JPMorgan Chase sues more customers over ‘infinite money’ ATM glitch that went viral on TikTok

New York Post - Apr 16th, 2025

JPMorgan Chase, led by CEO Jamie Dimon, is actively pursuing lawsuits against numerous customers accused of exploiting a technical glitch that went viral on TikTok, known as the 'infinite money glitch.' This glitch allowed individuals to deposit large checks and withdraw funds before the checks bounced, resulting in significant financial losses for the bank. The lawsuits, initially filed in October, have expanded to include cases involving amounts under $75,000, with legal actions taking place in Georgia, Miami, New York, and Texas. According to reports, JPMorgan has also sent letters to an additional 1,000 individuals, requesting the return of the misappropriated funds.

The issue highlights the vulnerabilities of traditional banking systems, particularly those relying on paper checks, which remain prevalent in the United States despite the rise of digital payment technologies. The situation underscores the ongoing challenges banks face in managing check fraud, a federal crime, and the necessity for enhanced security measures. As JPMorgan collaborates with law enforcement to hold fraudsters accountable, the cases emphasize the stark contrast in payment methods between the U.S. and European countries, where checks are increasingly obsolete.

Tik Tok Legal Action Jp Morgan Chase Jamie Dimon Infinite Money Glitch Check Fraud Banking Security

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and largely accurate account of JPMorgan Chase's legal actions against customers exploiting the 'infinite money glitch.' It effectively captures the public interest by addressing issues of financial security and fraud. While the article is clear and engaging, it could benefit from a broader range of perspectives and greater transparency in sourcing. The story's potential impact on public opinion is notable, though its influence on policy changes may be limited without further exploration of regulatory responses. Overall, the article is a strong piece of financial reporting with room for improvement in balance and source quality.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports on JPMorgan Chase's legal actions against customers exploiting the 'infinite money glitch.' The claim that the glitch went viral on TikTok and allowed customers to withdraw funds before checks cleared is supported by multiple reports. The article provides specific examples, such as the case in Gwinnett County, Georgia, where a customer withdrew $82,500. However, some details, such as the exact number of lawsuits and the total financial impact, could benefit from further verification to ensure precision.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view by detailing JPMorgan's perspective and actions against fraud. However, it lacks representation from the accused customers or legal experts who could provide additional insights into the situation. Including these perspectives would offer a more comprehensive understanding of the issue, reducing potential bias toward JPMorgan's narrative.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow of information. It effectively explains the 'infinite money glitch' and JPMorgan's response. However, some technical details, such as the mechanics of the glitch, could be elaborated to enhance reader understanding. The neutral tone aids in maintaining clarity and comprehension.

Source quality

The article cites CNBC and mentions an approach to JPMorgan for comments, indicating reliance on credible sources. However, it lacks direct quotes or statements from JPMorgan representatives or legal documents, which would enhance source reliability. The absence of varied sources, such as independent legal analysts, limits the depth of the reporting.

Transparency

The article provides some context regarding the 'infinite money glitch' and JPMorgan's legal actions but lacks transparency in its methodology and sourcing. It does not disclose how information was obtained or the potential impact of these lawsuits on the accused individuals. Greater transparency about the reporting process and potential conflicts of interest would improve the article's credibility.