Yes Bank Limited

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of ₹31.80 lakh on Yes Bank Limited for KYC non-compliance. The bank failed to use the KYC Identifier from the Central KYC Records Registry when opening account-based relationships.

Yes Bank must bear the monetary penalty and ensure its onboarding/KYC systems comply with RBI directions, specifically the use of Central KYC Records Registry identifiers for account-based relationships. The action does not invalidate customer transactions, but it signals compliance deficiencies that may attract further regulatory scrutiny.

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

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 29.6 lakh on Yes Bank Limited for non-compliance with directions on financial statements presentation and disclosures.

Yes Bank Limited must absorb the monetary penalty and address the disclosure deficiency in its regulatory reporting practices. The order does not invalidate any transaction or agreement with customers, but RBI may initiate additional action if warranted.

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

RBI imposed a monetary penalty of ₹91 lakh on Yes Bank Ltd. for non-compliance with customer service and internal account-operation directions.

Yes Bank must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance lapses identified by RBI. The order does not invalidate customer transactions or agreements, but it signals continued supervisory scrutiny and leaves open the possibility of additional action by RBI for the same or related deficiencies.

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

RBI superseded the Board of Directors of Yes Bank Ltd. for 30 days and appointed an administrator. The move was prompted by serious deterioration in the bank's financial position.

Yes Bank's existing board is removed for the stated period and an administrator takes charge. The bank remains under RBI/Central Government-driven restructuring, with the stated aim of restoring depositor confidence and potentially moving toward reconstruction or amalgamation. Depositors and other stakeholders are directly affected by the change in governance.

• 36ACA of the Banking Regulation Act 1949
• Section 36ACA (2) of the Act

Yes Bank Ltd. was placed under moratorium by the Central Government on RBI’s application. The move followed severe deterioration in the bank’s financial position, liquidity stress, and governance issues.

The bank enters a 30-day moratorium, with RBI and the Central Government expected to work out a reconstruction or amalgamation scheme before the period ends. Depositors were assured that their interests would be protected, but the bank’s normal operations are constrained during the moratorium and the action is aimed at stabilizing the institution.

• section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949
• section 35A of the Act ibid.

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 a monetary penalty of ₹60 million on Yes Bank Limited for non-compliance with IRAC norms and delayed reporting of a cyber-security incident involving its ATMs.

Yes Bank must absorb the monetary penalty and continue complying with RBI’s IRAC and reporting requirements. The action does not indicate a business restriction, but it signals continued supervisory scrutiny over the bank’s asset classification practices and incident-reporting controls.

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

RBI imposed penalties on 12 banks in connection with scrutiny of accounts related to M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Ltd. The banks were found to have violated RBI instructions/directions/guidelines.

Each named bank must bear the imposed penalty; there is no indication of an operational restriction or cancellation. The action signals regulatory non-compliance tied to lending/account handling in relation to the borrower, but the release says it does not determine the validity of any transaction or agreement between the banks and the borrower.

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

This RBI action affected 12 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed monetary penalties on 22 banks for various KYC/AML and related compliance violations. The release also says seven other banks were only cautioned, not fined.

Each of the 22 named banks must bear the monetary penalty and face the compliance finding recorded by RBI. The action does not impose an ongoing operational restriction, but it signals supervisory concerns over KYC/AML and transaction-monitoring controls.

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

This RBI action affected 22 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.

RBI imposed monetary penalties on 19 commercial banks for violating its derivatives-related instructions. The banks were found to have failed on due diligence, suitability checks, and related verification requirements.

Each of the 19 named banks must absorb the monetary penalty and address the compliance gaps identified by RBI. The action does not impose an ongoing operational restriction, but it signals scrutiny over derivatives sales, suitability checks, and underlying verification controls.

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

This RBI action affected 19 entities. This profile is linked as bulk member.