Home > Regulation & Examinations > Bank Examinations > FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|||
FDIC Enforcement Decisions and Orders |
|
A bank director was ordered to pay a civil money penalty of $25,000 for receiving extensions of credit for his own benefit or for the benefit of related interests which, in the aggregate, exceeded the legal lending limit. The penalty was assessed on a summary judgment motion after the director failed to defend against the charges.
[.1] Civil Money PenaltySummary JudgmentFailure to Respond
In the Matter of * * * AND
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
These proceedings arise under section 18(j)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (the "Act"), 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(3). On May 8, 1985, the Board of Review of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC"), pursuant to delegated authority, issued a written Notice of Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Order to Pay ("Notice") against * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * * and * * * ("Respondents"), individually and as officers and/or directors of the * * * Bank * * * (the "Bank"), pursuant to section 18(j)(3) of the Act. The Notice charged Respondents with violations of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. § 371c), made to apply to insured State nonmember banks by section 18(j)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(1)); section 22(h) of the Federal Reserve Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. § 375b), and Regulation O of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (12 C.F.R. Part 215) ("Regulation O") as promulgated thereunder and made applicable to insured State nonmember banks by section 18(j)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(2)), and section 337.3(a) of the FDIC's Rules and Regulations (12 C.F.R. § 337.3(a)). The Notice sought civil money penalties against Respondents in the following amounts: $25,000 against * * *; $2,500 each against * * * and * * *; and $1,000 each against * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, * * *, and * * *.
OPINION
The Board of Directors of the FDIC (the "Board") finds the ALJ's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be supported by the evidence in the record. We therefore adopt and incorporate herein by reference the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on pages 3 through 8 of the Recommended Decision. The Board also agrees with the analysis of the law set forth in the ALJ's Recommended Decision. We find that analysis to be supported both by statute and established precedent. The Board, therefore, adopts and incorporates herein by reference the ALJ's discussion of law on pages 3 through 8 of the Recommended Decision.
ORDER TO PAY
After taking into account the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the financial resources and the good faith of Respondent * * *, the gravity of these violations, the history of previous violations, and all of the circumstances, it is:
/s/ Hoyle L. Robinson
ASSESSMENT OF CIVIL MONEY
FDIC-85-133k
RECOMMENDED ORDER GRANTING
[.1] This matter coming on to be heard upon the motion of Petitioner, F.D.I.C., for Summary Judgment, seeking entry of an Order of Summary Judgment in its favor and against Respondent, * * *; all other named Respondent's in the matter having either been dismissed or settled; the undersigned having examined and considered the Notice of Charges, Respondent's answer thereto, Petitioner's motion, brief, and supporting affidavit of * * *, Petitioner's exhibits A-1 to A-30 previously admitted herein, as well as arguments of counsel; and now being fully advised, FINDS as follows:
RECOMMENDED DECISION
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and taking into consideration all the evidence of record herein, it is the decision of the undersigned that Respondent, * * *, has violated Sections 215.4(a), (b) and (c) of Regulation O of the Board of Governor of the Federal Reserve System (12 CFR sections 215.4(a), (b), and (c) respectively) and section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c) as charged and that civil money penalties should be assessed against him pursuant to 18(j)(3) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Considering the appropriateness of the penalty sought in light of the factors cited by Section 18(j)(3)(B) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1828(j)(3)(B)), the undersigned finds the assessed penalty of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to be proper.
SO ORDERED
PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Bank is a corporation existing and doing business under the laws of the State of * * *, having its principal place of business in * * * (Admitted in Answer)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
A. The FDIC has jurisdiction over the Bank, each Respondent and the subject matter of this proceeding.
FINDING OF FACT
4. On May 17, 1983 and May 20, 1983, Respondent possessed a one-third ownership interest in * * * and was president of the corporation. Respondent also signed checks on behalf of the corporation. (* * * p.3; Exhibit A-30, p.6-a)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
B. * * * was a "related interest" of Respondent as that term is defined in section 215.2(k) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.2(k).
FINDINGS OF FACT
5. The Bank extended credit to * * * on May 17, 1983 in the amount of $37,500, and on May 20, 1983 in the amount of $122,500. (Exhibits A-14; A-15)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
C. The extensions of credit made by the Bank to * * * involved more than the normal risk of repayment and presented other unfavorable features in violation of section 215.4(a) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.4(a).
FINDINGS OF FACT
8. The Bank extended credit to * * * in the amount of $91,519 on September 15, 1982 and in the amount of $5,000 on August 24, 1984. (Exhibit A-17)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
D. The guarantee by Respondent * * * of the indebtedness of * * * constitutes an extension of credit to the Respondent pursuant to section 215.3(a)(8) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.3(a)(8).
FINDINGS OF FACT
10. On January 5, 1984, the Bank extended credit to * * *, wife of Respondent, in the amount of $235,000. (Exhibit A-13).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
E. Pursuant to section 215.3(f) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. $215.3(f), the Bank extension of credit to * * * is considered to have been made to the Respondent.
FINDINGS OF FACT
13. Through September 28, 1984, 15 percent of the Bank's unimpaired capital and unimpaired surplus never exceeded $290,550. (* * * p.3; Exhibit A-30, p.6-a-1)
15. From the dates that the above extensions of credit were made through September 28, 1984, no principal was repaid on the extensions of credit. (* * * p.2)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
F. The extensions of credit to the Respondent and his related interests as identified in Proposed Findings of Fact 5, 8, 10 and 14 exceeded the Bank's aggregate lending limits imposed by section 215.2(f) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.2(f), in violation of section 215.4(c) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.4(c).
FINDINGS OF FACT
16. None of the extensions of credit granted to * * *, * * *, * * *, or Respondent were secured by readily marketable collateral having a fair market value as determined by reliable and continuously available price quotations. (* * * p.3)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
G. The Bank extensions of credit to * * * , * * * and * * * were made in violation of section 215.4(b) of Regulation O, 12 C.F.R. § 215.4(b).
FINDING OF FACT
20. * * * is a one-bank holding company owning 100 percent of the outstanding shares of the Bank. The Respondent was, at all times pertinent to these proceedings,
{{4-1-90 p.A-1159}}president of the holding company. (* * * pp. 23; Exhibit A-30, p.6-c)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
H. * * * is and was an "affiliate" of the Bank as defined in section 23A(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. § 371c(b) (1)(A).
FINDINGS OF FACT
21. The Bank extended credit to * * * , son of Respondent, on the following dates and in the following amounts:
The loans were classified substandard in the September 28, 1984 FDIC Report of Examination, (* * * p.2; Exhibit A-30, p.2-a-2)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
I. The aggregate extensions of credit to Respondent, * * *, * * * and * * * which were secured by the shares of * * * exceeded 10 percent of the Bank's unimpaired capital and surplus in violation of section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. § 371c.
FINDING OF FACT
26. Officers of the Bank were informed by the FDIC Examiner on July 27, 1984 that the Bank was engaged in violations of law. The violations were not corrected prior to the examination conducted by the FDIC as of September 28, 1984. (* * * p.4)
CONCLUSION OF LAW
J. The assessment of a civil money penalty against Respondent in the amount of $25,000 is appropriate in consideration of the statutory factors required to be considered by section 18(j)(3)(B) of the Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1828(j)(3)(B).
FINDINGS OF FACT
31. * * * has been a commissioned bank examiner with the FDIC since 1968. He has participated in approximately 500 bank examinations, of which he was the examiner-in-charge for approximately 150. He is presently a field office supervisor in * * * where he manages a staff of 14 assistant examiners and coordinates the examination of 133 state nonmember banks. (* * * p.1)
K. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The conclusions and opinions of * * * in bank regulatory matters are entitled to great weight and deference. (See also, Sunshine State Bank v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 783 F.2d 1580 (1986)).
{{4-1-90 p.A-1160}}
After taking into account the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the financial resources and good faith of * * *, the gravity of the violations, history of previous violations, and such other matters as justice may require, it is:
/s/ Hoyle L. Robinson |
|
Last Updated 6/6/2003 | legal@fdic.gov |