Which banks were named or investigated for processing funds tied to the Somali fraud scheme?

1. What the reporting actually names: prosecutors, agencies, and investigations

Coverage consistently identifies federal prosecutors and the U.S. Treasury as the lead actors probing the schemes, not particular banks: the Justice Department has charged many defendants in the Feeding Our Future and related cases, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said his agency is investigating whether diverted funds reached al‑Shabab ^{[1] [2] [3]}. News outlets cite indictments, convictions and new charges against dozens of individuals rather than public allegations that a named bank facilitated the transfers ^{[1] [4]}.

2. What the stories say about money flows — hawala, remittances and informal channels

Several reports note prosecutors and local investigators pointing to informal remittance systems like hawala as a route for funds wired overseas, and that defendants spent proceeds on luxury goods and foreign real estate ^{[5] [6]}. At the same time, sources caution Somalia’s limited formal banking infrastructure makes tracing direct bank transfers to the country difficult; articles stress investigators have not established a clear, bank‑to‑bank chain to al‑Shabab ^{[6] [2]}.

3. No named banks in the supplied reporting — a conspicuous absence

In the material provided here, journalists and officials repeatedly discuss investigations into where stolen taxpayer dollars ended up but do not publicly name specific U.S. or international banks as targets of those probes ^{[2] [3]}. That omission could reflect ongoing investigations, confidentiality rules, or lack of evidence linking particular financial institutions to criminal conduct — available sources do not mention specific bank names ^[2].

4. Competing narratives: terrorism links vs. greed‑driven fraud

Right‑leaning outlets and commentators have pushed the narrative that some looted funds were funneled to al‑Shabab and have implied financial institutions may have been used to move money abroad ^{[7] [5]}. Multiple mainstream outlets and former prosecutors counter that indictments so far show greed, not ideology, as the primary motive and that evidence tying defendants to material support for foreign terror groups has not emerged in the criminal cases cited ^{[2] [8]}.

5. Why reporters and officials might avoid naming banks publicly

Legal risk, ongoing grand jury secrecy, and the need for forensic financial evidence can all delay or limit public naming of institutions. The supplied reporting documents Treasury and other federal inquiries into remittances and program spending but underscores that tracing funds—especially when informal channels are alleged—is complex and not yet publicly resolved ^{[6] [3]}.

6. What to watch next — public records, indictments and Treasury findings

If investigators find evidence implicating specific banks, that information would typically appear in indictments, civil enforcement actions, Treasury statements or follow‑up reporting; current pieces point to such outcomes as possible next steps ^{[2] [3]}. For now, the most explicit authorities named in coverage are federal prosecutors and the Treasury Department conducting probes, not financial institutions ^{[1] [2]}.

Limitations and final note

This analysis relies only on the supplied sources. Those sources document broad investigations into fraud and remittance patterns but do not name any banks as being investigated or charged; therefore any claim that particular banks were investigated is not supported by the current reporting in this packet ^{[2] [3]}. Readers should track forthcoming indictments, Treasury reports and court filings for definitive, named disclosures.