ORDER A REPORT
SECURE FILE UPLOAD

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent U.S. government agency created in 1933 to strengthen trust in the nation’s banking system by insuring deposits, examining and supervising banks for safety, soundness, and consumer protection, and managing bank failures. The FDIC insures deposits up to $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, per ownership category, ensuring that no depositor has lost a penny of insured funds since coverage began in 1934.

The FDIC is funded not by taxpayers, but by insurance premiums paid by banks and savings associations, and it oversees more than 4,000 insured institutions across the United States. It also provides consumer education, regulatory guidance, and tools like the Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator (EDIE) to help people understand their coverage.

SI case study: “A career in fraud”

A prospective client investigation was ordered on a company and its president, but the preliminary information was enough to reject this individual or any company under his control from the proposed business engagement. Initial court searches uncovered a 2003 criminal misdemeanor conviction for possession of a false identification to be used to defraud. The index did not provide much information and the file was destroyed by the court, so SI’s analyst turned to media sources to dig deeper. Sure enough, one article referenced guilty pleas entered by the subject and his business partner for hiring imposters to take the Series 7 securities brokers’ examination for them. Each was sentenced to a year of probation and fined $5,000. Articles from 2004 reported three civil cases for fraud in jurisdictions where the subject appeared to have no residential history. Follow-up research found that judgments in these lawsuits totaled more than $4.6 million. Several articles also linked the subject to a con artist who had admitted to defrauding ethnic organizations and individuals of $80 million during the late 1990s. And in 2007, the FDIC had executed a settlement agreement with the subject and (the same) business partner after they allegedly failed to seek FDIC approval before making an investment in an unregistered bank holding company. On the whole, this company president had been engaged in fraudulent activities for over a decade and no legal or regulatory action appeared to stop his mode of operation.

January 25th, 2012|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , |

More on credit reports for hiring decisions

According to September 2010 congressional testimony by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), credit checks are a useful tool to “assess the skills, abilities, work habits and integrity of potential hires.” However, SHRM states that only 20 percent of employers conduct credit checks on all applicants. Fifty-seven percent of these employers perform the checks only after contingent offers, and 30 percent after job interviews; 65 percent allow job candidates to explain their credit results before the hiring decision is made, and 22 percent accept explanations after the hiring decision.

A bill in the U.S. House, called the Equal Employment for All Act, would amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) to ban the use of credit checks on prospective and current employees for employment purposes, with the following exceptions:

  • jobs that require national security or Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. clearance;
  • jobs in state or local government that require the use of credit reports;
  • supervisory, managerial, and executive positions in financial institutions.

The states of Illinois, Oregon, Hawaii, and Washington already have passed laws to prevent employers from using credit reports in employment decisions.

November 30th, 2010|Categories: Compliance Corner for Employment Decisions|Tags: , , , |

A career in fraud

 

A prospective client investigation was ordered on a company and its president, but the preliminary information on the president was enough to reject the subject or any company under his direction from the possible business engagement. Initial court searches uncovered a 2001 criminal misdemeanor conviction for possession of a false identification to be used to defraud. The index did not provide much information and the file was destroyed by the court, so SI’s analyst turned to media sources to dig deeper. Sure enough, one article referenced guilty pleas entered in 2002 by the subject and his business partner for hiring imposters to take the Series 7 securities brokers’ examination for them. Each was sentenced to a year of probation and fined $5,000. Other articles from 2002 reported three civil cases for fraud in locations where the subject appeared to have no residential history, and further disclosed that the subject and his partner had been statutorily disqualified from working for a broker licensed by the National Association of Securities Dealers, ordered to disgorge profits and interest totaling $4,649,125 and each were fined $15,000 in civil penalties in 2006. Articles also linked the subject to a con artist who had admitted to defrauding Jewish organizations and individuals of $80 million during the 1990s. Most recently, the FDIC had executed a written agreement with the subject and (the same) business partner after they allegedly failed to seek FDIC approval before making an investment in an unregistered bank holding company. On the whole, this company president had been engaged in fraudulent behavior for nearly a decade and no amount of legal or regulatory action appeared to change his mode of operation.

March 26th, 2010|Categories: Commercial Transactions Due Diligence|Tags: , , , |
© 2012- SCHERZER INTERNATIONAL | ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Go to Top