Consumer complaint received 2025-02-02 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Domestic (US) money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: OH

Complaint narrative:
# # # XXXX XXXX and Legal Basis 1. **Federal Regulatory Requirements** : a ) **Regulation E ( 12 CFR 1005.11 ) ** : - Mandates investigation of unauthorized transactions from void contracts - Requires written explanation of findings - No time limitation exception for void contracts - Bank must investigate whether transactions stem from legally enforceable contracts - Provisional credit requirements for extended investigations b ) **NACHA Rules** : - Rule 8.03 ( c ) : Only unauthorized debits require disputes - Credits from void loans are explicitly irrelevant - Banks must block known illegal transactions - Responsibility to prevent processing of illegal ACH entries 2. **State Law Requirements** : a ) XXXX XXXX. Code XXXX : - 28 % APR cap on loans - Loans exceeding cap are void ab XXXX ( unenforceable ) - No obligation to repay void loans- All related transactions are unauthorized by XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX : - Criminal usury applies to all loans exceeding 25 % APR - Makes lending above this rate a criminal offense - Banks can not process transactions from criminal enterprises # # # Chase 's Pattern of Non-Compliance XXXX. XXXX Claim Mishandling** : - Claim # XXXX closed XX/XX/XXXX - XX/XX/XXXX letter shows : * Only investigated {$1300.00} XXXX CREDIT from XX/XX/XXXX * Ignored 16 unauthorized ACH DEBITS of {$110.00} each * No explanation for ignoring unauthorized debits * Account ending in XXXX - Violated XXXX Rule XXXX ( c ) by demanding credit dispute - Reversed provisional credit without proper investigation 2. **Current Open Claims** ( Total : {$3200.00} ) : - Filed XX/XX/XXXX : {$120.00} ( In progress ) - Filed XX/XX/XXXX : {$420.00} ( In progress ) - Filed XX/XX/XXXX : {$330.00} ( In progress ) - Filed XX/XX/XXXX : {$1100.00} ( In progress ) - Filed XX/XX/XXXX : {$1100.00} ( In progress ) Plus recently closed claim from XX/XX/XXXX : {$1000.00} XXXX. **Unauthorized Transactions from Void Loans** : a ) **XXXX  ( 462.83 % APR ) ** : - Exceeds Ohio 's cap by 434.83 % - 16 unauthorized debits of {$110.00} each - Total unauthorized : {$1800.00} - Transaction dates : XXXX XXXX - Account ending in XXXX b ) **XXXX  ( 155.6 % APR ) ** : - Exceeds Ohio 's cap by 127.6 % XXXX XXXX unauthorized debits - Total unauthorized : {$1800.00} - Transaction period : XXXX XXXX c ) **XXXX  ( 159.17 % XXXX ) ** : - Exceeds Ohio 's cap by 131.17 % - 11 unauthorized debits of {$230.00} each - Total unauthorized : {$2600.00} - Transaction period : July 2024-January 2025 d ) **XXXX  ( 490 % APR ) ** : - Exceeds Ohio 's cap by 462 % - XXXX unauthorized debits of {$210.00} each - Total unauthorized : {$420.00} - Transaction period : XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX XXXX XXXX ( 738.13 % APR ) ** : - Exceeds Ohio 's cap by 710.13 % - 19 unauthorized debits of {$42.00} each - Total unauthorized XXXX {$790.00} - Transaction period : August 2024-January 2025 # # # Legal Precedents Ignored 1. **CFPB v. XXXX XXXX  ( XXXX ) ** : - Requires full refunds for void loans - No tribal/federal preemption defense - Applies regardless of timeframe XXXX. **CFPB v. XXXX** : - Establishes " true lender '' doctrine - Invalidates rent-a-bank schemes - Requires investigation of actual lender XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ) ** : - Recent precedent voiding similar loans - Specifically addresses rent-a-bank schemes- Establishes state law applicability # # # Impact of Chase 's Actions 1. **Financial Harm** : - Account remains overdrawn - Multiple overdraft fees- {$30.00} fees per blocked ACH debit - Unable to access funds- Cascading financial hardship 2. **Regulatory Violations** : - Failed to investigate void contracts - Improperly applied 60-day rule - Reversed provisional credit without justification - No written explanation provided - Forced interaction with illegal lenders This systematic failure demonstrates Chase 's pattern of : - Refusing to investigate unauthorized transactions from void loans - Using internal 60-day rule to avoid legal obligations - Reversing provisional credits without proper investigation - Facilitating illegal lending practices- Causing direct financial harm through improper claim handling The combination of these actions shows a broader pattern of failing to protect consumers while enabling illegal lending practices, similar to issues identified in the XX/XX/XXXX CFPB XXXX fraud enforcement action.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation