FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Wells Fargo Allowed to Neither Admit Nor Deny. Why?

When the Consumer Financial Protection Board (CFPB) settled with Wells Fargo last month for $100 million, it did so without requiring that Wells Fargo admit to its wrongdoing

Or as the settlement agreement put it, the bank agreed to pay the $100 million “without admitting or denying the findings of facts and conclusions of law.”

And it wasn’t just the CFPB.

The Comptroller of the Currency settled with Wells Fargo for $35 million.

And the Los Angeles City Attorney settled with Wells Fargo for $50 million.

And all of them allowed Wells Fargo to “neither admit nor deny.”

This despite the egregious behavior documented by the CFPB.

The CFPB found, for example, that Wells Fargo opened more than 1.5 million deposit accounts without client consent, transferred funds between client accounts without client consent, applied for almost 600,000 client credit cards without client consent,  issued client debit cards without client consent, and enrolled clients in on-line banking services without client consent.

As a result, Wells Fargo charged customers approximately $2 million in fraudulent deposit-account fees and more than $400,000 in fraudulent credit-card related fees.

Yet, Wells Fargo neither admitted nor denied that it had violated the law.

Why?

Daniel Alter wants to know.

Alter is a Senior Fellow in residence with the Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement at NYU Law School.

Alter recently served as the General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of itBit, a financial services company.

Previously he was the served as the General Counsel of the New York State Department of Financial Services.

Alter says that in allowing Wells Fargo to “neither admit nor deny the charges, the authorities blinked.”

“This was a case of serious, systemic misconduct towards consumers by a major financial institution, and it warranted a public confession,” Alter writes at the NYU Law Compliance and Enforcement Blog. “By failing to exact any such acknowledgment of culpability, the regulators missed an important opportunity. This case presented a chance to foster an ethos of ethical responsibility, both within the banking industry at large and within a single institution in dire need of cultural reform. And that ethos is the bedrock foundation of every effective compliance regime.”

Alter says that the neither admit nor deny clause, when used to settle serious regulatory violations, “suggests that the authorities either lack the power or commitment to hold violators legally and publicly accountable – that is, to shame them.”

“Surely, there are circumstances where, on balance, it is in the public interest for regulators to settle charges without requiring an alleged violator to admit liability,” Alter writes.  “The infraction may not be serious enough to warrant the expenditure of prosecutorial resources, or the available resources are needed elsewhere.  As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently underscored: ‘Trials are primarily about truth.  Consent decrees are primarily about pragmatism.’ But, as this case makes evident, sometimes it is pragmatic for regulators to insist upon the truth.”

More articles by:

Russell Mokhiber is the editor of the Corporate Crime Reporter..

April 25, 2018
Stanley L. Cohen
Selective Outrage
Dan Kovalik
The Empire Turns Its Sights on Nicaragua – Again!
Joseph Essertier
The Abductees of Japan and Korea
Ramzy Baroud
The Ghost of Herut: Einstein on Israel, 70 Years Ago
W. T. Whitney
Imprisoned FARC Leader Faces Extradition: Still No Peace in Colombia
Manuel E. Yepe
Washington’s Attack on Syria Was a Mockery of the World
John White
My Silent Pain for Toronto and the World
Dean Baker
Bad Projections: the Federal Reserve, the IMF and Unemployment
David Schultz
Why Donald Trump Should Not be Allowed to Pardon Michael Cohen, His Friends, or Family Members
Mel Gurtov
Will Abe Shinzo “Make Japan Great Again”?
Binoy Kampmark
Enoch Powell: Blood Speeches and Anniversaries
Frank Scott
Weapons and Walls
April 24, 2018
Carl Boggs
Russia and the War Party
William A. Cohn
Carnage Unleashed: the Pentagon and the AUMF
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
The Racist Culture of Canadian Hockey
María Julia Bertomeu
On Angers, Disgusts and Nauseas
Nick Pemberton
How To Buy A Seat In Congress 101
Ron Jacobs
Resisting the Military-Now More Than Ever
Paul Bentley
A Velvet Revolution Turns Bloody? Ten Dead in Toronto
Sonali Kolhatkar
The Left, Syria and Fake News
Manuel E. Yepe
The Confirmation of Democracy in Cuba
Peter Montgomery
Christian Nationalism: Good for Politicians, Bad for America and the World
Ted Rall
Bad Drones
Jill Richardson
The Latest Attack on Food Stamps
Andrew Stewart
What Kind of Unionism is This?
Ellen Brown
Fox in the Hen House: Why Interest Rates Are Rising
April 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
In Middle East Wars It Pays to be Skeptical
Thomas Knapp
Just When You Thought “Russiagate” Couldn’t Get Any Sillier …
Gregory Barrett
The Moral Mask
Robert Hunziker
Chemical Madness!
David Swanson
Senator Tim Kaine’s Brief Run-In With the Law
Dave Lindorff
Starbucks Has a Racism Problem
Uri Avnery
The Great Day
Nyla Ali Khan
Girls Reduced to Being Repositories of Communal and Religious Identities in Kashmir
Ted Rall
Stop Letting Trump Distract You From Your Wants and Needs
Steve Klinger
The Cautionary Tale of Donald J. Trump
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
Conflict Over the Future of the Planet
Cesar Chelala
Gideon Levy: A Voice of Sanity from Israel
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail