InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB sues payday lender over debt collection practices
On July 12, the CFPB filed a complaint against a Texas-based payday lender (defendant) for allegedly engaging in illegal debt-collection practices and allegedly generating $240 million in reborrowing fees from borrowers who were eligible for free repayment plans in violation of the CFPA. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2014, the Bureau ordered the defendant to, among other things, pay $10 million for allegedly using false claims and threats to coerce delinquent payday loan borrowers into taking out an additional payday loan to cover their debt. The Bureau stated that after the CFPB’s 2014 enforcement action, the defendant “used different tactics to make consumers re-borrow.” The complaint alleges that the defendant “engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices by concealing the option of a free repayment plan to consumers who indicated that they could not repay their short term, high-cost loans originated by the defendant.” The Bureau also alleges that the defendant attempted to collect payments by unfairly making unauthorized electronic withdrawals from over 3,000 consumers’ bank accounts. The Bureau seeks permanent injunctive relief, restitution, disgorgement, damages, civil money penalties, and other relief.
Ohio AG, FCC take action against robocall operation
On July 7, the Ohio attorney general filed a complaint against multiple companies for participating in an alleged unwanted car warranty call operation. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Ohio, alleged that the 22 named defendants “participated in an unlawful robocall operation that bombarded American consumers with billions of robocalls.” Specifically, the complaint alleged that the defendants “initiated over 77 million robocalls per day for the purpose of generating sales leads, many times in relation to the sale of Vehicle Service Contracts (‘VSCs’) that are deceptively marketed as ‘car warranty’ plans,” totaling at least 800 million call attempts. The defendants allegedly violated the TSR, the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and the Ohio Telephone Solicitation Sales Act by, among other things: (i) deceptively representing the subject of the call; (ii) misrepresenting caller IDs, or “spoofing”; and (iii) acting as telephone solicitors without having registered as telephone solicitors with the Ohio AG’s Office, as required by law, and without having obtained and filed the required surety bond. The lawsuit coincided with the FCC’s announcement of actions taken to decrease robocalls, including sending cease and desist letters to several carriers in an attempt “to cut off a flood of possibly illegal robocalls marketing auto warranties targeting billions of consumers.” The announcement also noted that the FCC has authorized “all U.S.-based voice service providers to cease carrying any traffic originating from the [named] operation consistent with FCC regulations,” as detailed in a public notice to all U.S.-based voice service providers.
Fed takes action against bank for flood insurance violations
On July 7, the Federal Reserve Board announced a civil money penalty against a Massachusetts state bank. In the order, the Fed alleged that the bank violated the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H. The order assesses a $17,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H but does not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
Payday lender to pay $39 million in alleged misappropriated funds suit
On June 29, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Florida granted final judgment against a Florida-based payday loan company and an individual (collectively, “defendants”), resolving SEC allegations that the company fraudulently misappropriated funds from investors. According to the complaint, the SEC claimed that the defendants falsely represented to many Venezuelan-American investors that the company would use their funds to finance payday loans through the offer and sale of “safe and secured” promissory notes. However, the complaint noted that “the proceeds [the company] generated from its consumer loan business were woefully insufficient to cover principal and interest payments to investors,” and had been offered in violation of registration and anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act and Exchange Act. The complaint also noted that the individual allegedly misappropriated $2.9 million for personal use and authorized the transfer of $3.6 million to friends and relatives for no apparent legitimate business purpose. According to the order, the company: (i) is permanently restrained and enjoined from violating sections of the Securities Act and Exchange Act; (ii) must pay $30.3 million in disgorgement; and (iii) must pay $2 million interest on disgorgement and a $7 million civil penalty. The individual is jointly liable for more than $4.6 million in disgorgement.
Collection agency to pay $10,000 for operating without a license in Connecticut
On June 24, the Connecticut Department of Banking issued a consent order against a company for operating as a consumer collection agency without obtaining the proper license. According to the order, the company filed a consumer collection agency license application in Connecticut in June 2020. However, during its review of the company’s application, the Department of Banking discovered that it had been operating as a consumer collection agency without a license in the state since 2019. Under the terms of the consent order, the company must pay a civil penalty fine of $10,000, and pay $800 to cover licensing fees.
DOJ charges six with crypto fraud
On June 30, the DOJ charged six individuals in four separate cases for allegedly playing a role in several cryptocurrency-related fraud schemes. In its press release announcing the indictments, the DOJ said these schemes include “the largest known Non-Fungible Token (NFT) scheme charged to date, a fraudulent investment fund that purportedly traded on cryptocurrency exchanges, a global Ponzi scheme involving the sale of unregistered crypto securities, and a fraudulent initial coin offering.”
- Crypto NFT Scheme: The DOJ charged a Vietnamese national with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit international money laundering related to his involvement in an NFT project, in which the individual and his co-conspirators allegedly engaged in a “rug pull” that ended the investment project and stole roughly $2.6 million from investors. Shortly after the rug pull, the DOJ said in its announcement that the individuals allegedly “laundered investors’ funds through ‘chain-hopping,’ a form of money laundering in which one type of coin is converted to another type and funds are moved across multiple cryptocurrency blockchains.” The individuals also allegedly used decentralized cryptocurrency swap services to hide the trail of investors’ stolen funds.
- Crypto Ponzi and Unregistered Securities Scheme: The DOJ charged two Brazilian nationals and a Florida resident with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud in connection with a global cryptocurrency-based Ponzi scheme that generated approximately $100 million from investors. The Brazilian nationals were also charged with conspiracy to commit international money laundering. According to the DOJ, the individuals fraudulently promoted a cryptocurrency investment platform and unregistered securities offering by misrepresenting a purported proprietary trading bot and falsely guaranteeing returns to investors. The Brazilian nationals allegedly laundered investors’ funds through a foreign-based cryptocurrency exchange and paid earlier platform investors with money obtained from later investors, the DOJ said. The SEC also filed a lawsuit against all three individuals and their company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
- Crypto Initial Coin Offering Scheme: A California resident who founded a cryptocurrency investment platform was charged by the DOJ with one count of securities fraud for his role in a cryptocurrency fraud scheme involving the platform’s initial coin offering (ICO), which raised roughly $21 million from investors globally. According to the DOJ, the individual falsified information in company white papers for prospective investors, promoted fake testimonials, and fabricated purported business relationships with the Federal Reserve Board and dozens of major companies to appear legitimate.
- Crypto Commodities Scheme: The DOJ charged the owner of a cryptocurrency investment platform with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, four counts of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, and one count of obstruction of justice. The Nevada resident allegedly raised approximately $12 million from investors by using the platform to solicit investors’ participation in an unregistered commodity pool (“a fund that combines investors’ contributions to trade on the futures and commodity markets”), told investors that he used a trading bot that “could execute over 17,000 transactions per hour on various cryptocurrency exchanges” to earn profits, and falsely represented that this trading bot would generate between 500 to 600 percent returns on the amount invested.
“Our office is committed to protecting investors from sophisticated scammers seeking to capitalize on the relative novelty of digital currency,” U.S. Attorney Juan Antonio Gonzalez for the Southern District of Florida stated. “As with any emerging technology, those who invest in cryptocurrency must beware of profit-making opportunities that appear too good to be true.”
CFTC charges South African fund with CEA violations
On June 30, the CFTC filed charges against a South African investment fund and its CEO for an allegedly fraudulent scheme that raised over $1.7 billion worth of Bitcoin from the public in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC Regulations. The complaint alleged that the CEO used various websites and social media to fraudulently solicit bitcoin from public participants to participate in a commodity pool controlled by the company, and “purportedly traded off-exchange, retail foreign currency (‘forex’) on a leveraged, margined and/or financed basis with participants who were not eligible contract participants (‘ECPs’) through a proprietary ‘bot’ or software program.” The CFTC is seeking: (i) full restitution for defrauded investors; (ii) disgorgement; (iii) civil monetary penalties; (iv) permanent registration and trading bans; and (v) a permanent injunction from future violations.
Ex-NFL players no longer part of CFPB, New York suit on high-cost loans
On June 27, the CFPB and New York attorney general filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, removing references to a New Jersey-based finance company’s arrangements with seven former NFL players in an action concerning whether the company and its affiliates (collectively, “defendants”) mischaracterized high-cost loans as assignments of future payment rights. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the agencies filed a lawsuit in 2017 claiming, among other things, that the defendants misled World Trade Center attack first responders and professional football players in selling expensive advances on benefits to which they were entitled and mischaracterized extensions of credit as assignments of future payment rights, thereby misleading their victims into repaying far more than they received. Specifically, the initial filing in 2017 alleges that the defendants (i) used “confusing contracts” to prevent the individuals from understanding the terms and costs of the transactions; (ii) lied to the individuals by telling them the companies could secure their payouts more quickly; (iii) misrepresented how quickly they would receive payments from the companies, and (iv) collected interest at an illegal rate. The amended complaint removes all references to defendants’ arrangements with the ex-NFL players, but maintains claims related to financing deals signed with first responders to the World Trade Center attack.
The court issued an order on June 28 accepting the agencies’ unopposed motion to file the amended complaint to “remove references to NFL player consumers and to remove allegations in Count VIII” related to alleged violations of New York General Obligations Law § 13-101 concerning personal injury claims. No additional details on the reasons for the removals are provided.
The amended complaint follows a March order issued by the district court (covered by InfoBytes here) in which it ruled that the CFPB could proceed with its 2017 enforcement action. In 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s 2018 order (covered by InfoBytes here), which had dismissed the case on the grounds that the Bureau’s single-director structure was unconstitutional, and that, as such, the agency lacked authority to bring claims alleging deceptive and abusive conduct by the company. The 2nd Circuit remanded the case to the district court, determining that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CFPB (holding that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but severable from the statute establishing the Bureau, as covered by a Buckley Special Alert) superseded the 2018 ruling.
FINRA fines firm $2.8 million for faulty trade confirmations
On June 29, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), which ordered a New York-based member firm to pay $2.8 million to settle allegations that it sent customers inaccurate trade confirmations. According to FINRA, from November 2008 through the present, the firm allegedly sent customers roughly “270 million confirmations that inaccurately disclosed the firm’s execution capacity, the customer’s price, the market center of execution, or whether the trade was executed at an average price.” FINRA attributed the inaccuracies to 11 underlying issues, including technology issues, a drafting error, and a misunderstanding of regulatory guidance that allegedly went undetected for at least five years. Additionally, FINRA claimed that from at least November 2008 through March 2020, the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, including written procedures, to achieve compliance with the confirmation requirements, and claimed this alleged failure “persisted even though, by mid-2017, [the firm] was aware due to FINRA examinations of multiple systemic issues resulting in tens of millions of inaccurate confirmations.” Rather than implementing a “reasonable” supervisory system, FINRA contended that the firm took a year to set up a system and procedures that monitored only whether confirmations were delivered, not whether they were accurate. The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement but accepted and consented to the entry of FINRA’s findings and censure and agreed to certify within 120 days that it corrected the identified issues.
FTC sues national retailer for allegedly facilitating money transfer fraud
On June 28, the FTC filed a complaint against a national retailer for allegedly allowing its money-transfer services to facilitate fraud. The complaint alleges the retailer knew about the role money transfer services play in scams but failed to properly secure the services offered at its stores, thus allowing money to be sent to “domestic and international fraud rings.” According to the FTC, at least 226,679 complaints totaling more than $197 million were received by several money transfer services companies about fraud-induced money transfers that were sent from or received at one of the retailer’s stores between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2018. An investigation by the FTC purportedly revealed that the retailer’s practices allegedly harmed consumers by, among other things, (i) allowing the payout of suspicious money transfers, which allowed scammers to retrieve fraud proceeds at one of the retailer’s stores; (ii) failing to have in place a written anti-fraud policy or consumer protection program until November 2014; (iii) allowing cash pickups for large payments, often through the use of fake IDs; (iv) failing to display or provide materials warning consumers about potential frauds; (v) failing to effectively train or retrain employees; and (vi) allowing money transfers to be used for telemarketing purchases, which are prohibited under the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) due to the high risk of fraud.
According to the complaint, the retailer “is well aware that telemarketing and other mass marketing frauds, such as ‘grandparent’ scams, lottery scams, and government agent impersonator scams, induce people to use [the retailer’s] money transfer services to send money to domestic and international fraud rings. Nevertheless, [the retailer] has continued processing fraud-induced money transfers at its stores—funding telemarketing and other scams—without adopting policies and practices that effectively detect and prevent these transfers.”
The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, monetary relief, civil penalties, restitution, and other relief for each violation of the FTC Act and the TSR. The FTC also requests the “rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money, the return of property, the payment of damages, public notification, or other relief necessary to redress injury to consumers damages.”
The retailer issued a press release following the FTC’s announcement, stating that it considers the agency’s claims to be “misguided and legally flawed,” and that the civil lawsuit “was approved by the FTC by the narrowest of margins after Chair Lina Khan refused [the retailer] the due process of hearing directly from the company.” The retailer noted that the FTC’s decision comes after DOJ declined to pursue the case in court. Among other thing, the retailer contended that because it maintains robust anti-fraud measures there is no need for injunctive relief requiring the retailer to change its practices. The retailer pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC, which limited the FTC’s ability to obtain monetary relief in federal court (covered by InfoBytes here), to argue that the FTC “pivoted their focus in this case after AMG to a distorted interpretation of the TSR to effectively try and hold [the retailer] strictly liable for money transfers that third-party criminals reportedly persuaded some consumers to send.” The retailer added that “[s]witching their main legal theory to the TSR is an obvious attempt to get around the Supreme Court’s ruling in AMG.”