The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →JPMorgan Chase sued four people and businesses in October 2024, alleging they deposited counterfeit or forged checks and withdrew money before the checks bounced. The bank later prevailed in all four cases, according to Bloomberg Law’s April 14, 2025 report. The viral “ATM hack” was not a lawful way to make money: it relied on withdrawing funds against checks that were allegedly bad.
What the viral Chase ATM “hack” claimed to do
In late August 2024, social-media posts described an “infinite money glitch”: write a large check, deposit it into a Chase account, then try to withdraw some or all of the funds shown as available before the check cleared. Contemporary reporting linked the posts to a temporary issue involving check availability, but the exact technical cause was not established. Chase did not disclose the cause when asked by Banking Dive.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Skim Scan detects hidden card skimmers in ATMs, fuel dispensers and more | $495.00 | Buy on Amazon |
Chase said the incident had been addressed. A spokesperson told Banking Dive: “We are aware of this incident, and it has been addressed. Regardless of what you see online, depositing a fraudulent check and withdrawing the funds from your account is fraud, plain and simple.” Calling the posts a “hack” can be misleading: the reported method was to withdraw against a check before it was rejected, not a verified software exploit or a reliable way to create money.
Why JPMorgan sued
On October 28, 2024, JPMorgan Chase Bank filed four federal lawsuits in courts in Los Angeles, Houston and Miami. Reuters and Bloomberg Law reported that the bank alleged the defendants collectively retained more than $660,000 after depositing counterfeit or forged checks and withdrawing money before the checks bounced. The complaints sought repayment and related costs. Those figures describe JPMorgan’s allegations when it filed suit, not a finding about the defendants at that point. The filings did not name TikTok or the viral trend, according to Bloomberg Law.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
- Pocket sized security solution - no hardware installations or modifications required
- Detects deep insert and overlay skimmers hidden inside ATMs & fuel dispensers
- Works in ATMs, fuel pumps, kiosks, vending machines, smart parking meters & card readers
- Simple operation with bright LED and audible alert
- Made entirely in the USA
The four cases
| Case | Court and case number | Reported allegation or outcome |
|---|---|---|
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Reed | U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:24-cv-09243 | JPMorgan sued for about $90,000; Bloomberg Law reported in April 2025 that the amount had not yet been finalized. |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. In and Out Appliances, LLC | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 1:24-cv-24175 | Named in Bloomberg Law’s list of the four suits; the initial report did not give a case-specific check amount. |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Riskboss Musiq, LLC | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, No. 1:24-cv-24172 | Named in Bloomberg Law’s list of the four suits; the initial report did not give a case-specific check amount. |
| JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Ikemi | U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, No. 4:24-cv-04140 | Reuters described the bank’s allegations about a $335,000 check and a claimed balance of $290,939.47. |
Bloomberg Law’s initial report identified the case names and numbers. The Houston figures come from Reuters’ account of the bank’s complaint: JPMorgan alleged that a masked person deposited a $335,000 check into a defendant’s account on August 29, 2024; the check was rejected on September 4, and the defendant allegedly owed $290,939.47 after withdrawing most of it over two days. These are allegations tied to that case, not amounts that applied to every person who saw or tried the trend.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What happened to the lawsuits
Bloomberg Law reported on April 14, 2025, that JPMorgan had prevailed in all four suits. Three ended in default judgments after the defendants did not respond. In the fourth, a defendant contested the suit; following mediation, a judge entered judgment for the bank in March 2025. Bloomberg reported recovery orders covering roughly $580,000 of the more than $660,000 sought, while the amount in the California case had not yet been finalized in that report.
That is the latest procedural status established in the cited reporting. It does not establish whether there was later appellate activity or how much the bank ultimately collected.
Quick Recap
What the cases do—and do not—show
- The suits concerned alleged withdrawals against counterfeit or forged checks, not a court-confirmed ATM software vulnerability.
- The bank’s reported allegations and the later reported judgments concern four defendants. They do not establish that every person who encountered the viral posts participated, withdrew money or faced a lawsuit.
- Chase spokesperson Drew Pusateri said: “Fraud is a crime that impacts everyone and undermines trust in the banking system.” That is the bank’s position, not a substitute for the findings and orders in individual cases.
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.
