InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Virginia issues modified stay at home order identifying banks and financial institution as essential retail businesses
On December 10, the governor of Virginia issued a modified stay at home order limiting travel and gatherings for Virginia residents and operations for certain businesses. However, banks and other financial institutions with retail functions are considered essential retail businesses and may continue to remain open during normal business hours. All businesses, including essential retail businesses, are advised to adhere to the Guidelines for All Business Sectors.
New Jersey charges MCA provider with deceptive practices
On December 8, the New Jersey attorney general announced an action against a merchant cash advance provider, its parent company, and six other associated entities (collectively, “defendants”) alleging the defendants violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and the General Advertising Regulations through the marketing and transacting of their merchant cash advance (MCA) product. (The defendants are currently facing similar allegations from the FTC, covered by InfoBytes here.) According to the complaint, the defendants engaged in “unconscionable business practices, deceived consumers, and/or made false or misleading statements” by marketing and advertising an MCA product, which was allegedly structured as a short-term, high-cost loan. New Jersey argues that the MCA contracts contain terms that “eliminate the distinctions between loans (with fixed regular payments over a defined term) and legitimate MCAs (with variable payments tied to actual receivables and an undefined term).” New Jersey asserts that traditionally, MCA’s do not have a finite repayment term and thus, the fixed repayment period was the equivalent of a loan to its customers. Moreover, the agreements’ “fixed daily payments extracted from Consumers’ accounts have little to no relation to the businesses’ receivables.” Additionally, New Jersey asserts that the defendants allegedly engaged in unconscionable collection practices, including requiring consumers to sign, in their individual capacity and on behalf of their business, an Affidavit of Confessions of Judgment to obtain the MCA, which would allow judgment against both the Consumer’s business assets and personal assets in the event of a purported default. New Jersey is seeking a permanent injunction, civil penalties, restitution, and disgorgement.
Notably, the New Jersey complaint follows a recent enforcement action against a merchant cash advance provider in California (covered by InfoBytes here), where the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) found, in apparent contrast to the New Jersey action, that MCA agreements with an indefinite repayment period, among other things, operate as a loan equivalent by, placing the “risk of repayment on the merchant by leaving the repayment period open until fully repaid (with fees and interest).”
CFPB reaches settlement with unlicensed debt collector
On December 8, the CFPB announced a settlement with a New Jersey-based debt collector resolving allegations that the defendant violated the FDCPA and the CFPA’s prohibition against deceptive acts or practices by obtaining judgments and demanding payments from consumers in states where it was not legally licensed to do so. According to the Bureau, the defendant purchased consumer debts from debt brokers, used law firms to obtain judgments against the consumers, and “continued to collect on those judgments . . . as well as on a handful of payment agreements it obtained from debtors.” The Bureau found that the defendant falsely implied that it had a legally enforceable right to recover payments from consumers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, and demanded payments and threatened legal action even though it did not hold the debt collection licenses required under the laws of those states. The consent order requires the defendant to pay a $204,000 civil money penalty, and prohibits the defendant from collecting on the judgments against, or payment agreements entered into with, consumers in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island when it was not legally allowed to do so. The defendant is also required to “take all necessary steps to vacate all judgments not discharged in bankruptcy or [that were] previously satisfied,” and must suspend collection of those judgments and provide notice to consumers with payment agreements that have been satisfied.
House passes NDAA with significant AML/CFT provisions
On December 8, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 in a 335-78 vote, which includes significant language from the September 2019 proposed legislation, the “Improving Laundering Laws and Increasing Comprehensive Information Tracking of Criminal Activity in Shell Holdings (ILLICIT CASH) Act,” among other proposed laws. Highlights of the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions include:
- Establishing federal disclosure requirements of beneficial ownership information, including a requirement that reporting companies submit, at the time of formation and within a year of any change, their beneficial owner(s) to a “secure, nonpublic database at FinCEN”;
- Expand the declaration of purpose of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and establish national examinations and supervision priorities;
- Require streamlined, real-time reporting of Suspicious Activity Reports;
- Establish a Subcommittee on Innovation and Technology within the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group to encourage and support technological innovation in the area of AML and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation (CFT);
- Expand the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include dealers in antiquities;
- Require federal agencies to study the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade of works of art; and
- Inclusion of digital currency in AML-CFT enforcement by, among other things, expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include businesses engaged in the transmission of “currency, funds or value that substitutes for currency or funds.”
OFAC sanctions entities connected to IRGC-QF
On December 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 against an official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF), along with the Iranian regime’s envoy to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, for allegedly “acting for or on behalf of the IRGC-QF.” OFAC also announced sanctions against an Iranian university and a separate individual for providing support to IRGC-QF operations. As a result, all property and interests in property belonging to the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and any “entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by such persons, are also blocked.” U.S. persons are “generally prohibited from engaging in transactions” with the designated persons. OFAC further warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for the designated persons they “risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property and interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.”
OFAC sanctions entities for assisting North Korean coal exportation
On December 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Orders 13687, 13722, and 13810 against six entities related to the alleged transportation of North Korean coal. OFAC also identified four vessels as blocked property. According to OFAC, by engaging in activities prohibited under UN Security Council resolution 2371, the six sanctioned entities have assisted North Korea’s continued efforts to circumvent UN prohibitions on the exportation of North Korean coal. As a result of the sanctions, “all property and interests in property of these targets that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC noted that its regulations “generally prohibit” U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated persons, and warned foreign financial institutions that if they knowingly facilitate significant transactions for any of the designated individuals or entities, they may be subject to U.S. secondary sanctions. OFAC also recommended all relevant jurisdictions review a global advisory issued last May by the U.S. Departments of State and Treasury, along with the U.S. Coast Guard (covered by InfoBytes here), which warned the maritime industry of deceptive shipping practices used by Iran, North Korea, and Syria to evade economic sanctions.
FINRA fines firm for AML and due diligence violations
On December 4, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), fining a New York-based member firm $55,000 for allegedly failing to implement a reasonable anti-money laundering (AML) program for transactions involving low-priced securities. The firm also allegedly failed to establish a due diligence program for monitoring and reporting “known or suspected money laundering activity conducted through or involving correspondent accounts for foreign financial institutions.” According to FINRA, the firm failed to, among other things, (i) “include reasonable procedures for the surveillance of potentially suspicious trading in low-priced securities,” such as listing “some of the most relevant red flags”; (ii) ensure its surveillance reports and tools were “reasonably designed to detect and cause the reporting of potentially suspicious activity”; and (iii) reasonably respond to red flags received from a clearing firm related to potentially suspicious activity. FINRA also claimed that the firm failed to identify all of its foreign financial institution accounts (FFIs) due to a lack of systems or processes to do so. Specifically, the firm allegedly failed to review 33 correspondent accounts for FFIs, nor did it identify 15 of these 33 accounts as FFIs. As a result, the firm allegedly violated FINRA Rules 3310(b) and 2010. The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement but agreed to pay the fine, address identified deficiencies in its programs to ensure compliance with its AML obligations, and provide a certification of compliance with FINRA Rule 3310.
FHFA extends Covid-19 flexibilities until January 31
On December 10, the FHFA announced the extension of several loan origination guidelines put in place to assist borrowers during the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, FHFA extended until January 31 existing guidelines related to: (i) alternative appraisal requirements on purchase and rate term refinance loans; (ii) alternative methods for documenting income and verifying employment before loan closing; and (iii) expanding the use of power of attorney to assist with loan closings. The extensions are implemented in updates to Fannie Mae Lender Letters LL-2020-03, LL 2020-04; and Freddie Mac Guide Bulletin 2020-47 and Selling FAQs.
Waters recommends Biden reverse several of Trump's actions
On December 4, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA) sent a letter to President-Elect Biden providing a list of regulations and other executive actions taken by the Trump administration that the Biden administration should immediately reverse, as well as recommendations for strengthening other regulations. Among other things, Waters recommended that the Biden administration (i) issue an executive order to prevent evictions by “directing the CDC to extend and improve its public health order so people can remain in their homes until emergency rental assistance is available”; (ii) amend HUD and FHFA policies that impose restrictions and increased costs for certain loans that go into forbearance prior to FHA endorsement or purchase by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to ensure these loans are still eligible for FHA insurance and purchase by Fannie and Freddie; and (iii) fully use Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act lending authorities, many of which will terminate at the end of December (covered by InfoBytes here).
Waters also urged the Biden administration to take measures to ensure consumer protections, including by, among other things, dismissing Director Kathy Kraninger, enforcing CARES Act protections, and directing the CFPB to (i) issue guidance to financial institutions to ensure affected borrowers are afforded “appropriate forbearance and loan modifications”; (ii) “work to replace the ’Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans’ rule with [one] that protects consumers from predatory lenders”; (iii) restore the Bureau’s Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity’s roles and responsibilities; and (iv) rescind its recently issued final rule amending certain debt collection rules (covered by InfoBytes here), and instead strengthen “consumer protections against abusive debt collection practices.” Other recommendations address diversity and inclusion, financial stability, investor protection, affordable housing, and international development.
Court enters $41 million default judgment against student debt-relief operators
On December 3, the U.S. District Court of the Central District of California entered a default judgment against a student debt-relief company and one of its owners (collectively, “defaulting defendants”) in an action brought by the CFPB alleging the defaulting defendants (and others not subject to the judgment) charged thousands of customers approximately $11.8 million in upfront fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). As previously covered by InfoBytes, in July, the CFPB filed a complaint against the defaulting defendants, one other company, its owner, and four attorneys, alleging the companies would market its debt-relief services to customers over the phone, encouraging those with private loans to sign up with an attorney to reduce or eliminate their student debt. The businesses allegedly charged the fees before the customer had made at least one payment on the altered debts, in violation of the TSR’s prohibition on requesting or receiving advance fees for debt-relief service or, for certain defendants, the TSR’s prohibition on providing substantial assistance to someone charging the illegal fees. In August, the court approved stipulated final judgments with the other company owner (available here) and three of the attorneys (available here, here, and here).
The court entered into a default judgment against the defendants after they failed to file an answer or otherwise respond to the Bureau’s complaint. The judgment requires the defaulting defendants to pay over $11 million in consumer redress with separate $15 million civil money penalties entered against the company and the owner. Additionally, the defaulting defendants are permanently banned from providing debt-relief services or engaging in telemarketing of any consumer financial product or service.