Well Fargo Company opened a number of bank accounts without the knowledge of the consumers. The company employees opened many bank accounts for their customers. This was to meet their sales targets and to ensure that the company sales targets were met. In this process, the customers were not aware of the developments that were done to their accounts. This was a highly detailed and intricate fraud that was recently deducted. The company was found to face these consequences in the current times. Wells Fargo has used high-pressure sales tactics from 2010 onwards. This was not taken any action by the regulatory bodies for years. The internal review of the OCC stated that there was no significant follow up by the people. These issues of Well Fargo were found to have originated in 2005. This was basically not disclosed to the public and it remained under wraps within the company from 2005. This practice had followed creating a number of issues for the customers. 700 whistle-blower complaints had been received to notify the government. There was a lack in ethical mandates of the company that had caused the people to act in this way. Only recently has the OCC recommended 9 major changes to the banks to detect and address these scandals (Mims, 2017). The reason for the company to continue in the scandal was owing to the lack of implementation of the rules of the scandal. Lack of transparency, aggressive sales tactics by the people and the lack in accountability of these practices were the reason for the scandal. Added to this, the government did not take enough steps to ensure that these banks were regulated. This had led to the scandal to continue for many years. Similar to this, another bank is facing issues in the Australian markets.
Credit Suisse Equities (Australia) Limited had paid a penalty $170,000 for the infringement notice from Markets Disciplinary Panel (MDP).
The MDP states that the company had contravened 798H (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). It did not comply to the Rule 5.6.1(1) of ASIC Market Integrity Rules. According to this Rule, it requires trading participants in the company to have relevant automated filters for automated order processing (AOP) systems. It was identified that in April 2016, a client of Credit Suisse erroneously entered orders in the options market contracts by using the AOP system resulted in incorrect limit price (Johnson, 2017). Related to this, a number of transactions had taken place these were found to be 96% below extreme trade range. MDP stated that the company could have prevented this issue if it had appropriate filters to meet the demands of the people. However, in this paradigm, it was stated that the company must have adhered to more monitoring to prevent such issues from arising. The company was fined.