It makes no mention of evading regulation. This fine is for a failure to retain written communications. Which is impossible to do for some of these communications channels.
Nobody working in banking is unaware of the written comms rules. Nobody using Signal or WhatsApp in that context is unaware they can't retain written comms. Can you prove intent? Probably not. Is it clear as daylight why this happened? Uh, yes.
And so the SEC hits them where it hurts at least a little bit, in the wallet.
Also, if you pay attention to the banking space... this is pretty much the usual cast of characters. There's absolutely no surprise.
People use iMessage/Signal/WhatsApp for myriad reasons: some good, some bad. There's no evidence in this case that any of what was said was in furtherance of a crime. The crime they've been fined for is that people--just people--were talking in totally normal communications channels, and their employer has failed to scrape one end of their E2E communications and save it to show to the SEC whenever it asks.
That's a much stronger issue than "if you've got nothing to hide, you don't need secrecy" nonsense that I suppose your NSA comment is supposed to refer to. Nobody is making that argument here.
As for "it's just people talking" - what else do you suppose a "archive all communications" regulation refers to?
And sure there's no evidence. Hence my "can you prove intent" statement. But if it's a regulatory violation that other banks have already been fined for, years ago, and you still sidestep the regulation, there's a strong question why you keep sidestepping it.
If you don't like that, you might not want to work in a space with regulatory oversight.
I am talking about business communications in a regulated sector.
It is absolutely incompatible with E2E encryption to mandate a third party access to one of the Es for surveillance purposes.