CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENCIES	CONTINGENCIES The following information supplements and amends, as applicable, the disclosures in Note 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s First Quarter of 2017 Form 10-Q and Note 27 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. 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 has been 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 June 30, 2017, Citigroup’s estimate of the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $1.5 billion in the aggregate. 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 27 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters Mortgage Backed Securities Trustee Actions: On May 23, 2017, the plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment in FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A. 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 June 27, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part Citibank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A., pending in New York State Supreme Court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.). On July 11, 2017, in FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK v. CITIBANK N.A., the court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 90 days to establish its standing to sue. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.). Credit Default Swaps Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On June 8, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against numerous credit default swap (CDS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML, under the caption TERA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. The complaint alleges that defendants colluded to prevent plaintiffs’ electronic CDS trading platform, TeraExchange, from entering the market, resulting in lost profits to plaintiffs. The complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims, and claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs are seeking a finding of joint and several liability, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, pre and post judgment interest and a permanent injunction. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-cv-04302 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.). Foreign Exchange Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On May 5, 2017, in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their previously dismissed complaint, which defendants opposed on June 14, 2017. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On April 28, 2017, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their amended complaint in BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. On April 28 and June 10, 2017, plaintiffs (including certain of the Baker plaintiffs) filed two new putative class action suits, captioned CONTANT ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. and LAVENDER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL; respectively, against various financial institutions, including Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp, and CGMI. The suits were filed on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers of FX instruments sold by the defendants. Plaintiffs in each case allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices in violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, and seek unspecified money damages (including treble damages), as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On June 30, 2017, the CONTANT and LAVENDER plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in CONTANT. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 17 Civ. 4392 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), and 17 Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.). On July 11, 2017, in NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A., the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment as to the claims dismissed in the court’s February 27, 2017 order. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.). On July 12, 2017, a putative class action captioned ALPARI (US), LLC v. CITIGROUP, INC. AND CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of alleged cancellation of electronic FX transactions and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17 Civ. 5269 (S.D.N.Y.). Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: In May 2017, plaintiffs in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL) filed motions to certify proposed classes in the over-the-counter (OTC), exchange-based, and lender class actions. On June 8, 2017, Judge Buchwald entered partial final judgment for the OTC plaintiffs, allowing them to appeal parts of the court’s December 20, 2016 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.). The Schwab plaintiffs, whose claims were dismissed in their entirety in December 2016, filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on May 12, 2017. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-1569 (2d Cir.). On April 27, 2017, in FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL., the court held oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court indicated at argument that it intends to dismiss most of the plaintiffs’ claims with leave to replead some claims. Additional information is available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.). Interest Rate Swaps Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 28, 2017, in IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. Additional information is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 MD 2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.). Money Laundering Inquiries Regulatory Actions: As previously announced, on May 22, 2017, the United States Department of Justice, Citigroup, and Citigroup’s subsidiary, Banamex, USA (BUSA), announced a settlement of all remaining open inquiries conducted jointly by the Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts concerning the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance of Citigroup and related entities, including BUSA. The settlement includes a non-prosecution agreement and forfeiture amount of approximately $97 million. Sovereign Securities Matters Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 14, 2017, defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 03711 (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 23 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s First Quarter of 2017 Form 10-Q and Note 27 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. 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 has been 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 June 30, 2017, Citigroup’s estimate of the reasonably possible unaccrued loss for these matters ranges up to approximately $1.5 billion in the aggregate.

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 27 to the Consolidated Financial Statements of Citigroup’s 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Credit Crisis-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage-Related Litigation and Other Matters

Mortgage Backed Securities Trustee Actions:

On May 23, 2017, the plaintiffs cross-moved for partial summary judgment in FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A. 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 June 27, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part Citibank’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in FIXED INCOME SHARES: SERIES M ET AL. v. CITIBANK N.A., pending in New York State Supreme Court. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 653891/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (Ramos, J.).

On July 11, 2017, in FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR GUARANTY BANK v. CITIBANK N.A., the court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint within 90 days to establish its standing to sue. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15-cv-6574 (S.D.N.Y.) (Carter, J.).

Credit Default Swaps Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On June 8, 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against numerous credit default swap (CDS) market participants, including Citigroup, Citibank, CGMI and CGML, under the caption TERA GROUP, INC., ET AL. v. CITIGROUP INC., ET AL. The complaint alleges that defendants colluded to prevent plaintiffs’ electronic CDS trading platform, TeraExchange, from entering the market, resulting in lost profits to plaintiffs. The complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims, and claims for unjust enrichment and tortious interference with business relations. Plaintiffs are seeking a finding of joint and several liability, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, pre and post judgment interest and a permanent injunction. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-cv-04302 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sullivan, J.).

Foreign Exchange Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On May 5, 2017, in NYPL v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., ET AL., plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their previously dismissed complaint, which defendants opposed on June 14, 2017. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 15 Civ. 2290 (N.D. Cal.) (Chhabria, J.) and 15 Civ. 9300 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On April 28, 2017, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their amended complaint in BAKER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. On April 28 and June 10, 2017, plaintiffs (including certain of the Baker plaintiffs) filed two new putative class action suits, captioned CONTANT ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL. and LAVENDER ET AL. v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL; respectively, against various financial institutions, including Citigroup, Citibank, Citicorp, and CGMI. The suits were filed on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers of FX instruments sold by the defendants. Plaintiffs in each case allege that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix currency prices in violation of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust laws, and seek unspecified money damages (including treble damages), as well as equitable and injunctive relief. On June 30, 2017, the CONTANT and LAVENDER plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint in CONTANT. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers 16 Civ. 7512 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), 17 Civ. 4392 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.), and 17 Civ. 3139 (S.D.N.Y.) (Schofield, J.).

On July 11, 2017, in NEGRETE v. CITIBANK, N.A., the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for entry of final judgment as to the claims dismissed in the court’s February 27, 2017 order. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 15 Civ. 7250 (S.D.N.Y.) (Sweet, J.).

On July 12, 2017, a putative class action captioned ALPARI (US), LLC v. CITIGROUP, INC. AND CITIBANK, N.A. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff asserts claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising out of alleged cancellation of electronic FX transactions and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17 Civ. 5269 (S.D.N.Y.).

Interbank Offered Rates-Related Litigation and Other

Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: In May 2017, plaintiffs in IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION (the LIBOR MDL) filed motions to certify proposed classes in the over-the-counter (OTC), exchange-based, and lender class actions. On June 8, 2017, Judge Buchwald entered partial final judgment for the OTC plaintiffs, allowing them to appeal parts of the court’s December 20, 2016 decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 11 MD 2262 (S.D.N.Y.) (Buchwald, J.).

The Schwab plaintiffs, whose claims were dismissed in their entirety in December 2016, filed a notice of appeal to the Second Circuit on May 12, 2017. Additional information concerning this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 17-1569 (2d Cir.).

On April 27, 2017, in FRONTPOINT ASIAN EVENT DRIVEN FUND, LTD ET AL. v. CITIBANK, N.A. ET AL., the court held oral argument on defendants’ motions to dismiss. The court indicated at argument that it intends to dismiss most of the plaintiffs’ claims with leave to replead some claims. Additional information is available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 5263 (S.D.N.Y.) (Hellerstein, J.).

Interest Rate Swaps Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 28, 2017, in IN RE INTEREST RATE SWAPS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, the court ruled on defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting them in part and denying them in part. Additional information is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 MD 2704 (S.D.N.Y.) (Engelmayer, J.).

Money Laundering Inquiries

Regulatory Actions: As previously announced, on May 22, 2017, the United States Department of Justice, Citigroup, and Citigroup’s subsidiary, Banamex, USA (BUSA), announced a settlement of all remaining open inquiries conducted jointly by the Department and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts concerning the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering compliance of Citigroup and related entities, including BUSA. The settlement includes a non-prosecution agreement and forfeiture amount of approximately $97 million.

Sovereign Securities Matters

Antitrust and Other Litigation: On July 14, 2017, defendants, including Citigroup and Related Parties, moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in IN RE SSA BONDS ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Additional information relating to this action is publicly available in court filings under the docket number 16 Civ. 03711 (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.