Finance

JPMorgan Chase infinite money glitch: Bank sues more customers

Published

2 months ago

April 16, 2025

Business Finance News

A person uses an ATM at a Chase bank in New York City on November 19, 2024.

Charly Triballeau | AFP | Getty Images

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 pushing back against the bankruptcy filings of several 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.”

JPMorgan suing customers over money glitch viral scam

Finance

Stocks making the biggest moves midday: WOOF, TSLA, CRCL, LULU

Published

9 hours ago

June 6, 2025

Business Finance News

Finance

Swiss government proposes tough new capital rules in major blow to UBS

Published

11 hours ago

June 6, 2025

Business Finance News

A sign in German that reads “part of the UBS group” in Basel on May 5, 2025.

Fabrice Coffrini | AFP | Getty Images

The Swiss government on Friday proposed strict new capital rules that would require banking giant UBS to hold an additional $26 billion in core capital, following its 2023 takeover of stricken rival Credit Suisse.

The measures would also mean that UBS will need to fully capitalize its foreign units and carry out fewer share buybacks.

“The rise in the going-concern requirement needs to be met with up to USD 26 billion of CET1 capital, to allow the AT1 bond holdings to be reduced by around USD 8 billion,” the government said in a Friday statement, referring to UBS’ holding of Additional Tier 1 (AT1) bonds.

The Swiss National Bank said it supported the measures from the government as they will “significantly strengthen” UBS’ resilience.

“As well as reducing the likelihood of a large systemically important bank such as UBS getting into financial distress, this measure also increases a bank’s room for manoeuvre to stabilise itself in a crisis through its own efforts. This makes it less likely that UBS has to be bailed out by the government in the event of a crisis,” SNB said in a Friday statement.

‘Too big to fail’

UBS has been battling the specter of tighter capital rules since acquiring the country’s second-largest bank at a cut-price following years of strategic errors, mismanagement and scandals at Credit Suisse.

The shock demise of the banking giant also brought Swiss financial regulator FINMA under fire for its perceived scarce supervision of the bank and the ultimate timing of its intervention.

Swiss regulators argue that UBS must have stronger capital requirements to safeguard the national economy and financial system, given the bank’s balance topped $1.7 trillion in 2023, roughly double the projected Swiss economic output of last year. UBS insists it is not “too big to fail” and that the additional capital requirements — set to drain its cash liquidity — will impact the bank’s competitiveness.

At the heart of the standoff are pressing concerns over UBS’ ability to buffer any prospective losses at its foreign units, where it has, until now, had the duty to back 60% of capital with capital at the parent bank.

Higher capital requirements can whittle down a bank’s balance sheet and credit supply by bolstering a lender’s funding costs and choking off their willingness to lend — as well as waning their appetite for risk. For shareholders, of note will be the potential impact on discretionary funds available for distribution, including dividends, share buybacks and bonus payments.

“While winding down Credit Suisse’s legacy businesses should free up capital and reduce costs for UBS, much of these gains could be absorbed by stricter regulatory demands,” Johann Scholtz, senior equity analyst at Morningstar, said in a note preceding the FINMA announcement.

“Such measures may place UBS’s capital requirements well above those faced by rivals in the United States, putting pressure on returns and reducing prospects for narrowing its long-term valuation gap. Even its long-standing premium rating relative to the European banking sector has recently evaporated.”