Haven't read anything but OP, and don't care to.
Seemed rather petty at first until I saw it was a bank, then looked at her crime. Ehh... Don't take it the wrong way but as an aspiring entrepreneur myself I probably might have done the same thing in Wells Fargo's position since she wasn't honest and upfront about it. Sort of like how I wouldn't trust a weapons or medieval store to someone who had a prior history of violence. Lots of things to consider. Discretion is key. Some areas I'm gray on, others I'm black and white. Basically Dishonesty+monetary crime=termination of bank job.
Now if I truly believed the person under consideration was a changed person (honesty counts and in today's market you can never be too careful), then I think I might look past a discrepancy. If I didn't believe that person has changed, I see no reason I should continue to keep that individual employed.
Still, that was 40 years ago and perhaps some more consideration should have been given to that end: The bank obviously did do a thorough check. If on the one hand they found *nothing* else, then it is perhaps a bit overly harsh and confronting her on the issue would be in order (and watching her with a hawk's eye). If on the other hand she had her slate riddled with small things like nuisances, negligence, and fines, then they would be just as well divesting themselves of a potential liability IMO.
If it makes you feel any better Shem, I think during one time when I was drunk after a high school dance, I "relieved myself" into one of their boiler exhausts.