CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of each of Citigroup’s First Quarter of 2016 Form 10-Q and Second Quarter of 2016 Form 10-Q. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties. In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup establishes accruals for contingencies, including the litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to those matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters. If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At September 30, 2016, Citigroup’s estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $3.0 billion in the aggregate as of June 30, 2016. As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosures involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate. Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods. For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage Backed Security Repurchase Claims: The final payment of the settlement of representation and warranty claims reached with the trustees of 68 trusts established by Citigroup’s legacy Securities and Banking business during 2005–2008 was made in October 2016. Additional information concerning this proceeding is publicly available in court filings under docket number 653902/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.). Mortgage Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On August 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the New York State Supreme Court action captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M, ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A., which Citibank moved to dismiss on September 9, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.). On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs in the federal district court action captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A. submitted a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to two of the three trusts in the action. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-cv-9373 (S.D.N.Y. (Furman, J.). On September 30, 2016, Citibank’s motion to dismiss the action captioned FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK v. CITIBANK N.A. was granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.). Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On October 5, 2016, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s derivative complaint in IRA FOR THE BENEFIT OF VICTORIA SHAEV v. CORBAT, ET AL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 652066/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Bransten, J.). Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings On July 1, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the parties’ settlement in LEHMAN BROTHERS FINANCE AG v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed on July 26, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 14-02050 and 09-10583 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.). Tribune Company Bankruptcy On September 9, 2016, Tribune noteholders filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the dismissal of their state-law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims against various defendants, including certain Citigroup affiliates. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3992, 13-3875, 13-4178, and 13-4196 (2d Cir.). Depositary Receipts Conversion Litigation Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI were sued by a purported class of persons or entities who, from January 2000 to the present, are or were holders of depositary receipts for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into U.S. dollars. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Citibank breached its deposit agreements by charging a spread for such conversions. Citi’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on August 15, 2016, and only the breach of contract claim against Citibank survived the motion. Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of Citi’s profits, as well as compensatory, consequential and general damages. An appeal of the decision as it relates to standing and statute of limitations was filed on October 7, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9185 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.). Foreign Exchange Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On October 5, 2016, a preliminary approval hearing was held with respect to the plaintiffs’ proposed plan of distribution and notice in the consolidated foreign exchange case. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On September 2, 2016, in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., Citigroup and Related Parties, along with other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On September 20, 2016, in ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., plaintiffs and settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On August 11, 2016, in WAH ET AL. v. HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. ET AL., the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 28, 2016, the court permitted plaintiffs to move for leave to amend the complaint by October 28, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 8974 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble damages where applicable. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs in OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. filed an amended complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on September 30, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 12151-VCG (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 6, 2016, in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Citibank and Citigroup along with the other defendants moved to dismiss all antitrust claims based on the efficient enforcer doctrine. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). On August 16, 2016, a complaint was filed against Citigroup, Citibank, and 16 other banks in an action captioned DENNIS, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. asserting common law claims, as well as violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims are based on allegations that the banks conspired to manipulate the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and damages, including treble damages where applicable. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 06496 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.). Interest Rate Swaps Matters Regulatory Actions: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an investigation into the trading and clearing of interest rate swaps by investment banks. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigation. Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters Other Litigation: On August 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in lieu of opposing Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. In addition to re-alleging the claims that were asserted in the original complaint, the amended complaint also asserts common law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and conspiracy on behalf of all plaintiffs. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D. Fla.) (Gayles, J.). Sovereign Securities Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On October 12, 2016, a putative class action captioned LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML and various other banks. The plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Act based on the defendants' alleged manipulation of the supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bond market, and seeks disgorgement and treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 07991 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.). Settlement Payments Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.

CONTINGENCIES

The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K and Note 25 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of each of Citigroup’s First Quarter of 2016 Form 10-Q and Second Quarter of 2016 Form 10-Q. For purposes of this Note, Citigroup, its affiliates and subsidiaries and current and former officers, directors and employees, are sometimes collectively referred to as Citigroup and Related Parties.

In accordance with ASC 450, Citigroup establishes accruals for contingencies, including the litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, when Citigroup believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Once established, accruals are adjusted from time to time, as appropriate, in light of additional information. The amount of loss ultimately incurred in relation to those matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts accrued for those matters.

If Citigroup has not accrued for a matter because the matter does not meet the criteria for accrual (as set forth above), or Citigroup believes an exposure to loss exists in excess of the amount accrued for a particular matter, in each case assuming a material loss is reasonably possible, Citigroup discloses the matter. In addition, for such matters, Citigroup discloses an estimate of the aggregate reasonably possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued for those matters as to which an estimate can be made. At September 30, 2016, Citigroup’s estimate was materially unchanged from its estimate of approximately $3.0 billion in the aggregate as of June 30, 2016.

As available information changes, the matters for which Citigroup is able to estimate will change, and the estimates themselves will change. In addition, while many estimates presented in financial statements and other financial disclosures involve significant judgment and may be subject to significant uncertainty, estimates of the range of reasonably possible loss arising from litigation and regulatory proceedings are subject to particular uncertainties. For example, at the time of making an estimate, Citigroup may have only preliminary, incomplete or inaccurate information about the facts underlying the claim; its assumptions about the future rulings of the court or other tribunal on significant issues, or the behavior and incentives of adverse parties or regulators, may prove to be wrong; and the outcomes it is attempting to predict are often not amenable to the use of statistical or other quantitative analytical tools. In addition, from time to time an outcome may occur that Citigroup had not accounted for in its estimates because it had deemed such an outcome to be remote. For all these reasons, the amount of loss in excess of accruals ultimately incurred for the matters as to which an estimate has been made could be substantially higher or lower than the range of loss included in the estimate.

Subject to the foregoing, it is the opinion of Citigroup's management, based on current knowledge and after taking into account its current legal accruals, that the eventual outcome of all matters described in this Note would not be likely to have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Citigroup. Nonetheless, given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in certain of these matters and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in certain of these matters could, from time to time, have a material adverse effect on Citigroup’s consolidated results of operations or cash flows in particular quarterly or annual periods.

For further information on ASC 450 and Citigroup's accounting and disclosure framework for contingencies, including for litigation and regulatory matters disclosed herein, see Note 28 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2015 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage Backed Security Repurchase Claims: The final payment of the settlement of representation and warranty claims reached with the trustees of 68 trusts established by Citigroup’s legacy Securities and Banking business during 2005–2008 was made in October 2016. Additional information concerning this proceeding is publicly available in court filings under docket number 653902/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Friedman, J.).

Mortgage Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On August 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the New York State Supreme Court action captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M, ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A., which Citibank moved to dismiss on September 9, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.).

On September 7, 2016, plaintiffs in the federal district court action captioned FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A. submitted a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to two of the three trusts in the action. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 14-cv-9373 (S.D.N.Y. (Furman, J.).

On September 30, 2016, Citibank’s motion to dismiss the action captioned FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK v. CITIBANK N.A. was granted for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.).

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On October 5, 2016, the court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff’s derivative complaint in IRA FOR THE BENEFIT OF VICTORIA SHAEV v. CORBAT, ET AL. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 652066/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Bransten, J.).

Lehman Brothers Bankruptcy Proceedings

On July 1, 2016, the bankruptcy court entered an order approving the parties’ settlement in LEHMAN BROTHERS FINANCE AG v. CITIBANK, N.A., ET AL. A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed on July 26, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 14-02050 and 09-10583 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) (Chapman, J.).

Tribune Company Bankruptcy

On September 9, 2016, Tribune noteholders filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court with respect to the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirming the dismissal of their state-law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims against various defendants, including certain Citigroup affiliates. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13-3992, 13-3875, 13-4178, and 13-4196 (2d Cir.).

Depositary Receipts Conversion Litigation

Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI were sued by a purported class of persons or entities who, from January 2000 to the present, are or were holders of depositary receipts for which Citi served as the depositary bank and converted foreign-currency dividends or other distributions into U.S. dollars. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Citibank breached its deposit agreements by charging a spread for such conversions. Citi’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part on August 15, 2016, and only the breach of contract claim against Citibank survived the motion. Plaintiffs are seeking disgorgement of Citi’s profits, as well as compensatory, consequential and general damages. An appeal of the decision as it relates to standing and statute of limitations was filed on October 7, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9185 (S.D.N.Y.) (McMahon, C.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On October 5, 2016, a preliminary approval hearing was held with respect to the plaintiffs’ proposed plan of distribution and notice in the consolidated foreign exchange case. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On September 2, 2016, in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., Citigroup and Related Parties, along with other defendant banks, moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On September 20, 2016, in ALLEN v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, ET AL., plaintiffs and settling defendants in IN RE FOREIGN EXCHANGE BENCHMARK RATES ANTITRUST LITIGATION filed a joint stipulation dismissing plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 13 Civ. 7789 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.) and 15 Civ. 4285 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On August 11, 2016, in WAH ET AL. v. HSBC NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS INC. ET AL., the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. On September 28, 2016, the court permitted plaintiffs to move for leave to amend the complaint by October 28, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 8974 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On September 26, 2016, investors in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) commenced a suit captioned BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank and CGMI, as well as various other banks. The complaint asserts claims under the Sherman Act, New York state antitrust law, and California state antitrust law and unfair competition law, based on alleged foreign exchange market collusion affecting ETF investments. The plaintiffs seek to certify nationwide, California and New York classes, and request damages and injunctive relief under the relevant statutes, including treble damages where applicable. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

Derivative Actions and Related Proceedings: On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs in OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL. v. CORBAT, ET AL. filed an amended complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss on September 30, 2016. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number C.A. No. 12151-VCG (Del. Ch.) (Glasscock, Ch.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 6, 2016, in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Citibank and Citigroup along with the other defendants moved to dismiss all antitrust claims based on the efficient enforcer doctrine. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

On August 16, 2016, a complaint was filed against Citigroup, Citibank, and 16 other banks in an action captioned DENNIS, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL. asserting common law claims, as well as violations of the Sherman Act, the Commodity Exchange Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims are based on allegations that the banks conspired to manipulate the Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement, and damages, including treble damages where applicable. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 06496 (S.D.N.Y.) (Kaplan, J.).

Interest Rate Swaps Matters

Regulatory Actions: The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is conducting an investigation into the trading and clearing of interest rate swaps by investment banks. Citigroup is cooperating with the investigation.

Oceanografia Fraud and Related Matters

Other Litigation: On August 23, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in lieu of opposing Citigroup’s motion to dismiss the original complaint. In addition to re-alleging the claims that were asserted in the original complaint, the amended complaint also asserts common law claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and conspiracy on behalf of all plaintiffs. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16-20725 (S.D. Fla.) (Gayles, J.).

Sovereign Securities Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On October 12, 2016, a putative class action captioned LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML and various other banks. The plaintiff asserts claims under the Sherman Act based on the defendants' alleged manipulation of the supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bond market, and seeks disgorgement and treble damages. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 07991 (S.D.N.Y.) (Ramos, J.).

Settlement Payments

Payments required in settlement agreements described above have been made or are covered by existing litigation accruals.