The former head of the Martha’s Vineyard Savings Bank, who left last year under circumstances that were never fully explained and now has been permanently barred from banking by federal regulators, said in a statement this week that the allegations against him by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation are unfounded and without substance. In a written statement, Christopher Wells said the bank suffered no harm or losses during his eight-year tenure as president and chief executive officer, and that he did not use his position for personal gain. “The bank did not lose a single penny as a result of any of the allegations against me,” Mr. Wells said in the statement provided exclusively to the Gazette. “Similarly, the bank is not threatened with any kind of loss today as a result of any of the unfounded allegations made by the FDIC and there was no activity for personal gain,” he wrote.

In what is termed an “order of prohibition from further participation,” the FDIC two months ago barred Mr. Wells from the banking profession. The order contains allegations that Mr. Wells had “engaged or participated in violations of law and/or regulations, unsafe or unsound banking practices, and/or breaches of fiduciary duty . . .” The order also said the FDIC believed that the bank “has suffered or will probably suffer financial loss or other damage,” and it said “violations, practices and/or breaches of fiduciary duty involve personal dishonesty . . .”

The order was issued in late February and made public by the FDIC last week.

In lay terms, the order is an agreement between Mr. Wells and the FDIC in which he waives his right to contest the allegations. He has admitted no wrongdoing and has not been fined, a spokesman for the FDIC confirmed yesterday.

“We don’t comment on the orders specifically. In general I can tell you that an order means he is no longer able to participate in banking of an FDIC institution. In order to do that he would need to apply for permission,” FDIC spokesman LaJuan Williams-Young told the Gazette Thursday.

Mr. Wells was president and chief executive officer at the bank for eight years, beginning in 2004 when he took the helm at what was then the Dukes County Savings Bank. A well-regarded community banker, he presided over a period of growth and prosperity at the Island’s largest bank, including the 2007 merger of the savings bank with the Martha’s Vineyard Cooperative Bank.

In May 2012, Mr. Wells resigned abruptly. His departure was not explained by leaders on the bank board of trustees, but the Gazette learned later that the bank was under investigation by the FDIC and had received a letter that among other things cited the board of trustees for poor leadership and oversight, and downgraded the bank’s composite rating. In an interview with the Gazette late last year, bank leaders acknowledged that the bank had been flagged by federal regulators for problems, although they could only describe them in the broadest terms because they were bound by rules of confidentiality.

Of prohibition orders such as the one involving Mr. Wells, Ms. Williams-Young said: “They are not unusual. This is one of our tools we use . . . I look at it as a cooperative agreement.” Beyond that, she said “it is up to Mr. Wells” to speak about the prohibition order.

In his statement to the Gazette, Mr. Wells said he did not know why he was targeted by FDIC bank examiners.

“During spring 2012, FDIC bank examiners engaged in what I believe was a personal vendetta against me (for reasons I will probably never know or understand), and made numerous allegations that were unsubstantiated and unfounded,” he wrote.

Mr. Wells defended his leadership at the bank and praised the “many terrific people” who work there. He said he decided to resign out of concern for the integrity of the institution, and decided not to contest the FDIC allegations to avoid a costly, drawn-out legal battle.

“I made the decision to resign from the bank so it could continue serving its community without the distraction of any claims,” Mr. Wells wrote. “I subsequently realized, however, that defending against the FDIC allegations would be extremely time-consuming and prohibitively expensive against a federal government agency with endless resources. I therefore made the difficult decision that the better course of action for me was to acknowledge the practical impossibility of engaging in an unwinnable fight, and simply move on with my life by agreeing to disagree in an order made public last month. Caring for my family is far more important.”

Six months ago the bank named Paul Falvey, a community banker from Hingham, as president and CEO. In an interview with the Gazette this week about the bank’s financial position, restructuring and personnel changes, Mr. Falvey said he could not comment on the prohibition order, citing rule 309 of the FDIC code. “That’s between Chris and the FDIC,” he said.

The full text of Mr. Wells’s statement follows:

“I had a wonderful experience working with many terrific people at Martha’s Vineyard Savings Bank. During my tenure as president, we expanded the bank’s deposit base twofold; increased our lending activities significantly to local individuals and businesses with minimal losses; and grew capital to more than twice the federal requirements to be considered ‘a well capitalized bank.’ My goal was to ensure that Vineyarders would always have a financially strong and independent bank serving and supporting the people of the Island and surrounding areas.

“During my eight years at the bank, Martha’s Vineyard Savings Bank developed a reputation as one of the most financially sound banking institutions in the country. We had three successful federal and state exams; underwent numerous and frequent independent audits and loan reviews by reputable companies; and were positioned to provide jobs and resources to the hardworking people of Martha’s Vineyard for years to come.

“During spring 2012, FDIC bank examiners engaged in what I believe was a personal vendetta against me (for reasons I will probably never know or understand), and made numerous allegations that were unsubstantiated and unfounded. I made the decision to resign from the bank so it could continue serving its community without the distraction of any claims. I subsequently realized, however, that defending against the FDIC allegations would be extremely time-consuming and prohibitively expensive against a federal government agency with endless resources. I therefore made the difficult decision that the better course of action for me was to acknowledge the practical impossibility of engaging in an unwinnable fight, and simply move on with my life by agreeing to disagree in an order made public last month. Caring for my family is far more important. There was no admission of wrongdoing, no losses to the bank or any individual, no personal gain to me, and no penalties imposed.

“There is also no disagreement of the following indisputable fact, namely, the bank did not lose a single penny as a result of any of the allegations against me. Similarly, the bank is not threatened with any kind of loss today as a result of any of the unfounded allegations made by the FDIC and there was no activity for personal gain. In the final analysis, therefore, while I am disappointed in having to leave the bank under circumstances totally beyond my control, I am nevertheless very proud of what we accomplished during my tenure as president.”