Consumer complaint received 2024-03-20
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. (CA)

I was the victim of an imposter scam involving my Chase checking account, XXXX XXXX  and XXXX involving 16 separate transactions with posting dates between XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX ( see below ). I went to Chase to dispute the charges and provided all the information required under Regulation E, Section 1005.11 ( b ) ( 1 ) to provide proper notice. The gentleman at the branch told me that the XXXX charges were not eligible for reimbursement and that he would submit the others as disputes. 

I inquired again about the XXXX charges because I understood that XXXX had announced that it would be reimbursing imposter scams, but was told again that the XXXX transactions were not subject to reimbursement. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, I received reversals for 11 of the transactions, all except XXXX. There was no indication that these were provisional credit and no communication or notifications of any kind, just the reversals showing up in my bank account. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX, XX/XX/XXXX Chase reversed the reversals for 6 of the credits and another one is pending reversal as of XX/XX/XXXX. Again, there was no communication from Chase, no letter, no disclosure, no explanation regarding the results of their investigation, etc. Additionally, each of these reversals are marked as transaction type " ATM '' which is untrue and another error for regulation E purposes. 

At no time did Chase provide me with the a report of the results of its investigation, in violation of Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 1 ), which requires that " The institution shall report the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation. The institution shall correct the error within one business day after determining that an error occurred. '' If the amounts provided were provisional credit, then Chase also violated Section 1005.11 ( c ) ( 2 ) ( ii ), ( iii ) which require that the institution does the following ( ii ) Informs the consumer, within two business days after the provisional crediting, of the amount and date of the provisional crediting and gives the consumer full use of the funds during the investigation; and ( iv ) Reports the results to the consumer within three business days after completing its investigation ( including, if applicable, notice that a provisional credit has been made final ). 

Chase also violated Section 1005.11 ( d ) ( 1 ), in that it did not provide any written explanation of its findings, did not include the consumer 's right to request documents relied on it making its determination, and did not meet any of the requirements of Section 1005.11 ( d ) ( 2 ), which states as follows : ( 2 ) Debiting provisional credit. Upon debiting a provisionally credited amount, the financial institution shall : ( i ) Notify the consumer of the date and amount of the debiting ; ( ii ) Notify the consumer that the institution will honor checks, drafts, or similar instruments payable to third parties and preauthorized transfers from the consumer 's account ( without charge to the consumer as a result of an overdraft ) for five business days after the notification. The institution shall honor items as specified in the notice, but need honor only items that it would have paid if the provisionally credited funds had not been debited. 

Nor did it follow the alternative procedures : 1. Alternative procedure for debiting of credited funds. The financial institution may comply with the requirements of this section by notifying the consumer that the consumer 's account will be debited five business days from the transmittal of the notification, specifying the calendar date on which the debiting will occur.

2. Fees for overdrafts. The financial institution may not impose fees for items it is required to honor under 1005.11. It may, however, impose any normal transaction or item fee that is unrelated to an overdraft resulting from the debiting. If the account is still overdrawn after five business days, the institution may impose the fees or finance charges to which it is entitled, if any, under an overdraft credit plan. 

Finally, XXXX announced in XX/XX/XXXX in response to Congressional and other inquiries that it would reimburse customers for imposter scams. Notwithstanding, Chase indicated that the XXXX transactions could not be reimbursed and XXXX does not provide a method to seek reimbursement directly through XXXX. 

Finally, Chase appears to have failed in its duty to monitor and prevent elder abuse and fraud with this situation. Banks are mandated reporters of suspected Elder Abuse under Californias Financial Elder Abuse Reporting Act. Cal. W & I Code 15630.1. Financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult occurs when a person or entity ... [ t ] akes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or both. Cal. W & I Code 15610.30 ( a ) ( 1 ). The law provides that " suspected financial abuse of an elder or dependent adult '' occurs when a person who is required to report under subdivision ( a ) observes or has knowledge of behavior or unusual circumstances or transactions, or a pattern of behavior or unusual circumstances or transactions, that would lead an individual with like training or experience, based on the same facts, to form a reasonable belief that an elder or dependent adult is the victim of financial abuse as defined in Section 15610.30. Cal. W & I Code 15630.1 ( h ) ( emphasis added ). 

In this case, those at the bank should have formed a reasonable belief that I was the victim of financial abuse. Certainly, the pattern of behavior was suspicious. I am XXXX XXXX XXXX and have never sent any money using XXXX XXXX. Over a period of about 7 days and through 16 different unusual transactions involving XXXX XXXX and XXXX, totaling over {$14000.00}. 

The transactions should have triggered their elder abuse red flags or other red flags that could have mitigated the harm. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX