Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Wells Fargo fires employee for 1972 shoplifting conviction! The banksters can kiss my ass! [View all]slackmaster
(60,567 posts)94. I haven't "sided" with banks or corporations here. I have pointed out repeatedly what the law says.
I expect EVERYONE, including banks, corporations, and individuals, to abide by the law.
This lady worked in customer service answering calls, no money touched her hands, yet people are co-signing the banks decisions?
The law that applies in this situation makes no distinction between positions that involve handling cash and those that do not.
Here it is again. The term "Corporation" refers to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
12 USC § 1829 - Penalty for unauthorized participation by convicted individual
Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Prohibition
(1) In general
Except with the prior written consent of the Corporation
(A) any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, may not
(i) become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any insured depository institution;
(ii) own or control, directly or indirectly, any insured depository institution; or
(iii) otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured depository institution; and
(B) any insured depository institution may not permit any person referred to in subparagraph (A) to engage in any conduct or continue any relationship prohibited under such subparagraph.
(2) Minimum 10-year prohibition period for certain offenses
(A) In general
If the offense referred to in paragraph (1)(A) in connection with any person referred to in such paragraph is
(i) an offense under
(I) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, [1] 1014, 1032, 1344, 1517, 1956, or 1957 of title 18; or
(II) section 1341 or 1343 of such title which affects any financial institution (as defined in section 20 of such title); or
(ii) the offense of conspiring to commit any such offense,
the Corporation may not consent to any exception to the application of paragraph (1) to such person during the 10-year period beginning on the date the conviction or the agreement of the person becomes final.
(B) Exception by order of sentencing court
(i) In general On motion of the Corporation, the court in which the conviction or the agreement of a person referred to in subparagraph (A) has been entered may grant an exception to the application of paragraph (1) to such person if granting the exception is in the interest of justice.
(ii) Period for filing A motion may be filed under clause (i) at any time during the 10-year period described in subparagraph (A) with regard to the person on whose behalf such motion is made.
(b) Penalty
Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 for each day such prohibition is violated or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
102 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Wells Fargo fires employee for 1972 shoplifting conviction! The banksters can kiss my ass! [View all]
Better Believe It
May 2012
OP
Did she lie about her previous conviction when she began her employment with Wells Fargo?...nt
SidDithers
May 2012
#1
I guess lying is only encouraged if you're going straight for an executive position?
villager
May 2012
#5
Have you never been asked "Do you have any prior convictions" when applying for a job?...nt
SidDithers
May 2012
#10
All apps I remember ask about prior convictions...can't recall if they're limited to felonies
Honeycombe8
May 2012
#80
Actually, we don't have the slightest idea, do we? It's all conjecture on Sid's part.
villager
May 2012
#21
No. It's right. It has to do with FDIC. In order for the deposits to be insured
DevonRex
May 2012
#24
Well, don't bring facts into the outrage Sid...she was fired for lying, since the crime itself would
msanthrope
May 2012
#6
While her 40 year old conviction may have fallen under the de minimus exceptions ...
1StrongBlackMan
May 2012
#16
Why would that be a problem with Wells Fargo? Isn't lying part of how you rise to the top
sabrina 1
May 2012
#30
And GET THIS: ""We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing...
CurtEastPoint
May 2012
#2
Actually, they do apply equally. The irony here is that she didn't disclose a crime
msanthrope
May 2012
#14
What outrageous crime did she commit that would prohibit her from handling banking funds?
Better Believe It
May 2012
#44
No--failing to disclose it does. Under FDIC rules, her conviction could have been waived
msanthrope
May 2012
#12
Please don't defend and try to justify the banksters mistreatment of working people.
Better Believe It
May 2012
#19
I just went through a Government security clearance process - there are appeals processes
haele
May 2012
#34
Title 12 USC § 1829 has no statute of limitations. Prior approval of the FDIC would be required...
slackmaster
May 2012
#28
I don't have a problem with FDIC regulations....she would have qualified for waiver, or
msanthrope
May 2012
#8
You would prefer it if Wells Fargo lied to federal regulators about it? Only the FDIC..
slackmaster
May 2012
#31
Yes. "The President has no authority ...." I know. Obama is powerless and has no influence ....
Better Believe It
May 2012
#45
The law is very specific. There is no provision for exceptions to 12 USC § 1829 after the fact.
slackmaster
May 2012
#50
Don't YOU realize that Wells Fargo claiming they must abide by the law, is simply laughable in the
sabrina 1
May 2012
#67
I'm looking forward to Obama taking up a single case. This would be a good one. After all, he
Better Believe It
May 2012
#71
I would have more sympathy for her if her excuse was "I'm sorry, that was so long ago I forgot!"
slackmaster
May 2012
#88
I was not aware of that. If she admitted that it was an intentional avoidance to disclose...
joshcryer
May 2012
#101
Well, they apparently didn't get their money's worth. The crooked CEOs are still collecting millions
sabrina 1
May 2012
#69
I agree. The banksters are having a really tough time now. My thoughts and prayers are with them.
Better Believe It
May 2012
#46
A bank can be fined up to $1 million per day for hiring someone with a theft conviction...
slackmaster
May 2012
#25
You're right. ""Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny" compared to other banks.
Better Believe It
May 2012
#58
There is no provision in 12 USC § 1829 for a bank to seek approval after the fact.
slackmaster
May 2012
#61
Yeah, I'm going to make myself a nice salad for dinner. I have fresh avocados and grapefruit.
slackmaster
May 2012
#64
Do you have any more effective arguments in defense of patriotic Wall Street do-gooder bankers?
Better Believe It
May 2012
#74
I'm sorry, but if this woman was not Hispanic this would have not been an issue....n/t
Jello Biafra
May 2012
#35
If Wells Fargo's issue with her was based on her Hispanic heritage, why did they hire her?
slackmaster
May 2012
#37
Wells Fargo doesn't legally have the option of giving her a pass. Now that they are aware...
slackmaster
May 2012
#40
And how many times have big banks ever been fined for not firing a low level employee ....
Better Believe It
May 2012
#48
Can you provide any evidence that any bank has ever been fined a million bucks or less for that?
Better Believe It
May 2012
#56
I did check. It seems the law has often been enforced against non-profits and other small players.
slackmaster
May 2012
#59
Why would you still be dealing with Wells Fargo? They stole my friends home, illegally.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#68
Thank you. They did not treat my friend well, despite her being a good customer for a long time.
sabrina 1
May 2012
#75
My HELOC was originated at Wells Fargo. Refinincing it at another institution would not be possible,
slackmaster
May 2012
#86
What a slimy and shameful personal attack you have made on this victimized worker at Wells Fargo!
Better Believe It
May 2012
#77
If the "progressive" ideology means letting unrepentant thieves and liars work for banks,
slackmaster
May 2012
#84
Corporations in general stopped treating people as valued assets about 30 years ago
slackmaster
May 2012
#87
I haven't "sided" with banks or corporations here. I have pointed out repeatedly what the law says.
slackmaster
May 2012
#94