“I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies…” Thomas Jefferson
In the chaos of the initial weeks of the COVID-19 financial strain, most people struggled just to keep their heads above water. But for Robert and Laurene Yurkovich, a retired couple from Calgary, what was supposed to be a temporary financial setback turned into a devastating, life-altering catastrophe.
In March 2020, Citibank shockingly sold nearly 3 million shares from the couple's account, obliterating over $6 million of their hard-earned wealth. This was not just a poor decision made in bad timing. It was a reckless move executed despite their objections and directly violated a prior, clear agreement on a margin solution. The damage inflicted was irreversible for the Yurkoviches. Meanwhile, Citibank continued its routine business as if nothing had happened.
This case, now playing out in court, is a warning bell: not just about Citi’s behavior, but about how retail customers are ruthlessly treated as disposable. It also reminds us how little protection average investors have when the institutions they rely on decide to put their interests first.
Margin calls and emergency liquidations are complex, sure. But the imbalance of power between a global banking giant and a retired couple with a longstanding relationship at the firm is not complex at all. It is exploitative.
Citibank has argued that its actions were legal and within its discretion. But that kind of language is exactly the problem. Discretion is not a license to ignore fairness or good faith. Legal cover does not excuse behavior that lacks ethics, judgment, or basic decency.
This is not a one-off. Citi has a long record of questionable calls: from discriminatory lending practices to mishandled fraud claims to fines over misleading retail clients. Time and again, they have been told to clean up their act. Time and again, they haven’t. It’s part of a broader pattern: protect profits, paper over the damage, and move on – hoping most people won’t notice or won’t fight back.
That’s why the spirit of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) still matters. To be clear, the CFPB has gone too far at times, wielding its enforcement power with a zeal that made even well-meaning institutions nervous. But the idea behind it – that ordinary people need someone watching out for them when they go up against massive financial firms – is right. And cases like the Yurkoviches' are exactly why that role still has value. The answer isn’t to sideline consumer protection entirely, but to calibrate it, ensuring oversight remains robust without becoming overbearing. It’s a balancing act worth getting right.
The CFPB, and perhaps state attorneys general, should take a closer look at how large banks execute margin calls, how "discretion" is exercised, and how customers are (or aren’t) informed.
These aren't just operational issues. They speak to fairness and trust in the financial system.
Citi also has some internal housecleaning to do. A culture that permits these decisions isn't just careless. It's broken. A bank that sells out its customers during a crisis shouldn't get to rebrand itself as a modern, customer-centric institution until it proves it can act like one.
Citi needs a top-to-bottom culture review, from the executive suite to branch-level client interactions. Until that happens, every polished ad campaign rings hollow.
Banks have shifted from serving depositors' needs to viewing depositors as mere sources of funds to increase bank profits. This is what Thomas Jefferson was referencing when he said banks were more dangerous to the people than a standing army.
The Yurkovichs' lawsuit deserves to be heard. But the real message should go far beyond the courtroom. It’s time to take a hard look at how banks treat their customers when no one’s watching – and to put rules in place that make sure decency is not optional.
Leif Larson is a media consultant and media strategist for multiple political candidates and issue campaigns across the country.
