Groundbreaking Chase Bank Lawsuit Verdict Could See NY Federal Judge Rule ‘Crypt

[Pab]

People are now mostly focusing and talking about Bitfinex , Tether case and yesterday price crash
But there are more interesting news from New York also
That article can be also good example of battle between crypto and banks,Wall Street

https://www.ccn.com/federal-judge-rule-crypto-is-cash-chase-bank-lawsuit


By CCN.com: A Manhattan federal judge will have to decide whether crypto is cash in what would be a landmark decision for the budding industry. The ruling would have major implications for what laws and regulations cryptocurrencies are subject to.



In April 2018, Chase customers sued the bank. The plaintiffs accused Chase of charging surprise fees after it abruptly stopped letting customers buy crypto with credit cards and began treating them as cash advances.

To make matters worse, Chase Bank refused to refund the extra fees it had charged after customers complained.

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, Brady Tucker, says Chase charged him $143.30 in fees and $20.61 in surprise interest charges for five crypto transactions he did between January and February 2018. After he called to dispute the charges, Chase refused to refund the money.

Moreover, Brady Tucker says he’s not only victim. In his lawsuit, Tucker says hundreds or even thousands of Chase customers were assessed these same fees — again, without prior notice.


Similar lawsuits over “cash-advance fees” for crypto purchases were filed against Bank of America in California and State Farm Bank in Illinois. The judges in those cases did not rule on the question of whether cryptocurrencies are cash, and did not dismiss the lawsuits.

Bitcoin fans point to these lawsuits over shady bank fees as examples of how hypocritical and dishonest legacy banks are, even as they slam the crypto industry as sleazy and illegitimate

[dothebeats]

This would make up for an interesting case of the year. Once the ruling is out, we will see how judges and juries treat bitcoin and whether or not they'll favor with crypto or the banks. For me, that's already a shady business practice on what the above-mentioned banks are doing, and it wiuld be injustice if the court would rule in favor of Chase. Idk but if Chase treat crypto purchases as cash advances, shouldn't other things bought using their credit cards be treated as cash advances as well for they are essentially buying things from the banks' money.

[Pab]

This would make up for an interesting case of the year. Once the ruling is out, we will see how judges and juries treat bitcoin and whether or not they'll favor with crypto or the banks. For me, that's already a shady business practice on what the above-mentioned banks are doing, and it wiuld be injustice if the court would rule in favor of Chase. Idk but if Chase treat crypto purchases as cash advances, shouldn't other things bought using their credit cards be treated as cash advances as well for they are essentially buying things from the banks' money.

Watch video on article. Dimon told that blockchain is transparent and secure.Maybe he didn't want to say that

[alyssa85]

Hasn't the federal government said that bitcoin is an asset/commodity and not a currency?

The NY judge should rule that bitcoin is not cash, there is only one currency in the UK, the almighty dollar, and the fees levied for "cash advances" are illegal.

[Genemind]

This would make up for an interesting case of the year. Once the ruling is out, we will see how judges and juries treat bitcoin and whether or not they'll favor with crypto or the banks. For me, that's already a shady business practice on what the above-mentioned banks are doing, and it wiuld be injustice if the court would rule in favor of Chase. Idk but if Chase treat crypto purchases as cash advances, shouldn't other things bought using their credit cards be treated as cash advances as well for they are essentially buying things from the banks' money.

Wondering how will they view Chase's action on how they charged cryptocurrency transactions without prior notice, charging shady fees on transactions made. Would be great to know what is their stand on cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin fans point to these lawsuits over shady bank fees as examples of how hypocritical and dishonest legacy banks are, even as they slam the crypto industry as sleazy and illegitimate

Another reason for cryptoenthusiasts to keep away from bank services. Funny how banks consider cryptocurrency illegal and yet making shady money from this transactions.

[pishite]

As always, everything is bad. The exchange rate of coins on it will suffer, we wait for a judgment. This happens not only in the US, so many banks consider cryptocurrency a monetary surrogate.

[okala]

The out come of this lawsuit will go a long way to help determine the through content of bitcoin either a cash or commodity, but this may not have any great impact on bitcoin regulations since the basis for the lawsuit was base of exuberant fees charged on the purchase of bitcoin from bank and which is not made open but hidden to the customers.

[Haunebu]

Chase bank deserves to get screwed here, but I don't find this news groundbreaking in any aspect whatsoever op. The Bitfinex news was much more controversial since it revolved around the already shady Tether currency which is why everyone are focusing on it currently.

[gentlemand]

Sounds dull and minor to me. It's a minor tiff over a little bit of terminology that they could easily discard or tweak. It's not as if this is a battle for the soul of money itself. I can't see Donald sitting on the toilet having live updates shouted to him.

[Kevin77]

This is not a big deal because it may not create a present since it is only about surprise fees. After all, banks can't create something out of nothing if crypto is not allowed and this would only stop banks from taking money from customers when they do crypto trades and that is not really a big example is it ?

Also that is only New York, it doesn't have to affect other places if they can find special state laws regarding that. I am not saying its nothing but its also not a major news, this would be at most a million dollars if you combine every single crypto extra charge banks have done in the previous year for example and honestly that is such a small number in the financial world that it doesn't even require discussion, it will only stop banks charging millions of dollars to customers and that's it.

[manfredmann]

There could be a basis of this bank to deduct the fees to its client without even sending notice to the clients. The lawsuit will not going to win over if there are sign contracts that will explain all the details agreed between the clients and the bank. But, if the bank service is very poor and that they made this deduction to its client as an unprofessionally being done then for sure the bank has a huge obligation with the filed cases and if I were them I will going to make an arraignment.

[FanEagle]

This would make up for an interesting case of the year. Once the ruling is out, we will see how judges and juries treat bitcoin and whether or not they'll favor with crypto or the banks. For me, that's already a shady business practice on what the above-mentioned banks are doing, and it wiuld be injustice if the court would rule in favor of Chase. Idk but if Chase treat crypto purchases as cash advances, shouldn't other things bought using their credit cards be treated as cash advances as well for they are essentially buying things from the banks' money.

Wondering how will they view Chase's action on how they charged cryptocurrency transactions without prior notice, charging shady fees on transactions made. Would be great to know what is their stand on cryptocurrency.

You know banks are always threatened about the decentralized way of cryptocurrency and they would do anything possible to frustrate the users because of the control they no longer have over the customer’s money, since the transaction that occurs over the technology cannot be monitored for them to make charges over them, I guess they had to resolve to estimated charges or forceful charges on crypto user’s account which is very wrong.

This actions of there is exactly what will make cryptocurrency banks gain more relevance that the normal traditional banks because their operation is tiring already to their customers.

[kryptqnick]

Sounds dull and minor to me. It's a minor tiff over a little bit of terminology that they could easily discard or tweak. It's not as if this is a battle for the soul of money itself. I can't see Donald sitting on the toilet having live updates shouted to him.

However, if this is the court case where the judge decides how to treat cryptocurrencies, it is important for the market. There are different tax implications for different words the judge might use to describe cryptocurrencies. And since the American system of law largely relies on precedents setting guidance for similar cases in the future, it might indeed have big impact.
At the same time, the op mentions that there were similar lawsuits before, and the judges avoided defining cryptos then. If this is the case, I don't see how this time it is different.

[Pab]

Sounds dull and minor to me. It's a minor tiff over a little bit of terminology that they could easily discard or tweak. It's not as if this is a battle for the soul of money itself. I can't see Donald sitting on the toilet having live updates shouted to him.

However, if this is the court case where the judge decides how to treat cryptocurrencies, it is important for the market. There are different tax implications for different words the judge might use to describe cryptocurrencies. And since the American system of law largely relies on precedents setting guidance for similar cases in the future, it might indeed have big impact.
At the same time, the op mentions that there were similar lawsuits before, and the judges avoided defining cryptos then. If this is the case, I don't see how this time it is different.

Good point.It is not so big things by my opinion.Biggest is Etrade listening bitcoin and ethereum on his platform.Whatever it will cause so talks between banks and regulators in front of cameras and i see clearly that customers have been hurts by banks
As i know bitcoin is not officially  regulated in USA nor like currency nor like a commodity
It is yet another example how banks want to disturb cryptocurrencies movement by avoiding releasing clear regulation or even guidance like Europe did
Many people see that because  very slow regulators work USA can stay long behind Europe and Asia in that new digital era race
It can be very much costly for USA in close future

[Ucy]

$143 is unbelievable amount but people indeed paid about that amount of fee especially on centralized platforms like crypto exchanges.  This should be around the period when people were desperate to pay any amount due to slow confirmation and high fees.

[sheenshane]

Well, I think there is still an advantage with Chase's case that the cryptocurrency will now become a regulated currency, as well. This is so much nonsense that Banks considers Bitcoin as illegal, why not just taking advantage of the cryptocurrency than trying to ruin it cause they will not be able to win against it. Not a single change. Credit cards are also the most brilliant trap the bank ever created. Making people stuck with their daily lifestyle because of it.