MEMPHIS, TN – August 13, 2026 (STL.News) — Former Regions Bank relationship banker Elazia Jones has been prohibited from participating in the banking industry after the Federal Reserve alleged she knowingly cashed counterfeit or fraudulent checks for personal benefits as part of a broader check-fraud ring that caused more than $396,000 in losses to Regions Bank.
The Federal Reserve Board announced the enforcement action Thursday. Jones worked at Regions Bank’s Hickory Ridge branch in Memphis before the bank terminated her employment on November 1, 2024, according to the regulator’s Order of Prohibition.
The order provides new details about the allegations against Jones but does not identify the other people allegedly involved in the broader fraud ring.
Jones consented to the Federal Reserve’s order without admitting or denying the allegations. The regulatory action should not be confused with a criminal conviction, and publicly available information reviewed by STL.News did not establish that Jones has been arrested or criminally charged in connection with the conduct described in the order.
Fed alleges Elazia Jones cashed fraudulent checks
According to the Federal Reserve, Jones was working as a relationship banker at the Hickory Ridge branch when the alleged conduct occurred.
The regulator alleges that Jones knowingly cashed counterfeit or fraudulent checks and received personal benefits, including cash, in return.
The Federal Reserve described the transactions as part of a broader check-fraud ring and said the scheme resulted in more than $396,000 in losses to Regions Bank.
The order does not say that Jones personally received $396,000 or that she individually caused the entire loss. Rather, the regulator attributed losses exceeding that amount to the broader alleged check-fraud operation.
That distinction is significant because the Federal Reserve’s order does not identify the other alleged participants, disclose how many people were allegedly involved, or provide a transaction-by-transaction accounting of the losses.
The order also does not disclose how much money or other benefits Jones allegedly received.
Elazia Jones barred from participating in banking industry
The Federal Reserve issued its Order of Prohibition under Section 8(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Under the order, Jones is prohibited from participating in the affairs of an insured depository institution or certain other financial institutions without obtaining prior written regulatory approval.
The restrictions extend beyond accepting another conventional banking job.
Jones is prohibited from serving or acting as an institution-affiliated party — including as an officer, director or employee — at financial institutions covered by the order. She also faces restrictions on proxies, voting rights, and other forms of participation in the governance of covered financial institutions.
The prohibition remains in effect unless the Federal Reserve expressly stays, modifies, terminates, or suspends it in writing.
Violating the order could separately expose Jones to civil or criminal penalties under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
Elazia Jones – Federal Reserve cites alleged personal dishonesty
The Federal Reserve alleged that Jones’ conduct constituted violations of law or regulation, unsafe or unsound banking practices, or breaches of fiduciary duty.
The Board further alleged that the conduct involved personal dishonesty or willful or continuing disregard for Regions Bank’s safety and soundness.
Those are allegations contained in the regulatory enforcement proceeding.
Jones agreed to the issuance of the prohibition order without admitting or denying the allegations and waived several rights that would otherwise have been available to her in a contested Federal Reserve enforcement proceeding.
Among those were the right to a hearing to present and challenge evidence and the right to obtain judicial review of the order.
The settlement allowed the Federal Reserve to impose the prohibition without conducting a formal adjudicatory proceeding on the underlying allegations.
Elazia Jones – Hickory Ridge branch remains a Regions location
The Regions Bank branch identified in the Federal Reserve order is the Hickory Ridge branch in Memphis.
Regions currently lists the full-service branch at 5969 Winchester Road. Among its listed transaction services are deposits, cash withdrawals and check cashing.
Jones’ employment there ended with her termination on November 1, 2024, according to the Federal Reserve.
Regions Bank is headquartered in Birmingham, Alabama, and operates as the principal banking subsidiary of publicly traded Regions Financial Corp. The bank operates across a substantial portion of the South, Midwest and Texas.
The enforcement order concerns Jones individually. The Federal Reserve document does not accuse Regions Bank or Regions Financial Corp. of participating in the alleged check-fraud ring.
Elazia Jones – Questions remain about broader check-fraud ring
One of the most significant details in the Federal Reserve action is its description of Jones’ alleged activity as part of a broader check-fraud ring.
The order does not identify other alleged members of the operation.
It also does not provide the dates on which the allegedly fraudulent checks were cashed, identify the customers or accounts involved, disclose the number or value of individual checks, or explain how Regions discovered the alleged activity.
A review of publicly available information on Thursday did not locate a federal criminal case, Justice Department announcement, or other reliable public record establishing that Jones has been arrested, indicted, or convicted in connection with the conduct described by the Federal Reserve.
Accordingly, the Federal Reserve enforcement action should not be characterized as an arrest or criminal prosecution.
It also remains unclear from the prohibition order whether any other alleged participants in the broader check-fraud operation have faced criminal or regulatory action.
Elazia Jones – Jones can return only with regulatory approval
The prohibition represents a potentially long-term consequence for Jones’ ability to work in banking.
Unlike an employment termination that applies to a single institution, a Federal Reserve prohibition can prevent an individual from participating in the affairs of institutions covered by federal banking law.
Jones would need prior written approval from the Federal Reserve — and potentially another federal financial institutions regulator when required — before engaging in activities prohibited by the order.
The Board also retained its authority to enforce compliance with the prohibition.
The Federal Reserve said it would not take any further action against Jones regarding the matters covered by the order, based on facts presently known to the Board. That provision does not prevent other federal or state agencies from taking their own action.
For now, the publicly established action against Jones is the Federal Reserve’s prohibition on banking.
The case is identified as Federal Reserve Docket No. 26-033-E-I.
