The “infinite money glitch” was not a way to create legitimate money. Viral videos in 2024 promoted depositing checks and withdrawing funds before the checks cleared; when a check was later rejected as counterfeit or forged, the account holder could owe the bank. Chase filed four lawsuits in October 2024 over conduct it said followed a similar pattern. By April 2025, Bloomberg Law reported that the bank had won all four cases, though court orders to recover money did not establish that it had collected it.
What was the Chase ATM “money hack”?
In late August 2024, social-media videos described what they called an “infinite money glitch” or “money hack”: deposit a large check at a Chase ATM, then withdraw some or all of the amount that appeared temporarily available before the check cleared. The key distinction is that temporary availability is not confirmation that a check is valid. If a check is determined to be counterfeit or forged, the deposit can be reversed and withdrawals may leave the account holder owing the bank. CBS News reported that Chase patched the issue days after the videos spread.
The viral label made the process sound like an ATM was dispensing free money. The underlying mechanism described in contemporaneous coverage was alleged check fraud, not a legitimate loophole. This is an explanation of the reports, not a guide to attempting the conduct.
Why did Chase sue customers?
On October 28, 2024, Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase had filed four federal lawsuits in Los Angeles, Houston, and Miami against two individuals and two businesses. The bank alleged that the defendants improperly kept more than $661,000 after deposited checks were deemed counterfeit or forged. These were allegations in civil lawsuits, not a finding that everyone who watched or shared a video had committed a crime. Reuters’ account said the suits sought repayment and additional costs.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →#1 Best Overall
In the largest matter Reuters described, Chase alleged that a $335,000 check was deposited into an account on August 29, 2024, and later rejected. The bank said the defendant still owed $290,939.47. Those amounts reflect the bank’s claims as reported by Reuters, not a general estimate of losses from the viral trend.
Reuters reported that JPMorgan said it was pursuing the cases and cooperating with law enforcement. The reports covered here do not establish criminal convictions of the defendants. A civil judgment requiring repayment and a criminal conviction are different legal outcomes.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What happened to the four lawsuits?
Bloomberg Law reported on April 14, 2025, that JPMorgan had prevailed in all four cases. Three ended in default judgments after the defendants did not respond. In the fourth, a defendant contested the claim; after mediation, a federal judge entered judgment for the bank in March 2025. Bloomberg Law reported that the bank had secured orders to recover roughly $580,000 of the approximately $660,000 sought across the October complaints.
Those orders are not proof that the bank actually collected the full amounts. Bloomberg Law said the California matter, involving about $90,000, did not yet have a finalized dollar amount in its April 2025 report. The Guardian and Bloomberg Law also noted that the lawsuits did not name the TikTok ATM trend itself; the connection was that the complaints described conduct using a similar method while the trend was popular. The Guardian’s report also quoted a JPMorgan Chase statement: “Fraud is a crime that impacts everyone and undermines trust in the banking system. Chase takes its responsibility to combat fraud seriously and prioritises protecting the firm and its customers to make the banking system safer.”
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Rank #3
What the viral story does—and does not—show
- The so-called “glitch” involved checks that had not cleared, not a way to obtain money without a valid underlying deposit.
- Chase’s October 2024 suits concerned four defendants and allegations about specific deposits; they do not establish that every person who encountered the videos used the method.
- By April 2025, the bank had won judgments or orders in all four cases, according to Bloomberg Law, but that report did not confirm full collection.
The latest outcome described here is Bloomberg Law’s April 14, 2025 report. It does not establish later developments, final collection totals, or whether any appeal followed.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
