JudicialPedia Logo
    • What’s In Your Toolbox?
      • ADA Advocate
      • Cash Courts vs. Constitutional Courts
      • Judicial Complaint against a Judge
      • Professional Code of Ethics
      • Resources
      • The Constitution
      • The Grand Jury
    • Browse Cases
    • Support
      • Contact Us
      • Donate
      • Partner
      • Thank You
    Add Case / Complaint
    Sign in or Register
    Add Case / Complaint

    Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations into Sales Practices Involving the Opening of Millions of Accounts without Customer Authorization Verified listing

    • Date
      February 21, 2020
    • City/County
      Washington DC
    • Type of Case
      Settlement in Criminal Matter / Civil Claims - Purchase of Justice - FIRREA and SEC Proceedings
    • Case Details
    • prev
    • next
    • Bookmark
    • Copy link
    • Share
    • Report
    • prev
    • next
    Title

    Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations into Sales Practices Involving the Opening of Millions of Accounts without Customer Authorization

    Case Number

    TBD

    State or Country
    District of Columbia
    Judges

    N/A Settled

    Defendant

    Wells Fargo Bank

    Plaintiff Attorney

    he deferred prosecution agreement was handled by:
    Andrew Murray, U.S. attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.
    Nick Hanna, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California
    the United States Attorney’s Offices in Los Angeles and Charlotte, with investigative support from
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
    the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Office of Inspector General,
    the Federal Housing Finance Agency - Office of Inspector General,
    the Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and
    the United States Postal Inspection Service.

    Others that affected your case

    Department of Justice

    Office of Public Affairs
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Friday, February 21, 2020

    Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations into Sales Practices Involving the Opening of Millions of Accounts without Customer Authorization
    $3 Billion Payment Result of Deferred Prosecution Agreement in Criminal Matter, Settlement of Civil Claims under FIRREA and Resolution of SEC Proceedings
    Wells Fargo & Company and its subsidiary, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., have agreed to pay $3 billion to resolve their potential criminal and civil liability stemming from a practice between 2002 and 2016 of pressuring employees to meet unrealistic sales goals that led thousands of employees to provide millions of accounts or products to customers under false pretenses or without consent, often by creating false records or misusing customers’ identities, the Department of Justice announced today.

    As part of the agreements with the United States Attorney’s Offices for the Central District of California and the Western District of North Carolina, the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Wells Fargo admitted that it collected millions of dollars in fees and interest to which the Company was not entitled, harmed the credit ratings of certain customers, and unlawfully misused customers’ sensitive personal information, including customers’ means of identification.

    “When companies cheat to compete, they harm customers and other competitors,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael D. Granston of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “This settlement holds Wells Fargo accountable for tolerating fraudulent conduct that is remarkable both for its duration and scope, and for its blatant disregard of customer’s private information. The Civil Division will continue to use all available tools to protect the American public from fraud and abuse, including misconduct by or against their financial institutions.”

    “Our settlement with Wells Fargo, and the $3 billion monetary penalty imposed on the bank, go far beyond ‘the cost of doing business.’ They are appropriate given the staggering size, scope and duration of Wells Fargo’s illicit conduct, which spanned well over a decade,” said U.S. Attorney Andrew Murray for the Western District of North Carolina. “When a reputable institution like Wells Fargo caves to the pernicious forces of greed, and puts its own interests ahead of those of the customers it claims to serve, my office will not sit idle. Today’s announcement should serve as a stark reminder that no institution is too big, too powerful, or too well-known to be held accountable and face enforcement action for its wrongdoings.”

    “This case illustrates a complete failure of leadership at multiple levels within the Bank. Simply put, Wells Fargo traded its hard-earned reputation for short-term profits, and harmed untold numbers of customers along the way,” said U.S. Attorney Nick Hanna for the Central District of California. “We are hopeful that this $3 billion penalty, along with the personnel and structural changes at the Bank, will ensure that such conduct will not reoccur.”

    “Our office is committed to bringing to justice those who deliberately falsify and fabricate bank records in order to deceive regulators and the public,” said Inspector General Mark Bialek of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. “I commend our agent and our law enforcement partners for their hard work and persistence that led to today’s announcement.”

    “Today’s multi-billion-dollar penalty holds Wells Fargo accountable for its unlawful sales practices and pressure tactics in which it deceived millions of clients, thus causing substantial hardship for the very individuals who placed their trust in the institution,” said Inspector General Jay N. Lerner Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. “The FDIC Office of Inspector General is committed to working with our law enforcement partners in order to investigate such financial crimes that harm customers and investors, and undermine the integrity of the banking sector.”

    The criminal investigation into false bank records and identity theft is being resolved with a deferred prosecution agreement in which Wells Fargo will not be prosecuted during the three-year term of the agreement if it abides by certain conditions, including continuing to cooperate with further government investigations. Wells Fargo also entered a civil settlement agreement under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) based on Wells Fargo’s creation of false bank records. FIRREA authorizes the federal government to seek civil penalties against financial institutions that violate various predicate criminal offenses, including false bank records. Wells Fargo also agreed to the SEC instituting a cease-and-desist proceeding finding violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The $3 billion payment resolves all three matters, and includes a $500 million civil penalty to be distributed by the SEC to investors.

    The 16-page statement of facts accompanying the deferred prosecution agreement and civil settlement agreement outlines a course of conduct over 15 years at Well Fargo’s Community Bank, which was then the largest operating segment of Wells Fargo, consistently generating more than half of the company’s revenue. The statement of facts outlines top Community Bank leaders’ knowledge of the conduct. As part of the statement of facts, Wells Fargo admitted the following:

    Beginning in 1998, Wells Fargo increased its focus on sales volume and reliance on annual sales growth. A core part of this sales model was the “cross-sell strategy” to sell existing customers additional financial products. It was “the foundation of our business model,” according to Wells Fargo. In its 2012 Vision and Values statement, Wells Fargo stated: “We start with what the customer needs – not with what we want to sell them.”

    But, in contrast to Wells Fargo’s public statements and disclosures about needs-based selling, the Community Bank implemented a volume-based sales model in which employees were directed and pressured to sell large volumes of products to existing customers, often with little regard to actual customer need or expected use. The Community Bank’s onerous sales goals and accompanying management pressure led thousands of its employees to engage in unlawful conduct – including fraud, identity theft and the falsification of bank records – and unethical practices to sell product of no or little value to the customer.

    Many of these practices were referred to within Wells Fargo as “gaming.” Gaming strategies varied widely, but included using existing customers’ identities – without their consent – to open checking and savings, debit card, credit card, bill pay and global remittance accounts. From 2002 to 2016, gaming practices included forging customer signatures to open accounts without authorization, creating PINs to activate unauthorized debit cards, moving money from millions of customer accounts to unauthorized accounts in a practice known internally as “simulated funding,” opening credit cards and bill pay products without authorization, altering customers’ true contact information to prevent customers from learning of unauthorized accounts and prevent Wells Fargo employees from reaching customers to conduct customer satisfaction surveys, and encouraging customers to open accounts they neither wanted or needed.

    The top managers of the Community Bank were aware of the unlawful and unethical gaming practices as early as 2002, and they knew that the conduct was increasing due to onerous sales goals and pressure from management to meet these goals. One internal investigator in 2004 called the problem a “growing plague.” The following year, another internal investigator said the problem was “spiraling out of control.” Even after senior managers in the Community Bank directly called into question the implementation of the cross-sell strategy, Community Bank senior leadership refused to alter the sales model, which contained unrealistic sales goals and a focus on low-quality secondary accounts.

    Despite knowledge of the illegal sales practices, Community Bank senior leadership failed to take sufficient action to prevent and reduce the incidence of such practices. Senior leadership of the Community Bank minimized the problems to Wells Fargo management and its board of directors, by casting the problem as driven by individual misconduct instead of the sales model itself. Community Bank senior leadership viewed negative sales quality and integrity as a necessary byproduct of the increased sales and as merely the cost of doing business.

    * * *

    The government’s decision to enter into the deferred prosecution agreement and civil settlement took into account a number of factors, including Wells Fargo’s extensive cooperation and substantial assistance with the government’s investigations; Wells Fargo’s admission of wrongdoing; its continued cooperation in the investigations; its prior settlements in a series of regulatory and civil actions; and remedial actions, including significant changes in Wells Fargo’s management and its board of directors, an enhanced compliance program, and significant work to identify and compensate customers who may have been victims. The deferred prosecution agreement will be in effect for three years.

    The global settlement also reflects coordination between the Department of Justice and the SEC to ensure a resolution that appropriately addresses the severity of the defendants’ conduct while avoiding the imposition of fines and penalties that are unnecessarily duplicative.

    The deferred prosecution agreement was handled by the United States Attorney’s Offices in Los Angeles and Charlotte, with investigative support from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - Office of Inspector General, the Federal Housing Finance Agency - Office of Inspector General, the Office of Inspector General for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the United States Postal Inspection Service.

    The civil settlement agreement was the result of a coordinated effort between the Civil Division’s Commercial Litigation Branch and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

    Social Networks
    • Other
    • Website
    • Other
    • Other
    • Website
    • Other
    Document Links 1 (Scribd et. al)

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1251346/download

    Document Link 2

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1251331/download

    Document Link 3

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/press-release/file/1251336/download

    Date
    February 21, 2020
    Type of Case
    Settlement in Criminal Matter / Civil Claims - Purchase of Justice - FIRREA and SEC Proceedings
    The Court the Case was filed in

    Department of Justice

    County/City:
    Washington DC
    Plaintiff

    United States of America

    Defendant Attorney

    David J. Rice Christopher M. Viapiano
    Assistant General Counsel Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
    Legal Department 1700 New York Avenue, N.W.
    Wells Fargo & Company Suite 700
    One Wells Fargo Center Washington D.C., 20006
    301 South College Street, 30th Floor viapianoc@sullcrom.com
    Charlotte, NC 28202-6000
    david.j.rice@wellsfargo.com

    Comments

    EXHIBIT A—STATEMENT OF FACTS

    Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“WFB”) and Wells Fargo & Company (“WFC”) (collectively
    referred to hereinafter as “Wells Fargo” or “the Company”) admit, accept, and acknowledge as
    true the following facts:

    Background on Wells Fargo and the Community Bank
    At all relevant times, except when specific times are described below:
    1. WFC was a publicly traded financial services corporation headquartered in San
    Francisco, California, and organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. WFC’s common
    stock was registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act and quoted on the New York
    Stock Exchange (Ticker: WFC).
    2. WFC owned various subsidiaries through which it operated various lines of
    businesses, including the wholly owned subsidiary WFB. WFB was a national bank and financial
    institution under 31 U.S.C. § 5312, and its customers’ deposits were insured by the Federal
    Deposit Insurance Corporation.
    3. WFC provided retail, commercial, and corporate banking services through three
    operating segments for management reporting purposes: the Community Bank, Wholesale
    Banking, and Wealth and Investment Management. WFC offered, through WFB and its other
    subsidiaries, a diverse array of financial services and products to both individuals and businesses.
    4. Wells Fargo’s largest business unit was the Community Bank, which contributed
    more than half (and in some years more than two-thirds) of the Company’s revenue from 2007
    through 2016. The Community Bank was responsible for managing many of the everyday
    banking products targeted to individuals and small businesses, including checking and savings
    accounts, certificates of deposit, debit cards, bill pay, and global remittance products. The
    A-2
    Community Bank also made referrals to other units in WFC regarding mortgages, lines of credit,
    credit cards, investment products (including brokerage products), insurance products, safe
    deposit boxes and a variety of other banking products. All of the accounts, products, and services
    referred to in this paragraph are hereinafter referred to collectively as “accounts and financial
    products.” Product groups within the Community Bank designed and managed some of these
    accounts and financial products, and others were designed and managed by other parts of the
    Community Bank.
    5. Accounts and financial products throughout Wells Fargo were offered to
    consumers within a large network of branches, referred to within Wells Fargo as “stores,” as well
    as other channels. Employees and officers of the Community Bank referred to accounts and
    financial products as “solutions” to be “sold” to customers. The Community Bank managed the
    U.S. branches. The branches employed various types of employees, including tellers, who
    processed basic transactions and made referrals to bankers for account openings or complex
    transactions, and bankers, who were generally responsible for offering accounts and financial
    products to customers. Branch managers reported to other managers, and all ultimately reported
    up to senior regional executives, called Regional Bank Executives (“RBEs”). The RBEs
    generally reported directly to the head of the Community Bank.
    6. From 2007 to 2016, Executive A was the senior executive vice president in charge
    of the Community Bank. In that position, Executive A reported directly to the CEO of Wells
    Fargo. From 2002 to 2007, Executive A was head of regional banking, which included the retail
    segment, small business, and business banking.
    A-3
    The Cross-Sell Model
    7. Beginning in 1998, Wells Fargo increased its focus on sales volume and reliance
    on year-over-year sales growth. A core part of this sales model was the “cross-sell strategy.” As
    described externally, the cross-sell strategy called for Wells Fargo to meet all of its customers’
    financial needs by focusing on selling to its existing customers additional financial products that
    those customers wanted, needed, and would use. Wells Fargo represented to investors that its
    ability to execute successfully on its cross-selling strategy provided the Company with a
    competitive advantage, caused an increase in revenue, and allowed it to better serve its
    customers.
    8. Wells Fargo characterized its cross-selling strategy to investors as a key
    component of its financial success and routinely discussed its efforts to achieve cross-sell
    growth. Wells Fargo described cross-selling as its “primary strategy” to achieve its “vision . . . to
    increase the number of our products our customers utilize and to offer them all of the financial
    products that fulfill their needs.” Wells Fargo stated that cross-selling was the “cornerstone of
    [its] business model and key to [its] ability to grow revenue and earnings.” It was “the
    foundation of our business model.”
    9. Wells Fargo publicly stated on numerous occasions that its sales strategy was
    “needs-based.” In other words, Wells Fargo claimed that its strategy was to sell customers the
    accounts that they needed. In its 2012 Vision and Values statement Wells Fargo stated: “We do
    not view any product in isolation, but as part of a full and long-lasting relationship with a
    customer and with that customer’s total financial needs. We start with what the customer
    needs—not with what we want to sell them.” Its subsequent Vision and Values statement,
    published in 2015, contained similar language. In its 2015 Annual Report, Wells Fargo stated
    A-4
    that “[o]ur approach to cross-sell is needs-based as some customers will benefit from more
    products, and some may need fewer.” The Company’s 2012 through 2016 Annual Reports
    explicitly referred to these Vision & Values statements.
    10. At Wells Fargo’s May 2010 Investor Day conference, Executive A stated that
    “Our cross-sell focus starts with customer needs.” Similarly, during a March 2016 meeting with
    an analyst, Executive A stated that Wells Fargo “only cross sell[s] products which customers
    value and will use.” At Wells Fargo’s 2016 Investor Day conference, Executive A stated: “[A]s
    we think about products per household or cross-sell, the first thing we anchor ourselves on is our
    vision of satisfying our customers’ needs.”
    The Cross-Sell Metric
    11. From at least 2000 until the third quarter of 2016, Wells Fargo published a
    Community Bank “cross-sell metric” in its Annual Reports and SEC Forms 10-Q, 10-K, and 8-K
    that purported to be the ratio of the number of accounts and products per retail bank household.
    During investor presentations and analyst conferences, Well Fargo referred to the Community
    Bank’s cross-sell metric, which continued to increase over time until it flattened in Q2 2014 and
    then decreased in Q3 2014, as proof of its success at executing on this core business strategy.
    Wells Fargo touted to investors the consistent growth of the cross-sell metric over time as
    demonstrative of its success at executing on its cross-selling strategy.
    12. Because of the centrality of the cross-sell metric to Wells Fargo’s investor
    narrative, Company executives, including Executive A, were focused on maintaining cross-sell
    growth from at least 2007 through 2016. The compensation of certain Company executives,
    including Executive A, was impacted by cross-sell growth.
    A-5
    Implementation of Cross-Sell at the Community Bank
    13. In contrast to the Company’s public statements and disclosures about needs-based
    selling, Executive A implemented a volume-based sales model in which employees were
    directed, pressured, and/or caused to sell large volumes of products to existing customers, often
    with little regard to actual customer need or expected use. From at least as early as 2002 to
    approximately 2013, Community Bank leadership, including Executive A, directly and/or
    indirectly encouraged, caused, and approved sales plans that called for aggressive annual growth
    in a number of basic banking products, such as checking and savings accounts, debit cards, credit
    cards, and bill pay accounts.
    14. By approximately 2010, in light of existing product penetration, shifting demand,
    macroeconomic conditions, and regulatory developments that made certain products—such as
    checking accounts—less profitable, the sales plans were regarded in various parts of the
    Community Bank as far too high to be met by selling products that customers actually wanted,
    needed, or would use. Nevertheless, the number of products sold continued to be a significant
    criterion by which the performance of employees, ranging from tellers and bankers to RBEs, was
    evaluated. Throughout the Community Bank, managers responded to the increasing difficulty of
    growing sales by exerting extreme pressure on subordinates to achieve sales goals, including
    explicitly directing and/or implicitly encouraging employees to engage in various forms of
    unlawful and unethical conduct to meet increasing sales goals. Many employees believed that a
    failure to meet their sales goal would result in poor job evaluations, disciplinary action, and/or
    termination. Though there had been evidence of employees struggling to ethically meet sales
    goals as early as 2002, the problem became significantly more acute beginning in 2010 as the
    A-6
    sales plans diverged further from market opportunity and managers responded by increasing
    pressure on employees to sell products that customers did not want or need and would not use.
    Unlawful and Unethical Misconduct by the Community Bank to Generate Sales
    15. The Community Bank’s onerous sales goals and accompanying management
    pressure led thousands of its employees to engage in: (1) unlawful conduct to attain sales through
    fraud, identity theft, and the falsification of bank records, and (2) unethical practices to sell
    products of no or low value to the customer, while believing that the customer did not actually
    need the account and was not going to use the account.
    16. Collectively, many of these practices were referred to within Wells Fargo as
    “gaming.” “Gaming” was a term generally known at the Company and referred to employees’
    manipulation and/or misrepresentation of sales to meet sales goals, receive incentive
    compensation and/or avoid negative consequences, such as reprimands or termination. Gaming
    strategies varied widely, and included using existing customers’ identities—without the
    customers’ consent—to open checking and savings, debit card, credit card, bill pay, and global
    remittance accounts. Many widespread forms of gaming constituted violations of federal
    criminal law. The following are examples of gaming practices engaged in by Wells Fargo
    employees during the period from 2002 to 2016:
    a. Employees created false records and forged customers’ signatures on
    account opening documents to open accounts that were not authorized by customers.
    b. After opening debit cards using customers’ personal information without
    consent, employees falsely created a personal identification number (“PIN”) to activate
    the unauthorized debit card. Employees often did so because the Community Bank
    A-7
    rewarded them for opening online banking profiles, which required a debit card PIN to be
    activated.
    c. In a practice known as “simulated funding,” employees created false
    records by opening unauthorized checking and savings accounts to hit sales goals. They
    then transferred funds to the unauthorized account to meet the funding criteria required to
    receive credit for “selling” the new account. To achieve this “simulated funding,”
    employees often moved funds from existing accounts of the customers without their
    consent. Millions of accounts reflected transfers of funds between two accounts that were
    equal in amount to the product-specific minimum amount for opening the later account
    and that thereafter had no further activity on the later account; many of these accounts
    were subject to simulated funding. In many other instances, employees used their own
    funds or other methods to simulate actual funding of accounts that they had opened
    without customer consent.
    d. Employees opened unauthorized consumer and business credit card
    accounts without customer authorization by submitting applications for credit cards in
    customers’ names using customers’ personal information.
    e. Employees opened bill pay products without customer authorization;
    employees also encouraged customers to make test or “token” payments from their bill
    pay accounts to obtain employee sales credit (which was only awarded for bill pay
    accounts that had made a payment).
    f. Employees at times altered the customer phone numbers, email addresses,
    or physical addresses on account opening documents. In some instances, employees did
    so to prevent the customers from finding out about unauthorized accounts, including to
    A-8
    prevent customers from being contacted by the Company in customer satisfaction
    surveys. Millions of non-Wells Fargo-employee customer accounts reflected a Wells
    Fargo email address as the customer’s email address, contained a generic and incorrect
    customer phone number, or were linked to a Wells Fargo branch or Wells Fargo
    employee’s home address.
    17. Employees also intentionally persuaded customers to open accounts and financial
    products that the customers authorized but which the employees knew the customers did not
    actually want, need, or intend to use. There were many ways in which employees convinced
    customers to open these unnecessary accounts, including by opening accounts for friends and
    family members who did not want them and by encouraging customers to open unnecessary,
    duplicate checking or savings accounts or credit or debit cards. Millions of secondary accounts
    and products were opened from 2002 to 2016, and many of these were never used by customers.
    18. Gaming conduct and the practice of pushing unnecessary accounts on customers
    began in at least 2002 and became widespread over time, lasting through 2016, when the
    Community Bank eliminated product sales goals for its employees.
    Community Bank Senior Leadership Knew the Unlawful and Unethical Misconduct was
    Widespread and that Sales Goals and Pressure Were the Root Cause
    19. Beginning as early as 2002, when a group of employees was fired from a branch
    in Fort Collins, Colorado, for sales gaming, Community Bank senior leadership became aware
    that employees were engaged in unlawful and unethical sales practices, that gaming conduct was
    increasing over time, and that these practices were the result of onerous sales goals and
    management pressure to meet those sales goals.
    20. That information was reported to Community Bank senior leadership, including
    Executive A, by multiple channels. Those channels included Wells Fargo’s internal
    A-9
    investigations unit, the Community Bank’s own internal sales quality oversight unit, and
    managers leading the Community Bank’s geographic regions, as well as regular complaints by
    lower-level employees and Wells Fargo customers reporting serious sales practices violations.
    For example, in a 2004 email, an internal investigations manager described his efforts to convey
    his concerns about increasing sales practices problems to Community Bank senior leadership: “I
    just want [Executive A] to be constantly aware of this growing plague.” In 2005, a corporate
    investigations manager described the problem as “spiraling out of control.” This reporting
    continued through 2016, and generally emphasized increases in various forms of sales practices
    misconduct.
    21. By 2012, certain of the RBEs and their direct reports, Regional Presidents, were
    regularly raising objections to Executive A and certain individuals reporting to Executive A
    about the sales plans. These objections included objections regarding the levels at which the
    plans were set, the types and categories of products for which they incented sales, the
    accompanying pressure, the resulting no- or low-value accounts, and unlawful and unethical
    sales practices at the Community Bank. As of 2012, complaints about the sales goals were
    regularly escalated to Executive A. These complaints specifically articulated that the sales goals
    were too high and incented Community Bank employees to sell a significant number of lowquality or valueless duplicate products, sometimes through misconduct. Similar complaints
    continued to be made until 2016.
    22. Certain of the RBEs and those who reported directly to them pushed Executive A
    to shift to a model based on true needs-based selling, instead of volume-based selling with less
    regard for customer need or account quality. In some cases, Executive A’s senior staff also
    questioned the sales model’s focus on low-quality secondary accounts. For example, in
    A-10
    November 2013, a member of the senior staff wrote, “I really question the value of adding
    growth to secondary checking in regions that have very high rates to begin with. Based on what
    we know about the quality of those accounts it seems like we would want to keep their secondary
    DDA flat or down . . . .” A year earlier, another senior staff member suggested eliminating any
    incentive payments tied to accounts that never funded, debit cards that were never used, and
    more than one demand deposit account per customer per day. Nevertheless, Executive A was
    unwilling to fundamentally alter the sales model.
    23. Certain Community Bank senior executives believed that some of the
    unwillingness to change the sales model was tied to Executive A’s focus on the cross-sell metric.
    For example, in an October 2012 email chain with the head of the deposit products group — the
    group responsible for the most significant products supervised by the Community Bank,
    including checking accounts, savings accounts, and debit cards—the Community Bank’s group
    risk officer wondered why Executive A was “putting together a plan that we know isn’t
    attainable.” The head of the deposit products group responded that Executive A was “backed up
    against the wall due to the cross-sell metric.”
    Community Bank Senior Leadership Exacerbated the Sales Practices
    Problem and Concealed Material Facts
    24. Even though Community Bank employees often did not meet the sales goals—or
    met them by selling products and accounts customers neither wanted nor needed—Community
    Bank senior leadership increased the sales plans nearly every year through 2013. Pressure to
    meet those ever-increasing plans also increased during this time period. Even after 2012, when
    Wells Fargo began regularly retroactively lowering goals during the sales year in recognition that
    the goals were unachievable, employees still largely missed the lowered goals, an indication that
    they continued to be too high.
    A-11
    25. Despite knowledge of the widespread sales practices problems, including the
    pervasive illegal and unethical conduct tied to the sales goals, Community Bank senior
    leadership failed to take sufficient action to prevent and reduce the incidence of unlawful and
    unethical sales practices.
    26. Executive A also contributed to the problem by promoting and holding out as
    models of success managers who tolerated and encouraged sales integrity violations.
    27. Certain Community Bank leaders also impeded scrutiny of sales practices by
    Wells Fargo’s primary regulator, the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (“OCC”). During
    OCC examinations in February and May 2015, the OCC was given information that minimized
    the amount of sales pressure within the Community Bank and the size and scope of Wells
    Fargo’s sales practices problem.
    28. On numerous occasions, Community Bank senior leadership, including Executive
    A, also made statements and gave assurances to the Company’s management and Board of
    Directors that minimized the scope of the sales practices problem and led key gatekeepers to
    believe the root cause of the issue was individual misconduct rather than the sales model itself.
    Until approximately 2015, Community Bank senior leadership viewed negative sales quality and
    integrity as a necessary byproduct of the increased sales and as merely the cost of doing
    business. They nonetheless failed to advise key gatekeepers of the significant risks that the nonneeds-based selling posed to the Company.
    29. Notwithstanding the substantial effect the unused and unauthorized products had
    on inflating the cross-sell metric, Executive A continued to tout the cross-sell metric as one of
    the Company’s competitive advantages in its public statements to investors. By failing to
    disclose the extent to which the cross-sell metric was inflated by low-quality accounts, Executive
    A-12
    A sought not only to induce investors’ continued reliance on the metric but also to avoid
    confronting the risk of reputational damage that might arise—and eventually did arise—from
    public disclosure of the severity and extent of sales quality problems.
    Scope of the Unlawful and Unethical Misconduct
    30. Between 2011 and 2016, tens of thousands of employees were the subject of
    allegations of unethical sales practices. During this period, the Company referred more than
    23,000 employees for sales practices investigation and terminated over 5,300 employees for
    customer-facing sales ethics violations, including, in many cases, for falsifying bank records.
    Thousands of additional employees received disciplinary action short of termination or resigned
    prior to the conclusion of the Company’s investigations into their sales practices.
    31. Almost all of the terminations and resignations were of Community Bank
    employees at the branch level, rather than managers outside of the branches or senior leadership
    within the Community Bank.
    32. From 2002 to 2016, Wells Fargo opened millions of accounts or financial
    products that were unauthorized or fraudulent. During that same time period, Wells Fargo
    employees also opened significant numbers of additional unneeded, unwanted, or otherwise lowvalue products that were not consistent with Wells Fargo’s purported needs-based selling model.
    Wells Fargo collected millions of dollars in fees and interest to which the Company was not
    entitled, harmed the credit ratings of certain customers, and unlawfully misused customers’
    sensitive personal information (including customers’ means of identification). In general, the
    unauthorized, fraudulent, unneeded, and unwanted accounts were created as a result of the
    Community Bank’s systemic sales pressure and excessive sales goals.
    A-13
    Impact of Sales Practices Misconduct on Cross-Sell Disclosures
    33. Accounts and financial products opened without customer consent or pursuant to
    gaming practices were included by the Company in the Community Bank cross-sell metric until
    such accounts were eventually closed for lack of use. When Community Bank senior leadership
    set employee sales goals at a level to achieve year-over-year sales growth, it rarely took into
    consideration that the base level of sales included accounts or financial products resulting from
    unlawful misconduct or gaming. This had the effect of imposing additional pressure on
    employees to continue gaming practices.
    34. Like the accounts and financial products lacking customer consent, accounts and
    financial products that were never or seldom used by customers were also included by the
    Company in the Community Bank cross-sell metric until such accounts were eventually closed
    for lack of use, at which time those accounts were removed from the cross-sell metric. In some
    cases (like checking or savings accounts), the unused accounts were closed relatively quickly
    (usually within 90 days if unfunded), but in other cases (like debit cards, the largest product
    category included in the cross-sell metric, or bill pay, another large contributor to cross-sell), the
    unused accounts remained open without activity for up to four years.
    35. From 2012 to 2016, Wells Fargo failed to disclose to investors that the
    Community Bank’s sales model had caused widespread unlawful and unethical sales practices
    misconduct that was at odds with its investor disclosures regarding needs-based selling and that
    the publicly reported cross-sell metric included significant numbers of unused or unauthorized
    accounts. Certain Community Bank senior executives who reviewed or approved the disclosures
    knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that these disclosures were misleading or incomplete.
    A-14
    36. At the end of 2012, the Community Bank decided to add existing global
    remittance accounts to the calculation of the cross-sell metric over the course of 2013. It did so
    by excluding inactive global remittance accounts, in a manner inconsistent with prior practice. It
    was never disclosed to investors that the product was added to the metric. By the end of 2013,
    the cross-sell metric had grown by .11 since the prior year. However, .04 of that growth resulted
    from the addition of global remittance, and the remaining growth was attributable to an increase
    in accounts and financial products that had been inactive for at least 365 days. Nonetheless,
    WFC’s FY 2013 Form 10-K, filed February 2014, touted that the Community Bank had achieved
    record cross-sell over the prior year.
    37. Nonetheless, despite the addition of a new product, by late 2013 and early 2014,
    quarter-over-quarter growth in the cross-sell metric had flattened, significantly because of a
    slowdown in sales growth as a result of, among other things, the Community Bank’s belated
    efforts to impose increased controls to curb misconduct resulting from aggressive sales goals. At
    a May 2014 Investor Day conference, Executive A responded to a question about what was
    causing the cross-sell growth to slow with a misleading answer. Instead of truthfully answering
    what she knew at the time—that a significant portion of the decline in cross-sell growth was a
    result of declining sales growth, in part caused by the efforts to address historical sales
    misconduct—she misleadingly described the cross-sell trend as not “bad news” and offered three
    innocuous or positive trends that could impact cross-sell growth over time, two of which she had
    no evidence were meaningfully affecting cross-sell growth in 2014. Providing a complete answer
    to investors would have required Executive A to acknowledge the sales practices misconduct that
    Executive A had failed to disclose in the past as well as Wells Fargo’s growing struggles to grow
    its retail bank sales as it had historically.
    A-15
    38. Executive A was again asked about the decline in cross-sell at the May 2016
    Investor Day. An analyst noted that the decline was “a bit of a change for [the Community
    Bank]” and asked whether it was “an inevitable saturation” or a reflection of “a need for new
    products.” Executive A acknowledged that there had been “headwinds,” but attributed the
    decline to strong checking account growth (which is generally a first product and therefore
    would have potentially diluted the ratio by bringing on new customers who start out with fewer
    products) and “the interest rate environment” causing “some products [to not be] particularly
    appealing to our customers right now.” However, by failing to acknowledge that declining
    product sales, improving sales quality, and the roll-off of low quality accounts was a significant
    cause of cross-sell decline, Executive A’s response was again incomplete and misleading.
    39. Moreover, in a January 12, 2015, response to an SEC Comment Letter that asked
    how the cross-sell metric was calculated and in its 2014 and 2015 Annual Reports, Wells Fargo
    characterized the cross-sell metric as a ratio of “products used by customers in retail banking
    households.” Prior to and after that time, the metric was described as “products per household,”
    “products per retail bank household,” or “the average number of products sold to existing
    customers.”
    40. Community Bank executives, including Executive A, knew that the metric
    included many products that were not used by customers. Wells Fargo’s inclusion of the word
    “used” to describe the accounts was therefore misleading.
    41. Several months after changing its disclosure that described how the cross-sell
    metric was calculated to characterize the metric as “products used,” Community Bank senior
    leadership began to develop an alternative metric to capture products that had been used. The
    Community Bank referred to this metric internally as “active cross-sell.” In developing the active
    A-16
    cross-sell metric, Community Bank senior leadership recognized that as many as ten percent of
    accounts included in the cross-sell metric had not been used within the previous 12 months. The
    Community Bank considered releasing this alternative metric to investors, but never did so, in
    part because of concerns raised by Executive A and others that its release would cause investors
    to ask questions about Wells Fargo’s historical sales practices.
    42. Following the Company’s announcement of the September 2016 settlements with
    the OCC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the City of Los Angeles that confirmed
    publicly for the first time the scale of the sales practices misconduct within the Community
    Bank, as well as the widespread media and political criticism of the Company that resulted,
    Wells Fargo’s stock experienced three significant stock drops that translated into an
    approximately $7.8 billion decrease in market capitalization.

    You May Also Be Interested In

    JW Grenadier v. Leon Cooperman, Glenn Messina, OCWEN, Judge Lawyer Donald R. Alexander Verified listing

    • In the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit Leon County, Florida
    • 2024-CA-00634
    • Rico Racketeering, Constitutional Rights, Foreclosure Fraud
    • Judge Angela C. Dempsey

    Virginia Judiciary Treason "OK" with JIRC Verified listing

    • JIRC Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission For Acts & Actions of SCV Chief Justices Bernard Goodwyn, Donald Lemons, Cynthia Kinser "Fixer" Judges in Richmond, City of Alexandria, Fairfax, Orange, Culpeper & Virginia Beach Virginia
    • Divorce, Constitutional, Civil Rights, "Fake" illegal Foreclosure, unlawful arrest & assaualt by a Sheriff,
    • Chief Justice Bernard Goodwyn, Chief Justice Donald Lemmons Chief Justice Cynthia Kinser

    SCOTUS Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition for Investigation into USDC of District of Columbia for Political & Religions BIAS by Judges et al Verified listing

    • The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
    • No. 23-7758
    • Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition for Investigation of Political & Religious bias of the Judges
    • John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, ... Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, ... Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, ... Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, ... Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, ... Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, ... Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, New York, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children - Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–1980, and as a law clerk for then-Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 Term. He served as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States from 1981–1982, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel’s Office from 1982–1986, and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989–1993. From 1986–1989 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, D.C. He served as a Judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2003–2005. Nominated as Chief Justice of the United States by President George W. Bush, he assumed that office on September 29, 2005. Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice, was born in the Pinpoint community near Savannah, Georgia on June 23, 1948. He attended Conception Seminary from 1967-1968 and received an A.B., cum laude, from College of the Holy Cross in 1971 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1974. He was admitted to law practice in Missouri in 1974, and served as an Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977; an attorney with the Monsanto Company, 1977-1979; and Legislative Assistant to Senator John Danforth, 1979-1981. From 1981–1982 he served as Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, and as Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982-1990. From 1990–1991, he served as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and he took his seat October 23, 1991. He married Virginia Lamp on May 30, 1987 and has one child, Jamal Adeen by a previous marriage. Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, New Jersey, on April 1, 1950. He married Martha-Ann Bomgardner in 1985, and has two children - Philip and Laura. He served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981, as Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981–1985, as Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985–1987, and as U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006. Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice, was born in Bronx, New York, on June 25, 1954. She earned a B.A. in 1976 from Princeton University, graduating summa cum laude and a member of Phi Beta Kappa and receiving the Pyne Prize, the highest academic honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. In 1979, she earned a J.D. from Yale Law School where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal. She served as Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office from 1979–1984. She then litigated international commercial matters in New York City at Pavia & Harcourt, where she served as an associate and then partner from 1984–1992. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush nominated her to the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, and she served in that role from 1992–1998. In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where she served from 1998–2009. President Barack Obama nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 26, 2009, and she assumed this role August 8, 2009. Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice, was born in New York, New York, on April 28, 1960. She received an A.B. from Princeton in 1981, an M. Phil. from Oxford in 1983, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1986. She clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986-1987 and for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1987 Term. After briefly practicing law at a Washington, D.C. law firm, she became a law professor, first at the University of Chicago Law School and later at Harvard Law School. She also served for four years in the Clinton Administration, as Associate Counsel to the President and then as Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy. Between 2003 and 2009, she served as the Dean of Harvard Law School. In 2009, President Obama nominated her as the Solicitor General of the United States. A year later, the President nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on May 10, 2010. She took her seat on August 7, 2010. Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice, was born in Denver, Colorado, August 29, 1967. He and his wife Louise have two daughters. He received a B.A. from Columbia University, a J.D. from Harvard Law School, and a D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served as a law clerk to Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and as a law clerk to Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States. From 1995–2005, he was in private practice, and from 2005–2006 he was Principal Deputy Associate Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in 2006. He served on the Standing Committee on Rules for Practice and Procedure of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure. He taught at the University of Colorado Law School. President Donald J. Trump nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on April 10, 2017. Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice, was born in Washington, D.C., on February 12, 1965. He married Ashley Estes in 2004, and they have two daughters - Margaret and Liza. He received a B.A. from Yale College in 1987 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990. He served as a law clerk for Judge Walter Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1990-1991, for Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1991-1992, and for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during the 1993 Term. In 1992-1993, he was an attorney in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. From 1994 to 1997 and for a period in 1998, he was Associate Counsel in the Office of Independent Counsel. He was a partner at a Washington, D.C., law firm from 1997 to 1998 and again from 1999 to 2001. From 2001 to 2003, he was Associate Counsel and then Senior Associate Counsel to President George W. Bush. From 2003 to 2006, he was Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary for President Bush. He was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2006. President Donald J. Trump nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat on October 6, 2018. Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice, was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 28, 1972. She married Jesse M. Barrett in 1999, and they have seven children - Emma, Vivian, Tess, John Peter, Liam, Juliet, and Benjamin. She received a B.A. from Rhodes College in 1994 and a J.D. from Notre Dame Law School in 1997. She served as a law clerk for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and for Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1998 Term. After two years in private law practice in Washington, D.C., she became a law professor, joining the faculty of Notre Dame Law School in 2002. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in 2017. President Donald J. Trump nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and she took her seat on October 27, 2020. Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice, was born in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 1970. She married Patrick Jackson in 1996, and they have two daughters. She received an A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard-Radcliffe College in 1992, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996. She served as a law clerk for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts from 1996 to 1997, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1999 Term. After three years in private practice, she worked as an attorney at the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2003 to 2005. From 2005 to 2007, she served as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C., and from 2007 to 2010, she was in private practice. She served as a Vice Chair and Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014. In 2012, President Barack Obama nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served from 2013 to 2021. She was appointed to the Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States in 2017, and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission in 2019. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., appointed her to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021 and then nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2022. She took her seat on June 30, 2022. Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in Sacramento, California, July 23, 1936. He married Mary Davis and has three children. He received his B.A. from Stanford University and the London School of Economics, and his LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He was in private practice in San Francisco, California from 1961–1963, as well as in Sacramento, California from 1963–1975. From 1965 to 1988, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific. He has served in numerous positions during his career, including a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961, the board of the Federal Judicial Center from 1987–1988, and two committees of the Judicial Conference of the United States: the Advisory Panel on Financial Disclosure Reports and Judicial Activities, subsequently renamed the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct, from 1979–1987, and the Committee on Pacific Territories from 1979–1990, which he chaired from 1982–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1975. President Reagan nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat February 18, 1988. Justice Kennedy retired from the Supreme Court on July 31, 2018. David Hackett Souter, Associate Justice David H. Souter (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in Melrose, Massachusetts, September 17, 1939. He graduated from Harvard College, from which he received his A.B. After two years as a Rhodes Scholar at Magdalen College, Oxford, he received an A.B. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University and an M.A. in 1963. After receiving an LL.B. from Harvard Law School, he was an associate at Orr and Reno in Concord, New Hampshire from 1966 to 1968, when he became an Assistant Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1971, he became Deputy Attorney General and in 1976, Attorney General of New Hampshire. In 1978, he was named an Associate Justice of the Superior Court of New Hampshire, and was appointed to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire as an Associate Justice in 1983. He became a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on May 25, 1990. President Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat October 9, 1990. Justice Souter retired from the Supreme Court on June 29, 2009. Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer (Retired), Associate Justice, was born in San Francisco, California, August 15, 1938. He married Joanna Hare in 1967, and has three children - Chloe, Nell, and Michael. He received an A.B. from Stanford University, a B.A. from Magdalen College, Oxford, and an LL.B. from Harvard Law School. He served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur Goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1964 Term, as a Special Assistant to the Assistant U.S. Attorney General for Antitrust, 1965–1967, as an Assistant Special Prosecutor of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973, as Special Counsel of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1974–1975, and as Chief Counsel of the committee, 1979–1980. He was an Assistant Professor, Professor of Law, and Lecturer at Harvard Law School, 1967–1994, a Professor at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980, and a Visiting Professor at the College of Law, Sydney, Australia and at the University of Rome. From 1980–1990, he served as a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, and as its Chief Judge, 1990–1994. He also served as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 1990–1994, and of the United States Sentencing Commission, 1985–1989. President Clinton nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat August 3, 1994. Justice Breyer retired from the Supreme Court on June 30, 2022
    Liberty Bell

    The Liberty Bell reads:

    "Proclaim Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants thereof." -Leviticus 25:10.

    Let us continue to ring the bell for Justice!

     

    Judicialpedia follows The Constitution of the United States of America which is the Supreme Law of the United States. The First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

     

    Judicialpedia gives every American a place to exercise The First Amendment. When you post and submit a case you agree to the following: When this form is submitted, the party giving the written statement declares the facts / information stated are true and confirms this to the best of their knowledge. The party confirms that the information here is both accurate and that relevant information has not been omitted.

    Follow Us on FacebookFollow Us on TwitterFollow Us on InstagramFollow Us on Blogger
    Donate to Judicialpedia
    Add a Case or Complaint
    • Copyright and Trademark Judicialpedia 2020-2023.
    • All Rights Reserved.
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us

    Cart

      • Facebook
      • Twitter
      • WhatsApp
      • Telegram
      • LinkedIn
      • Tumblr
      • VKontakte
      • Mail
      • Copy link