Evidence Wachovia Knew of and Profited from Theft

This story is so heinous that I couldn’t let it go by. Court filings indicate Wachovia not only permitted telemarketers to steal from individuals, but they were aware of the practice and turned a blind eye because it was profitable to them. And the targets of the fraud were typically elderly.

The suit was filed last spring; Wachovia implemented some anti-fraud measures last summer, after the case was written up in the New York Times, with the usual blandishments about “: “Earning the trust of our customers is at the heart of what we do every day.” Actually, that bit of corporate pablum is true even if the fraud allegations are proven true (likely). The Wachovia customers were stealing from accounts at other banks, yet Wachovia refused to shut them down, despite warnings from other institutions and red-flag levels of bad checks.

Note also that the victims of the fraud had to turn to civll suits because banks accused of participation in this type of fraud have never been prosecuted or publicly fined.

From the New York Times:

Last spring, Wachovia bank was accused in a lawsuit of allowing fraudulent telemarketers to use the bank’s accounts to steal millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. When asked about the suit, bank executives said they had been unaware of the thefts.

But newly released documents from that lawsuit now show that Wachovia had long known about allegations of fraud and that the bank, in fact, solicited business from companies it knew had been accused of telemarketing crimes.

Internal Wachovia e-mail, for example, show that high-ranking employees at the nation’s fourth-largest bank frequently warned colleagues about telemarketing frauds routed through its accounts.

Documents also show that Wachovia was alerted by other banks and federal agencies about ongoing deceptions, but that it continued to provide banking services to multiple companies that helped steal as much as $400 million from unsuspecting victims.

“YIKES!!!!” wrote one Wachovia executive in 2005, warning colleagues that an account used by telemarketers had drawn 4,500 complaints in just two months. “DOUBLE YIKES!!!!” she added. “There is more, but nothing more that I want to put into a note.”

However, Wachovia continued processing fraudulent transactions for that account and others, partly because the bank charged fraud artists a large fee every time a victim spotted a bogus transaction and demanded their money back. One company alone paid Wachovia about $1.5 million over 11 months, according to investigators.

“We are making a ton of money from them,” wrote Linda Pera, a Wachovia executive, in 2005 about a company that was later accused by federal prosecutors of helping steal up to $142 million.

Ms. Pera left Wachovia in 2006, and could not be located.

Lawyers pursuing the lawsuit against Wachovia, which was filed in a Pennsylvania federal court on behalf of a woman named Mary Faloney and other apparent victims, have asked a judge to declare the case a class action, which could expand it to as many as 500,000 plaintiffs.

The lawsuit alleges that Wachovia accepted fraudulent, unsigned checks that withdrew funds from the accounts of victims, often elderly. Wachovia forwarded those checks to other banks that were unaware of the frauds, which in turn sent money to the swindlers.

A judge is expected to rule on the class action request by this summer. Wachovia, in court filings, has denied the suit’s allegations. The company declined to comment on the pending litigation.

However, Wachovia’s senior vice president for risk management, Alan Chudoba, said that the bank introduced reforms aimed at telemarketing frauds last summer. Those changes, which came about after an article in The New York Times last May reported that thieves had used Wachovia accounts, include greater scrutiny of accounts used by telemarketers and stronger fraud protections…

The Pennsylvania suit against Wachovia alleges that the bank’s involvement with telemarketing thefts dates to October 2003, when Wachovia was warned by another bank that a Wachovia client named AmeriNet had tried to process more than $100,000 in improper withdrawals.

AmeriNet was a “payment processor,” a company that creates unsigned checks on behalf of telemarketers to withdraw funds automatically from customer accounts. Such checks, once widely used by businesses collecting monthly fees, are legal if customers approve the transactions.

However, a Wachovia executive wrote to colleagues, evidence suggested AmeriNet was creating unapproved checks.

“Keep in mind historically, telemarketing is an easy way to money launder and commit fraud. To knowingly bank a customer who is perpetrating fraud places the bank at great exposure,” wrote that executive, Tim Brady, according to documents that are part of the lawsuit.

Mr. Brady, who did not return phone calls, recommended closing the AmeriNet account in 2003, according to that e-mail message. But Wachovia continued working with the company until 2005, when AmeriNet paid $50,000 to settle complaints filed by the attorneys general of five states. Wachovia was not named in those complaints.

In late 2003, a Wachovia executive announced to colleagues via e-mail that her unit, because of AmeriNet, had seen “an increase in our annual revenue projection.”

Wachovia declined to comment on those e-mail messages, citing pending litigation.

Wachovia also worked with other payment processors, according to court documents. In 2004, Wachovia held a lunch for the owner of a payment processor that the bank knew had drawn thousands of previous complaints.

“It is important that our relationship is firm and in good standing” with the owner of that company, Your Money Access, wrote the Wachovia executive, Ms. Pera, to colleagues. Your Money Access was sued last year by the Federal Trade Commission and seven states on suspicion of helping to steal up to $69 million.

There were other internal warnings, as well.

In 2005, a Wachovia fraud investigator wrote to colleagues that 79 percent of the checks submitted by one Wachovia client, Suntasia, had been returned in August because of unauthorized withdrawals and other problems. Regulators say return rates in excess of 2.5 percent is evidence of potential fraud.

“I have good reason to believe that all of the deposited items are unauthorized drafts,” wrote the fraud investigator, Bill McCann in a 2005 e-mail message.

But Wachovia continued doing business with Suntasia until last year, when the company was shut down by a court order, according to the lawsuit.

Wachovia declined to comment on Mr. McCann’s e-mail. Mr. McCann declined to return calls.

Moreover, executives at other banks, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citizens Bank, the Social Security Administration and the Justice Department Federal Credit Union also warned Wachovia multiple times that its accounts were being used for fraud, according to the lawsuit against the bank.

In 2006, an executive at Citizens Bank wrote via e-mail that thieves were routing unauthorized checks through Wachovia that stole from Citizens account holders.

“We have spoken to many of our customers who have been victimized by this scam,” wrote the Citizens executive, according to court documents. “We would appreciate it if you would shut down accounts of any customers of yours that may be engaging in improper activity.”

But Wachovia kept that account open until it was frozen by a federal court a few weeks later, as part of a government lawsuit against the client.

A Wachovia spokeswoman said that in every case where a bank complained, an investigation was opened and that some accounts were closed.

But court records show that many of those accounts stayed open for years after the complaints were received.

Last June, after Wachovia’s involvement with telemarketing thefts was reported by The Times, Congressional lawmakers, including Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, asked five regulatory agencies to answer questions regarding the unsigned checking system that fraud artists used. Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, also asked the Senate Banking Committee to investigate the issue.

Many of those agencies responded by saying they lacked jurisdiction. “Clearly, more needs to be done to prevent fraud in this area,” Mr. Markey said in a statement. A spokeswoman for Mr. Harkin said lawmakers were considering hearings.

Other regulators say the banks are to blame.

“These types of crimes only are possible because banks tolerate them,” said the United States attorney in Philadelphia, Patrick L. Meehan, who prosecuted a payment processor accused of using Wachovia accounts to steal more than $100 million.

“Who knows how many other crimes like this are occurring every day without anyone realizing it?” Mr. Meehan said.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Francois

    If Wachovia kept on helping that kind of fraud for years despite warnings from several sources, it is because they did not fear any significant penalty.

    The most repugnant aspect of this whole affair is, they might be right. I’m willing to bet that nobody at Wachovia will be sent to jail or suffer any penalty commensurate to this crime.

    Is this what the expression “free market” is supposed to mean?

    If so, I’ll turn socialist in a heartbeat!

  2. Francois

    Stoneridge ruling did not preclude lawsuit against third parties by the government however.

    In the Wachovia case, the Pennsylvania AG will have a lot of explaining to do if it refuses to sue Wachovia. The kind of explaining that may cost an election.

    That said, I agree that the ruling was a joke. It was handed down by a Supreme Court that itself, has become a joke…a tragic one at that. The contempt these people have for individual’s rights is beyond the pale.

  3. Anonymous

    Re: “Internal Wachovia e-mail, for example, show that high-ranking employees at the nation’s fourth-largest bank frequently warned colleagues about telemarketing frauds routed through its accounts.”

    >> Not to worry, its all about routing and getting these things off the balance sheet and obviously, this was sloppy, because the routing should have been to an off shore entity which could protect these assets and get the added turbocharge of tax evasion; the real crime here was that these upper level managers didnt have the brains to hide the criminal acts. Im not even sure the judge will find criminal intent here and if all goes well, banks will just not leave so much evidence in the future. Getting caught with emails is so Enron-like and we know the DOJ, FTC, SEC, IRS, etc, just dont care, so one has to fix this problem by keeping these types of cases from entering the legal system (in the first place). There has to be a way to front run rules or processes to keep these crackerjack two bit lawyers from tapping into complaints! This would have never happened in Mother Russia and we need to suppress these people that cause trouble for wall street ASAP!!!

  4. Anonymous

    Re: The kind of explaining that may cost an election.

    LOL! We also might need to explain fake election results in about 11 months, but new officials just require new graft. Gosh, just look at the trouble with Mark Foley and all the progress made in getting rid of corruption in DC. Foley represents the fact that explaining corruption is a matter that occurs in the press and that there are no trials and there is no justice to be served. Its a dog and pony show and there is no accountability, unless your one of the little people caught speeding or caught with the wrong ideology.

  5. Anonymous

    Wachovia knowingly Scams its people… even the ones working for them. They are crooks. I hope they go out of buisness!

  6. Anonymous

    Wachovia is only out for the money and will walk the line of deception to make a buck even if on illegal activity.

    From my experience it is one sloppy organization .

Comments are closed.