Wells Fargo Agrees to $3B Penalty to Resolve Fake Bank Account Scandal
Bank CEO Charles Scharf: "The conduct ... and the past culture that gave rise to it are reprehensible and wholly inconsistent with the values on which Wells Fargo was built."
February 21, 2020 at 05:35 PM
4 minute read
Wells Fargo & Co. agreed Friday to pay a massive $3 billion penalty and to accept a three-year deferred prosecution agreement to avoid a criminal trial over its fake bank account scandal.
CEO Charles Scharf issued a statement saying, "The conduct at the core of today's settlements—and the past culture that gave rise to it—are reprehensible and wholly inconsistent with the values on which Wells Fargo was built."
Scharf said over the past three years "we've made fundamental changes to our business model, compensation programs, leadership and governance [but] there's still more work we must do to rebuild the trust we lost."
The deal was announced at a press conference by U.S. Attorney Nicola Hanna in Los Angeles.
Hanna said for 15 years the bank "pursued an aggressive business strategy, selling additional banking products to customers, including checking and saving accounts. This volume-based growth plan emphasized loading up each customer with as many products as possible [and] permeated all aspects of community banking business."
This cross-sell strategy, he said, led to "widespread abuses, unethical conduct and illegal activity," including the opening of bank accounts without customers' knowledge or consent.
The settlement resolved three separate investigations, including a criminal one by the Department of Justice into fake accounts; a civil one by the Justice Department into false bank records; and a civil one by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission into misleading investors.
The commission's $500 million civil penalty, which is included in the $3 billion, will go to harmed investors, said Stephanie Avakian, co-head of the enforcement division at the SEC.
Hanna said some investigations are ongoing and Wells Fargo is cooperating, but would not disclose details.
In reaching the settlement, he said prosecutors considered past and ongoing cooperation; remedial actions already taken, including sufficient changes to upper management and a reconstituted board of directors; enhancement of its compliance program; compensation to customers who were victimized; and the bank's complete admission of wrongdoing and acceptance of responsibility.
Since the scandal broke, the company has replaced its board chairman, its CEO twice, its general counsel and numerous other executives.
Last November Wells Fargo announced that new general counsel Allen Parker, who had been serving as interim CEO and was leading reforms, was leaving. Parker agreed to stay on as general counsel until March 31, presumably to oversee Friday's settlement.
The company has yet to name a new general counsel.
In addition, in February 2018 the Federal Reserve imposed an unprecedented asset freeze, in the form of a cease and desist consent order, that limits the San Francisco-based bank's growth to its December 2017 level. In effect, the order halted most lending and most growth until the bank raised its corporate governance standards to acceptable levels.
Wells Fargo said the $3 billion penalty was fully accrued as of last Dec. 31.
At least one consumer rights group, Public Citizen, quickly criticized the settlement. "Any resolution for Wells Fargo's massive, management-directed misconduct must hold individuals to account," the group said in a statement. "Wells Fargo's fake account scandal is as clear and understandable as pickpocketing."
It went on to say criminal violations should be deterred through criminal enforcement actions, not deferred prosecution agreements. "Protecting Wells Fargo from the consequences of its wrongdoing is not the DOJ's job," it concluded.
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'We’re Here to Empower People to Make Good Decisions': Why Compliance Chiefs Must Learn to Think Like a Businessperson
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Legal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250