Business
Column: A huge bank pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder money, so why weren't top executives charged?
By any measure, the lawbreaking by the U.S. subsidiary of Canada’s Toronto-Dominion Bank was spectacular.
The bank, which goes by the name TD Bank in the U.S., facilitated the laundering of more than a half-billion dollars by human traffickers, fentanyl dealers, a major Ponzi schemer and others. It failed to file legally mandated reports of suspicious transactions even though one of the launderers had deposited and withdrawn “more than $1 million in cash in a single day.”
All this was laid out in settlements with the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, announced on Oct. 10. The settlement will cost TD Bank more than $3 billion in penalties and includes a guilty plea to a count of conspiring to violate anti-money-laundering laws. The settlement notes sourly that the bank’s cooperation with authorities was “limited.”
A big bank engaging in criminal conduct has finally been properly punished, but failing to charge individual banking supervisors and executives is wrong and dumb.
— Dennis Kelleher, Better Markets
Noting that the bank’s slogan is “America’s Most Convenient Bank,” Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland stated, “There is something terribly wrong with a bank that knowingly makes its services convenient for criminals.”
Yet the settlement is prompting Justice Department critics to ask whether its terms are just too convenient for the bank. That’s because it lacks a critical deterrent in white collar crime cases: criminal charges against TD’s top executives who were in place while the lawbreaking was in full cry.
That was just one way that the deal allowed “this lawbreaking bank and its reckless leadership to escape the full scope of penalties … necessary to effectively deter future criminal acts,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stated last week in a scathing letter to Garland.
The Justice Department also charged the bank with “conspiring … to launder” money rather than with money laundering itself, Warren observed — a distinction that frees the bank from a federal law that might have resulted in the loss of its banking license in the U.S.
The department’s failure to charge TD Bank’s top executives thus far, Warren wrote, is at odds with the agency’s own explicit commitment to “individual accountability,” as Deputy Atty. Gen. Lisa Monaco put it in a speech earlier this year. “Companies can only act through individuals,” she said. As of now, only two low-level TD Bank employees have been charged in the money-laundering scheme. Warren asked Garland to explain his approach to the TD Bank deal by Nov. 15.
Garland stated in announcing the settlement that his agency’s “criminal investigations into individual employees at every level of TD Bank are active and ongoing” and that he expects “more prosecutions.” He didn’t specify who was in the agency’s gunsights, but the plea agreement says the wrongdoing extended from branch-level employees, who accepted bribes to keep suspect accounts open, to “senior executive management.”
Warren is correct to point out that the failure to charge and convict the high-level executives who oversee wrongdoing, often over a period of years, is a major contributor to the persistence of corporate white collar crime. Official wrist-slaps and “wet smooches” delivered to corporate leaders by federal regulators and prosecutors are the rule, no matter how egregious the misdeed — even when it’s as bad as the Wells Fargo customer fraud.
In that case, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a $2.5-million penalty on John Stumpf, the bank’s ex-chairman and chief executive, who had collected about $300 million in compensation while the fraud was going on under his nose. The SEC didn’t even require him to admit his responsibility.
Over the last quarter-century, notes the corporate corruption watchdog Better Markets, the nation’s six largest banks “have been the subject of 490 legal actions against them and more than $207 billion in fines and settlements.” Nevertheless “the responsible individuals at the banks almost always walk away unpunished, with their pockets stuffed with bonus money.”
That applies to the TD Bank case. The settlement is “a big and long-overdue win for Main Street Americans and the financial system,” noted Dennis Kelleher, co-founder and CEO of Better Markets. “A big bank engaging in criminal conduct has finally been properly punished, but failing to charge individual banking supervisors and executives is wrong and dumb. “
Letting them off the hook “sends the wrong message: big banks can still buy get-out-of-jail-free cards for their executives by paying big fines and agreeing to other penalties,” Kelleher commented.
It’s true that the Justice Department and FinCEN lowered the boom on TD Bank nearly to the maximum in their power. In addition to the financial penalties, which are the largest ever imposed on a U.S. bank in a money-laundering case, the U.S. subsidiary is forbidden for now to grow beyond the $434 billion in assets it held as of Sept. 30 and is restricted from opening more branches or offering new services without government oversight. It must employ an outside compliance monitor for at least five years.
Among the casualties of the government investigation is TD Bank’s planned $13.3-billion merger with Memphis-based First Horizon Bank. The deal collapsed in May 2023 when it emerged that the money-laundering probe would obstruct government approval of the merger.
TD Bank is the tenth-largest commercial bank in the U.S., with 1,100 branches along the Eastern Seaboard from Maine to Florida. But it has been determined to grow while keeping its focus on customer relations — an ambition that regulators say led it to shortchange its anti-money-laundering programs even as it became clear that they were increasingly unable to handle the flow of suspect transactions.
TD Bank Group, the Canadian parent holding company, hasn’t downplayed the gravity of the charges.
“We have taken full responsibility for the failures of our U.S. [anti-money-laundering] program and are making the investments, changes and enhancements required to deliver on our commitments,” Bharat Masrani, CEO of the parent, said after the settlement announcement. “These failures took place on my watch as CEO and I apologize to all our stakeholders.” Masrani is scheduled to step down in April.
To assess whether the penalties levied on TD Bank are appropriate, consider the facts as set forth in the bank’s plea agreement. Money launderers exploited what they saw as holes in the bank’s anti-money-laundering practices from January 2014 through October 2023. Three illicit networks laundered more than $600 million in ill-gotten lucre through TD Bank accounts within that period.
Perhaps the most prolific launderer, according to the governments, was Da Ying Sze, who was known to bank employees as “David” and laundered some $400 million in narcotics profits at the bank.
Sze scarcely tried to conceal his activities: He would often walk into branches carrying bags of cash. It was he who would sometimes make deposits of more than $1 million a day and withdraw it almost immediately by bank checks. The bank “failed to identify Sze” in more than 500 currency transaction reports totaling about $474 million, according to FinCEN.
One day, after witnessing Sze buy more than $1 million in bank checks with cash, according to FinCEN, a branch employee asked a bank office staff member, “How is that not money laundering?” The staffer replied, “oh it 100% is.”
Sze pleaded guilty to federal money-laundering charges in 2022.
The shortcomings of its money-laundering oversight were known to the executives directly responsible for the program and to the bank’s board, the Justice Department said. The bank’s operational response was hopelessly inattentive. Accounts involved in “David’s” network, the department said, made $168.4 million in transactions even “after the Bank determined the accounts should be closed.”
As is so often the case when an institution is found to have broken the law in a major way, this isn’t TD Bank’s first walk on the wrong side. In 2020, it reached a $122-million settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau over accusations that it charged more than 1.4 million customers illegal overdraft fees. (The bank didn’t admit to the allegations, but the settlement included $97 million in customer restitution. Four years later, the CFPB ordered the bank to pay nearly $28 million for allegedly sending inaccurate negative reports about its customers to credit reporting firms. (The bank again didn’t admit guilt, but the order included about $8 million in compensation to the affected customers.)
Last year, the bank agreed to pay $1.2 billion to settle a lawsuit accusing it of involvement in a $7-billion Ponzi scheme orchestrated by conman Allen Stanford, who is now in prison. The money is earmarked to compensate victims; the bank didn’t admit liability and asserted that it merely provided Stanford’s company with conventional banking services.
In 2017, officials at the Trump-controlled Office of the Comptroller of the Currency quietly reprimanded the bank for a Wells Fargo-like scheme in which bank employees secretly created new accounts for customers or enrolled them in services without their knowledge. The agency didn’t fine the bank or even disclose its action at the time.
As for whether the government’s action will cure TD Bank of its slipshod approach to money laundering, only time will tell.
But there’s reason to wonder if it is effectively cleaning house. Under “clawback” provisions of its executive pay policies, Masrani’s pay was reduced by about $1.245 million last year to $9.55 million, an 11.3% cut from the $10.8 million he received in 2022. (Those figures are U.S. dollar equivalents although he and other executives are paid in Canadian dollars.) Further clawbacks may be imposed on his 2024 pay. His designated successor, Raymond Chun, has been with the company since 1992.
As for the board of directors, who receive annual stipends of $260,000 (Canadian) per year, none of the 14 directors other than Masrani has publicly indicated any intention to step down. Eleven were in place during the 2014-23 period, when money launderers ran rampant through the bank; the longest-serving director has been on the board since 2010. If TD Bank is to get a new broom, it’s unclear where it will come from.
Walmart is rapidly expanding its network of electric vehicle chargers designed for customers to use while they shop.
The network could help fill gaps in EV infrastructure in states with greater need for chargers. Walmart, which has more than 5,000 locations in the U.S. and hundreds in California, says more than 90% of Americans live within 10 miles of one of its stores.
The chargers also offer an incentive for customers to choose Walmart — Walmart Plus members will receive a 10% discount off an average price of $0.46 per kilowatt-hour of energy at the company’s chargers.
Walmart chargers are already available at more than 75 locations in 17 states, with Texas boasting the most charging stations, followed by Florida and Arizona.
Matthew Nelson, Walmart’s director of energy policy, said last week on LinkedIn that the network will soon reach 29 states, including California.
“We are delivering on the promise of affordable, reliable and convenient charging,” Nelson said in his post.
According to Walmart’s website, six charging stations are coming to California soon, though the company did not offer a specific timeline.
The chargers will be installed at stores in Antelope, Brea, Fresno, Stockton, Suisun City and Vallejo.
Most charging sites in California will include eight to 16 fast-charging stalls, said Walmart spokesperson Kelsey Bohl.
The company first announced plans in April 2023 to install its own EV chargers at Walmart and Sam’s Club stores, with a goal of installing thousands of chargers by 2030. Partnering with ABB E-Mobility and Alpitronic, it added 25 new charging sites this past May and six more in June.
“Walmart is building a leading retail-integrated EV fast-charging network, focused on delivering an affordable, reliable and convenient charging experience where customers already shop,” Bohl said in an emailed statement. “Customers can charge while they shop, access stations through the Walmart app they already use, and benefit from affordable pricing.”
The charging stations already available include 612 individual charging stalls using 400-kilowatt chargers. Each stall has a dual charging cord with both Combined Charging System and North American Charging Standard connectors. The standard connectors, designed by Tesla, are smaller and lighter than the combined systems.
The primary way to pay for the chargers is through the Walmart app, but the company is also experimenting with built-in credit card readers to allow those without the app to use the stations.
Customers can check charger availability on the Walmart app. The company said the chargers will be available 24 hours a day.
Robotaxis could be turning into robocops.
A self-driving Waymo reported two teens to San Mateo, Calif., police on Monday after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle.
According to a social media post from the San Mateo Police Department, officers detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived.
“Parents do you know where your teens are?” the San Mateo Police Department wrote on Facebook following the incident. “Waymo does!”
Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez out the windows. Orbeez are small, water-absorbing beads sold at toy stores.
“Toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye,” the Police Department said. “The simple handling of them can cause fear in [passersby].” “
A video posted on Facebook shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised.
Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones that may be used in an emergency or to “promote safety and security,” according to Waymo’s online support page.
The cameras are also used to ensure the vehicles are clean and to help find lost items, according to the support page.
The company said it does not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals.
“In more urgent circumstances, support may access live video during a trip,” the Waymo page said.
The San Mateo Police Department’s Facebook post has garnered nearly 60 comments, with one user accusing Waymo of “snitching.”
“At least they got a designated driver?!” one user commented.
Business
Commentary: How right-wing anti-transgender attacks led to a Supreme Court ruling upholding sex discrimination
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s June 30 opinion upholding state laws barring transgender girls from women’s and girl’s sports teams looks like a victory for women’s rights.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh certainly presents itself that way. “Females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” He also asserted that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
The ruling applied to prohibitions enacted in Idaho and West Virginia against “biological” males’ participation on women’s teams in public schools. Federal judges in both states overturned the bans. The Supreme Court majority restored them. The ruling essentially upholds similar bans enacted in 25 other states.
There was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let alone any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, demolishing the Supreme Court’s argument in favor of banning transgender girls from girl’s sports
Kavanaugh, like Donald Trump and others in the anti-transgender camp, maintained that one’s gender is an immutable fact of life, established even before birth.
Anything else, Trump stated in an executive order he issued on inauguration day 2025, could only be the product of “gender ideology extremism.” The U.S., his order stated, recognizes “two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” That’s a “biological truth,” he declared.
In his own version of this overconfident and factually insupportable conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote: “As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”
Science recognizes that some people are “born with sex traits that don’t fit into typical male or female patterns,” to cite a discussion on the Cleveland Clinic web page on the topic “intersex.” The condition “may involve chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs or genitals.”
From a psychological standpoint, medical science recognizes “gender dysphoria” as a real condition often requiring counseling and medical intervention such as the use of puberty blockers and hormones to stave off the development of secondary sex characteristics until the condition can be resolved.
No one disputes that there are physical differences between the sexes. Few would dispute that on average or even at the median, males may be bigger and more powerful than females, or that in certain contact sports the difference may be telling and on occasion dangerous.
But that’s not the same as asserting that the physical differences between males and females invariably mean that men will invariably prevail over women in all competitions or that their participation will endanger women.
The International Olympic Committee — in a policy statement Kavanaugh cited incompletely — says that in “most running and swimming events,” males have a 10% to 12% advantage over women. That’s a range that would accommodate the full spectrum of outcomes — transgender females win, cisfemales win, they tie. (The “cis” prefix denotes those living consistent with their birth gender.)
West Virginia and Idaho addressed this ambiguity by banning transgender women from all girls’ teams. So under their rules transgender girls can’t play football or soccer with cisgirls. But what’s the argument in favor of banning them from the 100-yard dash, or cross-country track, or diving, or archery?
But something else is going on here. The Supreme Court’s ruling was almost preordained, given the years-long campaign by conservatives to demonize transgender individuals as if they’re members of an alien species.
It will be recalled that during his presidential campaign, Trump spun a despicable fantasy in which children were kidnapped in school and secretly subjected to sex-change operations.
Trump’s executive order wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination. He moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.
He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered federal prison officials to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., has blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)
I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still gestating, that the goal was to show that “one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”
Last year, the Supreme Court struck its first blow against transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee law banning transgender care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. Similar laws have been enacted in 25 other states. The majority in that ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was identical to the one in the June 30 ruling — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who are the targets of this ideological campaign? They number only about 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1% of the U.S. population. About 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA School of Law.
In West Virginia, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in her dissenting opinion, “there was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let along any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.”
In endorsing the flat bans directed at transgender women in Idaho and West Virginia, Kavanaugh argued that any attempt to implement case-by-case judgments of students’ requests to join sports teams inconsistent with their biological gender would create “an enormous practical and administrability problem.”
Is that so? That wasn’t the case in Maine, where the annual K-12 population is more than 170,000. There, a committee was charged with determining whether a student’s participation in a sport consistent with their gender identity but inconsistent with their biological sex would “result in an unfair athletic advantage” or present a risk of injury to others. The committee held 56 hearings from 2013 through 2021, or an average of seven per year. During the entire time span, only four involved transgender girls. (The outcome of those hearings couldn’t be learned.)
It was Maine’s policy, one might recall, that provoked a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills at the White House last year, when Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the state unless it barred transgender students from competing on women’s sports teams. “We’ll see you in court,” Mills snapped.
Whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws genuinely protect girls from unfair competition is questionable. (The Idaho law is styled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”) In practice, the laws may subject women in public schools to “invasive sex verification procedures,” as educational expert George Theoharis of Syracuse University wrote after the court ruling.
They’re also based on a retrograde view of women as fragile creatures needing men’s protection, Theoharis wrote — “the same logic that has historically been used to justify excluding women from making their own healthcare decisions and girls from rigorous math and science; that physically demanding work is simply beyond them.” (There don’t appear to be any state laws barring transgender women from competing in men’s sports.)
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, in which she is identified only as B.P.J., is the only transgender girl who sought to join girl’s teams — track and cross-country — in the state. That was in 2021, just after West Virginia passed its law and she was about to enter sixth grade. She didn’t appear to pose any competitive risk to others on the track and cross-country teams she applied to join — her lawyers told the Supreme Court that on those no-cut teams, she “came in near the back.”
Anyway, she had not gone through male puberty, which theoretically might have endowed her with a competitive advantage, because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones.
Thanks to the court’s ruling, Sotomayor observed in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, West Virginia can deny Becky access to school sports “because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
B.P.J., Sotomayor wrote, “cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B. P. J.’s gender dysphoria.”
So whose interest was really protected by the Supreme Court?
-
Kentucky12 minutes agoKentuckians deserve honesty about McConnell’s health | Letters
-
Louisiana15 minutes agoLeadership Louisiana Health Fellows Welcomes Inaugural Class – Leaders for a Better Louisiana
-
Maine20 minutes agoA hard lesson for Democrats in Maine. Plus, we have some news about Ed Markey. – The Boston Globe
-
Maryland27 minutes agoGovernor Moore Announces Awardees for $1.23 Million Investment to Help Maryland Workers Thrive in a Changing Economy
-
Michigan30 minutes ago‘Big Brother’ season 28 to premiere this week. One guest from Michigan
-
Massachusetts30 minutes agoCool off this summer at these 10 splash pads in central Massachusetts
-
Minnesota42 minutes agoEF2 tornado injures two, damages homes near Detroit Lakes, Minnesota
-
Mississippi45 minutes agoMississippi’s first Dutch Bros now open in Pearl
