This complaint follows practices performed by JP Morgan Chase & Co. ( XXXX ) bank pertaining to a checking 's account deposit. An item in the amount of {$1000.00}, for a check was processed on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX, and again on XXXX/XXXX/XXXX. Inadvertently using the bank 's Mobile Banking app, I was allowed to redeposit the same exact check twice -- which I readily admit was an unintended human error. It was n't until XXXX/XXXX/XXXX when Chase realized this mistake by over-drafting my account for the {$1000.00} of which it deposited into my account. 

Acknowledging my error, I do n't understand how one of the largest banks allowed for it 's mobile banking platform to be so insecurely flawed as to allow successful reoccurring deposits for the same check. Because the bank accepted the same check twice, I was left in confidence that this check had never been deposited -- -because if so, surely the bank would have recognized this and thus rejected it 's reoccurring deposit. 

Now that the money is gone, months later, it essentially charged my account by overdrawing it. As I 'm held responsible for the {$1000.00}, I strongly contest being held accountable for the surmounting overdraft fees of which the bank informed me would follow should my account remain overdrawn. This practice cuts beyond the compensatory rationale ( which would justify recompensing for the {$1000.00} itself ), but instead unduly penalizes the consumer for associated overdraft fees that are of the fault of the bank. 

Could this happen again? Yes. Could this happen to millions of others? Yes. What I 'm calling out is a serious flaw in mobile banking that would allow anyone to exploit a system, which allows multiple deposits of one check. An unsavory character could re-cash checks over and over again, without out the bank halting the check to clear. What 's more, is that electronic banking did n't not recognize it had done this. It was instead, the original person who issued the check that disputed this bringing this to the bank 's ( JP Morgan Chase ) attention, for which the bank asked for the money back it had granted me, and then said in effect, " We need that money back. And, by the way, we are going to conveniently penalize you with fees and capitalize from a mistake of which we participated in by clearing you for a check that we should not have. '' It should also be known despite opting out of overdraft protection ( which prevents account holders from overdrawing their accounts should they make a purchase without having sufficient funds to actually cover their charges ) I was told that I would nonetheless be subject to both " overdraft fees '' and " recurrent insufficient fund fees. '' This exchange was documented by the following case number issuing from the JP Morgan Chase Bank 's in-house complaint management team : " XXXX. '' Additionally, Chase defended their position in this consumer row by arguing that they did n't catch this until the check issuer 's financial institution filed an appeal, which was subsequently reviewed by Chase and ultimately honored. However, had Chase notified me of this in real-time, I could have acted to swiftly return the money, before redistributing it elsewhere. 

I believe this is of great magnitude and immediate importance to investigate to ensure consumer protection.