What Are Investors Alleging Against JPMorgan?

JPMorgan is facing a proposed class action lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California over allegations that the bank enabled a $328 million crypto Ponzi scheme operated by the now-defunct firm Goliath Ventures. Investors claim the bank allowed the scheme to operate through its accounts despite suspicious activity tied to the company.

The lawsuit argues that JPMorgan ignored warning signs while Goliath used its banking infrastructure to collect funds from investors. According to the complaint, the bank’s Know Your Customer obligations should have revealed the nature of the operation.

“Chase, by virtue of its Know Your Customer actually knew that Goliath was acting as a ‘private equity’ cryptocurrency pool operator investing money for investors, without being licensed at all to sell these investments,” the complaint states.

The case adds another layer to the growing legal scrutiny surrounding financial institutions that provide services to crypto-related businesses and investment schemes.

Investor Takeaway

The lawsuit highlights a key legal risk for banks serving crypto businesses: even routine banking services can become the focus of litigation if fraud later emerges within client operations.

How Did the Alleged Scheme Operate?

Prosecutors say Goliath Ventures, formerly known as Gen-Z Venture Firm, ran the scheme between January 2023 and January 2026. The US Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida announced the arrest of CEO Christopher Delgado on Feb. 24. If convicted on all counts, Delgado faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison.

The civil complaint alleges that JPMorgan was the sole banking institution used by Goliath from January 2023 until roughly May or June 2025. During that period, investors allegedly sent large sums to company-controlled accounts that were later moved into crypto wallets.

According to the filing, Goliath obtained at least $328 million from more than 2,000 investors. The complaint details how roughly $253 million was deposited into JPMorgan’s 0305 account during that timeframe. Of those deposits, about $123 million was reportedly transferred to cryptocurrency wallets associated with Goliath at Coinbase.

These account flows form a central element of the lawsuit, which claims the transaction patterns should have raised compliance alarms within the bank’s monitoring systems.

Which Financial Institutions Were Involved?

While the civil complaint targets JPMorgan, a separate criminal filing from US prosecutors states that Goliath also held business accounts at Bank of America. Authorities said Delgado was a co-signatory on an account identified as the BOA 9136 account under the company’s name.

According to the criminal complaint, Goliath directors told at least one investor that Delgado controlled the Bank of America account. Prosecutors also said that funds from investors were typically routed either to JPMorgan’s 0305 account, the Bank of America account, or directly to Goliath-controlled wallets on Coinbase.

The government filing further states that Delgado was the sole signatory on the Coinbase wallets used by the company, reinforcing prosecutors’ argument that he controlled the flow of funds across both banking and crypto platforms.

Investor Takeaway

Legal claims tied to banking infrastructure could broaden liability debates around how traditional financial institutions monitor crypto-linked transactions.

What Happens Next in the Case?

The civil lawsuit was filed by attorneys from Shaw Lewenz, Sonn Law Group, and Schwartzbaum. The first named plaintiff, Robby Alan Steele, said he invested $650,000 into the scheme, including retirement savings.

Lawyers involved in the case indicated that additional lawsuits could follow as investigators continue identifying other potential victims and parties tied to the alleged operation.

Jordan Shaw of Shaw Lewenz said the legal team is moving cautiously in deciding who to pursue through litigation. “We are being purposeful and precise in who we file against, to be complementary to the receiver and his efforts,” Shaw said.

“The goal is not to duplicate efforts, but instead to maximize recovery,” he added.

As the criminal and civil cases progress, the outcome could test how courts interpret the responsibility of banks in monitoring accounts connected to crypto investment schemes and whether existing compliance frameworks adequately address emerging digital-asset fraud risks.