Investors in the collapsed crypto pool Goliath Ventures have filed a proposed class action against JPMorgan Chase, accusing the bank of turning a blind eye to “numerous red flags” and effectively enabling what the complaint calls a $328 million Ponzi scheme that impacted more than 2,000 people.
Key points
- The complaint was filed Wednesday in federal court in the Northern District of California by plaintiff Robby Alan Steele, through Shaw Lewenz and co-counsel.
- Plaintiffs allege JPMorgan was the sole bank for Goliath and “provided the essential banking infrastructure through which the Ponzi scheme operated,” by processing investor deposits, facilitating transfers and making payments that helped create the appearance of legitimate profits.
- The filing says roughly $253 million was deposited into a Chase account linked to Goliath between January 2023 and June 2025. From that account, about $123 million went to crypto exchange Coinbase and roughly $50 million was paid out to investors as supposed returns.
- Florida resident Christopher Alexander Delgado, who ran Goliath, was arrested last month on federal wire fraud and money-laundering charges; that criminal case is still in its early stages.
- The lawsuit does not specify a damages figure, but repeatedly argues the transaction flows alone should have put a bank on notice of fraud: “From a bank’s perspective, the fraudulent scheme was obvious,” the complaint states. It accuses Chase of continuing to service Goliath’s accounts and earning substantial fees from the hundreds of millions that passed through.
- Plaintiffs also point to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon’s public skepticism of cryptocurrencies as inconsistent with the bank’s alleged conduct, saying Chase allowed Goliath to commingle investor funds and pay earlier investors with money from later ones “in a classic Ponzi scheme fashion.”
- JPMorgan told CoinDesk it would “decline to comment.”
Why this matters for crypto and banks
The suit raises familiar but significant questions about the liability of large banks that provide routine services to crypto-related businesses: when do transaction patterns and other compliance signals require a bank to act? If the plaintiffs prevail, this case could reinforce scrutiny on how traditional financial institutions monitor and police high-volume crypto activity and the movement of investor funds.
The civil case is separate from the federal criminal indictment against Delgado; this class-action complaint now seeks to hold the bank civilly responsible for allegedly facilitating the scheme.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
