It should. Otherwise the rest of us are paying for it.
"Customers" are either lending to or borrowing from the bank. If it's the former, it's usually safe...but not 100%. If the bank fails to pay you back, that's your problem, is it not?
No, WFC is solvent, so nobody has to pay for anything.
In a bankruptcy, customers, the people depositing money in the bank, are first in line, then bondholders (first senior, then junior) and finally stockholders. Fludlight was proposing forcing WFC into bankruptcy as a punishment. Stockholders would lose all their money and bondholders lose part; customers would get their deposits back, I imagine.
> If the bank fails to pay you back, that's your problem, is it not?
In a free market, yes. But fractional reserve banks in a free market are vulnerable to bank runs because they engage in maturity transformation (borrow short, lend long). That is an unstable situation: an unsubstantiated rumor can start a bank run which would lead to a collapse of the bank. To remedy that, the government usually guarantees deposits up to a certain amount (in the US, FDIC guarantees up to $250,000).
If WF goes under and takes their customers down as well, then we didn't really solve the problem. Put another way, you end up punishing the people who had nothing to do with the crimes rather than those that committed the crimes in the first place