Chase bank engages in fraudulent FX trading activity, seizes customer funds

As of date of publication, Chase bank has not responded to our continued requests for comment. Initially, we got in touch with Amy Bonitatibus from Chase Press department, who simply stated she was looking for more information. There were no further emails or responses.


The bank continues to seize customer funds, accusing them of “fraudulent” activity. Once the funds are seized, the bank keeps them. Bank representatives have told customers over the phone that their funds can be kept indefinitely, until “investigation” is complete. Chase refuses to provide any proof of such “investigation” and fails to even contact the customer themselves to ask questions about the seizure. The investigation is a ruse to steal customer funds outright under the guise of some kind of fraudulent activity.

Chase bank does not constitute a safe place to invest funds and we recommend any current Chase customer strongly considers whether to remain a customer. Any customer of Chase could have their funds seized at any time for any made up reason.


Additionally, Chase Bank ($JPM), one of the largest banks in the US, continues to engage in borderline fraudulent activity. In a recent press release by the FED, Chase was warned via cease and desist to reign in its FX traders. Specifically, the cease and desist order stated:

JPMC lacked adequate Firm-wide governance, risk management, compliance and audit policies and procedures to ensure that the Firm’s Covered FX Activities conducted at the
FX Subsidiaries complied with safe and sound banking practices, applicable U.S. laws and regulations, including policies and procedures to prevent potential violations of the U.S.
commodities, antitrust and criminal fraud laws, and applicable internal policies;
B. FX traders in the spot market at the FX Subsidiaries routinely communicated with FX traders at other financial institutions through chatrooms on electronic messaging platforms accessible by traders at multiple institutions

The bank’s traders exchanged private financial information via chats, bank failed to supervise and review audits.