Product: Checking or savings account

The Claims Department reversed XXXX chargebacks totaling {$1400.00}, then went on to deny my claim in pre-arbitration. Here is what compelled them : XXXX project closure agreements, both of which were submitted by the scammer, that invalidate each other. The XXXX documents literally compete with each other for which one is right and which one is wrong. That's because they are exactly identical with the only difference being the logo and entity name. They both claim exactly the same project, items, members, and client. They are clearly fabricated or at least questionable and contradicting, in general. Only XXXX of the XXXX could be valid, not both. Even the most optimistic person would at least consider that a mistake had been made somewhere in that submission by the supposed merchant. But no, the Claims Department was compelled by these documents so much that they reversed the XXXX chargebacks. In the pre-arbitration phase, when I got to submit information for the first time in the case, the original version of this closure agreement was added to the stack of competing closure agreements that they had on their hands. You know what compelled the Claims Department to deny my claim in the pre-arbitration phase? The closure agreement. At this point, XXXX conflicting versions of the very same closure agreement in their possession, each only different by the logo and company name all competing with each other for which company was the one that actually had the project, items, and client. This is what compelled the Claims Department. It's no wonder that they never sent me the research information the first time I requested it, and that they hesitated so much when I ceaselessly requested it XXXX weeks later. There was so much reluctance to send the information to me. My signature was forged XXXX  by the scammer in making the XXXX fabricated closure agreements. The most confusing part about this is that the closure agreement states that the project is incomplete. It does not state that the deliverables were delivered. It lists what deliverables were projected to be delivered as it describes the project, then it states that the project closed prematurely and that it is incomplete. I was the one who made the supposed merchant produce this closure agreement, so that I could have it documented that everything in the project belongs to me, and that they did not deliver any deliverables. So it states what the project was supposed to be, then it states that it was discontinued prematurely and that it is incomplete, in addition to the fact that I am the sole owner of every piece of content in the project. Yet, this document somehow compelled the Claims Department that I had agreed that deliverables had been delivered to me. The word " delivered '' does not appear anywhere on the closure agreement. The word that does appear on the closure agreement is " deliverable '' : deliver + able ( something that is able to be delivered ). At the time, when I demanded for this closure agreement to be produced, the scammer was just trying to keep me happy, in hopes that this was all that I needed to be satisfied. Prior to that, I had demanded refunds, which was refused. Then when I initiated chargebacks, the scammer scrambled and threw some sloppy junk together to dispute the chargebacks, and then got extraordinarily lucky. Turns out that the Claims Department at my bank is compelled by only the most inconsistent and questionable piece of information that they have at hand. Furthermore, this Claims Department demonstrated XXXX standards when they did not challenge a supposed merchant who has submitted about XXXX pages of practically-headerless email printouts twice, at that. There was plenty of room to notice that. Some XXXX of XXXX pages in their research information consisted of practically-headerless email printouts. I have shown in the supporting documents the original versions of some of those fabricated emails, including the full raw headers. There is so much wrong with this case, and it has been described in detail and in a more suitable format than here. I respectfully encourage the person from Chase bank, who is handling this case, to read the entire XXXX pages and the XXXX pages of documents which I've submitted along with it. This was an absolute no-brainer. This case should not have ended up here. But this is the only option with which the Claims Department has left me.