Consumer complaint received 2025-02-15 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Savings account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: GA

Complaint narrative:
I am a XXXX XXXX  and opened both an XXXX account and a business account with Chase Bank in XX/XX/year>. On XX/XX/year>, I deposited settlement checks for a personal injury case. The checks were made payable to me ( as the attorney ), my client, and his wife ( over XXXX XXXX  ). My client is also my brother. All three of us endorsed the checks before deposit. 

Initially, I was informed that the funds would be available on XX/XX/year>, and XX/XX/year>. However, on XX/XX/XXXX, I was told the release date had changed to XX/XX/year>. Then, on XX/XX/XXXX, I received a text message stating that a restriction had been placed on my account and that I needed to call to resolve the issue. 

I spoke with a representative from the fraud department, who advised that Chase l needed to verify that the listed payee endorsed the check. He requested phone numbers for the other two listed payees, which I provided. When he entered their numbers into the Chase system he stated that the numbers came back verified/registered under different names so Chase could not call them to verify the endorsements. We discussed other methods of verification and the representative acknowledged that Chase had usually strict policies that did not make sense but he had to do his job. I then requested to speak with a supervisor. 

I then spoke with the supervisor he was immediately rude and unprofessional. He asked several questions about my XXXX XXXX and looked up my credentials on the bar websites for Kentucky and Georgia. He confirmed that I am an XXXX  in good standing in both jurisdictions. He then asked whether I was related to one of the payees, as we share the same last name. I confirmed that he is my brother. The supervisor then reiterated that Chase needed to verify that the payees had actually signed the checks and again requested their phone numbers. After providing their numbers, I was again informed that the system did not verify the numbers as belonging to the listed payees.

I found this confusing, as the number provided was my clients personal mobile number registered with XXXX XXXX The representative stated that the account and funds would remain on hold until verification could be completed. I asked whether other forms of verificationsuch as providing a drivers license or visiting a branch in personcould be used, but he rudely responded by saying that if there were other alternative methods he would have said so. I requested to speak with a manager and informed him that I would visit a branch the following day. The conversation with this supervisor was so unhelpful and unpleasant. Extremely disheartening to be spoken to in this manner After speaking with my client, I obtained a copy of his phone bill showing that the number is registered to him under his personal account. He also contacted XXXX, which confirmed that their system lists the number under his name. 

On XX/XX/year>, I visited my local Chase branch to resolve the issue. The branch agent contacted multiple representatives from the back office and fraud department, all of whom reiterated that the only verification method was through the phone number. However, they said a manager would follow up. 


While at the branch, I had my client on the phone as he contacted XXXX again. The XXXX representative conducted another system check, performed a reset, and had a technician verify that my clients number was correctly registered under his name across all their systems. 

Additionally, while I was at the branch, my client called the local branch multiple times, and his name appeared on the agents caller ID. 

We waited a few hours to see if the reset performed by XXXX XXXX update my clients name in Chases system. I then contacted the Chase fraud department again and this time with my client on the phone. We explained the situation to the representative and she checked his number in their system but it was still showing as verified under a different name. We again asked for other verification methods and she refused to allow any other means of verification. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, the funds were marked as available in my account, yet I remained unable to access them due to the restriction. I called the fraud department again and requested that they reattempt verification using my clients number. The representative stated that, in their system, my clients number was linked to a different individual. I explained the situation and referenced the documentation provided, but the representative refused to accept any alternative form of verification. 

I once again requested that the issue be escalated and that I speak with a manager. As of now, my account and funds remain on hold. Chase has advised that they can continue to hold my funds and that, after a certain period, they may close my account.

The verification process imposed by Chase is excessively rigid and unreasonably restrictive, effectively creating an insurmountable barrier for legitimate account holders to verify their own transactions. Despite multiple efforts to provide alternative forms of proofthe bank refused to consider any alternative means of authentication beyond its flawed internal phone number verification system. 

This process fails to account for common and legitimate circumstances, such as mobile carriers not always reflecting real-time name updates in third-party databases, family members sharing last names, or the fact that caller ID and official phone bills clearly establish ownership of a number. By refusing to accept any other form of verificationChase has created a process that is not only impractical but also virtually impossible to satisfy. 

As a result, even fully compliant customers with transparent, lawful transactions are left without access to their own funds, facing unnecessary delays and financial hardship due to a system that prioritizes rigid bureaucracy over reasonable, good-faith verification.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation