UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017

Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-52984-03, 333-145220-01, 333-171055-01, 333-208054

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0001108348

CITIBANK CREDIT CARD ISSUANCE TRUST*

(Issuing Entity in respect of the Notes)

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Commission file number of issuing entity: 333-80743-02, 333-145220-02; 333-171055-02, 333-208054-01

Central Index Key Number of issuing entity: 0000921864

CITIBANK CREDIT CARD MASTER TRUST I

(Issuing Entity in respect of the Collateral Certificate)

(Exact name of issuing entity as specified in its charter)

Commission file number of depositor and sponsor: 333-145220-03, 333-171055-03, 333-208054-02

Central Index Key Number of sponsor and depositor: 0001522616

CITIBANK, N.A.

(Exact name of depositor and sponsor as specified in its charter)

Telephone number, including area code: (212) 559-1000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: NONE

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: NONE

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒.

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

[Rule 405 of Regulation S-T is not applicable.]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ☒

[Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not applicable.]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒.

State the aggregate market value of the voting and non-voting common equity held by non-affiliates computed by reference to the price at which the common equity was last sold, or the average bid and asked price of such common equity, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter:

NOT APPLICABLE

PART I

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments.

Not Applicable.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures.

Not Applicable.

Substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB: Significant Obligors of Pool Assets (Financial Information).

The primary asset of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust, a Delaware statutory trust formed on September 12, 2000 (the “issuance trust”) – and its primary source of funds for the payment of principal of and interest on the notes – is a collateral certificate issued by Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I (the “master trust”) to the issuance trust. The collateral certificate represents an undivided interest in the assets of the master trust. The master trust’s assets consist primarily of credit card receivables arising in a portfolio of revolving credit card accounts. The master trust, therefore, may be considered a significant obligor in relation to the issuance trust. Pursuant to Instruction 2.b. to Item 1112(b) of Regulation AB, the information required by Instruction J to Form 10-K in respect of the master trust has been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K in lieu of the information otherwise contemplated by Item 1112(b).

The pool assets held by the master trust do not include any significant obligors.

Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB: Credit enhancement and other support, except for certain derivatives instruments (financial information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1114(b)(2) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB: Certain derivatives instruments (financial information).

Based on the standards set forth in Item 1115(b) of Regulation AB, no information is required in response to this Item.

2

Item 1117 of Regulation AB: Legal proceedings.

Interchange Fee Litigation

Beginning in 2005, several putative class actions were filed against Citigroup Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries, including Citibank, N.A. (collectively Citigroup), together with Visa, MasterCard and other banks and their affiliates, in various federal district courts and consolidated with other related individual cases in a multi-district litigation proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Interchange MDL). This proceeding is captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION.

The plaintiffs, merchants that accept Visa and MasterCard branded payment cards as well as membership associations that claim to represent certain groups of merchants, allege, among other things, that defendants have engaged in conspiracies to set the price of interchange and merchant discount fees on credit and debit card transactions and to restrain trade through various Visa and MasterCard rules governing merchant conduct, all in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and certain California statutes. Supplemental complaints also have been filed against defendants in the putative class actions alleging that Visa’s and MasterCard’s respective initial public offerings were anticompetitive and violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and that MasterCard’s initial public offering constituted a fraudulent conveyance.

On January 14, 2014, the district court entered a final judgment approving the terms of a class settlement providing for, among other things, a total payment to the class of $6.05 billion; a rebate to merchants participating in the damages class settlement of 10 bps on interchange collected for a period of eight months by the Visa and MasterCard networks; and changes to certain network rules. Various objectors appealed from the final class settlement approval order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 30, 2016, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s approval of the class settlement and remanded for further proceedings. Additional information concerning these consolidated actions and the appeal is publicly available in court filings under the docket numbers MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.), 12-4671 (2d Cir.) and 16-710 (U.S. Supreme Court).

In addition, following the district court’s approval of the class settlement, and during the pendency of appeals from that approval, numerous merchants, including large national merchants, requested exclusion from the portion of the now vacated settlement involving a settlement class certified with respect to damages claims for past conduct, and some of those opting out filed complaints against Visa, MasterCard, and in some instances one or more issuing banks. One of these suits, 7-ELEVEN, INC., ET AL. v. VISA INC., ET AL., brought on behalf of numerous individual merchants, names Citigroup as a defendant. Additional information concerning these actions is publicly available in court filings under the docket number MDL 05-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Brodie, J.).

3

CARD Act Matter

Citigroup identified certain methodological issues in connection with determining annual percentage rates (APRs) for certain cardholders under the rate re-evaluation provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) and Regulation Z. Citigroup self-reported the issues to its regulators and will be providing remediation to affected customers. Citigroup is cooperating fully with the regulatory reviews.

Indenture Trustee and Master Trust Trustee Litigation

Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA), the indenture trustee and the master trust trustee, have been sued by investors in civil litigation concerning their role as trustees of certain residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) trusts. On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against DBTCA and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC) in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA’s alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties’ joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs’ claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs’ representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had

4

passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs’ claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 26, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. DBNTC and DBTCA’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on March 26, 2018, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due on April 16, 2018. Discovery is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract cause of action. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA’s demurrer, providing Plaintiffs with thirty days’ leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to strike. Plaintiffs did not further amend their complaint and, on December 19, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. On January 17, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. DBNTC and DBTCA’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion is due on March 30, 2018, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due on April 30, 2018. Discovery is ongoing.

On September 27, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by certain special purpose entities including Phoenix Light SF Limited in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which the plaintiffs previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 43 of the trusts at issue. On September 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee for one of the 43 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 42 trusts at issue. Plaintiffs’ third amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence and gross negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the third amended complaint, plaintiffs acknowledge that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ TIA Act claims, negligence and gross negligence claims, Streit Act claims, claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and certain theories of plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims, and plaintiffs only include these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. Plaintiffs allege damages of “hundreds of millions of dollars.” On November 13, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the third amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing.

On November 30, 2017, DBTCA was added as a defendant to a case brought by Commerzbank AG (“Commerzbank”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Commerzbank previously alleged incorrectly that DBNTC served as trustee for all 50 of the trusts at issue. On November 30, 2017, Commerzbank filed a second amended complaint that names DBTCA as a defendant in addition to DBNTC. DBTCA serves as trustee

5

for 1 of the 50 trusts at issue. DBNTC serves as trustee for the other 49 trusts at issue. Commerzbank’s second amended complaint brings claims for violation of the TIA; breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; violation of the Streit Act; and breach of the covenant of good faith. However, in the second amended complaint, Commerzbank acknowledges that, before DBTCA was added to the case, the court dismissed Commerzbank’s TIA claims for the trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements, as well as its Streit Act claims and claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, and Commerzbank only includes these claims to preserve any rights on appeal. The second amended complaint alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA caused Commerzbank to suffer “hundreds of millions of dollars in losses,” but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On January 29, 2018, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the second amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing.

On December 30, 2015, IKB International, S.A. in Liquidation and IKB Deutsche Industriebank A.G. (collectively, “IKB”), as an investor in 37 RMBS trusts, filed a summons with notice in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against DBNTC and DBTCA as trustees of the trusts. On May 27, 2016, IKB served its complaint asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest, violation of New York’s Streit Act, violation of the Trust Indenture Act, violation of Regulation AB, and violation of Section 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. IKB alleges that DBNTC and DBTCA are liable for over U.S. $268 million in damages. On October 5, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA, together with several other trustees defending lawsuits by IKB, filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 6, 2017, IKB filed a notice of discontinuance, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to three trusts. As of January 17, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA’s motion to dismiss has been briefed and is awaiting decision by the court. On June 20, 2017, the parties filed a stipulation, voluntarily dismissing with prejudice all claims as to four additional trusts. Certain limited discovery is permitted to go forward while the motion to dismiss is pending.

It is DBTCA’s belief that it has no pending legal proceedings (including, based on DBTCA’s present evaluation, the litigation disclosed in the foregoing paragraphs) that would materially affect its ability to perform its duties as the trustee for the issuance trust and the master trust.

Note that in connection with its role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions, Citibank, N.A. has been named as a defendant in the same and similar civil litigation as DBTCA and DBNTC. These litigation matters relating to Citibank, N.A.’s role as trustee of certain RMBS transactions are not expected to materially affect Citibank, N.A.’s ability to perform its duties as they relate to the issuance trust and the master trust, including as sponsor, depositor, managing beneficiary, servicer and paying agent.

6

PART II

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 9B. Other Information.

None

PART III

The following Items have been omitted in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Substitute information provided in accordance with General Instruction J to Form 10–K:

Item 1119 of Regulation AB: Affiliations and certain relationships and related transactions.

Information required by Item 1119 of Regulation AB has been omitted from this report on Form 10-K in reliance on the Instruction to Item 1119.

7

Item 1122 of Regulation AB: Compliance with applicable servicing criteria.

Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas have been identified by the registrant as parties participating in the servicing function during the year ended December 31, 2017, with respect to Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I. Each of Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has delivered a report on an assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to such party (each, an “Assessment Report”) as of, and for the year ended, December 31, 2017, which Assessment Reports are attached as exhibits 33.1 and 33.2, respectively, to this Form 10-K. In addition, each of Citibank, N.A. and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas has provided an attestation report (each, an “Attestation Report”) by KPMG LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, regarding its related Assessment Report. The Attestation Reports are attached as exhibits 34.1 and 34.2, respectively, to this Form 10-K.

No Assessment Report or related Attestation Report has identified any material instance of noncompliance with the servicing criteria identified in such Assessment Report as applicable to the related servicing participant.

Platform-Level Reports: Regulations of the SEC require that a servicing participant perform a “platform” level assessment for purposes of assessing servicing compliance. This means that the transactions covered in a report on an assessment of compliance should include asset-backed securities transactions involving such servicing participant that are backed by the same asset type. Further guidance from the SEC staff identifies additional parameters which a servicing participant may apply to define and further limit its platform. For example, a servicing participant may define its platform to include only transactions that were completed on or after January 1, 2006 (the effective date of Regulation AB) and that were registered with the SEC pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933. Each servicing participant is responsible for defining its own platform, and each platform will naturally differ based on various factors, including the servicing participant’s business model, the transactions in which it is involved and the range of activities performed in those transactions.

The platform defined by Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas in its Assessment Report attached as an exhibit to this Form 10-K includes transactions in addition to those conducted by Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust, and the range of activities performed by Deutsche Bank in those other transactions is broader than the range of activities it performs in the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust transactions. Accordingly, the servicing criteria addressed by Deutsche Bank in its Assessment Report include criteria in addition to the criteria applicable specifically to the Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust transactions.

Item 1123 of Regulation AB: Servicer compliance statement.

Citibank, N.A. has been identified by the registrant as the sole servicer with respect to the pool assets held by each of Citibank Credit Card Issuance Trust and Citibank Credit Card Master Trust I. Citibank, N.A. has provided a statement of compliance relating to servicing activities for the year ended December 31, 2017, which has been signed by an authorized officer of Citibank, N.A. and is attached hereto as exhibit 35.1.

8

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules.

(a)(1) Not Applicable.

(a)(2) Not Applicable.

(a)(3) Not Applicable.

Exhibit Index

9

10

Item 16. Form 10–K Summary.

Not Applicable.

11

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

Dated: March 30, 2018

12