Superficially speaking, he defrauded a US bank of $70k ($5k of which he transferred to his bank account). Yes, he disclosed exactly how he did it to the bank.

Superficially speaking, he defrauded a US bank of $70k ($5k of which he transferred to his bank account). Yes, he disclosed exactly how he did it to the bank. Yes, he returned it all. Yes, he had no intent to keep it. And yes, he still defrauded them in the process. Yes, he had permission to do so. But permission doesn't always prevent situations from going awry, even if it can help clear things up after the fact. If you walk into a physical bank and notice a potential security issue, point out the potential security issue to the teller, come back to exploit that potential security issue just to see if you can, succeed and make off with $70k, then bring it all back in and walk the bank manager through how you robbed his bank, he's still going to call the cops on you. Or maybe you spoke to him before and got permission, but his communication to corporate after the fact gets misconstrued/misunderstood and someone else calls the cops. Closing all of the accounts like they did was a crap reaction, but he could have just as easily been hand delivered an arrest warrant by an FBI agent for bank robbery and fraud if someone internally decided to take the position that what he did was analogous to the above scenario. And it may have just as easily occurred due to some internal miscommunication/misunderstanding by a non-technical person or being flagged by some type of automation/reporting, rather than deliberately taking such a stance. That's where involving a lawyer would have been valuable. It may not have protected him from the consequences that did occur, since they could close his accounts for whatever reason they wanted. But a lawyer would have provided greater assurance against substantially worse outcomes, by ensuring more drastic outcomes were identified and addressed/mitigated upfront. And potentially saved his accounts from getting closed - the decrease in his cumulative credit limit plus closure of such long-lived credit cards translates into real economic harm due to the likely impact on his credit score. I could see a lawyer being able to use that fact somehow to persuade Chase that it was not in their best interests to take such an action. Law enforcement - I'd leave that up to the lawyer. As another user commented, your lawyer is explicitly employed to protect your interests. If involving law enforcement furthers that aim, they'll tell you. If involving law enforcement is detrimental to that aim, they'll tell you. So consult with several first, hire one second, and let them direct what happens after. If what they do/recommend ends up being incredibly stupid, you at least have their malpractice insurance to appropriately compensate you for their stupidity. But you have no such insurance to compensate you for your own.