Finance

JPMorgan begins suing customers over ‘infinite money glitch’

Published

2 months ago

October 28, 2024

Business Finance News

The Chase bank logo above ATMs, taken in Manhattan.

Michael Kappeler | Picture Alliance | Getty Images

JPMorgan Chase has begun suing customers who allegedly stole thousands of dollars from ATMs by taking advantage of a technical glitch that allowed them to withdraw funds before a check bounced.

The bank on Monday filed lawsuits in at least three federal courts, taking aim at some of the people who withdrew the highest amounts in the so-called infinite money glitch that went viral on TikTok and other social media platforms in late August.

A Houston case involves a man who owes JPMorgan $290,939.47 after an unidentified accomplice deposited a counterfeit $335,000 check at an ATM, according to the bank.

“On August 29, 2024, a masked man deposited a check in Defendant’s Chase bank account in the amount of $335,000,” the bank said in the Texas filing. “After the check was deposited, Defendant began withdrawing the vast majority of the ill-gotten funds.”

JPMorgan, the biggest U.S. bank by assets, is investigating thousands of possible cases related to the “infinite money glitch,” though it hasn’t disclosed the scope of associated losses. Despite the waning use of paper checks as digital forms of payment gain popularity, they’re still a major avenue for fraud, resulting in $26.6 billion in losses globally last year, according to Nasdaq’s Global Financial Crime Report.

The infinite money glitch episode highlights the risk that social media can amplify vulnerabilities discovered at a financial institution. Videos began circulating in late August showing people celebrating the withdrawal of wads of cash from Chase ATMs shortly after bad checks were deposited.

Normally, banks only make available a fraction of the value of a check until it clears, which takes several days. JPMorgan says it closed the loophole a few days after it was discovered.

Miami and California

The other lawsuits filed Monday are in courts including Miami and the Central District of California, and involve cases where JPMorgan says customers owe the bank sums ranging from about $80,000 to $141,000.

Most cases being examined by the bank are for far smaller amounts, according to people with knowledge of the situation who declined to be identified speaking about the internal investigation.

In each case, JPMorgan says its security team reached out to the alleged fraudster, but it hasn’t been repaid for the phony checks, in violation of the deposit agreement that customers sign when creating an account with the bank.

JPMorgan is seeking the return of the stolen funds with interest and overdraft fees, as well as lawyers’ fees and, in some cases, punitive damages, according to the complaints.

Criminal cases?

The lawsuits are likely to be just the start of a wave of litigation meant to force customers to repay their debts and signal broadly that the bank won’t tolerate fraud, according to the people familiar. JPMorgan prioritized cases with large dollar amounts and indications of possible ties to organized crime, they said.

The civil cases are separate from potential criminal investigations; JPMorgan says it has also referred cases to law enforcement officials across the country.

“Fraud is a crime that impacts everyone and undermines trust in the banking system,” JPMorgan spokesman Drew Pusateri said in a statement to CNBC. “We’re pursuing these cases and actively cooperating with law enforcement to make sure if someone is committing fraud against Chase and its customers, they’re held accountable.”

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: AAL, AVGO, JPM

Published

13 hours ago

December 24, 2024

Business Finance News

Finance

Biggest banks planning to sue the Federal Reserve over annual stress tests

Published

15 hours ago

December 24, 2024

Business Finance News

A general view of the Federal Reserve Building in Washington, United States.

Samuel Corum | Anadolu Agency | Getty Images

The biggest banks are planning to sue the Federal Reserve over the annual bank stress tests, according to a person familiar with the matter. A lawsuit is expected this week and could come as soon as Tuesday morning, the person said.

The Fed’s stress test is an annual ritual that forces banks to maintain adequate cushions for bad loans and dictates the size of share repurchases and dividends.

After the market close on Monday, the Federal Reserve announced in a statement that it is looking to make changes to the bank stress tests and will be seeking public comment on what it calls “significant changes to improve the transparency of its bank stress tests and to reduce the volatility of resulting capital buffer requirements.”

The Fed said it made the determination to change the tests because of “the evolving legal landscape,” pointing to changes in administrative laws in recent years. It didn’t outline any specific changes to the framework of the annual stress tests.

While the big banks will likely view the changes as a win, it may be too little too late.

Also, the changes may not go far enough to satisfy the banks’ concerns about onerous capital requirements. “These proposed changes are not designed to materially affect overall capital requirements, according to the Fed.

The CEO of BPI (Bank Policy Institute), Greg Baer, which represents big banks like JPMorgan, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, welcomed the Fed announcement, saying in a statement “The Board’s announcement today is a first step towards transparency and accountability.”

However, Baer also hinted at further action: “We are reviewing it closely and considering additional options to ensure timely reforms that are both good law and good policy.”

Groups like the BPI and the American Bankers Association have raised concerns about the stress test process in the past, claiming that it is opaque, and has resulted in higher capital rules that hurt bank lending and economic growth.

In July, the groups accused the Fed of being in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, because it didn’t seek public comment on its stress scenarios and kept supervisory models secret.

CNBC’s Hugh Son contributed to this report.