Who can be held personally responsible for accepting deposits if they know the bank is failing?

The president or director of the bank can be held personally responsible for accepting deposits if they know the bank is failing because they are in positions of authority and have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the bank and its depositors. As the individuals overseeing the operations and financial health of the bank, they are responsible for ensuring compliance with financial regulations and maintaining the bank’s solvency. If they knowingly accept deposits when aware of the bank's failing status, they can be held liable for acting in ways that could harm depositors and undermine the public’s trust in the banking system. Their roles place them directly in the line of accountability for the bank's operations and risk management practices, making them personally liable for decisions that can lead to financial mismanagement or malpractice.

Other individuals, such as shareholders, investors, or even the chief financial officer, may have varying degrees of involvement in financial operations, but it is the leaders—typically the president or directors—who are legally obligated to ensure the institution’s compliance and viability, particularly regarding the acceptance of deposits.