Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
Bank president was not removed despite findings of previous poor lending practices as branch manager of another bank. A number of mitigating factors led the FDIC board away from removal.
[.1] Prohibition, Removal, or SuspensionFDIC Authority
[.2] Prohibition, Removal, or SuspensionDefensesLack of Knowledge
In the Matter of
This is a removal proceeding under section 8(e)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the "Act"), 12 U.S.C. §1818(e)(2), against *** ("Respondent"). The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") issued a Notice of Intention to Remove From Office and/or To Prohibit From Further Participation (the "Notice") on March 7, 1986. Under section 8(e)(2) of the Act the FDIC is empowered to remove an officer from an insured bank for his action at another insured bank. Mr. *** is currently the president of the *** Bank, *** ("***").
Factual Summary
During the period between January, 1983 and October, 1984 in which *** was branch manager of the ***, he was responsible for making or approving approximately 225 mortgage loans to customers of ***. Of those loans, 120 loans were foreclosed by ***, which resulted in a loss of approximately $3.8 million dollars.1
[.1,.2] However, section 8(e) of the Act vests the Board with discretion regarding the imposition of the sanction of removal. 18 U.S.C. §1818(e)(2) and (5). Based upon its careful review of the entirety of the circumstances surrounding this proceeding, this Board has determined, in its discretion, not to order removal of Mr. ***. This conclusion is in no way intended to condone or excuse Respondent ***' prior conduct and actions. In addition, nothing in this Decision should be interpreted as an indication that the FDIC will tolerate poor lending practices which threaten the soundness of financial institutions and, thus, the soundness of the insurance fund. It merely recognizes that the equities of this case make removal too harsh a remedy. Among others, the Board considered the following factors. Respondent was a young, somewhat inexperienced manager. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent had knowledge of or participated in the fraud scheme which surrounded these mortgage loans. There is also no evidence that Respondent personally benefited in any way from the fraud or from the loans he made. Respondent was at a relatively low level in the managerial hierarchy of ***. His lending activity was at least tacitly approved by a supervisor to whom Respondent raised those few concerns which had been expressed to him by subordinates. In addition, because there is no evidence of either personal dishonesty or personal gain by Respondent, the Board, in its discretion, has noted that Respondent has spent almost three (3) years as president of *** without repetition of the kinds of problems experienced at *** or other managerial deficiencies.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth in the Decision, the Board hereby ORDERS that this proceeding be dismissed.
/s/ Hoyle L. Robinson
Recommended Decision
I. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") issued a Notice of Intention to Remove From Office and/or To Prohibit From Further Participation ("Notice of Intention") against the Respondent *** ("Respondent") on March 7, 1986. The Notice was issued under authority of 12 U.S.C. Section 1818(e)(2) which empowers the FDIC to remove an officer from an insured bank for his actions at another insured bank. The FDIC alleges that the Respondent, while branch manager at the *** Bank, *** demonstrated his willful and continuing disregard for the safety and soundness of *** in the making of a number of mortgage loans and as a result of his action, *** suffered substantial financial loss. The FDIC further alleges that the actions of the Respondent at *** evidence his unfitness to continue as the president and to participate in the conduct of the affairs of the *** Bank.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
1. *** (Respondent) was the branch manager of the *** Bank, N.A., *** from January 1, 1983 through October 26, 1984, (Stipulated Fact 1).
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an officer of *** within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. Section 1818(e)(2).
DISCUSSION
A. Burden of Proof in These Proceedings.
V. ORDER
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law and taking into consideration all of the evidence presented at the hearing, the undersigned recommends that an order should be issued removing Respondent *** from his position as president of the *** Bank *** and to prohibit his further participation in the affairs of the bank or any other bank insured by the FDIC.
Kenneth E. Stewart
Date: Sept. 21, 1987
This shall certify that I have this day served copies of the attached Recommended Decision dated Sept. 21, 1987 by mailing copies thereof, and depositing same in the U.S. mail at ***, with proper postage prepaid, to the following. |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |