Regions Bank, headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, agreed on May 22, 2026, to pay the United States $4,919,631 to resolve civil allegations that the bank improperly approved forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection Program loan that was not eligible for forgiveness and thereby collected government payments it was not entitled to receive [1].
The settlement arises under the False Claims Act, the federal statute that imposes civil liability on parties that submit or cause the submission of false claims for government funds. Under the PPP, administered by the Small Business Administration and authorized under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020, participating lenders such as Regions Bank were authorized to approve loan forgiveness on behalf of the SBA and received processing fees tied to those forgiveness decisions [1]. The government's theory of liability is that Regions approved forgiveness for a borrower whose loan did not qualify, causing the SBA to pay a forgiveness claim and associated fees that should never have been paid [1].
The Department of Justice announced the resolution, continuing a line of enforcement actions targeting lender conduct, not just borrower fraud, in the PPP program [1]. That distinction is significant: the bulk of PPP enforcement has focused on borrowers who fabricated payroll data or fabricated businesses. Actions against lenders turn on whether the institution performed adequate diligence before certifying a borrower's eligibility for forgiveness. The settlement does not include an admission of liability by Regions Bank, which is standard in False Claims Act civil resolutions reached short of litigation.
The settlement reflects the DOJ's stated position that lenders bear independent responsibility for the accuracy of forgiveness certifications they submit to the SBA, and that the government will pursue civil recovery against financial institutions that fall short of that standard. The SBA's loan forgiveness process placed substantial trust in participating lenders to screen applications, and enforcement actions like this one are intended to reinforce that accountability structure.
No relator complaint has been identified in connection with this matter in the public record, and the resolution appears to be a DOJ-initiated civil settlement rather than a qui tam action. Whether the department pursues additional lender-side PPP enforcement actions, or whether this settlement marks the trailing edge of a wind-down in COVID-relief fraud prosecution, remains to be seen as the program's statutory review periods close out.