If your bank canceled your debit card after you reported fraud, sent you a replacement, and then denied your claim, I understand why that feels contradictory.
From your point of view, the bank's actions seemed to say something was wrong. It apparently thought there was enough of a security problem to shut down the old card and issue a new one.
Then the denial arrives.
What you hear is:
“You believed me enough to kill the card, but not enough to give me my money back.”
Replacing the card and deciding whether particular transactions were unauthorized can be two different decisions inside the bank. The bank may shut down a card because it believes the card information could be compromised, while separately deciding whether it believes the disputed transactions were fraud.
But that explanation does not automatically make the denial right.
If the bank says the transactions were authorized, the important question becomes:
Why?
What did the bank actually investigate, and what evidence caused it to decide that transactions you say you did not make were yours?
The replacement card does not automatically prove your fraud claim. But the denial does not automatically prove the bank got it right either.
I explain that contradiction in more detail here:
https://www.cardozalawcorp.com/blog/my-bank-replaced-my-card-why-was-my-claim-denied-.cfm
