U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled: $35.00 per fraudulent Wells Fargo bank account or mockery of justice.

Judges are the best friends money can buy for  Wells Fargo Bank.


U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed Wednesday to issue final approval for a $142-million class-action accord that will pay an average of $35 for account holders at the center of the company’s worst scandal in modern history.

A parking ticket cost more to pay..

So, now if a Doe Joe will steal identities from 100 people and open 1000 fake accounts, under Judge Chhabria’s rationale he should  pay $35,000 as a rough justice, and walk away from the Court room unharmed.

This is an abuse of judicial power and  mockery of Justice,  very typical for Wells Fargo bank’s best judicial friends.

Worth to mention, before his appointment to the bench, Vince Chhabria worked in the City Office of Attorney General who surprisingly never noticed ANY wrongdoings  with Wells Fargo bank  fake accounts committed by Wells Fargo bank employees  under his nose…. I guess why?

Judge approves a $142-million settlement over the Wells Fargo accounts scandal, calling it ‘rough justice

The San Francisco judge told attorneys who objected to the settlement that it has flaws, but said it’s “rough justice” and was better than pressing forward with trial or proceeding with lots of individual lawsuits.


“There’s no doubt this is an imperfect solution, but what’s the alternative?” Chhabria said. “I do believe this settlement is fair and there was a conscientious effort by both parties to come up with the least-worst solution for what’s happened here.”

The practice of employees creating unwanted accounts as they tried to reach tough sales goals was first reported by the Los Angeles Times in 2013 after an investigation.

A spokesman for the bank said the outcome of Wednesday’s hearing is “another step forward for our broad and far-reaching $142 million settlement agreement that will support our efforts to make things right for our customers and further restore trust with all of Wells Fargo’s stakeholders.”


Payouts for individual customers will vary according to how many fake accounts were created in their names and the damage to their bank balances and credit scores.


Chhabria asked consumer attorneys who negotiated the deal to file additional paperwork that will delay approval until at least Monday. The filings will include an oversight mechanism to ensure the settlement is fully enforced before plaintiffs’ attorneys receive their $21-million portion. There also may be a bond requirement for appeals to deter “serial objectors” from trying to block the settlement.


Consumers from Utah and Texas will appeal the approved settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco, said Steven Christensen, the attorney who filed the first consumer suit against the bank after the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau fined Wells Fargo in September 2016. The appeal will probably delay payouts to consumers.

“No one knows the true number of victims,” Christensen wrote in a court filing May 14. He called for further investigation into the bank’s behavior, including details into its alleged “shredding parties” where documents detailing the fake accounts were destroyed.


He also faulted the bank’s record-keeping.

“On occasion, they allege the records are meticulously maintained, and constitute sufficient evidence to force a helpless customer/victim into arbitration,” he said. “In the next breath, the CEO of the company publicly announced that many of the bank’s records were not reliable due to age and storage reasons.”


Supporters of the settlement say it’s probably impossible to identify every affected consumer. But the accord allows for the $142 million payout to be increased if enough customers file claims.


The fallout from the scandal has stretched into this year. Last month, the bank was hit with a $1-billion fine by federal regulators over other consumer abuses, and it is operating under an unprecedented growth cap slapped on it by the Federal Reserve as it works to improve its corporate governance.