Consumer complaint received 2026-05-19 00:00:00
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Managing an account — Problem using a debit or ATM card
Company: JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.
State: KS

Complaint narrative:
JPMorgan Chase Bank denied three Reg E fraud claims totaling {$1900.00} on XX/XX/XXXX, then debited that {$1900.00} from my account on XX/XX/XXXX while my Executive Office appeal of those denials was open, with an assigned case manager who had not returned my voicemails. Chase applied Regulation E 's 60-day reporting clock to claims that Chase itself ruled fell OUTSIDE Reg E a legally incompatible position and then advised me, a documented victim of a federal criminal fraud operation, to " contact the merchant to resolve the issue. '' The merchant is the criminal enterprise that defrauded me. This complaint asks the CFPB to require Chase to re-evaluate these claims under the correct framework ( XXXX Core Rules Section 13.1, services not rendered, and fraudulent inducement ), reverse the XX/XX/XXXX debit of {$1900.00}, and protect my two pending Sapphire credit card disputes ( {$3500.00} combined ) from the same misapplied framework. THE THREE DENIED CLAIMS ( debited from account ending XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ) : Claim XXXX card ending XXXX {$100.00} original transaction XX/XX/XXXX Claim XXXX card ending XXXX {$1000.00} original transaction XX/XX/XXXX Claim XXXX card ending XXXX {$800.00} original transaction XX/XX/XXXX TOTAL : {$1900.00} All three original transactions were to the same merchant " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' / " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ''/ billing location XXXX XXXX / merchant phone XXXX a coordinated criminal fraud operation operating publicly as " XXXX XXXX '' ( XXXX ). TWO RELATED PENDING SAPPHIRE CREDIT CARD DISPUTES ( account ending XXXX ) : {$2000.00} transaction of XX/XX/XXXX pending, no decision letter received {$1500.00} transaction of XX/XX/XXXX pending, no decision letter received These two credit card disputes total {$3500.00} and remain at risk. I am asking the CFPB to require Chase to evaluate them under the Fair Credit Billing Act ( 15 USC 1666 ) and Visa chargeback rules, NOT under Reg E timing logic. THE UNDERLYING FRAUD ( CRIMINAL, FEDERALLY DOCUMENTED From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, an operation calling itself " XXXX XXXX '' ( XXXX ) billing through " XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX '' of XXXX, Virginia extracted {$5400.00} from me across five payments under fabricated fee categories that do not exist in actual XXXX trademark practice ( " Comprehensive Search, '' " Registration Certification, '' " Documents Attestation {$5.00} per state across 50 states, '' " Notice of Publication, '' " Registration Issuance Fee {$480.00} per trademark '' ). They never filed any trademarks with the XXXX on my behalf. On XX/XX/XXXX the same day they extracted their final payment they sent me three FORGED U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Certificates of Registration as PDF attachments. Each forged certificate bears the official XXXX seal and a forged signature labeled " Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. '' The certificates contain mathematically impossible 8-digit registration numbers ( real XXXX registrations are 7 digits ), an impossible registration date ( " XX/XX/XXXX '' for marks that had never been filed ), and the wrong International Class. This is a federal felony under 18 USC 1028 ( fraud and related activity in connection with authentication features ). I discovered the fraud on XX/XX/XXXX when XXXX Brand Registry 's automated XXXX verification rejected the forged certificates as non-existent. I filed Chase claims on XX/XX/XXXX ONE BUSINESS DAY after discovery. I filed my own legitimate XXXX trademark applications the same day ( Serial XXXX and later Serial XXXX ). Both real applications are confirmed assigned to a real XXXX Examining Attorney by the XXXX Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy. The operation is still actively targeting me as of XXXX XXXX. Within hours of my legitimate XXXX filings, 16 separate XXXX impersonation domains attacked my email inbox. On XX/XX/XXXX three days after my op-ed about the scam ran in the XXXX XXXX XXXX I received an SMS attack from XXXX referencing my second trademark by exact serial number. In early XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX physical mail fraud solicitations arrived at my Kansas business address from " XXXX '' ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ), " XXXX '' ( XXXX XXXX FL ), and " XXXX '' ( XXXX TX ), demanding {$1400.00}, {$1300.00}, and {$1500.00} respectively by check adding 18 USC 1341 federal mail fraud to the case. FEDERAL DOCUMENTATION ALREADY ON FILE : FTC Report of Fraud # XXXX ( filed XX/XX/XXXX, confirmation on file ) XXXX Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy written reply ( received XX/XX/XXXX ) citing 16 CFR 461 and explicitly recommending FBI IC3 filing XXXX XXXX XXXX op-ed published XX/XX/XXXX ( " Scammers came for my XXXX XXXX small business. Don't fall for this trick '' ), syndicated through XXXX XXXX XXXX FBI IC3 multiple submission attempts pending ; FBI complaint server has been unreachable from my XXXX for multiple days XXXX mail fraud filing pending XXXX Scam Tracker Report # XXXX publicly documented second victim from XX/XX/XXXX reporting the same operation using the same XXXX XXXX NY address FEDERAL PROSECUTION PRECEDENT : The DOJ obtained a 4+ year federal prison sentence and {$4.00} XXXX restitution against XXXX XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX for the exact same trademark solicitation fraud pattern with 2,900 documented victims. The federal playbook for prosecuting this exact category of fraud exists. WHY CHASE 'S FRAMEWORK IS LEGALLY INCOMPATIBLE Chase 's three denial letters dated XX/XX/XXXX contain identical operative language : " We found that the transaction ( s ) was processed according to the information you provided or was authorized. '' This ruling places the transactions OUTSIDE Regulation E. Reg E ( 15 USC 1693g, 12 CFR Part 1005 ) governs UNAUTHORIZED electronic fund transfers. Chase has explicitly ruled the transactions were authorized. When I called Chase to appeal, a first-line representative, a supervisor named XXXX, and ultimately the assigned Executive Office case manager XXXX ALL told me the appeal was " beyond the time frame '' applying Reg E 's 60-day reporting clock ( 12 CFR 1005.6 ( b ) ) to claims Chase has already ruled fall outside Reg E. This is internally contradictory : If the transactions are " authorized, '' Reg E does not apply, and the 60-day clock is legally inapplicable If Reg E does apply, the claims should have been evaluated as unauthorized EFTs on the merits but Chase ruled them authorized, removing them from Reg E 's scope Chase can not simultaneously rule that transactions fall outside Reg E AND use a Reg E timing rule to refuse reconsideration. This is the threshold legal defect in Chase 's handling. THE CORRECT FRAMEWORK : ( a ) XXXX Core Rules Dispute Reason Code 13.1 Merchandise/Services Not Received. Under XXXX rules, the chargeback clock for services-not-rendered runs from the EXPECTED DELIVERY DATE of the services, not the transaction date. I paid for XXXX trademark registration services. Expected delivery was issuance of XXXX registrations months after filing. I discovered services were never rendered on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX XXXX XXXX rejection ). I filed Chase claims on XX/XX/XXXX one business day later. I am well within the XXXX 13.1 window. ( b ) Common-law fraudulent inducement. Authorization given under material misrepresentation is voidable, not binding. I authorized each payment because I was being actively and deliberately deceived by a coordinated criminal fraud organization that has now been documented to multiple federal agencies. ( c ) For the two pending Sapphire XXXX credit card disputes the Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 USC 1666 NOT Reg E. FCBA timing is 60 days from the first billing statement showing the charge. Both Sapphire disputes were filed XX/XX/XXXX well within the FCBA window. CHASE 'S PROCESS FAILURE TIMELINE : XX/XX/XXXX Filed three Reg E debit claims and two FCBA credit card disputes with Chase the day after discovering the fraud. XX/XX/XXXX Chase issued three denial letters citing " transaction was authorized. '' Letters indicated {$1900.00} would be debited from account XXXX on or after XX/XX/XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, daytime I called Chase Disputes ( XXXX ). First-line rep denied appeal as " beyond the time frame. '' Supervisor XXXX denied the same, including refusal to evaluate under XXXX 13.1. I asked for and received transfer to the Executive Office. XX/XX/XXXX Spoke with " XXXX '' in the Chase Executive Office. XXXX provided the email address XXXX and explicitly invited me to submit a detailed fact-based report. I composed a comprehensive 11-part appeal letter the same day. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX CT Sent the Executive Office appeal letter to XXXX. The letter laid out the legal framework problem in detail, presented the federal evidence record, and requested ( 1 ) an administrative hold on the XX/XX/XXXX debit pending review, ( 2 ) re-evaluation under XXXX XXXX and fraudulent inducement, and ( XXXX ) written confirmation on Sapphire disputes. The letter included verbatim text from scam emails, screenshots of the SMS attack, and references to all federal complaint records. Forged USPTO documents were attached. XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX XXXX days. No acknowledgment from Chase. No response. No hold confirmation. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX EST I called Chase to follow up. XXXX XXXX confirmed the XX/XX/XXXX email was received. Case number XXXX was created ( a number whose first six digits encode the date of the original appeal email ). Case manager assigned : " XXXX '' at XXXX extension XXXX. I left a voicemail for XXXX asking for a callback before the XX/XX/XXXX debit. XX/XX/XXXX, XXXX XXXX CT No callback received. I left a second voicemail for XXXX. XX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX XXXX CT All three claim reversals posted to my account XXXX. Transaction descriptors visible in the Chase Mobile App : CLAIM REVERSAL : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX CLAIMID : XXXX XXXX minus {$800.00} CLAIM REVERSAL : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXX/XX/XXXX CLAIMID : XXXXXXXX XXXX minus {$100.00} CLAIM REVERSAL : XXXX XXXX XXXX LL XXXX XXXX XX/XX/XXXX CLAIMID : XXXXXXXX XXXX minus {$1000.00} Total debited : {$1900.00}. This occurred WHILE case XXXX was open and under " review '' in the Chase Executive Office . XX/XX/XXXX, approximately XXXX XXXX CT I called Chase again, requested supervisor escalation, and was finally connected with case manager XXXX. XXXX informed me the case was being denied on the same " past the window to report '' grounds XXXX had cited a week earlier without any acknowledgment of the framework argument in my XX/XX/XXXX letter, and without addressing why the debit posted while the case was active. XXXX advised me to " contact XXXX XXXX to resolve the issue '' XXXX XXXX is the criminal enterprise that defrauded me. XXXX committed to issuing a written denial letter to my Chase Documents inbox. WHAT I AM ASKING THE CFPB TO REQUIRE OF CHASE 1. REVERSE the XX/XX/XXXX debit of {$1900.00} from my account ending XXXX ( the three CLAIM REVERSAL transactions referenced above ). 2. RE-EVALUATE the three denied claims ( XXXX, XXXX, XXXX ) under the correct legal framework XXXX Core Rules Section 13.1 ( Services Not Rendered ) and common-law fraudulent inducement NOT under Reg E timing rules that Chase has itself acknowledged do not apply to these " authorized '' transactions. 3. PROTECT the two pending Sapphire XXXX credit card disputes ( {$2000.00} of XX/XX/XXXX and {$1500.00} of XX/XX/XXXX ) by requiring Chase to evaluate them under the Fair Credit Billing Act and XXXX chargeback rules NOT under any framework that misapplies Reg E timing to credit card disputes. 4. PRESERVE all merchant records relating to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX / merchant phone XXXX / XXXX VA billing location. These records are subject to a pending FBI federal investigation. 5. PROVIDE a written explanation, on the CFPB regulatory record, for the following Chase process failures : ( a ) Why a first-line representative, a supervisor, and an Executive Office case manager all applied Reg E 's 60-day reporting clock to claims that Chase itself ruled were authorized and therefore outside Reg E 's substantive scope. ( b ) Why the assigned Executive Office case manager ( Zee, extension XXXX ) did not return either of two voicemails left on XX/XX/XXXX and XX/XX/XXXX, prior to the debit posting. ( c ) Why {$1900.00} in disputed funds was debited from my account on XX/XX/XXXX while case XXXX was open and under Executive Office `` review, '' with no prior notice of an upcoming review conclusion. ( d ) Why a Chase Executive Office representative advised a documented victim of a federal criminal fraud operation to " contact the merchant to resolve the issue '' when the merchant is the criminal enterprise that defrauded me, an enterprise documented to FTC, XXXX, XXXX, and ( pending ) FBI and XXXX. In summary Chase denied three fraud claims totaling {$1900.00} by applying Reg E 's 60-day reporting clock to transactions Chase itself ruled were " authorized '' and therefore outside Reg E. Chase refused to evaluate the claims under XXXX Core Rules Section 13.1 ( services not rendered, 120-day clock from expected delivery ), under which the claims are timely. Chase debited the {$1900.00} from my account on XX/XX/XXXX while my Executive Office appeal of those denials was open with assigned case manager XXXX, who had not returned two voicemails left in the prior 24 hours. The Executive Office representative ultimately advised me, a documented federal-fraud victim, to " contact the merchant to resolve the issue '' the merchant being the criminal enterprise that defrauded me of {$5400.00} over eight months and forged XXXX Certificates of Registration with the federal seal to conceal the fraud. FAIR RESOLUTION FIELD Reversal of the XX/XX/XXXX debit of {$1900.00} from account XXXX. Re-evaluation of the three denied claims under XXXX Core Rules 13.1 ( services not rendered ) and fraudulent inducement. Written confirmation that the two pending Sapphire XXXX credit card disputes ( {$3500.00} combined ) will be evaluated under the Fair Credit Billing Act and XXXX chargeback rules, not Reg E. Written explanation of the Chase process failures described in the complaint. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO ATTACH WHEN CFPB FORM REQUESTS THEM ( Have these PDFs ready before starting the CFPB form. The form will let you upload supporting documents. ) 1. The three Chase Reg E denial letters dated XX/XX/XXXX 2. Screenshot showing the XX/XX/XXXX CLAIM REVERSAL transactions in the Chase Mobile App ( account XXXX ) 3. The XX/XX/XXXX Executive Office appeal letter ( your sent email to XXXX ) 4. At least one forged XXXX Certificate of Registration ( sample to show the federal forgery angle ) 5. The FTC Report # XXXX confirmation email 6. The XXXX Office of the Deputy Commissioner reply email dated XX/XX/XXXX 7. The XX/XX/XXXX SMS attack screenshot from XXXX 8. The XXXX XXXX XXXX op-ed URL or screenshot ( optional but useful )

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation