Bank of Maharashtra

RBI imposed a ₹32.50 lakh penalty on Bank of Maharashtra for regulatory non-compliance. The bank failed to report SHG member-level data to CICs and did not identify beneficial owners in certain accounts.

Bank of Maharashtra must bear the monetary penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI. The findings highlight deficiencies in credit information reporting and KYC/beneficial ownership processes, and RBI has noted that the penalty is without prejudice to any other action it may initiate.

• section 25(1)(iii) read with section 23(4) of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005
• section 47A(1)(c) read with sections 46(4)(i) and 51(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 31.80 lakh on Bank of Maharashtra for KYC-related non-compliance. The issue involved several deposit accounts opened using Aadhaar OTP-based e-KYC in non-face-to-face mode.

Bank of Maharashtra must absorb the monetary penalty and remain subject to RBI supervision. The order does not invalidate customer transactions, but it signals KYC compliance deficiencies and leaves the bank exposed to possible further RBI action.

• Section 47A(1)(c)
• Section 46(4)(i)
• Section 51(1)

+1 more in the case brief

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 1.272 crore on Bank of Maharashtra for multiple regulatory non-compliances. The violations related to lending norms, cyber security controls, and KYC/UCIC compliance.

Bank of Maharashtra must bear the monetary penalty and address the identified compliance gaps. The order does not invalidate customer transactions, but RBI noted that the penalty is without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated, so further supervisory or enforcement steps remain possible.

• section 47A(1)(c) read with sections 46(4)(i) and 51(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a Rs 1.45 crore penalty on Bank of Maharashtra for non-compliance with directions on lending restrictions and ATM cybersecurity controls.

Bank of Maharashtra must absorb the financial penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI. The action does not itself impose a new operating restriction, but it signals supervisory findings on lending discipline and ATM security controls that the bank must remedy to avoid further regulatory action.

• section 47 A (1) (c) read with sections 46 (4) (i) and 51 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a ₹1.12 crore monetary penalty on Bank of Maharashtra for non-compliance with KYC, CRILC reporting, and outsourcing-related directions. The order was issued after inspection and scrutiny found specific compliance deficiencies.

Bank of Maharashtra must bear the monetary penalty and address the compliance deficiencies identified by RBI. The action does not itself restrict operations, but it signals ongoing supervisory expectations around KYC, reporting accuracy, and outsourcing oversight; customers are not directly subject to any new restriction from this order.

• section 47 A (1) (c)
• sections 46 (4) (i)
• 51 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed monetary penalties on fourteen banks for various compliance failures. The penalties ranged from Rs 50 lakh to Rs 1 crore.

All fourteen banks must absorb the monetary penalty and address the cited compliance weaknesses. The action has no stated direct effect on customer transactions, but it signals supervisory scrutiny of lending, exposure reporting, and statutory compliance practices.

• Section 19(2) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949
• Section 20 (1) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949
• section 47 A (1) (c) read with sections 46 (4) (i) and 51 (1), of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 14 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed a ₹2 crore penalty on Bank of Maharashtra for multiple regulatory non-compliances. The breaches related to fraud reporting, concurrent audit, customer complaint disclosures, ATM unreconciled balances, and MSME restructuring norms.

Bank of Maharashtra must bear the ₹2 crore penalty and the finding of non-compliance under RBI norms. The order does not itself restrict operations or alter customer contracts, but it signals supervisory censure and may heighten compliance scrutiny going forward.

• section 47 A (1) (c) read with sections 46 (4) (i) and 51 (1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed monetary penalties on seven banks for non-compliance with multiple RBI directions. The action was taken under the Banking Regulation Act after scrutiny and show-cause proceedings.

Each named bank must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance weaknesses identified by RBI. The order does not invalidate customer transactions, but it signals supervisory concerns and may lead to tighter internal controls and future scrutiny.

• Section 47A(1)(c)
• Sections 46(4)(i) and 51(1) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 7 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed monetary penalties on 36 banks for non-compliance with SWIFT-related operational control directions. The penalties were issued by orders dated January 31 and February 25, 2019.

The penalized banks must absorb the financial penalty and continue improving compliance with SWIFT-related controls. RBI also stated it will continue to closely monitor adherence to these controls on an ongoing basis; the action does not pronounce on the validity of customer transactions or agreements.

• Section 47A(1)(c) read with Section 46(4)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 36 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed monetary penalties on four banks, including Allahabad Bank, Andhra Bank, Bank of Maharashtra, and Indian Overseas Bank. The penalties were for non-compliance with several RBI directions.

The four banks must absorb the monetary penalties and address the compliance deficiencies identified by RBI. The action does not itself restrict operations, but it signals continued supervisory scrutiny over their internal controls and regulatory adherence.

• Section 47A(1)(c) read with Section 46(4)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 4 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of ₹10 million on Bank of Maharashtra for regulatory non-compliance. The breaches related to fraud classification/reporting and KYC directions.

Bank of Maharashtra must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance weaknesses identified by RBI. The action has no stated operational restriction, but it signals heightened regulatory scrutiny over fraud reporting and KYC compliance.

• Section 47A (1) (c) read with Section 46 (4) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed a monetary penalty on Bank of Maharashtra for delay in detecting and reporting a fraud in an account.

The bank must bear the penalty and the finding highlights deficiencies in fraud detection and reporting controls. The action has no stated operational restriction, but it signals heightened regulatory scrutiny over the bank’s fraud monitoring and reporting processes.

• Section 47A (1) (c) read with Section 46 (4) (i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

RBI imposed monetary penalties on Bank of Maharashtra, Dena Bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce for KYC/AML and related compliance violations. Eight other public sector banks were cautioned to strengthen controls.

The three penalised banks must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI, especially around KYC/AML, transaction monitoring, RTGS controls, and FD/OD diligence. The eight cautioned banks face no monetary penalty in this release, but they are expected to strengthen controls and periodically review compliance processes going forward.

• Section 47(A) (1) (c) read with Section 46(4)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 11 entities. This profile is linked as primary.

RBI imposed monetary penalties on six banks for violations of KYC/AML-related instructions. The banks were found to have lapses in customer identification, risk profiling, KYC updation and CTR filing.

The penalised banks must absorb the monetary sanction and address the compliance shortcomings identified by RBI, especially around KYC/AML controls, customer due diligence, and transaction monitoring. The action has no stated forward restriction on operations, but it signals heightened supervisory scrutiny and the need for stronger internal controls. Depositors and customers are indirectly affected through tighter compliance processes and monitoring.

• Section 47(A)(1)(c) read with Section 46(4)(i) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949

This RBI action affected 6 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.