Each depositor insured to at least $250,000 per insured bank



Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders




FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders

ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help


{{2-29-00 p.C-4841}}
   [11,672] In the Matter of Martha Hai Ning Chu, Golden City Commercial Bank, New York, New York, Docket No. 99-134g (12-3-99)

   Respondent prohibited from participating in the conduct of affairs of any insured institution without the prior written approval of the FDIC.

   [.1] Prohibition, Removal or Suspension—Prohibition From—Participation in Conduct of Affairs

In the Matter of
MARTHA HAI NING CHU,
individually
and as an institution-affiliated party of
GOLDEN CITY COMMERCIAL
BANK

NEW YORK, NEW YORK
(Insured State Nonmember Bank)
ORDER OF SUSPENSION FROM
OFFICE AND PROHIBITION
FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION
AND NOTICE OF HEARING

FDIC-99-134g

   The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") is of the opinion based upon the unsealing of an indictment on December 2, 1999, that Martha Hai Ning Chu ("Respondent"), an institution-affiliated party of Golden City Commercial Bank, New York, New York ("Bank"), has been indicted for criminal violations of New York Penal Law and for violations of New York Banking Law as follows: one count of Scheme to Defraud in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §190.65(1)(b) (Consol. 1999); one count of Grand Larceny in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.42 (Consol. 1999); eleven counts of Grand Larceny in the second degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.40 (Consol. 1999); eleven counts of Grand Larceny in the third degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.35 (Consol. 1999); forty violations of N.Y. Banking Law §672(1) (1999) (falsification of books, reports or statements of corporations subject to New York banking law); twenty-one violations of N.Y. Banking Law §673 (Consol. 1999) (abstraction or misappropriation of money, funds, or property, or misapplication of credit of corporations subject to New York banking law by an officer, director, or agent thereof); forty counts of Falsifying Business Records in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §175.10 (Consol. 1999); five counts of Forgery in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §170.10(1) (Consol. 1999); and two counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §215.40(1)(b) (Consol. 1999). Section 8(g)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act ("Act"), 12 U.S.C. §1818(g) (1)(A)(i), allows the FDIC, as the appropriate Federal banking agency for the Bank, to issue and serve upon the Respondent who was charged in an indictment an order suspending Respondent from office and prohibiting the Respondent from further participation in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank without the prior written consent of the FDIC. Wherefore, the FDIC hereby issues this ORDER OF SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE AND PROHIBITION FROM FURTHER PARTICIPATION AND NOTICE OF HEARING ("ORDER"), pursuant to the provisions of section 8(g) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(g). In support thereof, the FDIC finds and concludes as follows:
   1. The Bank is a corporation existing and doing business under the laws of the State of New York, having its principal place of business at New York, New York. The Bank is and was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, an insured State nonmember bank subject to the Act, 12 U.S.C. §§181-1831u, the Rules and Regulations of the FDIC, 12 C.F.R. Chapter III, and the laws of the State of New York.
   2. Respondent Martha Hai Ning Chu was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, the chairman of the board and a director of the Bank. She is an institution-affiliated party of the Bank within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. §1813(u).
   3. The FDIC has jurisdiction over the Bank, the Respondent, and the subject matter of this proceeding.
   4. On December 2, 1999, in the Supreme Court of the County of New York, State of New York, Case Number Ind. No. 8257/99, Respondent was indicted for violations of the New York Penal Law and the New York Banking Law as follows: one count of Scheme to Defraud in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §190.65(1)(b) {{2-29-00 p.C-4842}}(Consol. 1999); one count of Grand Larceny in the first degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.42 (Consol. 1999); eleven counts of Grand Larceny in the second degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.40 (Consol. 1999); eleven counts of Grand Larceny in the third degree in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §155.35 (Consol. 1999); forty violations of N.Y. Banking Law §672(1) (1999) (falsification of books, reports or statements of corporations subject to New York banking law); twenty-one violations of N.Y. Banking Law §673 (Consol. 1999) (abstraction or misappropriation of money, funds, or property, or misapplication of credit of corporations subject to New York banking law by an officer, director, or agent thereof); forty counts of Falsifying Business Records in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §175.10 (Consol. 1999); five counts of Forgery in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §170.10(1) (Consol. 1999); and two counts of Tampering with Physical Evidence in violation of N.Y. Penal Law §215.40(1)(b) (Consol. 1999) (the "Indictment"). The crimes with which the Respondent has been charged are crimes involving dishonesty or breach of trust under New York State law which are punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
   5. The charges all relate to alleged actions by the Respondent in connection with certain loans made by the Bank.
   6. The likelihood of negative publicity generated by the pending criminal action against the Respondent, the serious nature of the charges contained in the Indictment, and/or the fact that the particular crimes alleged involved abuse of Respondent's positions as chairman of the board and director serve to detract from the professional reputations of the Respondent and the Bank.
   7. By virtue of the facts stated above, the FDIC has reasonable cause to believe that continued participation by Respondent in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank may pose a threat to the interests of depositors of the Bank or may threaten to impair public confidence in the Bank.
   8. The FDIC concludes that an ORDER must issue pursuant to section 8(g)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(g)(1)(A)(i), suspending Respondent from office and prohibiting Respondent from further participation in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank, and any other insured depository institution, agency or organization enumerated in section 8(e)(7) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(e)(7), without the prior written consent of the FDIC and any other appropriate Federal financial institutions regulatory agency.

SUSPENSION AND
PROHIBITION ORDER

   [.1]Based upon the above findings, it is ORDERED, that Respondent Martha Hai Ning Chu be, and hereby is, without the prior written consent of the FDIC and any other appropriate Federal financial institutions regulatory agency, as that term is defined in section 8(e)(7)(D) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(e)(7)(D), suspended from office and prohibited from further participation in any manner in the conduct of the affairs of the Bank, and may not continue or commence to hold office in, or participate in any manner in, the conduct of the affairs of:

       (a) any insured depository institution;
       (b) any institution treated as an insured bank;
       (c) any insured credit union under the Federal Credit Union Act;
       (d) any institution chartered under the Farm Credit Act of 1971;
       (e) any appropriate Federal depository institution regulatory agency;
as provided in section 8(e)(7)(A) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(e)(7)(A).
   FURTHER ORDERED, that within thirty (30) days after the date of receipt of the ORDER, the Respondent may request in writing an opportunity to appear before the FDIC, pursuant to section 8(g)(3) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(g)(3). If the Respondent fails to file a request for a hearing timely, this ORDER shall be final and unreviewable.

NOTICE OF HEARING

   FURTHER ORDERED, that if the Respondent requests a hearing, the FDIC will fix a time and place for a hearing not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the request. At any hearing, the Respondent may appear, personally or through counsel, to submit written materials and oral argument. Oral testimony may be taken at the discretion of the FDIC, as provided in section 8(g)(3) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1818(g)(3). The hearing will be conducted in the manner prescribed in section 8(g)(3) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. §1813(g)(3) and section 308.164 of the FDIC Rules of Practice and Procedure, 12 C.F.R. §308.164.
{{2-29-00 p.C-4843}}
   An original and one copy of all papers filed in this proceeding shall be served upon the FDIC's Office of the Executive Secretary, 550 17th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429. Also, copies of all papers filed in this proceeding shall be served upon A.T. Dill III, Senior Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Compliance and Enforcement Section, 550 17th Street (MB-3124), N.W., Washington, D.C. 20429, and upon Barbara A. Monheit, Regional Counsel, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, New York Regional Office, 20 Exchange Place, New York, New York, 10005.
   This ORDER shall become effective on the date of service thereof.
   The provisions of the ORDER shall remain effective and enforceable except to the extent that, and until such time as, any provision of this ORDER shall have been modified, terminated, suspended, or set aside by the FDIC.
   Pursuant to delegated authority.
   Dated at Washington, D.C., this 3rd day of December, 1999.

ED&O Home | Search Form | Text Search | ED&O Help

Last Updated 6/6/2003 legal@fdic.gov