham’s situation sits at the intersection of a rapidly expanding national problem and an unsettled legal landscape around wire transfers. Federal Trade Commission data show reported losses by older adults climbed from about $600 million in 2020 to roughly $2.4 billion in 2024, with total fraud-related losses across all ages estimated in the tens of billions of dollars. Investment scams are the costliest category, followed by schemes built on romance and government impersonation, and reports of six-figure losses have multiplied in just a few years.
Regulators have repeatedly urged financial institutions to adopt stronger detection systems and internal safeguards to prevent exploitation of older customers, including “risk-based” monitoring of unusual withdrawals and simple tools that let clients designate trusted contacts when abuse is suspected. But many of these measures remain voluntary, and training requirements under laws like the Senior Safe Act are limited.
At the same time, courts are grappling with whether existing consumer protection laws fully cover the kind of wire transfers at issue in Graham’s case. In a separate lawsuit brought by the New York Attorney General, the state argues that the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) obligates banks to investigate and reimburse consumers for unauthorized wire fraud. Citibank counters that such transfers are governed instead by Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code, which offers narrower protections.
A federal judge in New York refused to dismiss the attorney general’s case in January 2025, keeping alive the question of whether EFTA applies to wires. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is expected to decide that issue, which industry groups describe as a “question of first impression” with wide-reaching implications. In a November brief, Citibank warned that extending EFTA’s rules to wire transfers would force institutions to overhaul operations or face increased liability, and several banking trade organizations have argued that some smaller players might drop wire services entirely if the standard shifts.
A Case With Personal and Systemic Stakes
For Graham, the legal fight is about more than precedent. Her caregiver, Ingrid Gayle, has said the money could have funded basic changes to make Graham’s life more livable: renovations to her apartment, lifts, bathroom modifications, and a specialized vehicle. Instead, those funds disappeared, and Graham’s health, mobility, and independence have deteriorated under the strain of both illness and financial loss.
The lawsuit has also highlighted the role of court-appointed guardians. After Adult Protective Services was contacted, a judge named Gayle temporary guardian of Graham’s person and appointed Abraham S. Mazloumi as sole temporary property guardian, empowering him to sue on Graham’s behalf. Her attorney has called the resulting judgment a “game changer,” arguing that it reinforces the principle that banks, not vulnerable consumers, bear the burden of proving whether large and suspect transactions were authorized.
Whether Justice Siegal’s ruling becomes a durable benchmark or an isolated outcome will turn on the appeals now underway. If higher courts uphold the decision and if the Second Circuit broadens EFTA protections to wire transfers, banks may face new obligations to detect and block suspicious activity, particularly when customers are older or disabled. For now, Graham remains in bed in Queens, waiting to learn if the law will deliver compensation in time for her to benefit from it—and financial institutions across the country are watching closely to see how far their duty to protect such clients will reach.
Sources
Citibank Ordered to Pay Queens Woman $3.5 Million for Failing to Stop Fraud and Hiding Evidence. Queens Eagle, January 8, 2026
Citibank Must Pay Back Millions To Stroke Victim. Black Enterprise, January 4, 2026
Protecting Older Consumers 2024-2025: A Report of the Federal Trade Commission. Federal Trade Commission, December 2025
Interagency Statement on Elder Financial Exploitation. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, December 2024
False Alarm, Real Scam: How Scammers Are Stealing Older Adults’ Life Savings. Federal Trade Commission, August 2025
Second Circuit Poised to Rule on What Law Applies to Consumer Wire Fraud. Mayer Brown, December 2024