Wilmington Trust Corporation became the first TARP recipient institution to be indicted, according to U.S. Attorney Charles Oberly.

The bank, which received $330 million in TARP funds, was indicted by a federal grand jury for concealing information about past due loans. Charges were already pending against four former senior executives of the bank for allegedly concealing information about the bank's loan portfolio from the government and general public.

Wilmington Trust was legally required to accurately disclose in its SEC reports the total amount of loans that were past due for 90 days or more. Such disclosures are used by investors to analyze the quality of the bank's loan portfolio and overall health. According to the indictment, from October 2009- November 2010, the bank was aware that its reports contained materially false information about past due loan amounts.

Get Breaking News Delivered to Your Inbox

The indictment charges that in late 2009, the bank contemplated raising capital through a public stock offering to help repay the $330 million in funds that the bank had received through TARP. But in filings with the SEC, Wilmington Trust concealed over $330 million in past due loans, and the false information was included in information provided to the SEC for the stock offering, which raised approximately $273.9 million.

The nineteen-count superseding indictment filed in federal court Wednesday charges the bank and its four executives with making false statements in securities filings and to agencies of the U.S. government.

"I did not make the decision lightly to seek charges against the Wilmington Trust Corporation," said Oberly. "Wilmington Trust Corporation had an obligation, it its shareholders and to the public, to accurately report the important financial metrics which enable investigators to make informed decision."

Wilmington Trust was acquired by MT&T Bank Corporation in May 2011. It is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of MT&T Bank, but the Justice Department says the criminal conduct in this case predated the acquisition and MT&T is not named as a defendant in the case.