Wells Fargo Stayed Silent Over Pretexting Attacks Back In The 90’s. WHY?

 IF UNAUTHORIZED INDIVIDUALS OBTAIN SENSITIVE CUSTOMER ACCOUNT INFORMATION UNDER FALSE PRETENSES FROM A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, IT'S A DATA BREACH.

Wells Fargo Corporate Center Charlotte NC

It is hard to imagine why officials at Wells Fargo Bank in Charlotte, NC (formerly First Union Bank)   would take no meaningful action after being notified (by a whistleblower) that unauthorized individuals had compromised their customer's checking and savings accounts' safety and security through the use of pretexting.

And especially surprising when the individuals who were stealing the highly sensitive information were employed as so-called information brokers by attorneys working for Bank of America (f/k/a Fleet Financial/Fleet Bank) and People's United  Bank (f/k/a/ People's Bank of Connecticut) to steal sensitive information on demand in order to expedite debt collection and litigation operations.

There are many theories as to why the bank stayed silent. Still, the most plausible is that the bank's primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), a bureau of the US Treasury Department, told them not to discuss the matter with anyone, let alone victims.

True to form, the OCC has always (it seems) placed the safety, security and reputation of the institutions it supervises over the interests of the American public

Hopefully, a new blog and podcast launched this fall: The Banks, Lawyers & Liars Project, will shine a light on what exactly Wells, the OCC along with others, were up to.

The Legacy of Bank Of America’s James E. Mahoney


James E. Mahoney died back on August 8 from medical complications, after being involved in a bicycle accident a year earlier. He was 67.

He had been employed by Bank of America in the Boston area for twenty-five years, working at predecessor institutions Fleet Financial and FleetBoston during that period.

According to his obituary, he worked in public policy, strategy, issues management, media relations, and global communications.

A resident of Newton, Massachusetts, he was an active member of the Boston area community and a supporter of several national organizations, including the National Urban League and the Equal Justice Initiative.  Stanford University's Precourt Institute for Energy hailed him as a "Champion of Sustainability" for his efforts and those on behalf of his employer.



SNEAKY INFORMATION BROKERS

On November 5, 1998, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story titled Sneaky Information Brokers Specialize in Prying Open Your Private Records. The article described how Fleet Financial/Fleet Bank lawyers had hired unlicensed private investigators to steal bank account information on Fleet customers held at third-party financial institutions.

According to bank insiders, Fleet Financial Group's then CEO, Terrence Murray, was livid that the ‘information broker’ story had surfaced both in the WSJ and a matter of days earlier in the Boston Globe.

As Fleet's leading Media Relations and Issues Management person, James Mahoney was asked by Mr. Murray to handle the ‘Information Broker’ issue.

It would seem reasonable to believe that any company official charged with the task of handling a "reputation risk" matter would tread very carefully with all the parties involved. But that did not occur.





BANKS, LAWYERS & LIARS

With the advent of telephone banking in the 1980's, it had become more accessible for ‘bad actors’ to steal sought-after information from financial institutions (see Telephone Banking and the Story of Banks, Lawyers and Liars).

Primarily, banks and other financial institutions recognized the advantages of stepping over the legal line in order to circumnavigate recognized and lawful practices and procedures for obtaining information in a lawsuit or other legal matters. And especially a debt collection matter.

But Fleet and their lawyers went too far and got caught.

Fact is, if you steal anything of value from a bank, including sensitive customer information, or ask someone to steal it for you, you are committing a crime.

True to form, Mr. Mahoney did a good job in persuading the news media to lose interest in the Sneaky Information Brokers story. And by early 1999, both the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe were no longer interested.

Victims however, were still interested.

As the months went by, they realized that Mr. Mahoney had successfully managed to convince the news media that the sneaky information broker's story was a nothing burger. Local, state and federal law enforcement authorities too.

Consumer rights activists and law firms specializing in the banking and financial services industry all weighed in on how costly and time-consuming litigation against Fleet and their information brokers would be, making the merits of a class-action lawsuit a non-starter.

With his smooth talk, charm, and Rolodex full of political contacts, Mr. Mahoney achieved his employer's objectives while throwing the bank's fraud victims under the proverbial bus. 

While it is too late to address Mr. Mahoney's conduct with him in person, it is certainly not too late to find out to what extent Fleet used fraud as a business tool back in the 1990s and 2000s.


The one person who should know, is current Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, who was hired by the bank as deputy legal counsel in 1993, and who went on to become legal counsel before heading up private banking in 1999.

The chances that Mr. Moynihan did not know about the Sneaky Information Brokers scandal is, to say the least, remote.


To be continued...


Posted by CigySydd




TRUIST: THE START OF SOMETHING TROUBELING

SunTrust Branch ATM
Last December, BB&T Corp completed its acquisition of SunTrust Banks, the  Atlanta based banking group known for its former long-standing relationship with The Coca-Cola Company.

Soon after completing the $28.24 deal, the newly combined banking and financial services firm adopted the name Truist Financial Corp.

It also happened to become the sixth-largest banking group based on assets and deposits in the U.S.

Reportedly, the name 'Truist' is the creation of New York-based global brand consultants Interbrand which has received widespread criticism for creating a misleading name similar to that of North Carolina based Truliant Federal Credit Union. 

According to public records, Truliant filed a  "trademark infringement" action against Truist Financial last year.

While not necessarily 'hurting' from a liquidity standpoint, it is safe to say back in 2018 both BB&T Corp and SunTrust Banks respective boards had already recognized that their bank's failure to invest in technology would eventually impede future growth... and profits. 

Ill-equipped (not to mention underfunded) to compete in the technology arena against such industry giants as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, a deal was eventually struck to in both boards of directors  words "merge." 

In simple terms, both bank boards agreed that BB&T would acquire SunTrust and rebrand the combined banking group with a new name and logo.

Six months after the merger, both BB&T and SunTrust branches still operate under their original names.  Customers can now use each others ATM's to withdraw cash without incurring a fee. However, they can not make deposits.

Surprisingly, inquiries made to both BB&T and SunTrust branches in recent weeks reveal that bank employees are clueless about regulatory matters concerning Truist Finacial. 

Some did suggest that the banking group is supervised by the Federal Insurance Deposit Corporation (FDIC) and/or Federal Reserve Bank, which is partly correct. But few had any knowledge of the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks, which is Truist Finacial Corp's principal regulator based on the banking groups North Carolina bank charter. 

Interestingly, a  cursory look at the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks website shows little information on Trusit  Finacial and absolutely no information about banks' current trading divisions BB&T and SunTrust.

Potentially, this could be a problem for members of the public seeking to obtain consumer information on BB&T or SunTrust or file a complaint with the banks' principal regulatory.


Before the "merger" last year, both BB&T and SunTrust closed several branches. Based on the unkempt and, in some cases, overrun appearances of these properties today, it is now apparent that  Truist executives management seems to care little about appearances.

Former BB&T Hawfield Way Drive, Charlotte.
Ironically, the now-closed BB&T branch located at 16704 Hawfield Way Drive, Charlotte, North Carolina, is in desperate need of landscaping. Worse, the disheveled former branch is less than seven miles from new Chase and U.S. Bank branches opening up later this summer. 

Call it slothful, lazy, or simply ambivalent to customer service and  support the fact remains that SunTrust has a poor track record when it comes to adequate maintenance of equipment such as ATM's and drive up teller facilities used by customers.

Case in point, at the start of the Covide-19 'shelter in place' order in the bank's home state of North Carolina, a Charlotte branch on Rea road had signs up encouraging customers to use the drive-up ATM. Problem number one: the ATM had not been in service for nearly a week.

This would not have been a problem for Bank of America or Wells Fargo customers with full-service ATM's nearby. But for SunTrust customers, this meant a seven-mile drive to make an after-hours deposit at an ATM. 

CORONAVIRUS GOVERNMENT AID: LOANS, TRAPS AND HEARTACHES

US Small Business Administration. Charlotte NC
The Paycheck Protection Program Act (PPP) was signed into law on March 27, 2020, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).

The stated intention of lawmakers was to provide emergency support for small businesses across the country using the US Small Business Administration's existing loan guarantee program/s.

Unfortunately, the big bank's including Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo, took it upon themselves to gain the system on behalf of their most preferred customers.  Reportedly, this was achieved through the use of technology, and an army of bank employees carefully sheppard each PPP application through the SBA's constantly updating submission procedures.

Not surprisingly, these 'preferred' customers received approval and funding of their government backed loans/grants at 'warp speed.'

Within a matter of days, the entire first $349 billion facility was out on the street. Or, to be more precise, in the PPP recipients bank accounts.

Of course, the banks reportedly earned fees of between 1% to 5% in return for arranging these 'no risk' government-guaranteed loans to their customers.

Within days of the PPP funds being depleted. Congress and the White House scrambled to put together the follow-up supplementary Paycheck Protection Program Increase Act (PPP #II), which was enacted on April 24, 2020.

Reportedly, Congress approved PPP #II  (which provided an additional  $321 billion of financial assistance) on the understanding that the funds would specifically be made available to smaller lending institutions, credit unions, and local community banks.

Today, there are reportedly 4.2 million U.S. Small Business Administration guaranteed loans across America. As of May 10, only $120 billion of remaining funding is available to new applicants.

Currently, oversight of the PPP  and PPP #II  billions falls on several bodies including a new inspector general to oversee Treasury Department funds. A new congressional oversight committee to keep an eye on all the government agencies involved. And a committee of inspectors generals to presumably watch over all of those mentioned above.  Quite a party!

What is also abundantly clear today as we rapidly approach the end of May, is that confusion reigns supreme with both lenders and borrowers relating to the SBA's highly fluid rules governing the PPP and PPP #II loans/grants. 

High priced 'white shoe' law firms are already churning out bulletins, and press releases advising clients on how NOT to get embroiled in a nasty legal spat with the SBA as a result of government identified misuse or fraudulently obtained PPP loans.

Reportedly, many small business owners are now worried that they may not have met the mandated government requirements, relating to the utilization of their PPP funds.  This includes using 75% for payroll and 25% for rent and utilities by a pre-determined time. Worse, due to the SBA's ever-changing rules and regulations relating to the PPP program, they now wonder if they qualify for the much-touted loan forgiveness,  as promised at the outset of the Coronavirus pandemic by members of Congress.

On May 15, the US Treasury Department released a new
application form for businesses with PPP
loans seeking debt forgiveness. Meeting the government's requirements could be difficult for many business owners, but the 11-page application does offer some helpful guidance.

The Treasury Department bases loan forgiveness on whether a business hires back its former employees, or offers equivalent employment.

Then there is the 'F' word.  Interestingly, no one has been talking about fraudulent PPP loan/grant applications. But as sure as the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow, they are out there. Lots of them!

History tells us that fraud involving SBA guaranteed loans typically involves loans made to cover existing bad debt held by small community banks.  Chances are nothing has changed, and one-way-or-another unqualified PPP applicants and their lenders are again manipulating the system for their financial gain.

For those small businesses which did not have the 'right bank connections' (or did not meet the qualifying criteria) and therefore, were unable to secure PPP funding, things do not look good for the future.

Special Loans, Managed Asset Division," (MAD), and Realization Services, are just three of the names given to bank departments charged with the responsibility of getting as much of the bank's money back as possible from financially distressed borrowers.

While lenders claim that they are always willing to work with borrowers facing conflict and adversity, again, history tells us that in reality, it is simply not true.

In 2020/1/2, it is highly likely, that banks both big and small (and in-between) will elect to charge-off loans and take their chances seeking reimbursement from the sale of assets covered by both  UCC-1's and personal guarantees provided by guarantors.

No matter how many times a distressed business owner reaches out to their lender, elected officials or other stakeholders pleading their case for further time to turnaround their ailing business, sometimes the reality is that local bankruptcy court is the best venue and only place to seek a second chance.


Message to ALL small business owners in MAY 2020: Prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Good Luck!




WELCOME TO TALK BANKS

The sole mission of this blog is to inform, discuss, and, where possible, provide support relating to the subject of banking and financial services.

At this time, we are particularly interested in hearing from you relating to how your bank, credit card issuers, etc., are treating both you and your family members, in terms of communication and support during these troubled times.

Feel free to drop us a line: contact@talkbanks.com  


Charlotte

London
New York










We call these cities home.