Why do you think only WF as seen this? They simply are the tall poppy that went a bit too far.
The high metrics that purposefully cause employee turnover due to not being long-term sustainable are more or less industry standard. These policies always lead to at least some low-level fraud trying to game the numbers by the retail level folks, but usually it's a dull roar and more an annoyance that easily gets eclipsed by the additional sales benefit.
And not even the banking industry. The retail service industry. It's simply how the game is played these days, Wells Fargo wasn't much interesting in this respect, they were just ham fisted and clumsier than most.
If you ask any retail bank employee working at Wells Fargo vs. any of the other retail majors wasn't a much different experience. Working as a retail banker is also much more like working as a manager of Instant Oil Change selling upsells than an investment banker deciding where to invest. I think you'll find most folks prefer the Wells Fargo job over other majors; at least my friends who were bank tellers/retail bank managers did.
As a person who isn't a shareholder, I look at this the same way I look at other companies I don't own (e.g. Knight Capital, Yahoo) being mismanaged: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Not to mention that the use of punishment for not meeting unmeetable targets is not the same as not giving out bonuses for not meeting them.
Either way, regardless of whether they got caught or not, WF lost money on this. It's a screwup that harms them, not a criminal conspiracy as the parent poster alleged.
I'm reminded of "will no one rid me of this troublesome priest" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket ). Not specifically asking that someone be murdered, but implying from a position of power that it's something you really want to happen.
Similarly setting up an incentive system with targets that are unmeetable without unethical practices then looking the other way when those practices happen implies a certain amount of complicity. It's just really hard to prove, which is the intention, and why some offences are "strict liability".
Not to mention that the use of punishment for not meeting unmeetable targets is not the same as not giving out bonuses for not meeting them.