JPMorgan Hit with Class Action Tied to Alleged $328m Goliath Crypto Ponzi

JPMorgan Chase is facing a proposed class action that accuses the bank of helping enable the alleged $328 million Goliath Ventures crypto fraud. The suit alleges Chase handled a large share of the money flow tied to the business and continued providing banking services even as account activity reflected classic Ponzi red flags.

Investors Accuse JPMorgan of Enabling Goliath Fund Flows

The complaint was filed on March 10 in federal court in Northern California. It seeks to represent investors in Goliath joint venture agreements who claim they suffered losses after wiring money into accounts held at Chase.

Plaintiffs argue that the bank provided the core banking infrastructure that allowed investor funds to be collected, moved, and redistributed through the alleged scheme. The suit includes claims for aiding and abetting fraud, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, unjust enrichment, and violations of California’s unfair competition law.

Prosecutors allege the scheme raised at least $328 million. It also states that Chase was Goliath’s only bank until about May or June 2025, before another bank account later appeared in the federal criminal case.

Civil Suit Follows Criminal Case Against Goliath CEO Christopher Delgado

The civil case follows the February arrest of Christopher Alexander Delgado, Goliath’s president and chief executive. Federal prosecutors charged him with wire fraud and money laundering and alleged that he operated Goliath as a Ponzi scheme from January 2023 through January 2026.

Prosecutors alleged Delgado raised at least $328 million through false promises of monthly returns from crypto liquidity pools. They also accused him of using investor money to pay purported returns to earlier investors, cover luxury spending, and purchase four residential properties valued between $1.15 million and $8.5 million. If convicted on all counts, Delgado faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in federal prison.

Complaint Cites $253m in Chase Deposits and $123m to Coinbase

The lawsuit alleges about $253 million was deposited into a Chase account tied to Goliath between January 2023 and June 2025. It also points to about $123 million transferred from that account to Goliath wallets at Coinbase during the same period.

Plaintiffs contend those flows should have triggered closer scrutiny inside the bank. The complaint alleges Chase processed investor deposits, transfers among related entities, and outgoing payments that helped create the appearance of legitimate profits.

The suit further argues that the bank’s monitoring systems and compliance controls should have identified red flags tied to the account activity. Those allegations have not been tested in court.

Investors Were Promised Monthly Returns of 3% to 8%

Prosecutors say investors were promised monthly returns of 3% to 8%. Investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools and managed through a structured DeFi strategy.

Investigators alleged that it did not happen as represented. The criminal complaint states that little, if any, investor money was actually invested, with about $1.5 million identified as having been deposited into Uniswap.

That gap between the pitch and the actual use of funds now sits at the centre of both the criminal case against Delgado and the civil claims against the bank.

The Case Adds Fresh Legal Pressure on Banks Handling Crypto-Linked Flows

The class action does not determine whether JPMorgan is liable, and the allegations against the bank remain unproven. Even so, the filing widens the legal focus beyond Goliath and Christopher Delgado to the bank that handled much of the alleged scheme’s money movement.

The case also arrives as large U.S. banks push regulators over how crypto-linked banking activity should be supervised. That broader policy fight sits in the background, but this lawsuit is more direct. It asks whether a bank’s role in processing funds can itself become part of the liability case.

That shifts part of the recovery effort toward JPMorgan. The issue is no longer only how the alleged fraud operated, but whether the institution that moved the money can also face civil exposure.