Wells Fargo said in September 2016 that refunded accounts were a fraction of one percent of the accounts reviewed and that it had disciplined managers and team members who acted counter to its values.

Accounts refunded represented a fraction of one percent of the accounts reviewed

About: Wells Fargo & Company
Claim made by: Wells Fargo & Company, company statement
Published: 8 September 2016
Original: Wells Fargo Issues Statement on Agreements Related to Sales Practices
Evidence score: 85 How it was scored
Last reviewed: 25 October 2026

Why this label

The statement framed the problem around refunds averaging US$25 and individual staff who acted counter to company values^S2. That framing has been overtaken. The DOJ release on the 2020 deferred prosecution agreement says thousands of employees provided millions of accounts or products without proper consent, that staff were pressured to meet unrealistic sales goals, and that Community Bank senior leadership knew and failed to act^S3. The SEC found that unauthorized accounts inflated the cross-sell metric the bank promoted to investors^S4. The refund figure may have been accurate for the accounts reviewed in 2016. The picture of limited, individual misconduct is no longer the position of the record.

Current procedural position

Company statement of September 2016^S2. DPA and SEC cease-and-desist order announced on 21 February 2020^S3^S4.

Record supporting the assessment

Despite knowledge of the illegal sales practices, Community Bank senior leadership failed to take sufficient action

^S3 Tier A US Department of Justice, Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations into Sales Practices Involving the Opening of Millions of Accounts without Customer Authorization, 21 February 2020

antifraud provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

^S4 Tier A US Securities and Exchange Commission, Wells Fargo to Pay $500 Million for Misleading Investors About the Success of Its Largest Business Unit, 21 February 2020

Conflicting or limiting record

Accounts refunded represented a fraction of one percent of the accounts reviewed, and refunds averaged $25.

^S2 Tier B Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Issues Statement on Agreements Related to Sales Practices, Undated on page, issued with the September 2016 agreements

Disciplinary actions, including terminations of managers and team members who acted counter to our values.

^S2 Tier B Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Issues Statement on Agreements Related to Sales Practices, Undated on page, issued with the September 2016 agreements

Evidence score: 85 of 100

The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Wells Fargo & Company. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.

Component	Points	Max	Reason
Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition?	27	30	The later DOJ and SEC records are competent and the statement is the company's own.
DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts?	16	20	The later records describe the scale and leadership knowledge directly, not the 2016 refund figure.
CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point?	13	15	DOJ and SEC records agree on scale and leadership knowledge.
Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes?	12	15	A DPA and a consent order are settled outcomes, though not a conviction.
CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments?	9	10	Checked against the 2020 resolutions and the 2025 Federal Reserve action.
ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment?	8	10	All pages are public, but the company statement page shows no date.
Total	85	100

Timeline

8 September 2016Wells Fargo issues its statement^S2
21 February 2020DPA and SEC order announced^S3^S4

Related cases

In the Matter of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Regulatory. Not published.Stage: Consent order with a US$100 million penalty, alongside OCC and Los Angeles actions. The OCC's 2016 sales practices consent order was terminated in 2024, according to Wells Fargo^S7.
- 8 September 2016 Penalties totaling US$185 million announced^S1
- 13 February 2025 Wells Fargo reports the OCC terminated its 2016 sales practices consent order the previous year^S7
United States v. Wells Fargo & Company (DPA) and In the Matter of Wells Fargo & Company (SEC)US Department of Justice and US Securities and Exchange Commission. Criminal. Not published.Stage: Deferred prosecution agreement with a three-year term and SEC cease-and-desist order with a US$500 million penalty.
- 21 February 2020 US$3 billion resolution announced^S3^S4

Responses

Wells Fargo & Company, 8 September 2016: Wells Fargo said it regretted and took responsibility for any instances where customers got products they did not want.^S2

Revision history

25 October 2026 Assessment first published with label Outdated.

Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.

Sources

S3Tier A Wells Fargo Agrees to Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Criminal and Civil Investigations into Sales Practices Involving the Opening of Millions of Accounts without Customer AuthorizationUS Department of Justice. Regulator press release. 21 February 2020.Supports the DPA, the US$3 billion total and leadership knowledge since 2002. It is not a conviction.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
S4Tier A Wells Fargo to Pay $500 Million for Misleading Investors About the Success of Its Largest Business UnitUS Securities and Exchange Commission. Regulator press release. 21 February 2020.Supports the SEC antifraud order and penalty. The release contains no admit or deny language.
S2Tier B Wells Fargo Issues Statement on Agreements Related to Sales PracticesWells Fargo & Company. Company statement. Undated on page, issued with the September 2016 agreements.The company's 2016 account of refunds and discipline. The page shows no headline or date in its text, so the title follows the newsroom URL and the date follows the CFPB announcement it refers to as today's news (S1). It is not an admission and was overtaken by later records.
S1Tier A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Fines Wells Fargo $100 Million for Widespread Illegal Practice of Secretly Opening Unauthorized AccountsConsumer Financial Protection Bureau. Regulator press release. 8 September 2016.Supports the account figures and the three penalties. The US$185 million total is the sum of the three amounts, not a figure on the page.
S7Tier B Wells Fargo Confirms Termination of 2018 OCC Compliance Consent OrderWells Fargo & Company (Form 8-K exhibit). Company filing. 13 February 2025.Company statement that the OCC ended its 2016 sales practices consent order in 2024 and that ten consent orders have closed since 2019. The OCC termination notice itself was not read.

Other claims about Wells Fargo & Company

Supported92
The CFPB said in September 2016 that Wells Fargo employees opened roughly 1.5 million deposit accounts and applied for roughly 565,000 credit card accounts that may not have been authorized by consumers.
Regulator statement, 8 September 20164 records citedFraud
Supported92
The Federal Reserve announced on 3 June 2025 that Wells Fargo is no longer subject to the asset growth restriction imposed in its 2018 enforcement action.
Regulator statement, 3 June 20251 record citedCorporate status