Citigroup: a culture and history of tax evasion By Lucy Komisar Contents Introduction The Private Bank The Offshore System In Their Own Words The Nassau Parking Scandal of 1975-1980: laundering profits Laundering Money for Pinochet Australia: tax evasion scheme of late 1980s Private Banking, the key to the system: Laundering money for Salinas, Bongo, the Abachas Argentine offshore bank scam of the 1990s, plus a secret videotape wherein a Citibanker offers to launder a "businessman's" profits Moving Russian money offshore in the 1990s Japan: helping clients evade taxes The Clearstream accounts: another secret system for moving money Today: Private Bank chief for Latin America and Europe America lauds secrecy List of Citigroup's offshore subsidiaries The curious Jersey network Unanswered questions Watch what they do, not what they say Sources & documentation This report describes and details a history of tax evasion by the world’s largest financial conglomerate, Citigroup.
Citing bank secrecy laws, Citigroup gave the U.S. Senate Investigations Subcommittee very limited information about Pinochet accounts and transactions involving its foreign affiliates in offshore venues such as the Bahamas or Switzerland and even Chile, Argentina and the UK.
Critical account of Citigroup’s 100- year history in Argentina, including its role in creating the country’s massive debt, its political influence, and its laundering of money for offshore shell banks.
[I]t allows various tax benefits and administrative benefits to the client ....” Citigroup opened 29 accounts or CDs for the Pinochets in the name of offshore corporations or trusts: five in the name of Meritor Investments; seven in the name of Trust MT4964N; and 17 in the name of Redwing Holdings.
Going back decades, it is a story of repeated, aggressive tax evasion for itself and clients, depriving governments and therefore citizens of huge amounts of funds and carried out with relative impunity. The Tax Justice Network nominates Citigroup for the Public Eye on Davos Award for excelling in socially irresponsible behavior by engaging in tax evasion and facilitating tax evasion by its clients.
General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report that Citigroup from 1991 through January 2000 had allowed more than $800 million in suspicious Russian funds to flow through 136 U.S. accounts tied to shell companies registered in Delaware.
A day later, the head of Citigroup’s global anti-money laundering group responded that an earlier global search had not turned up any Pinochet accounts at the bank.
Moving Russian money offshore in the 1990s Japan: helping clients evade taxes The Clearstream accounts: another secret system for moving money Today: Private Bank chief for Latin America and Europe America lauds secrecy List of Citigroup's offshore subsidiaries The curious Jersey network Unanswered questions Watch what they do, not what they say Sources & documentation This report describes and details a history of tax evasion by the world’s largest financial conglomerate, Citigroup.
Citigroup Avoided Paying $11.5 Billion In Taxes Thanks To Tax Shelters | HuffPost Impact
Over the next four years, Citigroup aggressively moved to make use of shelters in order to shield its earnings from U.S. taxation, doubling the amount of money it held offshore, according to a new report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a nonprofit that advocates for corporate tax reform.
Wages & economic policyConfirmed
Citigroup offered to help an Argentine businessman evade Argentine taxes through a secret 2001 videotape
The full report, available at www.taxjustice.net or in advance (contact media@taxjustice.net, +44 (0)7712 655130), includes: • An examination of the puzzling ownership structure of a network of Citigroup subsidiaries in Jersey • Citigroup's unprecedented use of secret 'Clearstream' bank accounts - more than any other bank • Transcripts of a secret 2001 videotape showing a Citibank employee offering to help an Argentine businessman to evade Argentine taxes • Profit-laundering for Russian plutocrats in the late 1990s • Citigroup's provision of secretive banking facilities for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet; Omar Bongo, President of Gabon; Raúl Salinas, brother of the former President of Mexico, imprisoned in Mexico for murder; sons of General Sani Abacha, former military dictator of Nigeria; and two daughters of ex-President Suharto of Indonesia • An illegal foreign exchange scheme to move Citigroup profits to low-tax regimes through Nassau in the late 1970s.
The full report, available at www.taxjustice.net or in advance (contact media@taxjustice.net, +44 (0)7712 655130), includes: • An examination of the puzzling ownership structure of a network of Citigroup subsidiaries in Jersey • Citigroup's unprecedented use of secret 'Clearstream' bank accounts - more than any other bank • Transcripts of a secret 2001 videotape showing a Citibank employee offering to help an Argentine businessman to evade Argentine taxes • Profit-laundering for Russian plutocrats in the late 1990s • Citigroup's provision of secretive banking facilities for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet; Omar Bongo, President of Gabon; Raúl Salinas, brother of the former President of Mexico, imprisoned in Mexico for murder; sons of General Sani Abacha, former military dictator of Nigeria; and two daughters of ex-President Suharto of Indonesia • An illegal foreign exchange scheme to move Citigroup profits to low-tax regimes through Nassau in the late 1970s
Labor & working conditionsConfirmed
Jane Fraser orders 1000 job cuts
Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser announced 1,000 job cuts and warned staff they are not graded on effort.
Citigroup CEO Jane Fraser, one of Fortune‘s Most Powerful Women—and the top female executive on Wall Street—is pushing ahead with about 1,000 job cuts and has warned staff that “we are not graded on effort” in a fiery internal memo setting a tougher tone for 2026.
Corporate conductConfirmed
Citigroup ordered to pay $285 million in disgorgement, interest, and penalties
Citigroup was ordered to pay $285,000,000 in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties.
The Board of Governors hereby assesses Citigroup a civil money penalty in the amount of $8,600,000 to be paid upon the execution of this Consent Assessment Order by Fedwire transfer of immediately available funds to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, ABA No. 05 1000033, beneficiary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
WHEREAS, the conduct described above occurred while Citigroup and CitiFinancial were subject to the Consent Order, which required them to remedy deficiencies relating to mortgage servicing; WHEREAS, as a result of the conduct described above, Citigroup, through CitiFinancial, engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices within the meaning of section 8 of the FDI Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. § 1818); WHEREAS, Citigroup and CitiFinancial have taken steps to address the deficiencies that were the subject of the Consent Order, replaced, where necessary, the affidavits potentially impacted by the conduct described above with properly executed and notarized affidavits, and taken steps to correct weaknesses related to the conduct described above; WHEREAS, as of September 15, 2017, Citigroup has completed the exit of the mortgage servicing business of CitiFinancial; WHEREAS, the Board of Governors issues this Order of Assessment of a Civil Money Penalty Issued Upon Consent (the “Consent Assessment Order”) against Citigroup; WHEREAS, Citigroup has consented to the assessment of a civil money penalty in the amount of $8,600,000 by the Board of Governors pursuant to sections 8(b)(3) and (i)(2)(B) of the FDI Act, as amended (12 U.S.C.
Corporate conductSettlement
Regulators fined Citigroup $400 million and ordered the firm to improve its risk management systems
Later that year, banking regulators fined Citigroup $400 million and ordered the firm to improve its risk management systems.
One such example was when, in 2020, Citigroup accidentally wired $900 million to a group of lenders at beauty company Revlon instead of an intended interest payment of just $7.8 million.
A federal appeals court on Tuesday said a Citigroup vice president was not entitled to a share of a $400 million civil fine that the bank agreed to pay in October 2020 over its risk management failures.
WHEREAS, an examination conducted by the Reserve Bank in 2023 regarding Citigroup’s remediation efforts related to the 2020 Order (the “2020 Order execution exam”) found that Citigroup’s progress in executing its plan to enhance its data quality management program under paragraph 4 of the 2020 Order, or toward the implementation of appropriate compensating controls has not been adequate;
Labor & working conditionsAllegation
Citi is accused of discriminating against Armenian Americans
Citi is accused of discriminating against Armenian Americans through its handling of credit card applications.
In its investigation, the bureau found that Citi employees were instructed to single out applications that had Armenian last names, but then to conceal the real reason why those applications were denied.
Citigroup discriminated against Armenian Americans, federal regulator says; bank fined $25.9 million | AP News
CFPB officials said the case involves “hundreds of individuals” who were impacted by Citi’s discrimination, which is relatively small for a bank that has tens of millions of customers.
In 2023, for example, Citi violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by discriminating against Armenian American credit card applicants.16 It was fined more than $24 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and ordered to implement a compliance management system to prevent future violations.17 In 2016, the CFPB also took two actions against Citi, for illegal debt sales and debt collection practices, ordering Citi to pay nearly $5 million in consumer relief and a $3 million penalty.18 It is not clear that a transaction would have any public benefits, while it could lead to an even more unmanageable conglomerate that inflicts consumer harm. Given my concerns, I request that Citi answer the following questions by July 22, 2026.
In 2015, Citi paid almost $750 million for “deceptive and unfair practices” linked to overcharging credit card customers.
The CFPB noted that Citi has a history of recently violating consumer financial protection laws. It paid $335 million in 2018 to 1.75 million consumer credit card holders for allegedly violating the Truth in Lending Act.
Citi targeted Armenian Americans and treated them like criminals, US regulator alleges | CNN Business
This compliance plan required Citi to monitor training materials as well as the written and oral communications of their employees responsible for approving and denying credit card applications.
“On October 16, 2025, the CFPB terminated the consent order, claiming that Citi “has fulfilled certain obligations” laid out in the consent order.
On November 8, 2023, the CFPB issued a consent order finding that Citi discriminated against consumers based on their national origin and therefore violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Regulation B, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
As a result, CFPB issued a judgement against Citi, requiring the bank to pay $1.4 million to the affected consumers and a $24.5 million civil penalty.
On October 16, 2025, the CFPB terminated the consent order, claiming that Citi “has fulfilled certain obligations” laid out in the consent order.
We write in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) termination of the consent order holding Citigroup Inc. (Citi) accountable for its alleged discrimination against Armenian Americans through its handling of credit card applications.
April 23, 2026 The Honorable Russell Vought Acting Director Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 1700 G St. NW Washington, DC 20552 Dear Acting Director Vought, We write in response to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) termination of the consent order holding Citigroup Inc. (Citi) accountable for its alleged discrimination against Armenian Americans through its handling of credit card applications.
On October 16, 2025, the CFPB terminated the consent order, claiming that Citi “has fulfilled certain obligations” laid out in the consent order.5 The Bureau claimed these obligations included paying a $24.5 million civil money penalty, making redress payments, and “taking steps to implement injunctive relief to prevent future violations” of the consent order.6 This termination effectively invalidates the consent order, even though CFPB originally intended for it to remain in effect until 2028.7 The CFPB has a statutory obligation to protect consumers and ensure equal access to credit.
Citi employees also referred to applicants as “Armenian bad guys” and the “Southern California Armenian Mafia” and negatively singling out their creditworthiness, behavior which was actively encouraged by supervisors and trainers.2 On November 8, 2023, the CFPB issued a consent order finding that Citi discriminated against consumers based on their national origin and therefore violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Regulation B, and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
This compliance plan required Citi to monitor training materials as well as the written and oral communications of their employees responsible for approving and denying credit card applications.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup was fined by the European Commission for participating in a foreign exchange spot trading cartel
Antitrust: Commission fines Barclays, RBS, Citigroup, JPMorgan and MUFG €1.07 billion for participating in foreign exchange spot trading cartel Brussels, 16 May 2019 In two settlement decisions, the European Commission has fined five banks for taking part in two cartels in the Spot Foreign Exchange market for 11 currencies - Euro, British Pound, Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, US, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian Dollars, and Danish, Swedish and Norwegian crowns.
If proven, such behaviour would be in violation of EU antitrust rules (Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – TFEU). The 16 CDS bank dealers are: JP Morgan, Bank of America Merrill Lync h, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Commerzbank, Crédit Suisse First Boston, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS, Wells Fargo Bank/Wachovia, Crédit Agricole and Société Générale.
It marks the successful completion of our antitrust investigation in the Yen interest rate derivatives sector – but not the end to our efforts to fight anticompetitive practices in financial markets." The Commission imposed fines totalling € 669 719 000 on the banks UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, JPMorgan and on the broker RP Martin in December 2013. These companies had admitted their involvement in one or more cartels in the YIRD sector, which allowed the Commission to settle the case with them. In the YIRD sector, the Commission uncovered seven distinct bilateral infringements lasting between 1 and 10 months in the period 2007 to 2010. The anticompetitive conduct concerned discussions between traders of the participating banks on certain JPY LIBOR submissions. The traders involved also exchanged, on occasions, commercially sensitive information relating either to trading positions or to future JPY LIBOR submissions. ICAP chose not to settle the case.
Antitrust: Commission fines Barclays, RBS, Citigroup, JPMorgan and MUFG €1.07 billion for participating in foreign exchange spot trading cartel Brussels, 16 May 2019 In two settlement decisions, the European Commission has fined five banks for taking part in two cartels in the Spot Foreign Exchange market for 11 currencies - Euro, British Pound, Japanese Yen, Swiss Franc, US, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian Dollars, and Danish, Swedish and Norwegian crowns.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup Inc. settled with the U.S. Trustee Program to protect consumers' personal information in bankruptcy cases
The settlement involving Citigroup Inc. concerns Consumers’ Personal Information.
Trustee Program Announces Successful Conclusion Of Settlement With Citigroup Inc. To Protect Consumers’ Personal Information In Bankruptcy Cases
Corporate conductConfirmed
Citigroup implemented remedial actions for sanctions violations
Citigroup added name variations to its interdiction filter and implemented a programmatic fix after an apparent violation involving Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology.
OFAC considered the following to be mitigating factors: no Citigroup managers or supervisors were aware of the conduct that led to the apparent violations; U.S. financial institutions blocked the February 9, 2010, January 12, 2011, and October 29, 2012, funds transfers, thereby limiting the economic harm to the sanctions program objectives of the WMDPSR and GTSR with respect to those transactions; Citigroup took remedial action to ensure that specific name variations were added to its interdiction filter, and implemented a programmatic fix in response to the January 12, 2011, apparent violation involving Higher Institute of Applied Science and Technology; Citigroup has not received a penalty notice or Finding of Violation from OFAC in the five years preceding the earliest date of the transactions giving rise to the apparent violations; and Citigroup cooperated with OFAC during the course of these investigations, including by responding thoroughly and promptly to OFAC’s requests for information in relation to all of these matters and by entering into a statute of limitations tolling agreement.
Corporate conductConfirmed
Citi was fined $136 million for compliance failures
Citi fined $136mn for compliance failures in further blow to overhaul.
The bank is also defending against a lawsuit by another managing director, Ardith Lindsey, who sued over a different supervisor’s alleged violent threats and Citigroup’s alleged “pervasive” culture of sexual harassment and gender discrimination.
Citigroup sued by former executive who says it mishandled sexual harassment
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup settles FTC charges with $215 million
Citigroup settles FTC charges alleging deception in subprime lending.
I am pleased that Citigroup has agreed to remedy the grave injury caused by The Associates and that Citigroup has announced new measures at CitiFinancial aimed at preventing these kinds of problems.
Citigroup Settles FTC Charges Against the Associates Record-Setting $215 Million for Subprime Lending Victims | Federal Trade Commission
In the largest consumer protection settlement in FTC history, Citigroup Inc. will pay $215 million to resolve Federal Trade Commission charges that Associates First Capital Corporation and Associates Corporation of North America (The Associates) engaged in systematic and widespread deceptive and abusive lending practices.
Corporate conductConfirmed
SEC investigating Citigroup for accounting fraud
The SEC is investigating Citigroup for accounting fraud following disclosures of bogus loans in its Mexican Banamex unit.
SEC investigates Citigroup over fraudulent Mexican loans: source
Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating Citigroup for accounting fraud after it disclosed bogus loans in its Mexican Banamex unit, a source familiar with the investigation said.
Corporate conductConfirmed
British regulators fine Citi $78M for trading breaches
British regulators fined Citi $78 million for high-frequency trading and risk control rule violations.
Citigroup is being probed by US government agencies over its ties to sanctioned Russian billionaire Suleiman Abusaidovich Kerimov, Barron's reported on Thursday, citing a person familiar with the matter.
Citigroup facing US probe over ties to sanctioned Russian billionaire, Bloomberg reports
Corporate conductOfficial statement
Citi was fined more than $24 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
In 2023, for example, Citi violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by discriminating against Armenian American credit card applicants.16 It was fined more than $24 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and ordered to implement a compliance management system to prevent future violations.17 In 2016, the CFPB also took two actions against Citi, for illegal debt sales and debt collection practices, ordering Citi to pay nearly $5 million in consumer relief and a $3 million penalty.18 It is not clear that a transaction would have any public benefits, while it could lead to an even more unmanageable conglomerate that inflicts consumer harm.
In 2023, for example, Citi violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, by discriminating against Armenian American credit card applicants.16 It was fined more than $24 million by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and ordered to implement a compliance management system to prevent future violations.17 In 2016, the CFPB also took two actions against Citi, for illegal debt sales and debt collection practices, ordering Citi to pay nearly $5 million in consumer relief and a $3 million penalty.18 It is not clear that a transaction would have any public benefits, while it could lead to an even more unmanageable conglomerate that inflicts consumer harm.
Corporate conductSettlement
The Commission approved a settled action against Citigroup alleging violations of securities
Under the approved settled action, the statT were authorized to file a civil injunctive action against Citigroup alleging that it violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-ll .
Under the approved settled action, the statT were authorized to file a civil injunctive action against Citigroup alleging that it violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-ll .
In addition, Judge Hu\'elle re<luired the partics to change Citigroup 's Consent and Final Judgment to include language stating that the disgorgcment and penalty funds "will" be distributed to harmed invcstors and that the parties agree to a L-________________________________________________________ ~ . " 34 This docunlenl is s ubj<,cllo Ihe pru\ 'isions of Ihe PI ' i\' ac~' ACI uf 1974, and nlay r<'quil'e redllCliun before disciusul'e 10 Ihi rd plIrlie s..
On that same date, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Citigroup consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently enjoined it from violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 1
The complaint further alleged that the Enforcement staff were "forced to drop the fraud charges that were part of the settlement with the other individual," and that both individuals were also represented by Khuzami's friends and former colleagues, creating the appearance that Khuzami's decision was "made as a special favor to them and perhaps to protect a Wall Street firm for political reasons." The complaint also alleged that Khuzami's decision had the effect of protecting Citigroup from private litigation, and that by not telling the staff about his secret conversation, Khuzami "directly violated recommendations by Inspector General Kotz in previous reports about how such special access and preferential treatment can cause serious appearance problems concerning fairness and integrity of decisions that are made by the Enforcement Division." The OIG investigation found that on July 29,2010, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Citigroup in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The SEC's complaint in that action alleged that during the fall of2007, Citigroup made a series of misstatements about its investment bank's exposure to sub-prime mortgages, representing that it had $13 billion in sub-prime exposure when, in fact, it had more than $50 billion.
Defendant shall satisfy this obligation by paying $75,000,001.00 within 14 days after entry of this Final Judgment to the Clerk of this Court, together with a cover letter identifying Citigroup as a defendant in this action; setting forth the title and civil action number of this action and the name of this Court; and specifying that payment is made pursuant to this Final Judgment.
District & Bankruptcy Courts for the District of Columbia Civil Action No. 10-cv-1277-ESH FINAL JUDGMENT AS TO DEFENDANT CITIGROUP INC. The Securities and Exchange Commission having filed a Complaint and Defendant Citigroup Inc. ("Defendant") having entered a general appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment as to Defendant Citigroup Inc. ("Final Judgment") without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived findings of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment: I.
("Defend?-nt") having entered a general ) appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment as to Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Final Judgment") without admittin~ or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived findillgs of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment: I. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED 1 AND DECREED that Defendant and Defendant's agents, servants, employees, attorneys:, and all persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice 6f this Final Judgment by personal service or otherwise are permanently restrained and enjoined from violating Sections i l 7(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933 ("Socurities Act") [15 U.S.C.
("Defend?-nt") having entered a general ) appearance; consented to the Court's jurisdiction over Defendant and the subject matter of this action; consented to entry of this Final Judgment as to Defendant Citigroup Global Markets Inc. ("Final Judgment") without admittin~ or denying the allegations of the Complaint (except as to jurisdiction); waived findillgs of fact and conclusions of law; and waived any right to appeal from this Final Judgment: I.
Throughout that time period, Citigroup represented that its sub-prime exposure in Citigroup's investment banking unit, Citi Markets & Banking, was $13 billion or less, when in fact, at all times during that period, the investment bank's sub-prime exposure was over $50 billion.
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Citigroup Inc. with misleading investors about the extent of the company's exposure to sub-prime mortgage-related assets during 2007.
Separately, the SEC also instituted settled cease-and-desist proceedings against Gary Crittenden, Citigroup's former chief financial officer, and Arthur Tildesley, Jr., Citigroup's former head of Investor Relations, for their roles in causing Citigroup to make certain of the misleading statements.
The SEC alleges in its complaint against Citigroup that between July 20, 2007 and November 4, 2007, in response to intense investor interest in the topic, Citigroup repeatedly made misleading statements about the extent of its holdings of assets backed by sub-prime mortgages in earnings calls and public filings.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Citigroup Inc. consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently restrains and enjoins it from violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11 and (2) orders it pay penalty and disgorgement of $75,000,001.
The SEC's complaint in that action alleged that during the fall of2007, Citigroup made a series of misstatements about its investment bank's exposure to sub-prime mortgages, representing that it had $13 billion in sub-prime exposure when, in fact, it had more than $50 billion.
The complaint further alleged that the Enforcement staff were "forced to drop the fraud charges that were part of the settlement with the other individual," and that both individuals were also represented by Khuzami's friends and former colleagues, creating the appearance that Khuzami's decision was "made as a special favor to them and perhaps to protect a Wall Street firm for political reasons." The complaint also alleged that Khuzami's decision had the effect of protecting Citigroup from private litigation, and that by not telling the staff about his secret conversation, Khuzami "directly violated recommendations by Inspector General Kotz in previous reports about how such special access and preferential treatment can cause serious appearance problems concerning fairness and integrity of decisions that are made by the Enforcement Division." The OIG investigation found that on July 29,2010, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Citigroup in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Under the approved settled action, the statT were authorized to file a civil injunctive action against Citigroup alleging that it violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-ll .
On that same date, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Citigroup consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently enjoined it from violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 1
In addition, Judge Hu\'elle re<luired the partics to change Citigroup 's Consent and Final Judgment to include language stating that the disgorgcment and penalty funds "will" be distributed to harmed invcstors and that the parties agree to a L-________________________________________________________ ~ . " 34 This docunlenl is s ubj<,cllo Ihe pru\ 'isions of Ihe PI ' i\' ac~' ACI uf 1974, and nlay r<'quil'e redllCliun before disciusul'e 10 Ihi rd plIrlie s..
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate that cease- and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), against Citigroup Inc. (“Respondent”). II. In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (the “Offer”) which the Commission has determined to accept.
Under the approved settled action, the statT were authorized to file a civil injunctive action against Citigroup alleging that it violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act, Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-ll .
In addition, Judge Hu\'elle re<luired the partics to change Citigroup 's Consent and Final Judgment to include language stating that the disgorgcment and penalty funds "will" be distributed to harmed invcstors and that the parties agree to a L-________________________________________________________ ~ . " 34 This docunlenl is s ubj<,cllo Ihe pru\ 'isions of Ihe PI ' i\' ac~' ACI uf 1974, and nlay r<'quil'e redllCliun before disciusul'e 10 Ihi rd plIrlie s..
On that same date, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Citigroup consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently enjoined it from violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 1
The SEC's complaint in that action alleged that during the fall of2007, Citigroup made a series of misstatements about its investment bank's exposure to sub-prime mortgages, representing that it had $13 billion in sub-prime exposure when, in fact, it had more than $50 billion.
The complaint further alleged that the Enforcement staff were "forced to drop the fraud charges that were part of the settlement with the other individual," and that both individuals were also represented by Khuzami's friends and former colleagues, creating the appearance that Khuzami's decision was "made as a special favor to them and perhaps to protect a Wall Street firm for political reasons." The complaint also alleged that Khuzami's decision had the effect of protecting Citigroup from private litigation, and that by not telling the staff about his secret conversation, Khuzami "directly violated recommendations by Inspector General Kotz in previous reports about how such special access and preferential treatment can cause serious appearance problems concerning fairness and integrity of decisions that are made by the Enforcement Division." The OIG investigation found that on July 29,2010, the SEC filed a settled civil action against Citigroup in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup settles over research analyst conflicts
The SEC settled charges against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. for research analyst conflicts of interest.
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that it has settled charges against Citigroup Global Markets Inc., formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Inc. ("SSB"), a New York-based brokerage firm and investment bank, arising from an investigation of research analyst conflicts of interest.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) against Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (“Respondent” or “CGMI”). II. In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement (“Offer”) that the Commission has determined to accept.
Corporate conductRuling
A court denied Citi's motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging it failed to protect customers from fraud
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced a significant victory in her case against Citibank (Citi) after a judge denied Citi’s motion to dismiss the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) lawsuit on its core claims that Citi failed to protect and reimburse victims of fraud.
NEW YORK – New York Attorney General Letitia James today announced a significant victory in her case against Citibank (Citi) after a judge denied Citi’s motion to dismiss the Office of the Attorney General’s (OAG) lawsuit on its core claims that Citi failed to protect and reimburse victims of fraud.
The decision by Judge Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held that Citi misapplied the law when denying consumers’ claims for reimbursement, means that Attorney General James’ lawsuit against Citi will continue.
Attorney General James is seeking to stop Citi’s deceptive practices and to collect restitution for victims who were denied reimbursement in the last six years, as well as penalties and disgorgement.
"Banks are supposed to be the safest place to keep money, yet Citi's negligence has allowed scammers to steal millions of dollars from hardworking people," James said in a statement.
District Judge Paul Oetken ruled that Citigroup must face the claims under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), it is a law aimed to give consumer protection from fraud involving electronic transactions.
Citigroup Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Failure to Protect Customers from Online Scams
“Banks are supposed to be the safest place to keep money, yet Citi’s negligence has allowed scammers to steal millions of dollars from hardworking people,” James said in a statement.
Citi, represented by Sullivan & Cromwell, had sought circuit intervention on the heels of a district court order keeping alive a lawsuit seeking to force the banking giant to pay millions of dollars to New Yorkers who have fallen victim to online scams.
Corporate conductAllegation
Citi is accused of lax security protocols
Citi is accused of lax security protocols allowing scammers to gain easy access to users' accounts and steal deposits through unauthorized wire transfers.
In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, Attorney General Letitia James alleged Citi’s lax security protocols allowed scammers to gain easy access to users’ accounts and steal their deposits through unauthorized wire transfers.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup settles misconduct allegations
Citigroup settled allegations of improper preferential treatment and special access during an SEC investigation.
The $590 million settlement resolved claims by Citigroup shareholders from February 26, 2007 to April 18, 2008 that the bank failed in those years to properly write down risky debt, often backed by subprime mortgages, and concealed the risks.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Investigation into Allegations of Improper Preferential Treatment and Special Access in Connection with the Division of Enforcement's Investigation of Citigroup, Inc. Case No. OIG-559 Introduction and Summary of Results of the Investigation On January 11,2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") Office of Inspector General ("OIG") opened an investigation as a result of information received in an anonymous complaint, dated January 3,2011, alleging "serious problems with special access and preferential treatment" at the SEC.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Investigation into Allegations of Improper Preferential Treatment and Special Access in Connection with the Division of Enforcement's Investigation of Citigroup, Inc. Case No. OIG-559 September 27,2011
Specifically, the complaint alleged that during the SEC's investigation ofCitigroup, Inc.' s ("Citigroup's") failure to disclose "more than $50 billion" in sub-prime securities, the staff of the SEC's Division of Enforcement ("Enforcement") negotiated a settlement with one individual, which included a fraud charge, and was prepared to file contested 1O(b) fraud charges against a second individual.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Investigation into Allegations of Improper Preferential Treatment and Special Access in Connection with the Division of Enforcement's Investigation of Citigroup, Inc. Case No. OIG-559 Introduction and Summary of Results of the Investigation On January 11,2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") Office of Inspector General ("OIG") opened an investigation as a result of information received in an anonymous complaint, dated January 3,2011, alleging "serious problems with special access and preferential treatment" at the SEC.
CGMI and Citigroup shall, within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order, pay jointly and severally a civil money penalty in the amount of $5,750,000 to the Securities and Exchange Commission for transfer to the general fund of the United States Treasury, subject to Exchange Act Section 21F(g)(3).
All three mismarking scenarios involved opaque, illiquid positions that were overvalued by traders and not effectively price verified by Citi’s valuation control group. Two of the scenarios also involved unauthorized trading in U.S. Treasury securities (“USTs”), leading to losses that were largely concealed by the mismarkings; in both of those cases, the unauthorized trading and mismarking persisted for more than a year without being detected within CGMI’s supervisory framework. 3. The mismarking and unauthorized trading caused CGMI’s books and records required to be made and kept pursuant to Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3(a) thereunder, including its “[l]edgers (or other records) reflecting all assets and liabilities, income and expense and capital accounts,” to be inaccurate during the Relevant Period.
As a result of the conduct described above, CGMI failed reasonably to supervise Trader 1 and Trader 2 pursuant to Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Exchange Act. 62. As a result of the conduct described above, Citigroup violated Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act, which requires public companies to make and keep books, records, and accounts, which, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the issuer.
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL Investigation into Allegations of Improper Preferential Treatment and Special Access in Connection with the Division of Enforcement's Investigation of Citigroup, Inc. Case No. OIG-559 Introduction and Summary of Results of the Investigation On January 11,2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission") Office of Inspector General ("OIG") opened an investigation as a result of information received in an anonymous complaint, dated January 3,2011, alleging "serious problems with special access and preferential treatment" at the SEC.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup settles for $75 million penalty
Citigroup agreed to pay $75 million to settle SEC charges over financial-law violations.
The investigation found that, for all the breaches, Citi “should have known or suspected that its actions would result in a breach of financial sanctions”.
Corporate conductConfirmed
Citigroup pays $48.5M penalty for Enron conduct
Citigroup makes a $48.5 million payment as penalty for its Enron-related actions.
A rising star at Smith Barney named Greg Hersch wrote an email to Epstein’s office: “I would like to bring to Jeffrey's attention that Citigroup's feeder fund to Dr James Simons' fund, Renaissance, LLC, will be closing to new investors at the end of this month as it nears its limit of 499 investors.”
Corporate conductRuling
Citigroup faces ruling over financial law
In February 2016 , after the Mexican banking regulator fined Banamex , more than 30 plaintiffs sued Citigroup for its alleged role in OSA’s collapse.
Securities and Exchange Commission fined Citigroup $4.75 million in 2018 over Banamex's internal controls.
Citigroup said the bondholders should not have been allowed to pursue their "garden-variety" securities fraud civil claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, a federal anti-racketeering law that allows for triple damages.
Citigroup later uncovered $430 million of fraudulent cash advances.
US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud
In April 2014, Mexican banking regulators reported that 10 Citigroup employees had violated Mexican criminal law by providing cash advances to Oceanografía based on forged documents.
In 2016, they filed their complaint against Citigroup, arguing the banking and financial institution duped them into losing more than a billion dollars in investments by misrepresenting and omitting key information about Oceanografía’s catastrophic financial condition.
After several of the receipts were found to be suspicious, Mexico launched its own investigation into Banamex and Oceanografía, while Citigroup came under investigation by the FBI and SEC.
One section outlines specifically how Citigroup agreed with OSA to further the RICO enterprise.
The shipping and leasing plaintiffs allege that Citigroup’s misrepresentations and omissions induced them to lease, sell, and maintain vessels for OSA’s benefit.
74a Directors”; • foreign regulators have determined that Citigroup employees were criminally liable; • the SEC fined Citigroup nearly $5 million for violating the bank’s own internal controls related to the fraud; • the sheer volume of the discrepancies between the cash advances and the underlying contracts suggests a degree of acquiescence; and • a “revolving door” of senior executives shifted between Citigroup and OSA, including OSA hiring an employee terminated by Citigroup for accepting bribes and kickbacks. To be sure, the plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations require some degree of inference.
Plaintiffs allege that Citigroup had actual knowledge of the fraud because: (1) it knowingly approved false documentation submitted by OSA to Citigroup’s ICG; (2) it had actual knowledge that OSA was making fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to its creditors, bondholders, and vendors; (3) it knowingly participated in OSA’s fraud; (4) it admitted that it was responsible for the fraudulent scheme, showing that it agreed with OSA to commit fraud by making fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to its vendors, creditors, and bondholders; (5) CNBV 9 found that ten of Citigroup’s employees had violated Mexican criminal law by extending loans its officers knew the recipient(s) could not repay and because OSA’s CEO and employees submitted forged documents to obtain cash advances from Citigroup; and (6) a Mexican criminal court issued 9 CNBV is the Mexican banking regulator, the Comision Nacional Bancaria y de Valores.
Id. Finally, Citigroup’s then-CEO, Michael Corbat, explained one result of the company’s “rigorous internal
OSA, they say, submitted inflated cash-advance requests containing forged Pemex signatures to Citigroup, which—with full knowledge of the fraud—approved them.
Those numbers are particularly notable because t he SEC, which is actually charged with addressing any vi- olations Citigroup has committed, examined this case and assessed a $4.75 million fine.
Citigroup also disclosed in its 2014 SEC annual report that the Department of Justice and the SEC were investigating the cash-advance scheme, and in 2018, the latter fined Citigroup $4.75 million for failing to maintain a system of internal controls related to Banamex.
As noted above, the plaintiffs do not challenge this conclusion on appeal, and so this evidence is not relevant for our purposes. Second, Citigroup referred to the same expert affidavit to show that it would be difficult to compel Mexican witnesses to testify in the United States and that Mexican banking laws would prevent Banamex from sharing information absent permission from the Mexican banking regulator.
Citigroup publicly admitted that some its employees had been criminally involved in the fraudulent scheme and announced that it had terminated employees both “inside and outside” of Mexico. The scandal also led the SEC and the Justice Department to open domestic investigations into Citigroup.
8 September 2014, t he Mexican banking regulator Comisi ón Nacional Bancaria y de Valores fined Banamex $2.3 million, and in August 2018, the SEC fined Citigroup $4.75 million for controls failures.
In February 2016 , after the Mexican banking regulator fined Banamex , more than 30 plaintiffs sued Citigroup for its alleged role in OSA’s collapse.
Contrarily, Plaintiffs argue that Citigroup’s substantial assistance consisted of: (1) knowingly approving false documentation OSA submitted to the ICG; (2) violating its own internal controls relating to the cash advance facility; (3) allowing OSA to control the cash advance facility in violation of its own internal policies and procedures; (4) providing cash advances that exceeded the amounts of the underlying Pemex contracts; (5) increasing OSA’s cash advance limits in violation of its internal policies and procedures; and (6) sanctioning OSA’s false financial projections in financial statements, the Pareto Materials10, and other communications and materials.
Citigroup publicly admitted that some its employees had been criminally involved in the fraudulent scheme and announced that it had terminated employees both “inside and outside” of Mexico. The scandal also led the SEC and the Justice Department to open domestic investigations into Citigroup.
OSA, they say, submitted inflated cash-advance requests containing forged Pemex signatures to Citigroup, which—with full knowledge of the fraud—approved them.
8 September 2014, t he Mexican banking regulator Comisi ón Nacional Bancaria y de Valores fined Banamex $2.3 million, and in August 2018, the SEC fined Citigroup $4.75 million for controls failures.
One section outlines specifically how Citigroup agreed with OSA to further the RICO enterprise.
Plaintiffs allege that Citigroup had actual knowledge of the fraud because: (1) it knowingly approved false documentation submitted by OSA to Citigroup’s ICG; (2) it had actual knowledge that OSA was making fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to its creditors, bondholders, and vendors; (3) it knowingly participated in OSA’s fraud; (4) it admitted that it was responsible for the fraudulent scheme, showing that it agreed with OSA to commit fraud by making fraudulent misrepresentations and material omissions to its vendors, creditors, and bondholders; (5) CNBV 9 found that ten of Citigroup’s employees had violated Mexican criminal law by extending loans its officers knew the recipient(s) could not repay and because OSA’s CEO and employees submitted forged documents to obtain cash advances from Citigroup; and (6) a Mexican criminal court issued 9 CNBV is the Mexican banking regulator, the Comision Nacional Bancaria y de Valores.
Contrarily, Plaintiffs argue that Citigroup’s substantial assistance consisted of: (1) knowingly approving false documentation OSA submitted to the ICG; (2) violating its own internal controls relating to the cash advance facility; (3) allowing OSA to control the cash advance facility in violation of its own internal policies and procedures; (4) providing cash advances that exceeded the amounts of the underlying Pemex contracts; (5) increasing OSA’s cash advance limits in violation of its internal policies and procedures; and (6) sanctioning OSA’s false financial projections in financial statements, the Pareto Materials10, and other communications and materials.
Citigroup also disclosed in its 2014 SEC annual report that the Department of Justice and the SEC were investigating the cash-advance scheme, and in 2018, the latter fined Citigroup $4.75 million for failing to maintain a system of internal controls related to Banamex.
Id. Finally, Citigroup’s then-CEO, Michael Corbat, explained one result of the company’s “rigorous internal
74a Directors”; • foreign regulators have determined that Citigroup employees were criminally liable; • the SEC fined Citigroup nearly $5 million for violating the bank’s own internal controls related to the fraud; • the sheer volume of the discrepancies between the cash advances and the underlying contracts suggests a degree of acquiescence; and • a “revolving door” of senior executives shifted between Citigroup and OSA, including OSA hiring an employee terminated by Citigroup for accepting bribes and kickbacks. To be sure, the plaintiffs’ conspiracy allegations require some degree of inference.
The shipping and leasing plaintiffs allege that Citigroup’s misrepresentations and omissions induced them to lease, sell, and maintain vessels for OSA’s benefit.
In February 2016 , after the Mexican banking regulator fined Banamex , more than 30 plaintiffs sued Citigroup for its alleged role in OSA’s collapse.
Those numbers are particularly notable because t he SEC, which is actually charged with addressing any vi- olations Citigroup has committed, examined this case and assessed a $4.75 million fine.
As noted above, the plaintiffs do not challenge this conclusion on appeal, and so this evidence is not relevant for our purposes. Second, Citigroup referred to the same expert affidavit to show that it would be difficult to compel Mexican witnesses to testify in the United States and that Mexican banking laws would prevent Banamex from sharing information absent permission from the Mexican banking regulator.
Taking advantage of the potential to increase its profits from the cash-advance facility, Citigroup conspired with OSA to orchestrate a fraud whereby (1) OSA submitted false documentation in support of the cash advances to Citigroup; (2) Citigroup knowingly approved the false documentation; (3) OSA received funds to which it was not entitled; and (4) Citigroup earned interest on the illicit funds.
The SEC settled its investigation with an order directing Citigroup to pay a $4.75 million fine, specifically for failures in its controls and reporting over the cash-advance facility.
All of the cases Citigroup cites concern whether 2 The only mention of the SEC in the briefing or decision below was that the SEC settled an investigation with an order directing Citigroup to pay a $4.75 million fine for failures in its controls and reporting.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup Inc. settlement over financial law
The settlement involving Citigroup Inc. concerns Iranian Transactions.
Citigroup Inc. Settles Potential Civil Liability for Apparent Violations of Multiple Sanctions Programs: Citigroup Inc. (Citigroup), New York, New York, has agreed to remit $217,841 to settle potential civil liability for eight apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R.
Labor & working conditionsConfirmed
Citigroup — worker protection law
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Citigroup Technology Inc. in Tampa, the employer has paid 882 employees a total of $1,870,009 in back wages and a civil penalty of $97,680 for repeat violations.
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Citigroup Technology Inc. in Tampa, the employer has paid 882 employees a total of $1,870,009 in back wages and a civil penalty of $97,680 for repeat violations.
Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division investigation of Citigroup Technology Inc. in Tampa, the employer has paid 882 employees a total of $1,870,009 in back wages and a civil penalty of $97,680 for repeat violations.
By Alex Wolf ( August 4, 2016, 3:30 PM EDT) -- A Florida-based Citigroup unit has paid nearly $2 million in back wages and a civil penalty for repeat Fair Labor Standards Act violations after a U.S. Department of Labor investigation revealed it denied hundreds of employees overtime compensation and did not maintain time records, the DOL announced Thursday....
Corporate conductRuling
Citigroup faces ruling over commercially sensitive information
The Commission imposed fines totalling € 669 719 000 on the banks UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, JPMorgan and on the broker RP Martin in December 2013. These companies had admitted their involvement in one or more cartels in the YIRD sector, which allowed the Commission to settle the case with them. In the YIRD sector, the Commission uncovered seven distinct bilateral infringements lasting between 1 and 10 months in the period 2007 to 2010. The anticompetitive conduct concerned discussions between traders of the participating banks on certain JPY LIBOR submissions. The traders involved also exchanged, on occasions, commercially sensitive information relating either to trading positions or to future JPY LIBOR submissions.
The Commission imposed fines totalling € 669 719 000 on the banks UBS, RBS, Deutsche Bank, Citigroup, JPMorgan and on the broker RP Martin in December 2013. These companies had admitted their involvement in one or more cartels in the YIRD sector, which allowed the Commission to settle the case with them. In the YIRD sector, the Commission uncovered seven distinct bilateral infringements lasting between 1 and 10 months in the period 2007 to 2010. The anticompetitive conduct concerned discussions between traders of the participating banks on certain JPY LIBOR submissions. The traders involved also exchanged, on occasions, commercially sensitive information relating either to trading positions or to future JPY LIBOR submissions.
Corporate conductSettlement
Citigroup Inc. settlement over financial law
The settlement involving Citigroup Inc. concerns residential mortgage-backed securities.
Citigroup’s conduct had far-reaching and financially devastating consequences for investors, including investors in Colorado, the housing market and ultimately, the global economy.
To its credit, in this settlement, Citi has agreed to take responsibility for its conduct, in several ways, by paying a large penalty, by providing valuable consumer relief, and by acknowledging a statement of facts that describes its conduct. Taking responsibility for the conduct is an important step to restoring faith in the financial markets. The strength of our markets depends on the truth of the representations that banks provide to investors and the public every day. However, the work of the RMBS working group continues, because many other banks that have not yet accepted responsibility for their actions in selling RMBS securities full of toxic mortgages.
Today's $7 billion settlement is a major step toward restoring public confidence in those markets. Due to the tireless work by the Department of Justice, Citigroup is being forced to take responsibility for its home mortgage securitization misconduct in the years leading up to the Financial Crisis.
To its credit, in this settlement, Citi has agreed to take responsibility for its conduct, in several ways, by paying a large penalty, by providing valuable consumer relief, and by acknowledging a statement of facts that describes its conduct.
“This historic penalty is appropriate given the strength of the evidence of the wrongdoing committed by Citi,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “The bank's activities contributed mightily to the financial crisis that devastated our economy in 2008.
As part of the settlement, Citigroup acknowledged it made serious misrepresentations to the public – including the investing public – about the mortgage loans it securitized in RMBS.
Attorney’s Offices for the Eastern District of New York and the District of Colorado conducted investigations into Citigroup’s practices related to the sale and issuance of RMBS between 2006 and 2007.
Justice Department, Federal And State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement With Citigroup For Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages
Of the $7 billion resolution, $4.5 billion will be paid to settle federal and state civil claims by various entities related to RMBS: Citigroup will pay $4 billion as a civil penalty to settle the Justice Department claims under FIRREA, $208.25 million to settle federal and state securities claims by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), $102.7 million to settle claims by the state of California, $92 million to settle claims by the state of New York, $44 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois, $45.7 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and $7.35 to settle claims by the state of Delaware.
Eastern District of New York | Justice Department, Federal And State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement With Citigroup For Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages | United States Department of Justice
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, today announced a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) prior to Jan.
As part of the settlement, Citigroup acknowledged it made serious misrepresentations to the public – including the investing public – about the mortgage loans it securitized in RMBS.
Of the $7 billion resolution, $4.5 billion will be paid to settle federal and state civil claims by various entities related to RMBS: Citigroup will pay $4 billion as a civil penalty to settle the Justice Department claims under FIRREA, $208.25 million to settle federal and state securities claims by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), $102.7 million to settle claims by the state of California, $92 million to settle claims by the state of New York, $44 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois, $45.7 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and $7.35 to settle claims by the state of Delaware.
“Today's $7 billion settlement is a major step toward restoring public confidence in those markets. Due to the tireless work by the Department of Justice, Citigroup is being forced to take responsibility for its home mortgage securitization misconduct in the years leading up to the financial crisis.
“This historic penalty is appropriate given the strength of the evidence of the wrongdoing committed by Citi,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “The bank's activities contributed mightily to the financial crisis that devastated our economy in 2008.
Justice Department, Federal and State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement with Citigroup for Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages
The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, today announced a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) prior to Jan.
Office of Public Affairs | Justice Department, Federal and State Partners Secure Record $7 Billion Global Settlement with Citigroup for Misleading Investors About Securities Containing Toxic Mortgages | United States Department of Justice
“Citigroup misled consumers and profited by providing California’s pension funds with incomplete information about mortgage investments,” Attorney General Harris said.
LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and state partners, today announced a settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale, and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities prior to January 1, 2009.
Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 12 (Excluded Claims), and conditioned solely upon Citigroup’s full payment of the Settlement Amount (of which $44,000,000.00 will be paid to the State of Illinois, Office of the Attorney General, in accordance with the written payment instructions from the State of Illinois, Office of the Attorney General, to remediate harms to the State allegedly resulting from unlawful conduct of the Released Entities), the Illinois Attorney General of the State of Illinois fully and finally releases the Released Entities from any civil or administrative claim for the Covered Conduct that it has authority to bring, including but not limited to: Illinois Securities Law of 1953, 815 Ill.
Citigroup has resolved claims filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Strategic Capital Bank, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank (collectively, “FDIC”), alleging violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with private-label RMBS issued, underwritten, and/or sold by
$7 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH CITIGROUP FOR MISLEADING
Citigroup to Pay the Largest Penalty of Its Kind - $4 Billion WASHINGTON – The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, today announced a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) prior to Jan.
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, today announced a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) prior to Jan.
It’s amazing that some of these loans were closed at all.” Citigroup nevertheless securitized the loan pools containing defective loans and sold the resulting RMBS to investors for billions of dollars.
As part of the settlement, Citigroup acknowledged it made serious misrepresentations to the public – including the investing public – about the mortgage loans it securitized in RMBS.
continue to pursue our investigations and cases vigorously because many other banks have not yet taken responsibility for their misconduct in packaging and selling RMBS securities.” “After nearly 50 subpoenas to Citigroup, Trustees, Servicers, Due Diligence providers and their employees, and after collecting nearly 25 million documents relating to every residential mortgage backed security issued or underwritten by Citigroup in 2006 and 2007, our teams found that the misconduct in Citigroup’s deals devastated the nation and the world’s economies, touching everyone,” said U.S. Attorney of the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, FEDERAL AND STATE PARTNERS SECURE RECORD $7 BILLION GLOBAL SETTLEMENT WITH CITIGROUP FOR MISLEADING INVESTORS ABOUT SECURITIES CONTAINING TOXIC MORTGAGES Citigroup to Pay the Largest Penalty of Its Kind - $4 Billion WASHINGTON – The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, today announced a $7 billion settlement with Citigroup Inc. to resolve federal and state civil claims related to Citigroup’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) prior to Jan.
“In addition to the principal reductions and loan modifications we've built into previous resolutions, this consumer relief menu includes new measures such as $200 million in typically hard-to-obtain financing that will facilitate the construction of affordable rental housing, bringing relief to families pushed into the rental market in the wake of the financial crisis.” Of the $7 billion resolution, $4.5 billion will be paid to settle federal and state civil claims by various entities related to RMBS: Citigroup will pay $4 billion as a civil penalty to settle the Justice Department claims under FIRREA, $208.25 million to settle federal and state securities claims by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), $102.7 million to settle claims by the state of California, $92 million to settle claims by the state of New York, $44 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois, $45.7 million to settle claims by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and $7.35 to settle claims by the state of Delaware.
Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 12 (Excluded Claims), and conditioned solely upon Citigroup’s full payment of the Settlement Amount (of which $44,000,000.00 will be paid to the State of Illinois, Office of the Attorney General, in accordance with the written payment instructions from the State of Illinois, Office of the Attorney General, to remediate harms to the State allegedly resulting from unlawful conduct of the Released Entities), the Illinois Attorney General of the State of Illinois fully and finally releases the Released Entities from any civil or administrative claim for the Covered Conduct that it has authority to bring, including but not limited to: Illinois Securities Law of 1953, 815 Ill.
Citigroup has resolved claims filed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Strategic Capital Bank, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for Colonial Bank (collectively, “FDIC”), alleging violations of federal and state securities laws in connection with private-label RMBS issued, underwritten, and/or sold by
Throughout that time period, Citigroup represented that its sub-prime exposure in Citigroup's investment banking unit, Citi Markets & Banking, was $13 billion or less, when in fact, at all times during that period, the investment bank's sub-prime exposure was over $50 billion.
The $43 billion that Citigroup failed to disclose consisted of two categories of sub-prime-backed assets, "super senior" tranches of collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs") and "liquidity puts." Citigroup only disclosed the extent of its holdings of the super senior tranches of CDOs and the liquidity puts in November 2007, after a sharp decline in their value.
Without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations, Citigroup Inc. consented to the entry of a final judgment that (1) permanently restrains and enjoins it from violation of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11 and (2) orders it pay penalty and disgorgement of $75,000,001.