Consumer complaint received 2015-08-27
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: NY
Product: Bank account or service
Sub-product: Checking account
Issue: Deposits and withdrawals

Complaint:
Chase refused to investigate my complaint of fraudulent activity and credit {$3000.00} to my account as required by the Electronic Funds Transfer Act ( EFTA ). I am a XXXX year old XXXX woman from the XXXX. I have significant student debt and work part-time with a yearly salary of {$6000.00}. Because of Chase 's misconduct, I can not open a bank account at another bank and must rely on a prepaid card to receive wages. I am moving out of state next month and am unable to obtain affordable housing because this negative information is on my credit report. 
On or around XXXX/XXXX/14, I lost my Chase debit card. Shortly after realizing this, I logged on to my mobile account and saw that XXXX unauthorized checks ( {$3000.00} ) were deposited and {$200.00} was withdrawn at an unfamiliar Chase branch ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, see Ex. 1 ). Immediately thereafter, I went to the closest Chase branch ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ) and spoke with the teller who informed me the acct. would be closed. 
Despite Chase 's assurance that my account would be closed, on XXXX/XXXX/14 XXXX unauthorized transactions were posted to my account ( see Ex. 1 ) : XXXX ATM withdrawals ( totaling {$1000.00} ) from a Chase branch that I have never visited ( XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), and XXXX " card purchases with cash '' ( totaling {$1800.00} ) from an unfamiliar check cashing store in XXXX. On XXXX/XXXX/14, Chase took {$3000.00} from my account ( see " deposited item returns '' in Ex. 1 ). On XXXX/XXXX/14, I filed a dispute and received a response from Chase alleging that the withdrawals were authorized ( see Ex. 2 ). As proof, Chase provided me photocopies of the XXXX fraudulent checks endorsed with a forged signature ( see Ex. 3 ). 
Prior to this incident, I had been a loyal Chase customer. Despite this, Chase did not follow the requirements of EFTA in investigating my fraud claim. I believe that Chase may have treated me this way because I am a person XXXX and/or a low income customer. 
Section 909 ( b ) of EFTA states that the burden of proof is on the financial institution to show that the alleged fraudulent transaction was authorized. The OCC Comptroller 's Handbook on EFTA ( XXXX 2014 ) states " institutions can not assume that they have satisfied their duty to investigate simply by concluding that the customer 's debit card and PIN were used ... .rather, institutions must take steps to investigate whether there are indications that unauthorized use occurred. '' According to EFTA staff commentary ( Supp. I, 12 C.F.R. 205.11 ( c ) ( 4 ) -5 ), information that may be reviewed includes : - The transaction history of the particular account for a reasonable period of time immediately preceding the allegation of error. Previous authorized withdrawals from my account show a pattern of small-dollar ATM withdrawals of less than {$200.00} made once every few days or weeks. There is no pattern of same-day withdrawals of large sums of money ( more than {$1000.00} ). No previous authorized transactions were ever made from XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or the XXXX XXXX Chase branch in XXXX. 
- The location of either the transaction or the payee in question relative to the consumer 's place of residence and habitual transaction area. XXXX unauthorized same-day withdrawals ( {$1000.00} ) were made at a Chase branch located at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX. This branch is located on the other side of the city and over an hour and a half away from my home in the XXXX. 
- Any other information appropriate to resolve the claim. XXXX fraudulent checks were deposited and XXXX unauthorized ATM withdrawals were made at XXXX separate Chase branches ( see Ex. 1 ). Review of the security camera footage would show the transactions were not made by me. 
A review of these items as part of an investigation under EFTA should have shown to Chase that the deposits and withdrawals on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX respectively were fraudulent and unauthorized.

Company response to consumer: Closed with monetary relief