Let's say the SVB Board of Directors had a meeting in which they reviewed information about their Lending Officer soliciting and receiving $250,000 as an "investment", which they should have suspected as a bribe, for his private company from the bank's Chief loan customer's wife. And let's say this is on top of all types of other gifts and favors like private plane rides, yacht rides and visits to Nevada, etc... And let's say the these conflicts were so egregious that they fired this loan officer. Did they file a suspicious activity report as they were required by the FDIC regs and law to do? NO. So the Board terminated but did not file a Suspicious Activity Report? Why? Isn't it true that after this Loan Officer was fired for this breach of rules he actually received a new home loan from Sonoma Valley Bank? Wasn't he carrying 2 houses at that time (his Rohnert Park home and a new home in Santa Rosa? At a time when credit was virtually unavailable for even people with the highest credit scores Sonoma Valley Bank gave this former employee who was terminated for cause a home loan 2-3 months AFTER he was fired?