Consumer complaint received 2022-06-08 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Deposits and withdrawals
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
MY CLIENT, XXXX XXXX XXXX HAD A CHECKING ACCOUNT AT CHASE BANK, XXXX XXXX BRANCH, FLORIDA. 
ON OR BAOUT BETWEEN XX/XX/XXXX SHE DEPOSITED A XXXX CHECKS TOTALLING {$21000.00}. ALL THE CHECKS WERE SIGNED BY THE MAKER, A XXXX XXXX. THE CHECKS WERE DRAWN ON HIS ACCOUNT AT XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX. 
THE CHECKS WERE DULY DEPOSITED. ALL THE CHECKS WERE PRESENTED TO XXXX XXXX XXXX, WERE VERIFED AND ***PAID. CHASE RECEIVED THE SAID {$21000.00} FUNDS AND INITIALLY CREDITED XXXX XXXX 'S ACCOUNT. 
CHASE THEN FROZE HER ENTIRE ACCOUNT, INCLUDING, APPROXIMATELY {$9000.00} OF HER OWN FUNDS THAT WERE UNRELATED TO THE 4 CHECKS DEPOSITED. 
CHASE REFERRED THE CHECKS TO THEIR FRAUD DEPARTMENT. AT FIRST THEY FALSELY CLAIMED THAT THE 4 CHECKS WERE " THIRD PARTY " CHECKS. THEY WEREN'T!. 
THEN, NOT WITHSTANDING THATXXXX PAID ON ALL CHECKS, CHASE STILL REFUSED TO RELEASE SAID FUNDS, NOW CLAIMING THE SAID CHECKS LOOKS " SUSPICIOUS '' OF FRAUD AND INSISTED THAT THE MAKER, VERIFY THE AUTHENTIICITY OF SADI CHECKS. AGAIN, THE DRAWER BANK, XXXX DID NOT ASSERT ANY FRAUD OR ALTERATION AND PAID SAID CHECKS, THE MAKER, XXXX XXXX IS UNAVAILABLE, IN HOSPICE WITH A TERMINAL CONDITION IN A HOSPITAL IN XXXX AND IS UNABLE TO CONTACT CHASE BANK. 
HOWEVER, XXXX XXXX ***DID*** VERIFY, PERSOANLLY, THE AUTHENTICITY OF SAID CHECKS TO XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ) XXXX ; WHO, I AM INFORMED, PERSONALLY CALLED THE FRAUD DEPARTMENT AT CHASE AND VERIFIED TO THEM, THAT HE PERSONALLY SPOKE TO XXXX XXXX WHO CONFIRMED THE CHECKS WERE AUTHENTIC AND VALID. 
CHEASE STILL REFUSED TO RELEASE SAID FUNDS. 
CHASE CLOSED XXXX XXXX 'S ACCOUNT ; CHASE HAS STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO FURNISH ANYONE IN THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE ; DEMAND HAS BEEN MADE FOR CHASE TO DO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING : A ) IMMEDIATELY RELEASE SAID FUNDS TO XXXX XXXX, BECAUSE SAID FUNDS BELONG TO HER, NOT CHASE ; B ) RETURN SAID FUNDS TO XXXX ; XXXX  ) INTERPLEAD THE FUNDS INTO COURT, BECAUSE CHASE DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO HOLD THESE FUNDS. 
FINALLY, XXXX XXXX HAS, THROUGH COUNSEL, FORMALLY OFFERED TO INDEMNIFY CHASE FROM ANY FUTURE CLAIMS AGAINST THESE CHECKS, IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT, XXXX XXXX OR XXXX WOULD LATER MAKE A CLAIM OF ALTERATION. HOWEVER, XXXX HAS ALREADY DETERMINED THAT, PURSUANT TO THE UCC, THESE CHACKS WERE " PROPERLY PAYABLE '', AND THEREFORE XXXX PAID THEM. 
CHASE 'S BEAURACRATIC NIGHTMARE MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A CONSUMER TO DO ANYTHING, PARTICULALRLY, WHERE THEY ARE INSTRUCTED NEVER TO FURNISH THE NAME OF A LEGAL COUNSEL FOR A CONSUMER 'S COUNSEL TO COMMUNICATE WITH. 
CHASE 'S CONDUCT VIOLATES THE FLORIDA UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ( FDUTPA ) ; CONSTITUTES CONVERSION AND MOST LIKELY VIOLATES NUMEROUS BANKING REGULATIONS. 
ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, THIS IS AN ON GOING PRACTICE WHERE CHASE FREEZES ACCOUNTS, AND THEN GETS TO USE FUNDS THAT DO NOT BELONG TO THEM. 
WE SUSPECT THAT AN INVESTIGATION WILL REVEAL THAT THIS IS A WIDE SPREAD PRACTICE. WE WOULD NOT BE SUPRPRISED IF CHASE IS THE NEXT XXXX XXXX XXXX. 
WE BELIEVE THE WALL STREET JOURNAL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS FRAUDULENT PRACTICE.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation