Santander were fined £32m for failing to deal with 40,000 accounts when people died. (https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/santander-uk-plc-...). They were also fined £58m for failures around consumer credit (https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2019/02/27/santander-h...). In the US Santander paid out $550m because of dodgy car loans (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-autos-lending/santand...). That's from one Google search for "Santander fined".

This is the problem though. I'm still with HSBC because, while HSBC is pretty terrible, the rest of the banks are also terrible.

On the flip side one of the heirs to the Santander empire tried to smuggle a Picasso out of Spain on his yacht, which is kind of cool... https://news.yahoo.com/santander-heir-gets-44m-fine-20351628...

They were also caught discriminating against... well, you can probably finish this sentence.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-santanderbank-mortgages-i...

> It also refused loans to 30 percent of low-income applicants, compared to the aggregate rate of 18 percent

Why refusing to loan money to low-income borrowers is supposed to be discrimination?

If someone has minimal income they are far less likely to repay loan, why this is supposed to be indicator of some discrimination?

If someone earn 30k per year and someone earns 3000k per year then it is not surprising that loan of 200k would be far more likely given to person with higher income.

Banks are typically extremely awful, but why that specific part is supposed be indicator of something wrong? And it seems likely that other statistics mentioned are result of that.

They were doing it significsntly more than their competitors.