United States v. DB Group Services (UK) Limited (and Deutsche Bank AG) (2024)

United States v. DB Group Services UK Limited
Court Docket Number: 3:15-cr-00062-RNC (D. of Connecticut)

United States v. Deutsche Bank AG (DPA)
Court Docket Number: 3:15-cr-00061-RNC (D. of Connecticut)

Court Assigned: This case is assigned to Judge Stefan R. Underhill, U. S. District Court, Courtroom One, 915 Lafayette Blvd., Bridgeport, CT. The case was previously assigned to Chief Judge Robert N. Chatigny.

Click here for the latest update.

Criminal Charges: On April 23, 2015, DB Group Services (UK) Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank), was charged with and pleaded guilty before a magistrate judge to wire fraud for its role in manipulating the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a leading benchmark interest rate used in financial products and transactions around the world. On the same day, Deutsche Bank entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) to resolve wire fraud and antitrust charges in connection with its role in both manipulating U.S. Dollar LIBOR and engaging in a price-fixing conspiracy to rig Yen LIBOR. Together, Deutsche Bank and its subsidiary will pay $775 million in criminal penalties to the Justice Department.

Deutsche Bank entered into the DPA and admitted its role in manipulating LIBOR and participating in a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act by rigging Yen LIBOR contributions with other banks. The agreement requires the bank to continue cooperating with the Justice Department in its ongoing investigation, to pay a $625 million penalty beyond the fine imposed upon DB Group Services (UK) Limited and to retain a corporate monitor for the three-year term of the agreement.

Together with approximately $1.744 billion in regulatory penalties and disgorgement—$800 million as a result of a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) action, $600 million as a result of a New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) action, and $344 million as a result of a U.K. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) action—the Justice Department’s criminal penalties bring the total amount of penalties to approximately $2.519 billion.

Deutsche Bank was a member of the panel of banks whose submissions were used to calculate the LIBORs for a number of currencies, including U.S. Dollar, Yen, Pound Sterling and Swiss Franc LIBOR, as well as EURIBOR (the Euro Interbank Offered Rate).

According to the agreements, from at least 2003 through early 2011, numerous Deutsche Bank derivatives traders—whose compensation was directly connected to their success in trading financial products tied to LIBOR—engaged in efforts to move these benchmark rates in a direction favorable to their trading positions. Specifically, the derivatives traders requested that LIBOR submitters at Deutsche Bank and other banks submit contributions favorable to trading positions, rather than rates that complied with the definition of LIBOR. Through these schemes, Deutsche Bank defrauded counterparties who were unaware of the manipulation. Deutsche Bank admitted that the conduct affected the resulting LIBOR fix on various occasions.

Deutsche Bank further admitted that its employees engaged in this misconduct through face-to-face requests, electronic communications, which included both emails and electronic chats, and telephone calls. Deutsche Bank also admitted to working with other banks to manipulate LIBOR contributions.

By entering into a DPA with Deutsche Bank, the Justice Department took several factors into consideration, including that Deutsche Bank’s cooperation with the government’s investigation was often helpful but also fell short in some important respects. The department also considered the extensive remedial measures undertaken by Deutsche Bank’s management and its enhanced compliance program. Deutsche Bank has agreed to continue cooperating with the government’s investigation, and the agreement does not prevent the Justice Department from prosecuting culpable individuals for related misconduct. The documents will be filed in federal court in the District of Connecticut.

The Justice Department has previously announced resolutions with five other banks for their roles in manipulation of benchmark interest rates, including Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank) and Lloyds Banking Group plc.

For more information about the charges, please see below:
Press Release
Deutsche Bank Group Services Statement of Facts
Deutsche Bank Group Services Plea Agreement
Deutsche Bank AG Statement of Facts
Deutsche Bank AG Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Victim Impact Statement Form

The information on this website will be updated as new developments arise in the case. If you have any questions, please call the Victim Assistance Line toll-free at (888) 549-3945 or email us at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov.

Related Cases:

  • Barclays Bank PLC - Court Docket Number: 3:15-cr-00061-RNC
  • UBS AG: Court Docket Number - 3:15-cr-00076-RNC
  • The Royal Bank of Scotland plc - Court Docket Number: 3:15-cr-00061-RNC
  • Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank) - Court Docket Number: 3:13-CR-00200-AWT
  • Lloyds Banking Group plc - Court Docket Number: 3:14-cr-00165-AWT

Presumption of Innocence: It is important to keep in mind that defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty and that presumption requires both the court and our office to take certain steps to ensure that justice is served.

Crime Victims’ Rights Act and Right to Retain Counsel: The Crime Victims’ Rights Act (18 U.S.C. § 3771) applies only to victims of the counts charged in federal court, and thus individuals may not be able to exercise all of these rights if the crime of which the individual is a victim was not charged. Section 377I(c)(2) of this Act requires that we advise you that you have the right to retain counsel. Although the statute specifically sets forth your right to seek advice of an attorney with regard to your rights under the statute, there is no requirement that you retain counsel. The Government may not recommend any specific counsel, nor can the Government (or the Court) pay for counsel to represent you. Government attorneys represent the United States.

If you elect to obtain counsel to represent your interests, please have your attorney notify this office in writing at: U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section, 10th & Constitution Avenue, NW, Bond Building, Room 4416, Washington, DC 20530, Attention: Pamela Washington; (202) 514-3708 (fax). If you elect not to retain counsel to represent your interests, you do not need to do anything.

Plea Agreements: Please be aware that many criminal cases are resolved by plea agreement between the Department of Justice and the defendant. You should also know that it is not unusual for a defendant to seek to negotiate a plea agreement shortly before trial is scheduled to begin. Plea agreements can be made at any time and as late as the morning of trial, leaving little or no opportunity to provide notice to you of the date and time of the plea hearing. If the court schedules a plea hearing in this case, we will use our best efforts to notify you of available information as soon as practicable. If you want to inform the prosecutor of your views regarding potential plea agreements, or any other aspect of the case, please contact the prosecutor assigned to this case or call the Victim Assistance Line toll-free at (888) 549-3945 or email us at victimassistance.fraud@usdoj.gov.

United States v. DB Group Services (UK) Limited (and Deutsche Bank AG) (2024)

FAQs

What is the Deutsche Bank controversy? ›

It wasn't long ago that Deutsche Bank was synonymous with banking scandals, money laundering and controversial clients, including former President Donald Trump and convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein. Bankers set up deals for their own advantage that sometimes went against shareholders.

What is the penalty for Deutsche Bank AML? ›

Deutsche Bank fined $630 million

Deutsche Bank was required to improve its anti-money laundering measures, enhance monitoring systems, and strengthen its compliance framework.

What went wrong at Deutsche Bank? ›

Scandal upon scandal

The implication of this profiteering came home to roost in January 2014, when the bank was forced to pay a $1.93bn settlement to the US Federal Housing Finance Agency for its sale of subprime-mortgage-backed securities to now-defunct government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Why does the Deutsche Bank have a bad reputation? ›

Regulatory Issues and Fines: Deutsche Bank has faced several regulatory fines and penalties, some of which were due to accusations of money laundering and other financial misconduct. These fines have significantly impacted the bank's financial stability and contributed to its downward trajectory.

What was the Deutsche Bank spying scandal? ›

spying scandal in the Deutsche Bank. The management's personal interest in spying. Deutsche bank was not only monitoring on its employees but also the outside investors. thousands of email of employees, but also secretly searched their computer hard drives.

When did the Deutsche Bank scandal happen? ›

On 3 January 2014, it was reported that Deutsche Bank would settle a lawsuit brought by US shareholders, who had accused the bank of bundling and selling bad real estate loans before the 2008 downturn.

What is the Deutsche Bank corruption scandal? ›

The Federal Reserve is fining Deutsche Bank $186 million for “unsafe and unsound practices” relating to sanctions compliance and money-laundering controls stemming from its involvement with a scandal-ridden Estonian branch of Danske Bank, according to Fed documents made public Wednesday.

Is the Deutsche Bank losing money? ›

Revenues at its investment bank increased 13% to 3 billion euros, following a 9% slump through full-year 2023 which had dragged down overall profit. The performance restores the division as Deutsche Bank's highest-earning unit on growth in financing and credit trading revenue.

What is the Deutsche Bank greenwashing scandal? ›

What was Deutsche Bank accused of? The financial institution underwent a fraud investigation. In short, some of its investment products were labelled as sustainable on sales prospectuses, despite ESG criteria not being clearly taken into account for most of these products.

Who is the Deutsche Bank owned by? ›

The ownership structure of Deutsche Bank AG (DB) stock is a mix of institutional, retail and individual investors. Approximately 30.26% of the company's stock is owned by Institutional Investors, 0.10% is owned by Insiders and 69.64% is owned by Public Companies and Individual Investors.

Is Goldman Sachs better than Deutsche Bank? ›

Since 2007 Goldman's 10 percent CAGR in book value of 10 percent is 10 times higher than Deutsche Bank's rate. Analysts point out that Goldman and Deutsche Bank share similar return on RWA numbers, but that Goldman has a much better return on leverage exposure.

How is Deutsche Bank different from other banks? ›

Client centricity

a leading European Corporate Bank based in Europe's largest economy, the Investment Bank focussing on its traditional strengths in financing, advisory, fixed income and currencies.

What is the German Bank scandal? ›

Then, on June 18, 2020, Wirecard announced that nearly two billion euros was missing from the company's accounts. The sum amounted to all the profits that Wirecard had ever reported as a public company. There were only two possibilities: the money had been stolen, or it had never existed.

What was the Bank controversy? ›

The Bank War was a political struggle that developed over the issue of rechartering the Second Bank of the United States (B.U.S.) during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). The affair resulted in the shutdown of the Bank and its replacement by state banks.

How was Deutsche Bank greenwashing? ›

What was Deutsche Bank accused of? The financial institution underwent a fraud investigation. In short, some of its investment products were labelled as sustainable on sales prospectuses, despite ESG criteria not being clearly taken into account for most of these products.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Saturnina Altenwerth DVM

Last Updated:

Views: 5512

Rating: 4.3 / 5 (64 voted)

Reviews: 87% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Saturnina Altenwerth DVM

Birthday: 1992-08-21

Address: Apt. 237 662 Haag Mills, East Verenaport, MO 57071-5493

Phone: +331850833384

Job: District Real-Estate Architect

Hobby: Skateboarding, Taxidermy, Air sports, Painting, Knife making, Letterboxing, Inline skating

Introduction: My name is Saturnina Altenwerth DVM, I am a witty, perfect, combative, beautiful, determined, fancy, determined person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.