J.P. Morgan Europe Limited · DRN-6025439

The complaint Miss B complains that J.P. Morgan Europe Limited, trading as Chase, loaded a negative fraud marker against her on the National Fraud Database. She’d like the marker removed. What happened Miss B had an account with Chase. On 21 July 2025 Miss B received multiple payments into her account from two different payees totalling around £3,000. On receiving the funds they were transferred out rapidly, within 10 minutes, to another account in Miss B’s name. A few days after the funds were transferred into Miss B’s account Chase received contact from the sending banks advising their customers had been scammed. They attempted to contact Miss B but initially were unsuccessful. On managing to speak to Miss B they asked her why she received the funds – to which Miss B advised her phone had been stolen and she didn’t know anything about them. Chase weren’t satisfied that the evidence supported Miss B’s lack of knowledge regarding the payments, so they closed her account and loaded a negative fraud marker on her record. Miss B brought her complaint to our service. Initially Miss B gave more detail to the explanation she’d provided Chase about her phone being stolen. However, later she provided a different explanation for why she received the funds. Miss B advised that she’d been approached by a friend, I’ll call V, who runs a legitimate business, and asked to hold on to funds in her account. Miss B explained that she gave V access to her online banking and then wasn’t aware of any payments carried out thereafter. Our Investigator considered what Miss B said, but overall thought Chase had sufficient evidence to show fraudulent funds were received into Miss B’s account and she was complicit in receiving them. Miss B didn’t accept our Investigator’s outcome. In response Miss B provided several witness statements from friends and her partner, plus contact records showing phone calls between her and V. Miss B also accepted she’d made an error of judgement in allowing V access to her account – however she maintains that this doesn’t amount to knowing participation or intent to commit fraud. As Miss B didn’t accept the case has been passed to me to decide. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint.

-- 1 of 3 --

Our Investigator explained the standards Chase need to meet before loading a negative fraud marker on the National Fraud Database, so I won’t repeat this here. In summary they need to have clear, relevant and rigorous evidence that a fraud or financial crime was committed, and Miss B was complicit in receiving the funds. I’ve seen a copy of the notifications Chase received regarding the fraudulent credits – and I’m satisfied this shows a financial crime was committed. However, this isn’t sufficient on its own to say it’s fair for Chase to load a negative fraud marker. They also need to show on balance that Miss B was complicit in receiving fraudulent funds. I realise this will disappoint Miss B but I’m satisfied she was, I say this because: • When Chase initially contacted Miss B for evidence and an explanation regarding why she received the funds, Miss B informed them her mobile phone had been stolen, and she wasn’t aware of the credits or debits out of her account. However, on coming to our service Miss B has provided a separate version of events. Miss B advised our Investigator this was because at the time when speaking with Chase she was confused and stressed, which led her to provide a different version. I’m afraid I don’t find this explanation persuasive. If Miss B believed her actions were innocent, and she had no intention to commit fraud, I’d have expected her to be open and honest with Chase about why she’d received the funds. And I’d have expected her to share that her friend, V, asked her to receive the funds and she’d given him access to her online banking, when Chase first reached out. However, this didn’t happen. • Miss B’s explanation for why she received the funds involves her friend V asking her to look after funds in her account. Even if I accept the changes in Miss B’s explanation regarding her reasons for receiving the funds I’d expect to see evidence of the communications between Miss B and V. However, Miss B’s been unable to supply any conversations she had regarding the credits – this makes it very difficult for me to conclude this version of events is likely. • On the fraudulent funds entering Miss B’s account they were immediately transferred out to another account in her name. If I accept Miss B’s version of events this means she either gave V access to another one of her accounts, or she also moved funds on from this account to V. I find it surprising that Miss B would believe V would move around legitimate funds in this way. I’d like to reassure Miss B that I’ve considered the further evidence she’s submitted including call records between her and V and testimony from her partner and friends supporting her explanation. And I’ve reviewed the letter she’s shared from her local mental health trust advising Miss B was vulnerable at the time and engaging in therapy for a personality disorder which was impacting her day to day life. However, and I realise this will disappoint Miss B, for the reasons I’ve outlined above I can’t fairly conclude that Miss B wasn’t complicit in receiving the funds. It follows; I’m satisfied Chase acted fairly when loading a negative fraud marker against her on the National Fraud Database. And I won’t be asking them to do anything further. My final decision My final decision is I don’t uphold this complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Miss B to accept or reject my decision before 27 April 2026.

-- 2 of 3 --

Jeff Burch Ombudsman

-- 3 of 3 --