The TCRC today announced two separate comparisons with Scotiabank in parallel related proceedings. One of Scotiabank`s resolutions with the CFTC relates to the illegal trade in Flaum and the three other merchants that Scotiabank of the CFTC did not fully disclose as part of the PREVIOUS CFTC investigation, which resulted in the 2018 CFTC Resolution that was discussed above. Under the terms of the new agreement between Scotiabank and the CFTC, Scotiabank has agreed to pay approximately US$60.4 million, including a civil fine of $US 42 million and a refund and deposit credited to the division for such payments. The second resolution between Scotiabank and the CFTC refers to certain false statements made by Scotiabank to the CFTC (including in the investigation that led to the 2018 RESOLUTION OF THE CFTC), the COMEX and the National Futures Association. Under this agreement, Scotiabank agreed to pay a civil fine of approximately $US 17 million. Following the Canada-U.S. FATCA agreement, signed between the two countries in 2014, Scotiabank also spent nearly US$100 million to set up a controversial system to report to the U.S. the account assets of nearly one million U.S.-born Canadians and their Canadian-born spouses. Scotiabank was forced to implement this system to satisfy FATCA. According to the Financial Post, FATCA requires Canadian banks to provide information in the United States, including total assets, account balances, account numbers, transactions, account numbers and other personally identifiable information, as well as assets held jointly with Canadian-born spouses and other family members.   In 1975, the Bank of Nova Scotia adopted Scotiabank as its global brand. On September 28, 1978, Scotiabank and the Canadian Union of Public Employees in Toronto signed a collective agreement that made Scotiabank the first Canadian bank to sign a collective agreement with a union. “Today, Scotiabank has recognized its role in a vast price manipulation program aimed at distorting the prices of precious metal futures in order to serve the bank`s best interests,” said William F. Sweeney Jr., deputy director of the FBI`s New York Field Office. “The Bank`s action was aimed at encouraging others to act in a way that they would never have had without the activity considered legitimate in the market.