People and 'the News' most times don't read the details, which is logical since we never get the full reports on our hands. The scope of the audit/examination should document the limitations/boundaries of the examination. E.g. X, Y, and Z, countries, A, B, and C subsidiaries, for the period of dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy. And which transactions where checked? All deposits? From all business lines? E.g. bank deposits OR their investment brokers?
There are many ways to get money in a large Banking group like UBS, HSBC, and others. They have become Lernaea Hydras and for a good reason.
They were fined on what they were caught, not on what they did. They seem to keep repeating such schemes time and time again. Unless execs are jailed, this is cost of doing business. At some point an exec either said, "let's do it," or closed his eyes and ears.
This time the fine was calculated based on the recovery rates from the French people retrieving their money back to France (the law changed drastically in France and to avoid jail time, many people brought back money from Switzerland). This gave the government statistics to evaluate the effective fraud and thus calculate the corresponding fine.
Of course, over the years, we can be pretty sure that UBS made more money out of these schemes than the fine and they are most likely having such a scheme running right now which may be discovered in 10 years if we are lucky.
The terms of the agreement was a fine without an admission of guilt. So in the interest of jurisprudence, allegedly is the correct word to use in this situation.