Posted on 04/16/2025 7:36:18 AM PDT by Red Badger
Key Points
JPMorgan Chase this week began suing more customers it has accused of stealing funds from the nation’s largest bank in last year’s so-called “infinite money glitch.”
The bank is now going after customers who allegedly stole amounts below $75,000, which means it is filing complaints in state courts, instead of the federal venues it chose last year.
The bank has also sent letters to more than 1,000 customers demanding they repay funds since October.
******************************************************************
JPMorgan Chase this week began suing more customers it has accused of stealing funds from the nation’s largest bank in last year’s so-called “infinite money glitch.”
The bank is now going after customers who allegedly stole amounts below $75,000, which means it is filing complaints in state courts, instead of the federal venues it chose last year, according to a person with knowledge of the company’s deliberations.
The glitch, which went viral in late August in videos posted to social media, allowed customers to withdraw the entire value of a fraudulent check before it bounced.
″On August 29, 2024, a masked man deposited a check in Defendant’s Chase bank account in the amount of $73,000.00,” the bank said in a suit filed Tuesday afternoon in Gwinnett County, Georgia.
By the time the check bounced six days later, a series of cash withdrawals at two Chase branches in the state totaling $82,500 had been made, according to the bank.
The accused, whose name is being withheld by CNBC until she can respond, owes the bank $57,847.69, and hasn’t complied with requests to return the funds, according to the lawsuit.
Besides the Georgia case, the bank is filing lawsuits in state venues in Miami, Florida; the Bronx, New York; and two Texas counties, said the person, who declined to be identified speaking about the bank’s plans.
The episode highlights the lengths JPMorgan will go to to claw back funds it is owed and to deter future crimes. The bank looked at thousands of potential cases, choosing to litigate the largest amounts with the clearest pattern of theft, said the person familiar.
The bank has also sent letters to more than 1,000 customers demanding they repay funds since October, this person said. Some people returned money on their own after CNBC reported in October that the bank was going after potential fraudsters who had drawn down the largest amounts, said the person.
The lawsuits are separate from potential criminal cases that both federal and state law enforcement may be pursuing, according to the bank.
“We’re still investigating cases of fraud and cooperating with law enforcement — and we’ll do that for as long as it takes to hold fraudsters accountable,” Drew Pusateri, a spokesman for the New York-based bank, said in a statement.
Bankruptcy shield?
JPMorgan is also considering pushing back against the bankruptcy filings of alleged “infinite money” fraudsters.
In one of the bank’s motions made this week in bankruptcy court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, the company asked a judge for more time to object to the customer’s attempt to discharge his or her debts.
The bank is the “holder of an unsecured claim” that resulted from “actions taken by the Debtor to deposit a fraudulent check in the amount of $44,779.46 to which the Debtors immediately made numerous cash withdrawals on August 30, 2024 as well as various Cash App transactions to himself,” the bank alleged.
“There are genuine and important reasons people use bankruptcy protections,” JPMorgan’s Pusateri said. “Getting rid of debts you accumulated through fraud isn’t one of them.”
I know, it’s just that she’s one of my favorite actresses............
“I know, it’s just that she’s one of my favorite actresses.........“
Me, too.
Sounds like a programing error and crooks exploited it. I am not up to date on this stuff, but the last I've heard one needs sufficient funds in their account to "receive" the full amount at the time of the transaction. If I only $500 in an account and cash a check for $1K, I can only receive a small cash back until the check clears..
I think that's what it was............
Thank you.
It wasn’t a glitch. It’s depositing a hot check and then running to an ATM and withdrawing money. Everyone who did this is guilty of check fraud and should be hounded, arrested for felony charges, and forced into restitution
It was called ‘Check Kiting’ back when Congresscritters did it...........
It is dependent on the bank that issued the check
I forgot about that check kiting scandal.
How many were prosecuted for it?
I don’t remember anyone.....................
I’ll stand corrected, but I don’t think ANY. I think they were taking advantage of a policy of the House of Rep Bank to not pursue ANY hot checks written by Congressmen. So anytime they were a little light, they just wrote a hot check.
That is as I remember it...
Me too.........
years ago, my chase bank would hold deposit checks for almost 2 weeks. the wife would write checks a week after a deposit was made. Chase would charge $35 for every NSF check and an additional $35 for returned check fees. you almost read about me in the news!!!
Chase could be targeted by terrorists and I wouldn’t care one bit... piss on em!!
Six days to clear funds in this electronic age sounds ridiculous. There has to be more than is being reported to this story.
Two reasons why they don’t
1. Most banks are still running off of 1960s mainframes with code written in COBOL. I am not joking. They are using modern x86 servers but they are running an emulated mainframe. See Fiserv and Unisys. And why not? The code has been stable for decades.
2. The banks don’t want to immediately clear the. Heck because then they wouldn’t get overdrawn fees. Banks make a lot of money off of those fees.
They call it a glitch, but from what I understood they were doing what we used to call “check kiting”. It’s illegal and considered a fraudulent act.
🔝🔝
It’s not illegal for Democrats in Congress, apparently..........
Hope the people trying to get this debt discharged via bankruptcy get stomped. It would seem it is not dischargeable because the debt was incurred by means of a fraudulent act?
I believe that is correct................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.