Which of the following is a potential consequence of non-compliance for banks?

Non-compliance can lead to stricter regulatory measures imposed on banks, which is a significant consequence of failing to adhere to legal and regulatory standards. Banks operate in a heavily regulated environment, and when they fail to comply with regulations—such as those related to anti-money laundering (AML), consumer protection, or data privacy—regulatory bodies may respond by imposing more stringent rules. This can include increased scrutiny during audits, more frequent examinations, and possibly even harsher penalties or fines.

Stricter regulatory measures often mean that a bank has to operate under more rigid guidelines, which can affect how they conduct their operations and interact with customers. The goal of these measures is to ensure compliance and protect consumers, but they can also place additional burdens on the bank, limiting its flexibility in decision-making and potentially impacting its profitability.

In contrast, options that suggest improved customer loyalty or access to additional funding sources are unrealistic outcomes of non-compliance. Non-compliance typically erodes trust among customers and stakeholders, and it certainly doesn't create an environment conducive to securing extra funding. Reduction in operational oversight would generally not be a consequence of non-compliance, as failing to meet standards often leads to increased oversight, not less.