THE FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD AND FAILURE REPORT
For Fiscal
Year (FY) 2005
Ending September 30, 2005
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) mission in the area of Financial Institution Fraud
(FIF) is to identify, target, disrupt, and dismantle criminal organizations and individual operations
engaged in fraud schemes which target our nation’s financial institutions. Additionally, the FBI seeks to
identify, undertake, and promote prevention measures, where available, to reduce the opportunity for
fraud to take place within the financial institution arena. Within white-collar crimes, FIF investigations
are among the most demanding, difficult, and time-consuming cases undertaken by law enforcement.
Efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice have attained extraordinary results since the enactment
of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989.
Areas of primary investigative interest relative to FIF include financial institution failures, insider
fraud, check fraud, counterfeit negotiable instruments, check kiting, and mortgage and loan fraud. FIF
investigations related to emerging technologies and computer-related banking are taking on added
significance among the nation’s financial institutions.
Since the 1992 peak of the savings and loan crisis, the FBI has been able to refocus its
investigative efforts from failed financial institution cases to other high-priority FIF matters. At the close
of FY 2005, the total number of pending FIF investigations for the FBI was 5,041. Of this total, 62
failure cases, or less than 1 percent, involved criminal activity related to a failed financial institution.
This statistic reflects a 92 percent reduction in failure investigations since the July 1992 peak of 758
cases.
However, as the number of failure investigations has declined, the number of
major FIF investigations has remained substantial. As of FY 2005, the FBI was
investigating 4,135 major cases, or 82.0 percent of all pending FIF cases.1
This is significant in view of the fact that convictions related to major case
investigations have remained constant since FY 1995, surpassing total convictions
for major cases during the 1992 peak.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, approximately 60 percent of the fraud reported by
financial institutions related to bank insider abuse. Since then, external fraud schemes have replaced bank
insider abuse as the dominant FIF problem confronting financial institutions. The pervasiveness of check
fraud and counterfeit negotiable instrument schemes, technological advances, as well as the availability of
personal information through information networks, has fueled the growth in external fraud. In many instances, the international aspects associated with many of these schemes have increased the complexity
and severity in the fraud being committed.
For the period of April 1, 1996, through September 30, 2005, the FBI received 436,522
Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for criminal activity related to check fraud, check kiting, counterfeit
checks, and counterfeit negotiable instruments. These fraudulent activities accounted for 46.3 percent of
the 941,993 SARs filed by U.S. financial institutions (excluding Bank Secrecy Act violations), and
equaled more than $10.7 billion in losses.2
The FBI continues to concentrate its efforts on organized criminal groups involved in these
activities. These organized groups are often involved in the sale and distribution of stolen and counterfeit
corporate checks, money orders, payroll checks, credit and debit cards, U.S. Treasury checks, and
currency. Furthermore, the organized groups involved in check fraud and loan fraud schemes are often
involved in illegal money-laundering activities in an effort to conceal the proceeds from their crimes.
Criminal activity has become more complex and loan frauds are expanding to multitransactional
frauds involving groups of people from top management to industry professionals who assist in the loan
application process. These professionals include loan brokers, appraisers, accountants, and real estate
attorneys. Such transactions are sometimes hidden against a backdrop of genuine transactions which give
them an appearance of legitimacy. Due to the complexity of these crimes, more FIF investigations are
being initiated than ever before. These cases target large-scale fraud operations, often involving hundreds
of subjects in multiple jurisdictions.
Other fraud matters affecting the nation's financial institutions are being classified and worked by
the FBI as Corporate Fraud, Cyber Fraud, and Terrorist Financing. The results of these cases are not
included in this report.
The lines between traditional banking services and other financial services
now offered by these institutions are fading. As financial institutions become
less regulated and provide more financial services to the public through the
sale of insurance, securities, investment products, and on-line banking, the
nature of FIF will change in terms of the potential impact to the nation's financial
institutions.
The FBI has responded to these trends by providing proactive deterrents to assist
the nation's banking infrastructure in combating FIF. The FBI and the Office
of the Comptroller of the Currency published Check Fraud: A Guide to Avoiding
Losses, (revised in 1999 by the FBI) to assist financial institutions in identifying
check fraud-related schemes. Another publication produced in 2001 by the FBI
entitled: "How Financial Institutions Can Help the FBI"; can assist
financial institutions in preventing and reporting financial crimes as well
as bank robberies.
__________________________________
1 A major case is defined
as an investigation pertaining to a failed financial institution, or where the
loss or loss exposure to the financial institution exceeds $100,000
2 These statistics are derived from the Suspicious Activity Report database, which is
owned by the five Federal banking regulatory agencies, and is maintained by the U.S. Treasury
Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
I.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
AND
PERCENT OF INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM PRIOR YEAR
Since February 1986, the FBI has tracked the number of financial institution failure investigations. From a peak of 758 cases in July 1992, failure investigations have steadily declined. Since the 1992 peak, failure investigations have decreased 92 percent. The matrix below illustrates the number of failure investigations and corresponding percentage change by fiscal year.
| FISCAL
YEAR REPORT DATE |
FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS |
%
CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR |
| 9/93 | 651 | (-14.1%) |
| 9/94 | 531 | (-18.4%) |
| 9/95 | 395 | (-25.6%) |
| 9/96 | 247 | (-37.5%) |
| 9/97 | 200 | (-19.0%) |
| 9/98 | 142 | (-29.0%) |
| 9/99 | 129 | (-09.1%) |
| 9/00 | 99 | (-23.3%) |
| 9/01 | 97 | (- 2.1%) |
| 9/02 | 71 | (-26.8%) |
| 9/03 | 67 | (-5.6%) |
| 9/04 | 60 | (-10.4%) |
| 9/05 | 62 | (+3.3%) |
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Financial Institution Failure Investigations by Field Office and Category,
during FY 2005;
(b) Financial Institution Failure Investigations for 2000 - 2005;
(c) Number of FDIC-Insured “Problem” Institutions for 2000 - 2005; and,
(d) Assets of FDIC-Insured “Problem” Institutions for 2000 - 2005.
FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION FAILURE INVESTIGATION
BY FIELD OFFICE AND CATEGORY
FISCAL YEAR 2005
| FBI | FAILED | FAILED | FAILED | |
| FIELD OFFICE | BANKS | S&Ls | CREDIT UNIONS | TOTAL |
| ALBANY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ALBUQUERQUE | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ANCHORAGE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ATLANTA | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| BALTIMORE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BIRMINGHAM | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| BOSTON | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| BUFFALO | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| CHARLOTTE | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| CHICAGO | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| CINCINNATI | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| CLEVELAND | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| COLUMBIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DALLAS | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DENVER | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DETROIT | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| EL PASO | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| HONOLULU | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| HOUSTON | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| INDIANAPOLIS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| JACKSON | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| JACKSONVILLE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KANSAS CITY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| KNOXVILLE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LAS VEGAS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| LITTLE ROCK | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| LOS ANGELES | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| LOUISVILLE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MEMPHIS | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MIAMI | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| MILWAUKEE | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| MINNEAPOLIS | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| MOBILE | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| NEWARK | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| NEW HAVEN | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| NEW ORLEANS | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| NEW YORK | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| NORFOLK | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| OKLAHOMA CITY | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OMAHA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| PHILADELPHIA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| PHOENIX | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PITTSBURGH | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| PORTLAND | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RICHMOND | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SACRAMENTO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ST. LOUIS | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SALT LAKE CITY | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| SAN ANTONIO | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| SAN DIEGO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SAN JUAN | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SEATTLE | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SPRINGFIELD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| TAMPA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| WFO | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| TOTAL | 37 | 12 | 13 | 62 |
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
2000 - 2005
| YEAR | FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS |
|---|---|
|
2000
|
99
|
|
2001
|
97
|
|
2002
|
71
|
|
2003
|
67
|
2004 |
60 |
|
2005
|
62
|
FDIC - INSURED PROBLEM INSTITUTIONS
2000 - 2005
| MONTH/YEAR | COMMERCIAL BANKS | SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS | TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|
|
12/00
|
76
|
18
|
94
|
|
12/01
|
95
|
19
|
114
|
|
09/02
|
126
|
20
|
146
|
|
09/03
|
103
|
13
|
116
|
09/04 |
86 |
9 |
95 |
|
09/05
|
58
|
10
|
68
|
'Problem Institutions” –those with financial, operational, or managerial weaknesses that threaten their continued viability.
Source: FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile through Third Quarter 2005
| MONTH/YEAR |
COMMERCIAL BANKS |
SAVINGS INSTITUTIONS |
TOTAL ($ BILLIONS) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
12/00
|
17
|
7
|
$24
|
|
12/01
|
36
|
4
|
$40
|
|
09/02
|
38
|
4
|
$42
|
|
09/03
|
29
|
1
|
$30
|
09/04 |
24 |
1 |
$25 |
|
09/05
|
18
|
2
|
$20
|
Problem Institutions those with financial, operational or managerial weaknesses that threaten their continued viability.
Source: FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile through Third Quarter 2005
II.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD AND MAJOR CASES
UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI BY FISCAL YEAR
Following the 1982 deregulation of the savings and loan industry, and in conjunction with more speculative lending practices, the FBI initiated criminal investigations of hundreds of failed financial institutions throughout the United States. Since the July 1992 peak, the number of failure investigations has steadily declined. However, total FIF and major case investigations have leveled off to pre-1992 figures. At the close of FY 2005, the total number of pending FIF and major case investigations continue to exceed levels at the beginning of the savings and loan crisis. The following matrix reflects total pending FIF and major case investigations reported during FY 2000 through FY 2005.
|
FISCAL |
NUMBER OF PENDING FIF CASES |
% CHANGE FROM PRIOR YR |
NUMBER
OF |
% CHANGE FROM PRIOR YR |
PERCENT MAJOR TO PENDING CASES |
| 2000 | 8,638 |
- 1.9%
|
4,081 |
+ 5.8%
|
47.2% |
| 2001 | 8,184 |
- 5.3%
|
4,383 |
+ 7.4%
|
53.5% |
| 2002 | 7,305 |
-10.8% |
4,287 |
-2.2% |
58.7% |
|
2003 |
5,869 |
- 19.7% |
4,027 |
- 6% |
68.6% |
| 2004 | 5,125 | -12.7% | 3,915 | -3% | 76.3% |
| 2005 | 5,041 | -1.7% | 4,135 | + 5.6% | 82.0% |
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Pending Cases by Institution Type and Major Cases for FY 2005;
(b) Pending and Major Cases for FYs 2000 - 2005; and
(c) Pending Caseload by Institution Type and Dollar Loss for FY 2005.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
FRAUD CASES
BY INSTITUTION TYPE AND MAJOR CASE
(PENDING AS A SEPTEMBER 30, 2005)
|
FIELD
|
TOTAL
|
TOTAL MAJOR
|
BANK
|
THRIFT SAVINGS
|
CREDIT UNION
|
TOTAL
|
|
OFFICE
|
FIF
|
CASES > $100,000
|
FAILURE
|
FAILURE
|
FAILURE
|
MAJOR CASES
|
|
CASES
|
NON-FAILURE
|
CASES
|
CASES
|
CASES
|
||
| ALBANY |
43
|
30
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| ALBUQUERQUE |
48
|
34
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| ANCHORAGE |
15
|
14
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| ATLANTA |
164
|
145
|
0 | 0 | 1 |
1
|
| BALTIMORE |
88
|
79
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| BIRMINGHAM |
45
|
36
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| BOSTON |
103
|
78
|
1 | 0 | 1 |
2
|
| BUFFALO |
30
|
25
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| CHARLOTTE |
120
|
105
|
2 | 0 | 0 |
2
|
| CHICAGO |
236
|
217
|
0 | 1 | 0 |
1
|
| CINCINNATI |
140
|
94
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| CLEVELAND |
148
|
109
|
3 | 0 | 1 |
4
|
| COLUMBIA |
57
|
43
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| DALLAS |
229
|
207
|
0 | 0 | 1 |
1
|
| DENVER |
84
|
67
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| DETROIT |
195
|
167
|
2 | 0 | 0 |
2
|
| EL PASO |
34
|
25
|
1 | 1 | 1 |
3
|
| HONOLULU |
65
|
48
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| HOUSTON |
69
|
59
|
0 | 2 | 0 |
2
|
| INDIANAPOLIS |
53
|
44
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| JACKSON |
58
|
39
|
2 | 0 | 0 |
2
|
| JACKSONVILLE |
26
|
22
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| KANSAS CITY |
109
|
98
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| KNOXVILLE |
40
|
28
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| LAS VEGAS |
50
|
40
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| LITTLE ROCK |
77
|
66
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| LOS ANGELES |
285
|
277
|
3 | 0 | 1 |
4
|
| LOUISVILLE |
78
|
57
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| MEMPHIS |
130
|
107
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| MIAMI |
119
|
107
|
1 | 1 | 0 |
2
|
| MILWAUKEE |
83
|
56
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| MINNEAPOLIS |
95
|
80
|
2 | 0 | 0 |
2
|
| MOBILE |
51
|
30
|
0 | 0 | 2 |
2
|
| NEWARK |
108
|
104
|
0 | 2 | 0 |
2
|
| NEW HAVEN |
39
|
36
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| NEW ORLEANS |
126
|
86
|
0 | 1 | 0 |
1
|
| NEW YORK |
250
|
222
|
3 | 1 | 0 |
4
|
| NORFOLK |
29
|
27
|
2 | 1 | 0 |
3
|
| OKLAHOMA CITY |
81
|
65
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| OMAHA |
79
|
66
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| PHILADELPHIA |
161
|
139
|
2 | 1 | 1 |
4
|
| PHOENIX |
50
|
36
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| PITTSBURGH |
101
|
77
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| PORTLAND |
58
|
34
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| RICHMOND |
82
|
61
|
0 | 0 | 1 |
1
|
| SACRAMENTO |
46
|
39
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| ST. LOUIS |
95
|
51
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| SALT LAKE CITY |
67
|
64
|
1 | 0 | 0 |
1
|
| SAN ANTONIO |
63
|
52
|
1 | 1 | 0 |
2
|
| SAN DIEGO |
51
|
44
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| SAN FRANCISCO |
62
|
46
|
0 | 0 | 1 |
1
|
| SAN JUAN |
5
|
3
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| SEATTLE |
75
|
49
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| SPRINGFIELD |
52
|
44
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| TAMPA |
61
|
60
|
0 | 0 | 0 |
0
|
| WFO |
133
|
97
|
0 | 0 | 2 |
2
|
| TOTAL |
5,041
|
4,135
|
37 |
12 |
13 |
62
|
PENDING AND MAJOR CASES
2000 - 2005
| FISCAL YEAR | NUMBER OF PENDING CASES | NUMBER OF MAJOR CASES |
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 8,638 | 4,081 |
| 2001 | 8,184 | 4,383 |
| 2002 | 7,305 | 4,287 |
| 2003 | 5,869 | 4,027 |
| 2004 | 5,125 | 3,915 |
| 2005 | 5,041 | 4,135 |
PENDING CASELOAD BY INSTITUTION TYPE AND DOLLAR LOSS FISCAL YEAR 2005
| INSTITUTION TYPE | FAILURES | > $100,000 | $25 - $99K |
|---|---|---|---|
| BANKS | 37 | 3,555 | 522 |
| S&L | 12 | 68 | 9 |
| CREDIT UNION | 13 | 117 | 30 |
FAST TRACK = 315
< $25K IN LOSSES = 163
TOTAL CASES = 5,041*
* Includes Mortgage Fraud Non-Financial Institution and Mortgage Fraud Government Programs Cases not reflected in the chart.
III.
STATISTICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM FBI INVESTIGATIONS
IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD AND FAILURE MATTERS
A. CONVICTIONS/PRETRIAL DIVERSIONS
Total FIF convictions, excluding local convictions, continued to decrease. However, the percentage of convictions in major cases continued to increase. The matrix below is illustrative of this trend.
| FISCAL YEAR | NUMBER
OF CONVICTIONS* |
NUMBER
OF MAJOR CONVICTIONS* |
% OF
MAJOR TO TOTAL CONVICTIONS |
| 2000 | 2,783 | 1,394 | 50.1% |
| 2001 | 2,702 | 1,363 | 50.4% |
| 2002 | 2,397 | 1,328 | 55.4% |
| 2003 | 2,053 | 1,286 | 62.7% |
| 2004 | 1,728 | 1,265 | 73.2% |
| 2005 | 1,537 | 1,218 | 79.2% |
* - includes PreTrial Diversions and excludes local convictions.
The charts and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Convictions and PreTrial Diversions for FYs 2000 - 2005;
(b) Types of Subjects Convicted During FY 2005;
(c) Total Convictions, “Outsiders vs Insiders" for FYs 2000 - 2005; and
(d) Convictions and PreTrial Diversions by Institution Type and Amount for
FY 2005.
FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION FRAUD CONVICTIONS AND PRETRIAL DIVERSIONS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE LOCAL CONVICTIONS)
| FBI | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR |
| FIELD OFFICE | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
| ALBANY | 28 | 27 | 19 | 22 |
20 | 6 |
| ALBUQUERQUE | 3 | 4 | 10 | 6 |
7 | 7 |
| ANCHORAGE | 6 | 31 | 8 | 24 |
8 | 6 |
| ATLANTA | 109 | 77 | 78 | 79 |
64 | 43 |
| BALTIMORE | 43 | 36 | 27 | 31 |
31 | 13 |
| BIRMINGHAM | 31 | 47 | 71 | 38 |
24 | 16 |
| BOSTON | 43 | 58 | 33 | 27 |
13 | 17 |
| BUFFALO | 29 | 24 | 22 | 17 |
5 | 10 |
| CHARLOTTE | 48 | 39 | 42 | 28 |
48 | 34 |
| CHICAGO | 74 | 96 | 103 | 88 |
36 | 52 |
| CINCINNATI | 40 | 51 | 39 | 47 |
80 | 37 |
| CLEVELAND | 105 | 103 | 96 | 151 |
119 | 75 |
| COLUMBIA | 36 | 46 | 32 | 36 |
44 | 27 |
| DALLAS | 185 | 141 | 120 | 107 |
84 | 84 |
| DENVER | 55 | 42 | 27 | 19 |
25 | 17 |
| DETROIT | 129 | 110 | 93 | 58 |
39 | 52 |
| EL PASO | 7 | 14 | 11 | 2 |
3 | 5 |
| HONOLULU | 22 | 33 | 27 | 18 |
22 | 12 |
| HOUSTON | 115 | 84 | 64 | 22 |
16 | 32 |
| INDIANAPOLIS | 27 | 25 | 17 | 16 |
10 | 13 |
| JACKSON | 27 | 22 | 25 | 24 |
15 | 16 |
| JACKSONVILLE | 23 | 15 | 10 | 13 |
14 | 12 |
| KANSAS CITY | 51 | 34 | 29 | 46 |
34 | 26 |
| KNOXVILLE | 26 | 15 | 20 | 17 |
12 | 10 |
| LAS VEGAS | 38 | 32 | 34 | 25 |
11 | 7 |
| LITTLE ROCK | 36 | 47 | 51 | 32 |
29 | 38 |
| LOS ANGELES | 103 | 67 | 79 | 70 |
47 | 64 |
| LOUISVILLE | 44 | 39 | 37 | 22 |
32 | 21 |
| MEMPHIS | 28 | 69 | 70 | 37 |
26 | 34 |
| MIAMI | 56 | 49 | 56 | 31 |
25 | 25 |
| MILWAUKEE | 39 | 52 | 39 | 34 |
23 | 32 |
| MINNEAPOLIS | 47 | 42 | 45 | 35 |
28 | 25 |
| MOBILE | 37 | 30 | 29 | 27 |
11 | 20 |
| NEWARK | 47 | 53 | 38 | 28 |
38 | 49 |
| NEW HAVEN | 10 | 15 | 7 | 10 |
22 | 19 |
| NEW ORLEANS | 52 | 87 | 52 | 65 |
61 | 43 |
| NEW YORK | 144 | 110 | 141 | 113 |
111 | 90 |
| NORFOLK | 12 | 42 | 22 | 11 |
19 | 16 |
| OKLAHOMA CITY | 60 | 46 | 42 | 24 |
26 | 35 |
| OMAHA | 31 | 32 | 26 | 23 |
37 | 23 |
| PHILADELPHIA | 109 | 105 | 83 | 74 |
58 | 45 |
| PHOENIX | 14 | 7 | 0 | 11 |
8 | 18 |
| PITTSBURGH | 39 | 38 | 31 | 31 |
17 | 13 |
| PORTLAND | 54 | 32 | 45 | 20 |
21 | 17 |
| RICHMOND | 49 | 50 | 44 | 35 |
18 | 10 |
| SACRAMENTO | 40 | 42 | 14 | 11 |
10 | 13 |
| ST. LOUIS | 59 | 61 | 58 | 67 |
48 | 55 |
| SALT LAKE CITY | 28 | 41 | 42 | 37 |
18 | 12 |
| SAN ANTONIO | 33 | 51 | 31 | 32 |
17 | 25 |
| SAN DIEGO | 37 | 27 | 31 | 6 |
8 | 15 |
| SAN FRANCISCO | 39 | 24 | 11 | 26 |
26 | 5 |
| SAN JUAN | 4 | 25 | 12 | 7 |
12 | 24 |
| SEATTLE | 116 | 77 | 89 | 40 |
45 | 30 |
| SPRINGFIELD | 44 | 47 | 40 | 54 |
23 | 23 |
| TAMPA | 25 | 23 | 20 | 19 |
26 | 29 |
| WFO | 47 | 66 | 55 | 60 |
54 | 40 |
| TOTAL | 2,783 | 2,702 | 2,397 | 2,053 | 1,728 | 1,537 |
TYPES
OF SUBJECTS CONVICTED IN
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD CASES
FISCAL YEAR 2005*
|
SUBJECT TYPE |
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS |
| All Other Subjects | 1,138 |
| Bank Employee | 220 |
| Bank Officer | 92 |
| Illegal Alien | 22 |
| Company or Corporation | 11 |
| Legal Alien | 9 |
| All Others | 5 |
| Business Manager | 3 |
| Top Con Man | 2 |
| Federal Employee - GS 12 & Below | 2 |
| Boss | 2 |
| Local Law Enforcement Officer | 2 |
| Mayor | 2 |
| State Legislator | 1 |
| State - All Others | 1 |
| Clerk | 1 |
* Does not include PreTrial Diversions or local convictions
CONVICTIONS
OUTSIDERS VS INSIDERS
2000 2005
(no pretrial diversions or local convictions)
| FISCAL YEAR | TOTALCONVICTIONS | OUTSIDERS |
BANK INSIDERS
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 2,719 | 1,973 | 746 |
| 2001 | 2,641 | 1,916 | 725 |
| 2002 | 2,303 | 1,776 | 527 |
| 2003 | 1,984 | 1,500 | 484 |
| 2004 | 1,679 | 1,318 | 361 |
| 2005 | 1,524 | 1,212 | 312 |
CONVICTIONS & PRE-TRIAL DIVERSIONS
BY INSTITUTION TYPE & AMOUNT
FISCAL YEAR 2005
(No State or Local Statistics)
| INSTITUTION TYPE | FAILURES | > $100,000 | $25 - $99K |
|---|---|---|---|
| BANKS | 30 | 1,125 | 166 |
| S&Ls | 1 | 27 | 0 |
| CREDIT UNION | 2 | 33 | 7 |
FAST TRACK = 121
* <$25K IN LOSSES = 25
(*NOT TRACKED BY INSTITUTION TYPE)
B. INDICTMENTS AND INFORMATIONS
For FY 2005 the total number of defendants charged by indictment or information
decreased 15.31 percent from FY 2004. The following matrix illustrates this trend.
| FISCAL YEAR | INDICTMENTS/INFORMATIONS* |
| 2000 | 2,877 |
| 2001 | 2,738 |
| 2002 | 2,471 |
| 2003 | 1,918 |
| 2004 | 1,822 |
| 2005 | 1,543 |
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Total FIF Indictments and Informations for FYs 2000 - 2005; and
(b) Indictments and Informations by Institution Type and Dollar Loss for
FY 2005.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
FRAUD INDICTMENT/INFORMATIONS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE LOCAL INFORMATION/INDICTMENTS)
| FBI | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR | FISCAL YEAR |
| FIELD OFFICE |