Allen Merry said most of the money was recovered, but about $23,000 is still missing after Fidelity denied part of his claim.
CAMBRIDGE, MA — A 79-year-old Cambridge man says scammers posing as Fidelity representatives stole $99,500 from his investment accounts after a phone call he believed was real, leaving him out about $23,000 even after the company recovered most of the money.
The case has drawn attention because it blends a familiar impostor scheme with the kind of account access dispute that can shape whether a brokerage reimburses losses. Allen Merry said he spent months challenging Fidelity’s decision after the company recovered more than $70,000 from the transfer but denied reimbursement for the rest, saying he gave a third party remote access to his computer and shared a one-time security code. The dispute leaves open questions about how the fraud unfolded, how the money moved and whether more of it can still be traced.
Merry said the scam began with what sounded like a routine fraud alert. He recalled getting a morning phone call from someone claiming to be from Fidelity, who told him that $99,500 had been transferred to a bank in Florida and asked whether he had authorized it. “I mean, I don’t go to Florida,” Merry said as he described the call. He later filed a fraud claim after learning money had in fact been moved out of a trust account. Fidelity was able to recover more than $70,000, according to the company’s correspondence with him, but roughly $23,000 remained gone. Merry said he did not realize at first that the caller may not have been from Fidelity at all and said he believed he was dealing with the firm’s fraud team while the transfer was unfolding.
In emails reviewed during Merry’s appeal, Fidelity said it could not retrieve or reimburse the remaining funds because he had granted remote access to his computer and provided a one-time password to an unknown third party. The company said that combination placed the loss outside its customer protection guarantee. In a later response to his appeal, a Fidelity representative said the firm reviewed a recorded call in which Merry reported the transactions and said someone claiming to be from the company’s fraud detection department had directed him to download software, take control of the computer and enter a number sent during the call. Merry disputed at least part of that account, saying he did not remember receiving a text on the day in question, the day before or the day after. His memory of the first call, he said, was limited, but he maintained that he thought he was talking to Fidelity.
The case fits a broader pattern that federal consumer and law enforcement agencies have described in recent alerts about account takeover fraud. In those schemes, criminals use urgent phone calls, texts or emails to convince victims that money is in danger, then collect login details or one-time passcodes that let them enter a legitimate account and move funds quickly. Fidelity’s own public customer protection terms say customers should never grant remote access to their computer or read back a one-time security password unless they started the call themselves using a verified number. The same terms say losses may not be covered if a customer shares account access information or authorizes another party to use it. That language has become central in Merry’s dispute because the remaining unrecovered money appears to turn on whether the transfer is treated as unauthorized activity or as access enabled by information he gave away during the call.
Fidelity did not answer questions from NBC10 Boston about why only part of the money was recovered or whether the recipient account is under investigation, according to the station’s report. That leaves several points unresolved, including exactly when the transfer was initiated, how long the scammers had access to Merry’s device, whether the destination account was tied to a mule network and whether any outside institution froze or returned part of the funds. Merry and his wife, Ellen Merry, said they were shocked that the loss could happen inside an account held at a major financial firm. “You do something like deposit money in a company like Fidelity — you think it’s safe,” Ellen Merry said. “I was amazed that it was even possible to happen.” Their reaction captures the tension at the center of many modern fraud cases: customers may believe a well-known financial brand will block a transfer, while firms often focus on whether the customer’s own actions let the criminal through the security gate.
No lawsuit or criminal charge had been announced in connection with Merry’s loss as of Thursday, and the public record described in the report centers on his fraud claim and internal appeal with Fidelity rather than a court filing. The next steps are likely to depend on whether additional review by the firm, regulators or law enforcement produces new evidence about the transfer path or the identity of the caller. For now, the key dates made public are the day of the initial call, the months of follow-up during Merry’s appeal and the company’s later written explanation that part of the loss would not be reimbursed. The broader enforcement backdrop is still active: federal authorities have warned repeatedly since 2024 that criminals are using impostor calls and one-time passcode requests to seize control of bank and brokerage accounts, often moving money fast enough to make full recovery difficult once the transfer clears.
The details of Merry’s account are plain and ordinary in a way that makes the case striking. There was no elaborate fake investment pitch and no promise of fast returns. Instead, he said, there was a call that sounded like a fraud check, a mention of a transfer to Florida and a series of steps that appeared to come from a trusted institution. That simplicity is part of why these scams can be hard to recognize in real time, especially for older customers trying to respond quickly to what sounds like an emergency inside an existing account. Merry’s own words show the confusion that can linger long after the money moves. “Fidelity suggests — and I think they’re right — that the first guy to call me may not have been Fidelity,” he said. “I was under the impression I was talking to Fidelity.”
As of Thursday, Merry said about $23,000 was still missing. The next clear milestone is whether Fidelity reopens the claim, more funds are recovered from the receiving account or investigators identify the people behind the call.
Author note: Last updated March 19, 2026.