Fraud Lawsuit Targeted in Case of Fraud at M&T Bank

Fraud Lawsuit Targeted in Case of Fraud at M&T Bank

A former executive of M&T Bank has filed a lawsuit against the bank, claiming that the bank’s loan agreements were unfair and caused him and other employees to be subjected to sexual harassment. According to the complaint, an attorney who worked for M&T Bank repeatedly propositioned female employees in the office, requesting that they work additional hours at night and would often give sexual favors in the office.

According to The complaint, the attorney also often propositioned female employees, propositioning them and making unwanted sexual advances. When one female employee complained about this conduct, the bank’s human resources department told her not to file a formal complaint because the conduct did not constitute sexual harassment.

M&T Bank Lawsuit

* Complaint: Mel Marks, an attorney, was employed by M&T Bank from August 2021 until June 2021. During this period, he served as an account executive for M&T Bank’s Commercial Banking division, where he was responsible for M&T Bank’s inventory accounting, loan processing and other commercial banking functions. From this position, according to the complaint, he became aware that some employees at M&T Bank engaged in sexual harassment while working.

Specifically, he claims that he witnessed female employees receiving sexual advances from certain senior bankers and that he witnessed other employees performing sex-related acts at work, such as female employees having sexual contact with male customers rubbing up against female workers in the work area.

At the time of filing this complaint, Marks was working as a vice president for M&T Bank when it acquired the failed Union County, Kentucky-based Countrywide Financial Corporation.

In connection with this acquisition, according to the complaint, Countrywide Bank supervisors conspired to have Mel Marks, a non-employee member of the Bank’s management, dead on the job so that Countrywide could take over the failed institution’s operations. Because of this conspiracy, the current owner of Countrywide Bank received a notice of wrongful and unlawful termination from Bank management. According to the complaint, the owner, Mel Marks, brought this claim against M&T Bank leadership, which are both defendants in this action. As a direct result of this invasion of his privacy, Marks suffered injuries as a result of being wrongfully terminated.

According to the complaint, various transactions in which mel Marks was involved occurred as part of a scheme to defraud Countrywide Bank and its Related Party Transactions (PCPT) into paying thousands of dollars to former Countrywide Bank employees and consultants in exchange for unauthorized referrals to other entities in return for payments.

Additionally, other former Countrywide Bank employees were provided kickbacks from other banks for arranging kickbacks from Countrywide in connection with their PCPT transactions. In order to avoid detection from an outside source, however, the conspirators entered into a re-manufactured inventory system with an associated billing and collection agency called “Reynolds”.

The conspiracy also included a scheme in which the principals took part in a securities fraud scheme in which they schemed to defraud Bank of America, or AMEX, to release millions of dollars of discount currency in exchange for false guarantees from the related party.

Once these bank accounts were opened, they provided a credit to Marks’s business account for processing credit card transactions. Marks’s attorney, Robert Speese, claims that this breach of fiduciary duty and violations of his rights extended to M&T Bank in violation of its own policies and agreements. M&T Bank management failed to notify M&T Bank of the scheme, allowing the principal to close his business accounts with impunity.

The complaint further claims that Marks’s wrongful termination deprived him of a reasonable compensation and benefits package agreed between the parties in the negotiations of a settlement.

Other claims include: breach of trust, misusing confidential information, fiduciary responsibility, negligence and securities fraud. A jury trial is expected in this case. The trial will be held in the state court in Baltimore County, Maryland. The trial date has been scheduled for June 2021.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *