• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Man fired for 50 year old 10cent crime...

Nov 29, 2006
14,578
2,347
126
Wow...stupid law is stupid. Does Statute of Limitations not apply here? Maybe he was about to retire and they wanted to give him the shaft.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wells-fargo-fires-iowa-worker-for-minor-1963-crime.html

Wells Fargo Fires Iowa Worker for Minor 1963 Crime




Richard Eggers (ABC5 News)DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Wells Fargo Home Mortgage (WFC) has fired a Des Moines worker over a 1963 incident at a Laundromat involving a fake dime in the wake of new employment guidelines.

Richard Eggers, 68, was fired in July from his job as a customer service representative for putting a cardboard cutout of a dime in a washing machine nearly 50 years ago in Carlisle, the Des Moines Register reported Monday.

Warren County court records show Eggers was convicted of operating a coin-changing machine by false means. Eggers called it a "stupid stunt," but questions his firing.

Big banks have been firing low-level employees like Eggers since new federal banking employment guidelines were enacted in May 2011 and new mortgage employment guidelines took hold in February, the newspaper said. The tougher standards are meant to clear out executives and mid-level bank employees guilty of transactional crimes — such as identity theft and money laundering — but are being applied across the board because of possible fines for noncompliance.

Banks have fired thousands of workers nationally, said Natasha Buchanan, an attorney in Santa Ana, Calif., who has helped some of the workers regain their eligibility to be employed.

"Banks are afraid of the FDIC and the penalties they could face," Buchanan said.

The regulatory rules forbid the employment of anyone convicted of a crime involving dishonesty, breach of trust or money laundering. Before the guidelines were changed, banks widely interpreted the rules to exclude minor traffic offenses and misdemeanors.

Wells Fargo confirmed Eggers' termination.

"The expectations that have been placed on us and all financial institutions have never been higher," said Wells Fargo spokeswoman Angela Kaipust.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. provides a waiver process employees can follow to show they're still fit to work at a bank despite a past criminal conviction, but it usually takes six months to a year to be approved. There is also a process for automatic waiver that works more quickly but is limited to people who were sentenced to less than year of jail time and never spent a day locked up.

Eggers, who was jailed two days, doesn't qualify.

American Bankers Association spokeswoman Carol Kaplan said the public clamor for tighter regulation also is responsible for the stricter interpretation of the rules. The safest route is to fire the employee and let them pursue an FDIC waiver.

"There's no question that there was an appetite for tighter bank regulation as a result of the global financial crisis," Kaplan said.

There is no government or industry data on the number of bank firings due to criminal background checks. The FDIC is on pace to grant 74 waivers, up from 21 waivers approved in 2009. The agency was not able to provide any information on annual waiver application data.

Des Moines attorney Leonard Bates is helping Eggers navigate the FDIC waiver application process.

"These guidelines are really meant for executives and people who can perpetuate widespread fraud," Bates said.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,155
9
81
stupid law. this is like the 3rd story about idiotic fireings because of it i have heard.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
And how many firings prompted by this law weren't idiotic? Seems to me banks are likely doing this more to sew anger at the FDIC than to keep to the letter of the law. Bankers act like assholes because they can. They don't need prompting by the government.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,083
7,571
146
And how many firings prompted by this law weren't idiotic? Seems to me banks are likely doing this more to sew anger at the FDIC than to keep to the letter of the law. Bankers act like assholes because they can. They don't need prompting by the government.
Exactly what I was thinking. When the banks lobby to remove these evil regulations it would look bad if they hold their own crooked ways up as an example of why. Now they can use the Richard Eggers of the banking world.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,808
1,125
126
Sounds like the banks are deliberately "misinterpreting" the regs to make the government look bad, plus they get to seize their workforce a little more.
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,497
3
0
Exactly what I was thinking. When the banks lobby to remove these evil regulations it would look bad if they hold their own crooked ways up as an example of why. Now they can use the Richard Eggers of the banking world.
It's the birth of a rightwing talking point. Ain't it so cute? Aww...
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Sounds like the banks are deliberately "misinterpreting" the regs to make the government look bad, plus they get to seize their workforce a little more.
Unlikely.

The banks would be a facing a lawsuit from the (wrongfully) terminated employee.

Much more likely IMO that the law was poorly drafted and lawyers are telling their banks clients they must do this to avoid fines etc.

Fern
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
Sounds like the banks are deliberately "misinterpreting" the regs to make the government look bad, plus they get to seize their workforce a little more.
You have no idea what you are talking about. This, and the other firings, comply with the letter of the law.

The bigger issue is we have people writing and passing banking laws who don't understand banking.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
There is no statute of limitations for any crimes involving currency.

It is considered worse than murder in the U.S.
Dave, can you read?

He was found guilty and served his time.

The issue here is he served time for a crime of dishonesty, you should be able to relate.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Unlikely.

The banks would be a facing a lawsuit from the (wrongfully) terminated employee.

Much more likely IMO that the law was poorly drafted and lawyers are telling their banks clients they must do this to avoid fines etc.

Fern
Exactly this.

Isn't it amazing that we now have thousand page bills to implement new laws and the new laws suck ass compared to old school laws that were a few pages long (see Glass-Stegal versus Dodd-Frank as an example)
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
just watch wall-e

its like theyre showing us our future how everything is so litigated that nothing happens. then you realize that isnt the future.
 

spittledip

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2005
4,483
1
81
We have been abusing the law for 200 years in this country. I guess we should expect garbage like this. The law belongs to those who can spin it the best. Usually the ones with money and power can spin it best. I feel for this guy. I hope he can get some real justice.
 

JKing106

Platinum Member
Mar 19, 2009
2,193
0
0
How else are they going to get out of paying that welfare, socialist pension? He should just hurry up and die already. Deadbeat thinking he can extort that righteous, wholesome company out of hard earned profits? So what he dedicated most of his life to helping make those profits?
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
How else are they going to get out of paying that welfare, socialist pension? He should just hurry up and die already. Deadbeat thinking he can extort that righteous, wholesome company out of hard earned profits? So what he dedicated most of his life to helping make those profits?
WTF? Here's another shining example of you not understanding a law.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
And how many firings prompted by this law weren't idiotic? Seems to me banks are likely doing this more to sew anger at the FDIC than to keep to the letter of the law. Bankers act like assholes because they can. They don't need prompting by the government.
Exactly what I was thinking. When the banks lobby to remove these evil regulations it would look bad if they hold their own crooked ways up as an example of why. Now they can use the Richard Eggers of the banking world.
Sorry, but you guys are both wrong. I know, because I work for a financial services firm in financial operations and compliance.

The new regs include strict rules and restrictions on having people employed with certain crimes in their past like fraud and theft. The penalties if you are found to be in violation are big, so the lawyers are simply not taking any chances.

I know it's fun to try and demonize the evil banks and companies, but in truth this is an example of a poorly written law and the unintended consequences. The FDIC wanted this to clear out execs and others with transactional crimes, but the law was not written that way. It also doesn't include any kind of limitation based on time past or seriousness of the crime, thus ensnaring people like Eggers.

Don't blame the financial companies for following the regs, fix the regs.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
How else are they going to get out of paying that welfare, socialist pension? He should just hurry up and die already. Deadbeat thinking he can extort that righteous, wholesome company out of hard earned profits? So what he dedicated most of his life to helping make those profits?
You are very misinformed, see my previous post.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Sorry, but you guys are both wrong. I know, because I work for a financial services firm in financial operations and compliance.

The new regs include strict rules and restrictions on having people employed with certain crimes in their past like fraud and theft. The penalties if you are found to be in violation are big, so the lawyers are simply not taking any chances.

I know it's fun to try and demonize the evil banks and companies, but in truth this is an example of a poorly written law and the unintended consequences. The FDIC wanted this to clear out execs and others with transactional crimes, but the law was not written that way. It also doesn't include any kind of limitation based on time past or seriousness of the crime, thus ensnaring people like Eggers.

Don't blame the financial companies for following the regs, fix the regs.
This sounds reasonable. So long as the political machines don't start winding themselves up with outrage, we can finally see the letter of the law get reformed to match the spirit of the law. If they do, then we are back to square one.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,276
103
106
This sounds reasonable. So long as the political machines don't start winding themselves up with outrage, we can finally see the letter of the law get reformed to match the spirit of the law. If they do, then we are back to square one.
We've had to terminate people over seemingly very small issues, but the lawyers simply will not gamble when there is big money at stake.

The regs need to be rewritten so they apply to the people they were intended to target.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
The consequences do not match the crime. The consequences were handed out when he first committed the crime.
i agree. he stole a wash back before man had landed on the moon. if i were him, i would find a legal way to fight this. there has to be an wrongful termination suit there... sure seems like it anyway
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
sucks for him, but there are consequences for our actions.
yep, I knew it. There's always gotta be somebody in one of these threads with this predictable pedantic totally insane response, congrats you win the prize.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
7,015
829
126
The tougher standards are meant to weed out executives and mid-level bank employees guilty of transactional crimes, like identity fraud or mortgage fraud, but they are being applied across-the-board thanks to $1 million a day fines for noncompliance.
Eggers got a chance to explain himself to company officials after they received the results of his criminal background check from a Florida company called First Advantage. He was fired anyway.

The computerized report obtained by First Advantage listed Eggers' crime as "fraud." However, records in the Warren County Courthouse confirmed his account of the 1963 incident. The files say he was arrested for "operating a coin changing machine by false means" and convicted of that charge.

First Advantage officials have not responded to numerous requests for comment over the past two weeks.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-08-26/banks-fire-low-level-workers/57334450/1

So are banks doing criminal background checks on existing employees now because of this law?
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY