Group Research, Crimes of the Banks

ABSOLUTELT DISGUSTING

"In a leaked report for their investor clients from 2005, a team of global strategists at Citigroup wrote an analysis of the global distribution of wealth and consumers. In it, they state that global imbalances have grown to the extent as to justify talking of a plutonomy, and demand for a renewed understanding of how this impacts consumption. The authors cite data showing that the top 1% households in the US economy account for about 20% of the total income in 2000, which is roughly equal to the share of the bottom 60% of households put together. Moreover, in terms of wealth they demonstrate even more inequality such that "[T]he top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better (or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for 40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together."[197]:3 Of the current plutonomies (namely United States, United Kingdom, and Canada), they describe six key drivers: "…an ongoing [bio-]technological revolution; capitalist-friendly governments and tax regimes; globalization that re-arranges global supply chains with mobile well-capitalized elites and immigrants; greater financial complexity and innovation; the rule of law, and patent protection are all well."[197]:9 In the report, the authors advocate to maintain unequal distribution of wealth in the sense that "…society and governments need to be amenable to disproportionately allow/encourage the few to retain that fatter profit share. The Managerial Aristocracy, like in the Gilded Age, the Roaring Twenties, and the thriving nineties, needs to commandeer a vast chunk of that rising profit share, either through capital income, or simply paying itself a lot."[197]:10 Moreover, the authors say that in industrialize countries, there seems to be a relationship between income concentration (plutonomy) and the household savings rates such that the latter tend to fall in plutonomies.[197]:18 The ultimate objective of their report is to examine how to make money of this.[197]:21 The report has also figured in Michael Moore's Capitalism: A love Story while his portrayal of the report has been criticized by the authors.[198] Later reports by the same principal author mainly confirmed the previous findings"

In a The New York Times op-ed, Michael Lewis and David Einhorn described the November 2008 $306 billion guarantee as "an undisguised gift" without any real crisis motivating it.[201]

According to New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Citigroup paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to more than 1,038 of its employees after it had received its $45 billion TARP funds in late 2008. This included 738 employees each receiving $1 million in bonuses, 176 employees each receiving $2 million bonuses, 124 each receiving $3 million in bonuses, and 143 each receiving bonuses of $4 million to more than $10 million.[202] As a result of the criticism and the U.S. Government's majority holding of Citigroup's common shares, compensation and bonuses were restricted from February 2009 until December 2010.

"In November 2007 it became public that Citigroup was heavily involved in the Terra Securities scandal, which involved investments by eight municipalities of Norway in various hedge funds in the United States bond market.[204] The funds were sold by Terra Securities to the municipalities, while the products were delivered by Citigroup. Terra Securities ASA filed for bankruptcy November 28, 2007, the day after they received a letter from the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway announcing withdrawal of permissions to operate. The letter stated, "The Supervisory Authority contends that Citigroup's presentation, as well as the presentation from Terra Securities ASA, appears insufficient and misleading because central elements like information about potential extra payments and the size of these are omitted."

In August 2008, Citigroup agreed to pay nearly $18 million in refunds and fines to settle accusations by California Attorney General Jerry Brown that it wrongly took funds from the accounts of credit card customers. Citigroup paid $14 million of restitution to roughly 53,000 customers nationwide. A three-year investigation found that Citigroup from 1992 to 2003 used an improper computerized "sweep" feature to move positive balances from card accounts into the bank's general fund, without telling cardholders.[206] Brown said that Citigroup "knowingly stole from its customers, mostly poor people and the recently deceased, when it designed and implemented the sweeps…When a whistleblower uncovered the scam and brought it to his superiors [in 2001], they buried the information and continued the illegal practice.

Uh… This is sudden.

Wtf is this?

In September 2011, former Wall Street reporter Ron Suskind stated that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ignored a 2009 order from President Barack Obama to break up Citigroup in an enormous restructuring and liquidation process.[207][page needed] According to Suskind, Obama wanted to restructure the bank into several leaner and smaller companies while Geithner was executing stress tests of American financial institutions.

Robert Kuttner wrote in his 2010 book A Presidency in Peril that in spring 2009, Geithner and chief economic adviser Larry Summers believed that they could not seize, liquidate and break up Citigroup because they lacked the legal authority or the tools to do so. The Treasury Department denied Suskind's account in an e-mail to the media stating "This account is simply untrue. The directive given by the president in March 2009, was to develop a contingency plan for tough restructurings if the government ended up owning large shares of institutions at the conclusion of the stress tests that Secretary Geithner worked aggressively to put in place as part of the Administration's Financial Stability Plan. While Treasury began work on those contingency plans, there was fortunately never a need to put them in place.

join me, wikipedia a bank off that list, read its crimes, post them

At Citi's 2012 annual shareholders' meeting on April 17, Citi's executive compensation package was rejected, with approximately 55% of the votes being against approval. The non-binding vote was required under the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires corporations to hold advisory shareholder votes on their executive compensation plans. Many shareholders expressed concerns about Citi's failed 2012 Fed stress test and lack of long-term performance-based metrics in its executive compensation plan. One of the largest and most activist of the shareholders voting no, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, stated Citi "has not anchored rewards to performance".[211] A Citigroup shareholder filed a lawsuit days after the vote, claiming Citi executives breached their fiduciary duties.[212] In response, Richard Parsons, former chairman of Citigroup, called the vote a "serious matter". A spokeswoman for Citi said "Citi's Board of Directors takes the shareholder vote seriously, and along with senior management will consult with representative shareholders to understand their concerns" and that the Compensation committee of the Board "will carefully consider their (shareholder) input as we move forward"

In January 2017, bank regulators fined Citigroup $25 million on account of five traders from the bank having manipulated U.S. Treasury futures more than 2,500 times between July 2011 and December 2012. Citigroup was criticized for failing to adequately supervise its traders and for not having systems in place to detect spoofing, which involves entering fake orders designed to fool others into thinking prices are poised to rise or fall.

On 1 June 2018, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) announced that criminal cartel charges are expected to be laid by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) against ANZ Bank, its Group Treasurer Rick Moscati, along with Deutsche Bank, Citigroup and a number of individuals.

NEW BANK. LOYDS TSB:

In November 2005 an investigation by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) highlighted a lack of compliance controls surrounding payment protection insurance (PPI). A second investigation in October 2006 identified further evidence of poor compliance and major PPI providers including Lloyds were fined for not treating customers fairly. In January 2011 a High Court case began which in the following April ruled against the banks, on 5 May 2011 Lloyds withdrew from the legal challenge. In 2012, Lloyds announced that they had set aside £3.6 billion to cover the cost of compensating customers who were mis-sold PPI.[49]

In March 2014 it was reported that Lloyds had been reducing the compensation they offered by using a regulatory provision called "alternative redress" to assume that customers wrongly sold single-premium PPI policies would have bought a cheaper, regular premium PPI policy instead.[50]

In June 2015 the Lloyds Banking Group was fined £117m for mishandling payment protection insurance claims including many claims being "unfairly rejected"

COMPLETELY HARAM

In December 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want released a report documenting the extent to which the UK high street banks invest in, provide banking services for and lend to arms companies. The report stated that Lloyds TSB is the only high street bank whose corporate social responsibility policy does not mention the arms industry, yet is that industry's second largest shareholder among high street banks.

In 2009, the BBC's Panorama alleged that Lloyds TSB Offshore in Jersey, Channel Islands was encouraging wealthy customers to evade tax. An employee of Lloyds was filmed telling a customer how several mechanisms could be used to make their transactions invisible to the UK tax authorities.[53] This action is also in breach of money laundering regulations in Jersey.[54] Lloyds subsequently claimed that this was an isolated incident which they were investigating.

In December 2013, Lloyds Banking Group had been fined £28m for "serious failings" in relation to bonus schemes for sales staff. The Financial Conduct Authority said it was the largest fine that it or the former Financial Services Authority had imposed for retail conduct failings. The bonus scheme pressured staff to hit sales targets or risk being demoted and have their pay cut, the FCA said. Lloyds Bank has accepted the regulator's findings and apologised to its customers.

Based on figures from the National Audit Office, George Osborne's sale of a 6% tranche of Lloyds shares in autumn 2013—despite his claims that the sale had netted a profit—worked out at a loss of at least £230m for UK taxpayers.[57] However, after the British Government confirmed all its remaining shares had been sold on 17 May 2017, Lloyds Bank said the government had seen a return of £21.2bil on its investment, an approximately £900m profit

In July 2014, US and UK regulators imposed a combined £218 million ($370 million) in fines on Lloyds and a number of subsidiaries over the bank's part in the global Libor rate fixing scandal, and other rate manipulations and false reporting.

BANK OF IRELAND:

An IR£30.5 million tax arrears liability was settled by Bank of Ireland in July 2000. The Bank told the Oireachtas Public Accounts Committee Inquiry that its liability was in the region of £1.5 million. The settlement figure was 'dictated' by the Revenue Commissioners following an audit by the Commissioners.[35] It was in Bank of Ireland that some of the most celebrated of the "celebrated cases" of non-compliance and bogus non-resident accounts have to date been discovered and disclosed. Thurles, Boyle, Roscrea (1990), Milltown Malbay (1991), Dundalk (1989/90), Killester (1992), Tullamore (1993), Mullingar (1996), Castlecomer, Clonmel, Ballybricken, Ballinasloe, Skibbereen (1988), Dungarvan and, disclosed to the Oireachtas Public Accounts Sub-Committee, Ballaghaderreen (1998) and Ballygar (1999). The Public Accounts Sub-Committee Inquiry concluded that "the most senior executives in the Bank of Ireland did seek to set an ethical tone for the bank and unsuccessfully sought Revenue Commissioners assistance to promote an industry-wide Code of Practice.

The information provided to the Department of Finance in 2009 in advance of a recapitalisation of the bank which cost the taxpayer €3.5 billion "was incomplete and misleading". It also gave wrong information to the Minister for Finance who in turn misled the Dáil on €66 million in bonuses it paid since receiving a State guarantee. External examiners found it used "a restrictive and uncommon interpretation of what constituted a performance bonus".[42] Their report also found that there had been "a catalogue of errors" and that the information supplied by Bank of Ireland to the Department of Finance was "presented in a manner which minimised the level of additional payments made".[43] The Bank paid €2 million by way of compensation to the Exchequer for providing "misleading" information

Attached: Screenshot_20190224-205856.png (1662x2048, 1.09M)

The Bank has forged strong links with IT outsourcing companies since 2004 or earlier. On 1 November 2010 IBM won the $450M full scope outsource contract to manage BoI Group's Information Technology (IT) infrastructure services (e.g. mainframe, servers, desktops and print services) in a competitive bid against HP (the incumbent outsource provider) and HCL. This follows on from the Bank's natural expiration of its current agreement with HP, which was signed in 2004.

Following a competitive bid process with a number of parties, IBM was selected for exclusive contract negotiations in July 2011. During the intervening period, an extensive due diligence phase has been undertaken and relevant regulatory approval has been granted. IBM will manage the Group's entire IT infrastructure, including desktop systems, servers, mainframes, local area networks and service desk.[47] Since then, BOI has given HCL a €30m Business Process Outsourcing contract and has selected them as strategic local resourcing partner in Ireland. In addition to that, HCL have opened a software factory for Bank of Ireland in India and has started to outsource production support for the retail banking and payments applications in BOI.[48] This exclusive relationship with HCL has been seen as controversial in the context of the substantial Irish taxpayer investment in Bank of Ireland – and the lack of any significant investment by HCL in Ireland. A banking analyst said in July 2011 that BOI's IT system is "very antiquated.

COMPLETELY BARBARIC

Bank of Ireland closed the accounts of Irish Palestine Solidarity campaign citing that the bank considered Palestine a high risk country. Sinn Féin TD Mary-Lou McDonald called this outrageous and an insult to the Palestinian people

On 5 March 2009, the shares reached €0.12 during the day, thereby reducing the value of the company by over 99% from its 2007 high. At the 2009 AGM, shareholders criticised the performance of their Auditors, PriceWaterhouseCoopers.[51]

The Central Bank told the Oireachtas Enterprise Committee that shareholders who lost their money in the banking collapse are to blame for their fate and got what was coming to them for not keeping bank chiefs in check, but did admit that the Central Bank had failed to give sufficient warning about reckless lending to property developers

NEW BANK HSBC:

In July 2007, HSBC suddenly withdrew its interest-free overdrafts for graduates. Students graduating that year discovered that they were to face unexpected bills of up to £140 a year.[10] Students mobilised protests using the social networking website Facebook and in August HSBC reversed their policy,[11] freezing overdraft charges to recent graduates and pledging to repay charges deducted in August while holding talks with the National Union of Students.

In December 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want released a report documenting the extent to which HSBC and other UK commercial banks invest in, provide banking services for and make loans to arms companies. The charity writes in its report that HSBC holds shares in the global arms industry totalling £450.6 million, and serves as principal banker for Meggitt, one of the UK's largest arms companies. The report also details HSBC's dealings with known producers of cluster munitions and depleted uranium munitions

In 2008 HSBC were accused of 'cultural insensitivity' in an advertising campaign featuring an overweight white man dressed to look like a Sumo wrestler. The campaign upset members of Britain's Japanese community who claimed the man's skin tone was darkened and makeup was applied to narrow his eyes.[13] HSBC denied making the model appear to be from a specific country or region but admitted makeup was applied and skin tone was tanned

In December 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want released a report documenting the extent to which HSBC and other UK commercial banks invest in, provide banking services for and make loans to arms companies. The charity writes in its report that HSBC holds shares in the global arms industry totalling £450.6 million, and serves as principal banker for Meggitt, one of the UK's largest arms companies. The report also details HSBC's dealings with known producers of cluster munitions and depleted uranium munitions.

In 2014 HSBC closed North London Central Mosque's account and some Muslim clients' and groups' accounts.[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Several sources report that HSBC closed them because they donated their money to Palestine during the recent conflict.

In 2012, the U.S. government uncovered a "blatant failure to implement proper anti-money laundering controls facilitat[ing] the laundering of at least $881 million in drug proceeds through the U.S. financial system"

NEW BANK NATWEST:

The so-called NatWest Three — Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew — were extradited to the United States in 2006 on charges relating to a transaction with Enron Corporation in 2000 while they were working for Greenwich NatWest.[74] It has been argued that the alleged crime was committed by British citizens living in the UK against a British company based in London[75] and therefore, any resulting criminal case falls under the jurisdiction of the English courts.[76] However, the Serious Fraud Office decided not to prosecute due to lack of evidence.[77] There has been criticism that the Americans do not have to produce a prima facie case, or even a reasonable one, to extradite British citizens,[78] whereas no such facility exists to extradite US citizens to the UK.[79] On 28 November 2007 the three admitted one charge of wire fraud after a plea bargain.[80] On 22 February 2008 they were each sentenced to 37 months in prison.[81]

Following discussions between the Office of Fair Trading, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Financial Services Authority and the major banks, proceedings were issued on 27 July 2007 in a test case against the banks to determine the legality and enforceability of certain charges relating to unauthorised overdrafts. It is argued that these are contrary to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999; Schedule 2(e) of which gives a non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, such as a term requiring a consumer who fails in his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation.[82] Penalty charges are irrecoverable at common law. The precedent for this was Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v New Garage and Motor Co. Ltd. [1915] AC 79 along with Murray v Leisure Play [2005] EWCA Civ 963, where it was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses.[83] The Royal Bank of Scotland Group maintained that its charges were fair and enforceable and stated it intended to defend its position vigorously.[84] On 24 April 2008, the High Court found that although these charges could not constitute penalties, they are challengeable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.[85] On 26 February 2009, the Court of Appeal ruled that fees for unauthorised overdrafts and bounced cheques are subject to regulation by the OFT under these rules.

NEW BANK: ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND

On 20 January 2011, Royal Bank of Scotland were fined £28.58 million for anti-competitive practices that were enacted with Barclays in relation to the pricing of loan products for large professional services firms.[8] Also in 2011, Royal Bank of Scotland prevented Basic Account holders from using the ATMs of most rival banks (although they could still use those of Natwest, Tesco, Morrisons and the Post Office).[9]

On March 20, 2017 the British paper The Guardian reported that hundreds of banks had helped launder KGB-related funds out of Russia, as uncovered by an investigation named Global Laundromat. The Royal Bank of Scotland was listed among the 17 banks in the UK that were "facing questions over what they knew about the international scheme and why they did not turn away suspicious money transfers," as the bank "handled $113.1 million" in Laundromat cash. Other banks facing scrutiny under the investigation included HSBC, NatWest, Lloyds, Barclays and Coutts. Coutts, owned by RBS, had "accepted $32.8m worth of payments via its office in Zurich, Switzerland." NatWest, also owned by RBS, was named for allowing through $1.1 million in related funds.[18]

The bonus payments paid to Royal Bank of Scotland staff subsequent to the 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package caused controversy.[48] Staff bonuses were nearly £1 billion in 2010, even though Royal Bank of Scotland reported losses of £1.1 billion for 2010. More than 100 senior bank executives were paid in excess of £1 million each in bonuses.[49] Consequently, former CEO Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood in mid-January, and newly appointed CEO Stephen Hester renounced his £1 million bonus after complaints over the bank's performance.[50]

82 percent of Royal Bank of Scotland's shares are now owned by the UK government, which bought Royal Bank of Scotland stock for £42 billion, representing 50 pence per share. In 2011, the shares were worth 19 pence, representing a taxpayer book loss of £26 billion. Historically, the Royal Bank of Scotland stock price went from a high of over 6,900 pence in early 2007 (taking into account a 3 for 1 reverse stock split that took place later that year) to around 120 pence February 2009 and up to 187 pence by December 2011.[51] In 2012 RBS shares were consolidated on a 1 for 10 basis. The Stock has not recovered from the financial shock of early 2009 and is currently at 316 pence (30 October 2015.) This equated to a price of just 31.6 pence per pre consolidation share.

High street Royal Bank of Scotland branches were targeted by protests, after the bank was challenged over its financing of oil and coal mining by charities such as Platform London, People and Planet and Friends of the Earth. In 2007, Royal Bank of Scotland was promoting itself as "The Oil & Gas Bank", although the website www.oilandgasbank.com was later taken down.[52] A Platform London report criticised the bank's lending to oil and gas companies, estimating that the carbon emissions embedded within Royal Bank of Scotland' project finance reached 36.9 million tonnes in 2005, comparable to Scotland's carbon emissions.[53]

Royal Bank of Scotland provides the financial means for companies to build coal-fired power stations and dig new coal mines at sites throughout the world. Royal Bank of Scotland helped to provide an estimated £8 billion from 2006 to 2008 to energy corporation E.ON and other coal-utilising companies.[54] In 2012, 2.8% of Royal Bank of Scotland' total lending was provided to the power, oil and gas sectors combined. According to Royal Bank of Scotland' own figures, half of its deals to the energy sector were to wind power projects; although, this only included project finance and not general commercial loans.

In October 2016 BBC Newsnight and Buzzfeed published reports from leaked internal document which showed that RBS had "Systematically Crushed British Businesses"[58] with fines, interest rate hikes and loan withdrawals, often acquiring equity or property at firesale prices, turning a sizeable profit.[59] RBS executives had previously assured Parliament that their Global Restructuring Group (GRG) was not a profit centre.[60] Controversy regarding the GRG was rekindled by the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Vince Cable, and others in January 2018.[61] In February 2018, the Financial Conduct Authority released a "Section 166" report from Promontory Financial Services to Nicky Morgan, Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, detailing widespread abuse of SMEs within GRG. This was despite protracted resistance by the FCA to releasing the report

NEW BANK: STANDARD CHARTERED

In 1992, scandal broke when banking regulators charged several employees of Standard Chartered in Mumbai with illegally diverting depositors' funds to speculate in the stock market. Fines by Indian regulators and provisions for losses cost the bank almost ₤350 million, at that time fully a third of its capital.

In 1994, London's Sunday Times reported that an executive in the bank's metals division had bribed officials in Malaysia and the Philippines to win business. The bank, in a statement on 18 July 1994, acknowledged that there were "discrepancies in expense claims [that] … included gifts to individuals in certain countries to facilitate business, a practice contrary to bank rules".

In 1994, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission found Standard Chartered's Asian investment bank to have illegally helped to artificially support the price of new shares they had underwritten for six companies from July 1991 to March 1993. The bank admitted the offence, apologized and reorganized its brokerage units. The commission banned the bank from underwriting IPOs in Hong Kong for nine months.

On 6 August 2012, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), led by Benjamin Lawsky, accused Standard Chartered of hiding $250 billion in transactions involving Iran, labelling it a "rogue institution". The bank was ordered to appear and defend its actions, or risk losing its license to operate in the state of New York. The DFS said it had documents showing a cover up of transactions allegedly used to fund terrorist groups in the Middle East.[47]

On 14 August 2012, Lawsky announced that the DFS and Standard Chartered reached a settlement that allows the bank to keep its licence to operate in New York. According to the terms of the settlement, the bank agreed to pay a $ 340 million fine.[48]

The bank agreed to install a monitor to oversee the bank's money laundering controls for at least two years, and appoint "permanent officials who will audit the bank's internal procedures to prevent offshore money laundering".[48] The monitor will report directly to the DFS.[49] Lawsky's statement said "the parties have agreed that the conduct at issue involved transactions of at least $250bn."[50] The bank issued a statement confirming that a settlement with the DFS had been reached and that "a formal agreement containing the detailed terms of the settlement is expected to be concluded shortly".[50]

Other US agencies—including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Treasury Department, and the Justice Department—had also begun investigations into the laundering allegations and were reportedly taken off guard by the speed of the settlement.[48]

The Treasury stated that its own investigation of Standard Chartered will continue.[51] Several financial analysts predicted that, due to its strong financial position, the bank would be able to easily cover the $900 million fine without having to raise extra capital.[51]

On 19 August 2014, the bank was fined $300 million by the New York Department of Financial Services for breach of money-laundering compliance related to potentially high-risk transactions involving Standard Chartered clients in Hong Kong and the UAE. The bank issued a statement accepting responsibility and regretting the deficiencies, at the same time noting the ruling would not jeopardize its U.S. licenses.

250,000 FOR THE BLIND. TWELVE BILLION FOR THE DODGY COAL MINE

Standard Chartered, along with the International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness, manages a charity called Seeing is Believing. The charity aims to eliminate preventable blindness in developing countries. Standard Chartered matches every dollar raised by the organization.[62]

The Priority Academy program was created in 2006 by the bank, with educational programmes including a study tour of Shanghai, a summer internship programme and a study seminar in the United States. The program donated $250,000 to Chan Yik Hei, a science amateur who won the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair, for his studies at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.[63]

In 2015, Standard Chartered was widely criticised for its $12bn funding of the controversial Carmichael Coal Mine, with a campaign led by Greenpeace calling for them to quit the project. The bank subsequentially withdrew from the deal

Alliance & Leicester
Bradford & Bingley
The Woolwich
Adam & Company (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group)
Airdrie Savings Bank

THESE BANKS, APART FROM BEING BANKS SEEM TO HAVE A CLEAN RECORD. WELL DONE GUYS. WELL DONE. NOW GO TO GULAG ANYWAY

NEW BANK C.HOARE AND CO

C. Hoare & Co. is a British private bank. It is the oldest bank in the United Kingdom and the world's fourth oldest bank. The bank was founded in 1672 by Sir Richard Hoare and remains family-owned; it is currently managed by the 11th generation of Hoare's direct descendants.

NEW BANK: CO-OPERATIVE BANK

On 17 November 2013, Labour Party advisor and the former Co-operative Bank Chairman, Rev. Paul Flowers, was caught by the Mail on Sunday buying crack cocaine and methamphetamine.[82][83] The former Labour councillor served as the Bank's chairman from April 2010 until June 2013 and it was under his chairmanship that in March 2013 the bank reported losses of £600 million. In May, Moody's downgraded its credit rating by six notches to junk (Ba3) and the chief executive Barry Tootell resigned.[84] Flowers was suspended by both the Labour Party and the Methodist Church. On 19 November it was discovered that Flowers had previously resigned as a Labour Party Councillor for Bradford Council after "inappropriate" content was discovered on his computer.[85]

On 19 November 2013, the group's Chairman Len Wardle, who was leading the board when Flowers was appointed to his position, resigned "with immediate effect" because of the Flowers scandal.

NEW BANK Coutts & Co

In March 2012 Coutts was fined £8.75m for breaches of money laundering rules after three years of "serious" and "systemic" problems in handling the affairs of customers vulnerable to corruption because of their political links.[22] The Financial Services Authority (FSA) fined Coutts because of an "unacceptable risk" that the bank could have been handling the proceeds of crime for a three-year period up to November 2010 after failing to properly deal with customers classified as "politically exposed persons".[22]

Following an industry-wide review in 2010, the FSA found that Coutts was not conducting robust enough checks on such high-risk customers and was not monitoring relationships with them properly. The FSA reviewed a sample of 103 high-risk customer files, and identified deficiencies in 73 of them.[22] The FSA's acting director of enforcement and financial crime, Tracey McDermott, said that "Coutts's failings were significant, widespread and unacceptable. Its conduct fell well below the standards we expect and the size of the financial penalty demonstrates how seriously we view its failures".[22]

Coutts's bonus system rewarded bankers for opening accounts, providing an incentive to bring in new business without too much scrutiny, and the bank's anti-money laundering team, intended to act as a check in identifying high-risk customers, failed to identify enough "politically exposed persons".[22] In two cases reviewed by the FSA, bankers did not conduct appropriate checks on the customers, and failed to identify serious criminal allegations against them. There were five cases where sources had provided "adverse intelligence" such as allegations of criminal activity, in each case the accounts were approved by Coutts.[22]

A spokesperson for Coutts said that there was no evidence that money laundering took place as a result of its deficient controls, and said that "We recognise our systems weren't totally adequate in the past and we've taken steps to improve these". Coutts would have been fined £12.5m if it had not agreed to settle at an early stage in the investigation.

In November 2011 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) fined Coutts £6.3m for mis-selling the American International Group (AIG) Enhanced Variable Rate Fund between December 2003 and September 2008.[23] The FSA forced Coutts to compensate all customers who suffered a loss as a result of its failings in selling the AIG Life Premier Bonds. A significant proportion of the fund's assets were invested in riskier asset-backed securities. A run was started on the fund following the late-2000s financial crisis.[23]

Coutts customers still had £748m invested in the fund when it was suspended in September 2008, but were only allowed to withdraw half of their investment. Many transferred the remaining 50% to a non-interest bearing recovery fund until July 2012.[24] The FSA said Coutts failed by giving advisers inadequate training around the risks of the product.[23] Coutts recommended the fund to some customers even though it might have exposed them to more capital risk than they were willing to accept and many customers were advised to invest too large a proportion of their overall assets in the fund.[23]

Coutts agreed to settle at an early stage in exchange for a 30% discount on its fine, which would otherwise have been £9m

Coutts is mentioned in the 1889 Gilbert and Sullivan Savoy opera The Gondoliers in the following lyrics:

The Aristocrat who banks with Coutts—
The Aristocrat who hunts and shoots—
The Aristocrat who cleans our boots—
They all shall equal be!

Robert Louis Stevenson mentions Coutts in his 1886 classic novella Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde as being the bank of choice for Dr Jekyll: "…and presently came back with the matter of ten pounds in gold and a cheque for the balance on Coutts's drawn payable to bearer,…"

In the first episode of Michael Palin's Around the World in 80 Days, Palin visits the bank to inquire about the safeguarding and ease of replacing money whilst on his trip. His bank manager suggests a code-word, which will alert a less knowledgeable member of his staff that Palin is indeed who he says he is, the code-word in question being Jabberwocky.

In chapter three of Bram Stoker's classic novel, Dracula, Jonathan Harker lists the recipients of several of Dracula's letters in his journal, including: "… the third was to Coutts & Co., London".

NEW BANK: DRUMMONDS

As is tradition with most London private banks, account holders' identities are kept a bank secret. Some historical clients have though been revealed, including a variety of distinguished figures: HM King George III and other members of the royal family, Alexander Pope, Benjamin Disraeli, Beau Brummell, Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Robert and James Adam, Capability Brown, Josiah Wedgwood, and Thomas Gainsborough. The bank also holds accounts for organisations and institutions such as the Conservative Party and Royal Academy.

Royal account holders
Both Coutts & Co. and Drummonds have received royal patronage. King George III moved his account from Coutts to Drummonds during his reign as he was displeased with Coutts for bank-rolling the Prince of Wales from his personal account. Messrs Drummond & Co. honoured the wishes of the King but unsurprisingly when the Prince of Wales became King George IV in 1820 he moved the royal account back to Coutts. More recent known members of the royal family include the late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.

FUCK THE QUEEN UP THE RA TAL

NEW BANK, EGG INTERNET BANK

DOESNT WANT RELIABLE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THEN IT COULDNT FINE THEM

On 2 February 2008, Egg chose to cancel the credit cards of 161,000 (7%) of its customers. The bank gave customers 35 days' notice, after which they would not be able to spend more on their cards.[19] While publicised as an attempt to purge "risky" customers from their books, many affected customers came forward with claims that they had excellent credit histories.

This led to speculation that the move was an attempt to remove customers who did not accumulate interest on their accounts and therefore did not generate profit for the bank.[20]

The Financial Services Authority fined Egg £721,000 in December 2008 for the persistent misselling of payment protection insurance (PPI) on its credit cards.[21] The authority's director of enforcement, Margaret Cole, said "Egg used inappropriate sales techniques to try to persuade customers to buy payment protection insurance on their credit card, even when they asserted they did not want the cover."

During 2008, Egg attempted to have one of its customers imprisoned, saying the Chip and PIN cards were 'uncloneable', and the customer was 'clearly lying' about transactions from an ATM. The police arrested the customer, but after much investigation, the customer was acquitted.

this is like autism: the thread

how is this a crime

FUCK THE QUEEN UP THE RA TAL.

...

INFORMATION GATHERING YOU DEFEATIST PIECE OF SHIT.

WE MUST LIST THE CRIMES IN ORDER TO… PUNISH THE CRIMES

they financial serve conservative interests JESUS

so is there an actual crime or are you just a labour voter masquerading as a communist?

CROWN AGENTS LTD

Crown Agents originated as a body conducting financial transactions for British colonies. Agents were first appointed in 1749 to transfer and account for grants made to colonies from the British Treasury.[14] These representatives were known unofficially as 'Crown agents' from at least 1758, and were accountable to colonial governments, though selected on the recommendation of the British government.[14] A single body was created in 1833, when the Crown agents' business was consolidated under two Joint Agents General for Crown Colonies with an office of several staff.[14] In 1861 the office was renamed Crown Agents for the Colonies.[14] Crown Agents' responsibilities on behalf of colonial governments included accounting for Treasury grants, purchasing supplies, recruiting certain staff and raising capital on the markets. Crown Agents also oversaw specific colonial projects, such as certain postage stamp issues and some infrastructure construction.[14]

As decolonisation accelerated, the office was renamed Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations in 1954, and the rules were changed to allow it to take on projects for independent states (Iraq being the first example).[14] Crown Agents expanded its activities to include more international development projects and investment management. The world's first sovereign wealth funds were managed by Crown Agents.[15] Its anomalous status as an autonomous body with close links to government came into question, and in 1979 Crown Agents was brought under government control as a statutory corporation. From 1987, shifting attitudes to state ownership of business and changes in British international development strategy led the government to support full privatisation of Crown Agents. It became a private company in 1997, ending its formal ties to the British government.[14]

RATHBONE BROTHERS LTD

The business was founded by William Rathbone II in 1742 as a Liverpool-based timber trading business.[2] In the 19th century it became a leading trader in cotton from the United States and in 1841 it became the Liverpool agent for the East India Company.

SCHRODERS:

Schroders played a leading role in the privatisations carried out by the UK Government in the 1980s and was to grow dramatically under Winfried Bischoff.[11] Schroders was worth £30 million when he took over as CEO in 1984: yet in 2000 the company sold its investment banking division to Citigroup for £1.3 billion.[12] Citigroup's European investment banking arm traded as Schroder Salomon Smith Barney from 2000 to 2003.[

so instead of answering my question you just post another something another bank did (which again isn't a crime either)

are you just posting random facts about banks and acting like they're crimes or something

SMITH AND WILLIAMSON

PANAMA PAPERS SCANDAL

The company's activities came under scrutiny in 2016, when it was revealed that its employees had managed the Smith & Williamson Blairmore Global Equity Fund since 1997.[13] This fund was founded by David Cameron's (prime minister of the UK from 2010 to 2016) lay father Ian.[14] Earlier in the year, HM Revenue & Customs won a court case against Smith & Williamson, over the treatment of "goodwill payments" made by the firm to a portfolio manager and some team members.[15]

and i am the pretend communist

you understand all governments ever used banks right? Even the USSR
its you obsessing over one capitalist party and ignoring the other that is suspicious
its so wrong when a bank helps the tory party but you ignore labours bank?

NEW COUNTRY: THE USA

JP MORGAN

In December 2002, Chase paid fines totaling $80 million, with the amount split between the states and the federal government. The fines were part of a settlement involving charges that ten banks, including Chase, deceived investors with biased research. The total settlement with the ten banks was $1.4 billion. The settlement required that the banks separate investment banking from research, and ban any allocation of IPO shares.[79]

Chase paid out over $2 billion in fines and legal settlements for their role in financing Enron Corporation with aiding and abetting Enron Corp.'s securities fraud, which collapsed amid a financial scandal in 2001.[80] In 2003, Chase paid $160 million in fines and penalties to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan district attorney's office. In 2005, Chase paid $2.2 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by investors in Enron

In November 2009, a week after Birmingham, Alabama Mayor Larry Langford was convicted for financial crimes related to bond swaps for Jefferson County, Alabama, JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to a $722 million settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to end a probe into the sales of derivatives that allegedly contributed to the near-bankruptcy of the county. JPMorgan had been chosen by the county commissioners to refinance the county's sewer debt, and the SEC had alleged that JPMorgan made undisclosed payments to close friends of the commissioners in exchange for the deal and made up for the costs by charging higher interest rates on the swaps.

In June 2010, J.P. Morgan Securities was fined a record £33.32 million ($49.12 million) by the UK Financial Services Authority (FSA) for failing to protect an average of £5.5 billion of clients' money from 2002 to 2009.[86][87] FSA requires financial firms to keep clients' funds in separate accounts to protect the clients in case such firm becomes insolvent. The firm had failed to properly segregate client funds from corporate funds following the merger of Chase and J.P. Morgan, resulting in a violation of FSA regulations but no losses to clients. The clients' funds would have been at risk had the firm become insolvent during this period.[88] J.P. Morgan Securities reported the incident to the FSA, corrected the errors, and cooperated in the ensuing investigation, resulting in the fine being reduced 30% from an original amount of £47.6 million

THE USSR DID NOT DO FINANCIAL IMPERIALISM.

JEREMY CORBYN> WAY BETTER THAN THERESA MAY. MOST HEADS OF TRADE UNIONS AND COMMUNIST PARTIES IN THE UK AGREE

JP MORGAN. I ADMIT IM TORN ON THIS ONE AS THE VICTIMS WERE US TROOPS

In January 2011, JPMorgan Chase admitted that it wrongly overcharged several thousand military families for their mortgages, including active duty personnel in Afghanistan. The bank also admitted it improperly foreclosed on more than a dozen military families; both actions were in clear violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act which automatically lowers mortgage rates to 6 percent, and bars foreclosure proceedings of active duty personnel. The overcharges may have never come to light were it not for legal action taken by Captain Jonathan Rowles. Both Captain Rowles and his spouse Julia accused Chase of violating the law and harassing the couple for nonpayment. An official stated that the situation was "grim" and Chase initially stated it would be refunding up to $2,000,000 to those who were overcharged, and that families improperly foreclosed on have gotten or will get their homes back.[89] Chase has acknowledged that as many as 6,000 active duty military personnel were illegally overcharged, and more than 18 military families homes were wrongly foreclosed. In April, Chase agreed to pay a total of $27 million in compensation to settle the class-action suit.[90] At the company's 2011 shareholders' meeting, Dimon apologized for the error and said the bank would forgive the loans of any active-duty personnel whose property had been foreclosed. In June 2011, lending chief Dave Lowman was forced out over the scandal

In 2008 and 2009, 14 lawsuits were filed against JPMorgan Chase in various district courts on behalf of Chase credit card holders claiming the bank violated the Truth in Lending Act, breached its contract with the consumers and committed a breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The consumers contended that Chase, with little or no notice, increased minimum monthly payments from 2% to 5% on loan balances that were transferred to consumers' credit cards based on the promise of a fixed interest rate. In May 2011, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California certified the class action lawsuit. On July 23, 2012, Chase agreed to pay $100 million to settle the claim

In July 2013, The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a stipulation and consent agreement under which JPMorgan Ventures Energy Corporation (JPMVEC), a subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Co., agreed to pay $410 million in penalties and disgorgement to ratepayers for allegations of market manipulation stemming from the company's bidding activities in electricity markets in California and the Midwest from September 2010 through November 2012. JPMVEC agreed to pay a civil penalty of $285 million to the U.S. Treasury and to disgorge $125 million in unjust profits. JPMVEC admitted the facts set forth in the agreement, but neither admitted nor denied the violations.[94]

The case stemmed from multiple referrals to FERC from market monitors in 2011 and 2012 regarding JPMVEC's bidding practices. FERC investigators determined that JPMVEC engaged in 12 manipulative bidding strategies designed to make profits from power plants that were usually out of the money in the marketplace. In each of them, the company made bids designed to create artificial conditions that forced California and Midcontinent Independent System Operators (ISOs) to pay JPMVEC outside the market at premium rates.[94]

FERC investigators further determined that JPMVEC knew that the California ISO and Midcontinent ISO received no benefit from making inflated payments to the company, thereby defrauding the ISOs by obtaining payments for benefits that the company did not deliver beyond the routine provision of energy. FERC investigators also determined that JPMVEC's bids displaced other generation and altered day ahead and real-time prices from the prices that would have resulted had the company not submitted the bids.[94]

Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress directed FERC to detect, prevent and appropriately sanction the gaming of energy markets. According to FERC, the Commission approved the settlement as in the public interest

FERC's investigation of energy market manipulations led to a subsequent investigation into possible obstruction of justice by employees of JPMorgan Chase.[95] Various newspapers reported in September 2013 that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and US Attorney's Office in Manhattan were investigating whether employees withheld information or made false statements during the FERC investigation.[95] The reported impetus for the investigation was a letter from Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey, in which they asked FERC why no action was taken against people who impeded the FERC investigation.[95] At the time of the FBI investigation, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations was also looking into whether JPMorgan Chase employees impeded the FERC investigation.[95] Reuters reported that JPMorgan Chase was facing over a dozen investigations at the time.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks_in_the_United_States

no they did literal imperialism

...

NOW I WILL CEASE TO REPLY TO YOUR DERAILMENT

BANK OF AMERICA

In 2010, the U.S. government accused the bank of defrauding schools, hospitals, and dozens of state and local government organizations via misconduct and illegal activities involving the investment of proceeds from municipal bond sales. As a result, the bank agreed to pay $137.7 million, including $25 million to the Internal Revenue service and $4.5 million to state attorney general, to the affected organizations to settle the allegations.[75]

Former bank official Douglas Campbell pleaded guilty to antitrust, conspiracy and wire fraud charges. As of January 2011, other bankers and brokers are under indictment or investigation.[76]

On October 24, 2012, the top federal prosecutor in Manhattan filed a lawsuit alleging that Bank of America fraudulently cost American taxpayers more than $1 billion when Countrywide Financial sold toxic mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The scheme was called 'Hustle', or High Speed Swim Lane.[77][78] On May 23, 2016 the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the finding of fact by the jury that low quality mortgages were supplied by Countrywide to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the "Hustle" case supported only "intentional breach of contract," not fraud. The action, for civil fraud, relied on provisions of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The decision turned on lack of intent to defraud at the time the contract to supply mortgages was made.[79]

So you're not interested in detailing the misdeeds and crimes of the capitalist power structure? You have to know where the roots are to pull them out

overton window has nothing to do with this

In August 2011, Bank of America was sued for $10 billion by American International Group. Another lawsuit filed in September 2011 pertained to $57.5 billion in mortgage-backed securities Bank of America sold to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.[110] That December, Bank of America agreed to pay $335 million to settle a federal government claim that Countrywide Financial had discriminated against Hispanic and African-American homebuyers from 2004 to 2008, prior to being acquired by BofA.[111] In September 2012, BofA settled out of court for $2.4 billion in a class action lawsuit filed by BofA shareholders who felt they were misled about the purchase of Merrill Lynch.

good work user. Ignore the D&C shills.
Just need to get to work breaking this down and distributing

On September 14, 2008, Bank of America announced its intention to purchase Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. in an all-stock deal worth approximately $50 billion. Merrill Lynch was at the time within days of collapse, and the acquisition effectively saved Merrill from bankruptcy.[45] Around the same time Bank of America was reportedly also in talks to purchase Lehman Brothers, however a lack of government guarantees caused the bank to abandon talks with Lehman.[46] Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy the same day Bank of America announced its plans to acquire Merrill Lynch.[47] This acquisition made Bank of America the largest financial services company in the world.[48] Temasek Holdings, the largest shareholder of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., briefly became one of the largest shareholders of Bank of America, with a 3% stake.[49] However, taking a loss Reuters estimated at $3 billion, the Singapore sovereign wealth fund sold its whole stake in Bank of America in the first quarter of 2009.[50]

Shareholders of both companies approved the acquisition on December 5, 2008, and the deal closed January 1, 2009.[51] Bank of America had planned to retain various members of the then Merrill Lynch's CEO, John Thain's management team after the merger.[52] However, after Thain was removed from his position, most of his allies left. The departure of Nelson Chai, who had been named Asia-Pacific president, left just one of Thain's hires in place: Tom Montag, head of sales and trading.[53]

The bank, in its January 16, 2009 earnings release, revealed massive losses at Merrill Lynch in the fourth quarter, which necessitated an infusion of money that had previously been negotiated[54] with the government as part of the government-persuaded deal for the bank to acquire Merrill. Merrill recorded an operating loss of $21.5 billion in the quarter, mainly in its sales and trading operations, led by Tom Montag. The bank also disclosed it tried to abandon the deal in December after the extent of Merrill's trading losses surfaced, but was compelled to complete the merger by the U.S. government. The bank's stock price sank to $7.18, its lowest level in 17 years, after announcing earnings and the Merrill mishap. The market capitalization of Bank of America, including Merrill Lynch, was then $45 billion, less than the $50 billion it offered for Merrill just four months earlier, and down $108 billion from the merger announcement.

Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis testified before Congress[4] that he had some misgivings about the acquisition of Merrill Lynch, and that federal officials pressured him to proceed with the deal or face losing his job and endangering the bank's relationship with federal regulators.[55]

Lewis' statement is backed up by internal emails subpoenaed by Republican lawmakers on the House Oversight Committee.[56] In one of the emails, Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker threatened that if the acquisition did not go through, and later Bank of America were forced to request federal assistance, the management of Bank of America would be "gone". Other emails, read by Congressman Dennis Kucinich during the course of Lewis' testimony, state that Mr. Lewis had foreseen the outrage from his shareholders that the purchase of Merrill would cause, and asked government regulators to issue a letter stating that the government had ordered him to complete the deal to acquire Merrill. Lewis, for his part, states he didn't recall requesting such a letter.

The acquisition made Bank of America the number one underwriter of global high-yield debt, the third largest underwriter of global equity and the ninth largest adviser on global mergers and acquisitions.[57] As the credit crisis eased, losses at Merrill Lynch subsided, and the subsidiary generated $3.7 billion of Bank of America's $4.2 billion in profit by the end of quarter one in 2009, and over 25% in quarter 3 2009.[58][59]

On September 28, 2012, Bank of America settled the class action lawsuit over the Merrill Lynch acquisition and will pay $2.43 billion.[60] This was one of the first major securities class action lawsuits stemming from the financial crisis of 2007–2008 to settle. Many major financial institutions had a stake in this lawsuit, including Chicago Clearing Corporation, hedge funds, and bank trusts, due to the belief that Bank of America stock was a sure investment.

...

Post by Ismail:

The USSR, anticipating a Nazi invasion, was afraid for the security of Leningrad. It asked the anti-communist government of Finland to lease territory near Leningrad to put an end to that fear. The Finnish negotiators felt that the Soviets were making a reasonable offer, but the government's hatred of the USSR made them refuse. So the Soviets tried again, this time giving a more advantageous offer to the Finnish government. The government again said no. So the Soviets attacked, hoping to secure the leases by force.

As Molotov said after the war ended: "It is sufficient to point to the fact that after having occupied during the war the region of Petsamo on the Arctic coast, the USSR voluntarily restored this region to Finland, considering it necessary to let Finland have an ice-free ocean port. . . the Soviet Union, having smashed the Finnish army, and having every opportunity of occupying the whole of Finland, did not do so and did not demand any indemnities for her war-expenditure as any other power would have done, but confined her demands to a minimum and displayed magnanimity towards Finland. The peace treaty is based on the recognition of the principle that Finland is an independent state, recognition of the independence of her home and foreign policy, and, at the same time, on the necessity of safeguarding the security of Leningrad and the north-western frontiers of the Soviet Union. Thus the object we set out to obtain has been achieved, and we may express our complete satisfaction with our treaty with Finland. Political and economic relations with Finland are now fully restored. The government expresses the conviction that normal and good neighbourly relations will develop between the Soviet Union and Finland."

Considering that later on the Finnish government did in fact ally with the Nazis not merely to undo the peace treaty, but to create a "Greater Finland" by invading Soviet territory, I'd say the concerns of the Soviet leadership were amply confirmed in practice.

Attached: 91euI2uKj5L._SY606_.jpg (428x606, 56.32K)

On October 24, 2012, American federal prosecutors filed a $1 billion civil lawsuit against Bank of America for mortgage fraud under the False Claims Act, which provides for possible penalties of triple the damages suffered. The government asserted that Countrywide, which was acquired by Bank of America, rubber-stamped mortgage loans to risky borrowers and forced taxpayers to guarantee billions of bad loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The suit was filed by Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, the inspector general of FHFA and the special inspector for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.[114] In March 2014, Bank of America settled the suit by agreeing to pay $6.3 billion to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to buy back around $3.2 billion worth of mortgage bonds.[115]

In April 2014, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) ordered Bank of America to provide and estimated $727 million in relief to consumers harmed by practices related to credit card add-on products. According to the Bureau, roughly 1.4 million customers were affected by deceptive marketing of add-on products and 1.9 million customers were illegally charged for credit monitoring and reporting services they were not receiving. The deceptive marketing misconduct involved telemarketing scripts containing misstatements and off-script sales pitches made by telemarketers that were misleading and omitted pertinent information. The unfair billing practices involved billing customers for privacy related products without having the authorization necessary to perform the credit monitoring and credit report retrieval services. As a result, the company billed customers for services they did not receive, unfairly charged consumers for interest and fees, illegally charged approximately 1.9 million accounts, and failed to provide the product benefit

A $7.5 million settlement was reached in April 2014 with former chief financial officer for Bank of America, Joe L. Price, over allegations that the bank's management withheld material information related to its 2008 merger with Merrill Lynch.[117] In August 2014, the United States Department of Justice and the bank agreed to a $16.65 billion agreement over the sale of risky, mortgage-backed securities before the Great Recession; the loans behind the securities were transferred to the company when it acquired banks such as Merrill Lynch and Countrywide in 2008.[118] As a whole, the three firms provided $965 billion of mortgage-backed securities from 2004–2008.[119] The settlement was structured to give $7 billion in consumer relief and $9.65 billion in penalty payments to the federal government and state governments; California, for instance, received $300 million to recompense public pension funds.[118][120] The settlement was the largest in United States history between a single company and the federal government.[121][122]

A lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America by a former senior executive, Omeed Malik, who was accused of sexual harassment. Malik filed a defamation claim against the bank and is seeking damages of more than $100 million.[123] Malik's claims were reportedly settled confidentially for at least $10 million in July, 2018.[124]

Parmalat SpA is a multinational Italian dairy and food corporation. Following Parmalat's 2003 bankruptcy, the company sued Bank of America for $10 billion, alleging the bank profited from its knowledge of Parmalat's financial difficulties. The parties announced a settlement in July 2009, resulting in Bank of America paying Parmalat $98.5 million in October 2009.[125][126] In a related case, on April 18, 2011, an Italian court acquitted Bank of America and three other large banks, along with their employees, of charges they assisted Parmalat in concealing its fraud, and of lacking sufficient internal controls to prevent such frauds. Prosecutors did not immediately say whether they would appeal the rulings. In Parma, the banks were still charged with covering up the fraud

...

In January 2008, Bank of America began notifying some customers without payment problems that their interest rates were more than doubled, up to 28%. The bank was criticized for raising rates on customers in good standing, and for declining to explain why it had done so.[128][129] In September 2009, a Bank of America credit card customer, Ann Minch, posted a video on YouTube criticizing the bank for raising her interest rate. After the video went viral, she was contacted by a Bank of America representative who lowered her rate. The story attracted national attention from television and internet commentators.[130][131][132] More recently, the bank has been criticized for allegedly seizing three properties that were not under their ownership, apparently due to incorrect addresses on their legal documents

...

In October 2009, Julian Assange of WikiLeaks claimed that his organization possessed a 5 gigabyte hard drive formerly used by a Bank of America executive and that Wikileaks intended to publish its contents.[134]

In November 2010, Forbes published an interview with Assange in which he stated his intent to publish information which would turn a major U.S. bank "inside out".[135] In response to this announcement, Bank of America stock dropped 3.2%.[136]

In December 2010, Bank of America announced that it would no longer service requests to transfer funds to WikiLeaks,[137] stating that "Bank of America joins in the actions previously announced by MasterCard, PayPal, Visa Europe and others and will not process transactions of any type that we have reason to believe are intended for WikiLeaks… This decision is based upon our reasonable belief that WikiLeaks may be engaged in activities that are, among other things, inconsistent with our internal policies for processing payments."[138]

Later in December, it was announced that Bank of America purchased more than 300 Internet domain names in an attempt to preempt bad publicity that might be forthcoming in the anticipated WikiLeaks release. The domain names included as BrianMoynihanBlows.com, BrianMoynihanSucks.com and similar names for other top executives of the bank

In 2010 the state of Arizona launched an investigation into Bank of America for misleading homeowners who sought to modify their mortgage loans. According to the attorney general of Arizona, the bank "repeatedly has deceived" such mortgagors. In response to the investigation, the bank has given some modifications on the condition that the homeowners remove some information criticizing the bank online