The document analyzes enforcement actions (EAs) in the banking industry over 15 years, highlighting trends, regulatory responses, and the impact on institutions of different sizes. It notes a decline in EAs against individuals post-2008 and an increase against large institutions, with compliance issues expected to receive closer regulatory scrutiny. Additionally, it outlines strategies for institutions to enhance risk management and reduce the likelihood of future EAs.

1. Enforcement actions in the banking industry
Trends and lessons learned
Enforcement actions (EAs) are issued against institutions and individuals for violations of rules
or unsafe practices affecting safety and soundness of the financial system and/or consumer
protection. As such, EAs offer some of the most concrete evidence of risk management and
compliance issues in the banking industry.
Scope of the study
We used the SNL Financial database and followed its EA classification to analyze trends in
enforcement actions in the banking industry over the last 15 years.
Type of EA
15 formal actions as
classified by SNL Financial
Institutions covered
Banks, bank holding companies
(BHCs), thrifts, thrift holding
companies, credit unions
Analysis period
January 1, 2000–
August 27, 2015
Overall trends
Overall number of EAs returning to normal levels…
Total number of EAs
2000
533
1073
1795
698
318
1500
1000
500
0
2000 2005 2010 2015*
Source: SNL Financial and Deloitte Center for Financial Services analysis
Regulators
The Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, the Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
(and the Office of Thrift Supervision),
the Federal Reserve System, the
National Credit Union Administration,
and the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau
“The enforcement actions we are issuing today make clear
that the OCC will take forceful action, not only when the
institutions we supervise engage in wrongdoing, but when
management fails to exercise the oversight necessary to
ensure that employees follow laws and regulations intended to
protect customers and maintain the integrity of markets.”
– Thomas J. Curry, OCC, November 20141
1
“OCC fines three banks for $950 million for FX trading improprieties,” OCC press release, November 12, 2014,
http://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2014/nr-occ-2014-157.html, accessed October 1, 2015.
…and so is the composition
Severe and less severe EAs
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Severe EAs Less severe EAs
2000 2005 2010 2015*
22
78
21
79
25
75
17
83
18
82
9
91
15
85
20
80
31
69
52
48
56
44
41
59
35
65
22
78
18
82
17
83
Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited *Data covering EAs up to August 27, 2015.
Average (2000–2014): 880#
#
Average estimate excludes 2015 EAs, as full-year data were not available
at the time of analysis.
592 545
700
798
641
582
906
1247
939
1563
583
Source: SNL Financial and Deloitte Center for Financial Services analysis

2. The Deloitte Center for Financial Services offers actionable
insights to assist senior-level executives in the industry to
make impactful business decisions.
Differences in EAs by size of institution Issues triggering severe actions against institutions
Large institutions (Total assets over $50 billion)
Midsized institutions (Total assets between $10 billion – $50 billion)
Small institutions (Total assets less than $10 billion)
• EAs against individuals are declining to pre-2008 levels.
• However, there is a marked increase in EAs against large
institutions in the post-2009 period.
• Total EAs have decreased below pre-2008 levels,
due to lower number of EAs against individuals.
• EAs against midsized institutions continue to remain low.
• Total EAs are nearing pre-2008 levels, largely due to lower EAs
against small institutions that had risen between 2008 and 2010.
• EAs against individuals demonstrate a stable trend.
EAs against large
institutions
EAs against individuals/institution affliated
parties (IAPs) at large institutions
0
0
0
10
5
350
20
10
700
30
15
1050
40
20
1400
300
140
600
225
105
450
150
70
300
75
35
150
0
0
0
2000
2000
2006
2006
2012
2012
Although the number of EAs has declined in recent years, one may expect banking supervisors to
remain aggressive in their penalties and to expand the types of issues they will proactively monitor.
Deficiencies in residential mortgage servicing
and foreclosures (for large banks)
Concerns over financial soundness of
the institution/BHC
(for midsized banks)
BSA/Anti-money laundering
compliance (for both large
and midsized institutions)
Violation of Section
5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act
(for both large and midsized institutions)
Interest rate risk
Credit risk
Cybersecurity
Issues triggering
severe EAs
against large
and midsized
institutions since
2008
Issues
expected to
receive regulatory
attention in the
near future
Strong to defend
• Institutionalize the processes related
to existing laws to foster compliance
with newer regulations
• Provide training to bank professionals
on individual accountability
Vigilent to detect
• Believe in the power of self-
policing and proactive reporting
• Strengthen board oversight of
compliance programs
Prompt to respond
• Maintain a proactive
dialogue with regulators
• Establish an open and
collaborative relationship
with regulators
To learn more, contact:
Chris Spoth
Executive Director
Deloitte Center for Regulatory Strategies
Deloitte & Touche LLP
+1 202 375 5016
cspoth@deloitte.com
Val Srinivas, Ph.D.
Research Leader, Banking & Securities
Deloitte Center for Financial Services
Deloitte Services LP
+1 212 436 3384
vsrinivas@deloitte.com
For more information and to download the full report, please visit www.deloitte.com/us/banking-enforcement-actions
As used in this document “Deloitte” means Deloitte Consulting LLP, a subsidiary of Deloitte LLP. Please see www.deloitte.com/us/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte LLP and its subsidiaries.
Certain services may not be available to attest clients under the rules and regulations of public accounting. Copyright © 2015 Deloitte Development LLC. All rights reserved. Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited
Lessons learned
Source: SNL Financial and Deloitte Center for Financial Services analysis
Deloitte Center
for Financial Services
Contact
To learn more about the Deloitte Center for
Financial Services, its solutions, thought
leadership, and events please visit:
www.deloitte.com/us/cfs
Subscribe
Subscribe to recieve financial services
insights via Quick Look blog at
quicklookblog.com/subscribe/
Engage
Follow us on Twitter at:
@DeloitteFinSvcs
EAs against midsized
institutions
EAs against midsized individuals/IAPs
at midsized banks
EAs against small
institutions
EAs against individuals/
IAPs at small banks
An effective risk management and compliance system is one that is strong, vigilant, and prompt. Institutions can consider the following strategies to better
anticipate, respond, and possibly avoid future enforcement actions.
2015*
2015
2000 2006 2012 2015
*Till August 2015