InfoBytes
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Fannie Mae issues Covid-19-related selling updates
On August 12, Fannie Mae updated its Covid-19 frequently asked questions regarding the underwriting and loan eligibility for sellers. Fannie Mae’s FAQs (previously discussed here) were updated to address questions on selling loans in forbearance. The FAQs cite to Lender Letter 2020-06 (covered by InfoBytes here), stating that Fannie Mae will purchase loans that go into forbearance after loan closing before sale that became eligible for sale beginning May 1 and have note dates on or before August 31 and are delivered by October 31. Additionally, the FAQs state there are no plans to further extend the August 31 date.
11th Circuit holds forfeiture is required for money laundering even without financial harm
On August 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a government forfeiture order, concluding that a forfeiture order is still mandatory when a defendant is convicted of a money laundering scheme even when no financial harm is caused to a bank. According to the opinion, between 2000 and 2009 an international businessman engaged in “mirror-image” financial transactions, which includes using phony invoices to launder money between his corporations. The bank involved incurred no financial loss from the transactions, due to the “mirror-image nature of the scheme,” and all financial draws were repaid with interest. The opinion notes that “had the Bank known of the falsehoods that prompted these financial transactions, it would not have approved [them].” In 2017, the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering and the government requested forfeiture of over $20.8 million. The district court sentenced the defendant to 27-months imprisonment and denied the government’s forfeiture motion, noting that the purpose of forfeiture would not be served since the defendant returned all the money plus interest.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit disagreed, holding that the language of the U.S. money laundering statute (18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1)), as stated by the Supreme Court, “provides that a district court ‘shall order’ forfeiture, [Congress] ‘could not have chosen stronger words to express its intent that forfeiture be mandatory.’ The appellate court noted that there is no “double counting” merely because the money was returned to the bank, and this is not a case of “double recovery” because the defendant “made no payment to the government body seeking forfeiture.” Moreover, the court agreed with the government that “substitute forfeiture” is permitted, rejecting the defendant’s claim that the bank was the owner of the funds; therefore, not a “third party” to whom the money was transferred within the meaning of e 21 U.S.C. § 853(p). Lastly, the appellate court rejected the district court’s conclusion that the $20.8 million forfeiture order was “excessively punitive,” holding that the court “failed to properly define the harm” when performing the excessiveness analysis. The appellate court noted that on remand, the district court “must consider the adverse impact on society that money laundering generally has as well as the specific conduct that [the defendant] engaged in” when determining the forfeiture amount.
Agencies clarify BSA/AML enforcement
On August 13, the OCC, the Federal Reserve Board, the FDIC, and the NCUA (collectively, the “agencies”) issued a joint statement, which clarifies how the agencies apply the enforcement provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and related anti-money laundering (AML) laws and regulations. Specifically, the statement discusses the conditions that require the issuance of a mandatory cease and desist order under sections 8(s) and 206(q). According to the agencies, there are no new exceptions or standards created by document. Among other things, the statement:
- Provides examples of when an agency shall issue a cease and desist order in accordance with sections 8(s)(3) and 206(q)(3) for “[f]ailure to establish and maintain a reasonably designed BSA/AML Compliance Program. The statement notes that an institution would be subject to a cease and desist order when the one component of their compliance program “fails with respect to either a high-risk area or multiple lines of business… even if the other components or pillars are satisfactory.”
- Describes circumstances in which an agency may use its discretion to issue formal or informal enforcement actions related to unsafe or unsound BSA-related practices. The statement notes that the “form and content” of the enforcement action will depend on a variety factors, including “the capability and cooperation of the institution’s management.”
- Describes how the agencies incorporate customer due diligence regulations and recordkeeping requirements as part of the internal controls pillar of an institutions BSA/AML compliance program.
- Discusses the treatment of isolated or technical compliance program requirements that are generally not issues resulting in an enforcement action.
SCRA’s lease protections expanded for stop movement orders
On August 14, President Trump signed S.3637, which amends the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to expand the lease protections for servicemembers under stop movement orders in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Specifically, the SCRA’s lease termination protections are expanded to include situations in which a servicemember executes a residential or motor vehicle lease upon the receipt of military orders for a permanent change of station or deployment and then subsequently receives a stop movement order “in response to a local, national, or global emergency, effective for an indefinite period or for a period of not less than 30 days,” which would prevent the servicemember from occupying the residence or using the vehicle. The amendments are retroactively effective and apply to stop movement orders issued on or after March 1.
Hawaii regulator extends guidance permitting licensees to reduce office hours, temporarily close
On August 13, the Hawaii Division of Financial Institutions extended, until September 30, 2020, interim guidance permitting licensees with locations in Hawaii to reduce hours or close offices during Hawaii’s Covid-19 emergency period. Consistent with the previous guidance, covered here, financial institutions and escrow depositories are required to provide notice of closures or reductions in hours. While mortgage loan originators, mortgage servicers, and money transmitters are not required to provide notice, the regulator requests a courtesy notification of any closure or reduction in hours.
SBA issues new PPP FAQs and clarifies appeals process
On August 11, the Small Business Administration (SBA) updated the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) FAQs to include two new questions clarifying that (i) payment or nonpayment of fees of an agent or other third party will not affect the guarantee of a PPP loan or the SBA’s payment of lender fees; and (ii) vision and dental benefits are included in the payments required for the provision of group health care benefits. The SBA also published three new FAQs on PPP loan forgiveness, addressing PPP loan forgiveness when the borrower has also received an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) advance. Additionally, the SBA issued a new interim final rule, which informs PPP borrowers and lenders of the appeal process for certain SBA loan review decisions under the PPP to the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals.
CFPB updates Payday Lending Rule FAQs
On August 11, the CFPB released updated FAQs pertaining to compliance with the payment provisions of the “Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans” (Payday Lending Rule). Earlier in June, the Bureau issued a final rule revoking certain underwriting provisions of the Payday Lending Rule (previously covered by InfoBytes here), along with FAQs discussing the details of covered loans and “payment transfers” under the rule. The updated FAQs provide guidance on several topics, including (i) exemptions for certain loans originated by a federal credit union; (ii) Regulation Z’s coverage threshold; (iii) conditions for when closed-end and open-end loans may become covered longer-term loans; (iv) exclusions for real estate secured credit; (v) the purchase money exclusion’s applicability to automobile loans; (vi) situations where failed payment transfers count towards the limit under Payday Lending Rule; (vii) how a “business day” is determined; and (viii) situations where a lender must provide an unusual payment withdrawal notice.
Lender and owner to pay $12.5 million in civil money penalties in CFPB administrative action
On August 4, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that a Delaware-based online payday lender and its CEO be held liable for violations of TILA, CFPA, and the EFTA and pay restitution of $38 million and $12.5 million in civil penalties in a CFPB administrative action. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2015, the Bureau filed an administrative suit against the lender and its CEO alleging violations of TILA and the EFTA, and for engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. Specifically, the CFPB argued that, from May 2008 through December 2012, the online lender (i) continued to debit borrowers’ accounts using remotely created checks after consumers revoked the lender’s authorization to do so; (ii) required consumers to repay loans via pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; and (iii) deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans by providing them with contracts that contained disclosures based on repaying the loan in one payment, while the default terms called for multiple rollovers and additional finance charges. In 2016, an ALJ agreed with the Bureau’s contentions, and the defendants appealed the decision. In May 2019, CFPB Director Kraninger remanded the case to a new ALJ.
After a new hearing, the ALJ concluded that the lender violated (i) TILA (and the CFPA by virtue of its TILA violation) by failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose consumers’ legal obligations; and (ii) the EFTA (and the CFPA by virtue of its EFTA violation) by “conditioning extensions of credit on repayment by preauthorized electronic fund transfers.” Moreover, the ALJ concluded that the lender and the lender’s owner engaged in deceptive acts or practices by misleading consumers into “believing that their APR, Finance Charges, and Total of Payments were much lower than they actually were.” Lastly, the ALJ concluded the lender and its owner engaged in unfair acts or practices by (i) failing to clearly disclose automatic rollover costs; (ii) misleading consumers about their repayment obligations; and (iii) obtaining authorization for remote checks in a “confusing manner” and using the remote checks to “withdraw money from consumers’ bank accounts after consumers attempted to block electronic access to their bank accounts.” The ALJ recommends that both the lender and its owner pay over $38 million in restitution, and orders the lender to pay $7.5 million in civil money penalties and the owner to pay $5 million in civil money penalties.
Bank settles overdraft fee litigation for $7.5 million
On August 10, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval of a $7.5 million settlement, resolving a decade-long multidistrict litigation concerning overdraft fees. The settlement covers allegations that a U.S.-based affiliate of an international bank charged improper assessment and collection of overdraft fees due to “high-to-low posting.” In 2012, the bank was purchased by a U.S. national bank and the national bank inherited the litigation as the successor in interest. The settlement involves over 148,000 class members, “who, from October 10, 2007 through and including March 1, 2012, incurred one or more Overdraft Fees as a result of [the bank]’s High-to-Low Posting.” The $7.5 million settlement includes $10,000 to the sole class representative and over $2.6 million to the class attorneys (representing 35% of the settlement fund).
Broker dealer assessed $38 million in penalties for AML violations
On August 10, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), SEC, and the CFTC announced separate settlements with a broker-dealer following investigations into its anti-money laundering (AML) programs. The broker-dealer did not admit or deny any of the charges, and the agencies all considered remedial actions undertaken by the broker-dealer. FINRA fined the broker-dealer $15 million for allegedly failing to establish and implement AML processes reasonably designed to detect and report suspicious transactions as required by the Bank Secrecy Act, including foreign currency wire transfers to and from countries known to be at high risk for money laundering. Additionally, the broker-dealer “lacked sufficient personnel and a reasonably designed case management system.” The broker-dealer consented to the terms of the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent and agreed to retain a third-party consultant to take steps to remediate its AML program.
In a separate investigation conducted by the SEC, the broker-dealer reached a settlement to resolve allegations that it repeatedly failed to file suspicious activity reports (SARs) as required by the Exchange Act for U.S. microcap securities trades executed on behalf of its customers. According to the SEC, because the broker-dealer’s “AML policies and procedures were not reasonably tailored to the risks of [its] U.S. microcap securities business,” over a one-year period, it failed to (i) recognize red flags; (ii) properly investigate suspicious activity; and (iii) file more than 150 SARs in a timely fashion even after compliance personnel flagged the suspicious transactions. Under the terms of the order, the broker-dealer has agreed to be censured, will cease and desist from committing future violations, and will pay an $11.5 million civil penalty.
The CFTC also announced a settlement to resolve allegations that the broker-dealer failed to (i) diligently supervise the handling of several commodity trading accounts; (ii) sufficiently oversee its employees’ handling of these accounts, leading to its “failure to maintain an adequate [AML] program and to conduct appropriate customer monitoring”; and (iii) identify or conduct adequate investigations necessary to detect and report suspicious transactions. Under the order, the broker-dealer is required to pay an $11.5 million civil penalty and disgorge $706,214 it earned as the futures commission merchant for certain accounts that were the subject of a 2018 CFTC enforcement action.