InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC Announces Launch of New Central Application Tracking System (CATS)
On January 17, the OCC launched the first phase of its Central Application Tracking System (CATS), a new web-based system for banks to file licensing and public welfare investment applications and notices. CATS provides a secure, electronic system through which authorized national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches, and banking agencies may draft, submit, and track their licensing and public welfare investment applications and notices. CATS will replace the existing e-Corp and CD-1 Invest application tools. As explained in OCC Bulletin 2016-37, the new program is being launched in three phases to help banks transition from the existing tools. The second and third phases of the CATS rollout are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017. When ready, CATS will be accessible through BankNet, the secure portal for OCC-regulated banks.
OCC Finalizes Rule Addressing Receiverships of Uninsured National Banks
On December 20, the OCC announced the publication of its final rule implementing a framework for receiverships of national banks that are not insured, and thus not subject to receivership, by the FDIC under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (“FDIA”). As discussed in a previous InfoBytes post, the OCC has not historically appointed a receiver for uninsured banks, opting instead to rehabilitate or resolve such institutions without a receiver. This OCC final rule—which goes into effect on January 19, 2017—reflects the OCC’s current belief that establishing and clarifying a receivership framework for uninsured banks “will be beneficial to financial market participants and the broader community of regulators.”
Among other things, the rule seeks to provide clarity to market participants with respect to the following key issues: (i) when and how a receiver for uninsured bank may be appointed; (ii) the powers held by the receiver of an uninsured bank; (iii) the two methods through which parties holding claims against an uninsured depository institution can seek approval of those claims; (iii) the order of payment for administrative expenses and claims against an uninsured bank; and (iv) the treatment of fiduciary or custodial assets. Notably, the OCC did not explicitly address whether the new rule will also apply to FinTech companies should they obtain a special purpose national bank charter as proposed recently by the OCC.
PA Secretary of Banking and Securities Voices Concerns About OCC FinTech Charter
On January 17, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities, Robin L. Wiessmann, submitted a comment letter calling upon the OCC to give “more thoughtful deliberation about the intended and unintended consequences that will result from such an apparent departure from the OCC’s current policy and scope of supervision.” Specifically, Wiessman requested that the federal bank regulator address three concerns regarding: (i) the broad application and ambiguity of the term “fintech”; (ii) the need by the OCC to have an adequate regulatory scheme in place before approving charters; and (iii) the possible federal preemption of existing state consumer protection laws. The Secretary’s letter echoes many of the concerns raised in a recent comment letter submitted by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) “reiterating its opposition to the [OCC] proposal to issue a special charter for fintech companies.”
OFAC Settles with Canadian Bank for Apparent Violations of Cuban Assets Control Regulations and Iran Sanctions
On January 13, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) announced a $516,105 settlement agreement with a Canadian-based bank and its online-brokerage subsidiaries in connection with accounts held and transactions processed on behalf of certain Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons located in Cuba, Iran and other locations in the Middle East. OFAC also identified general “shortcomings in the bank’s OFAC compliance policies, procedures, and programs” including the bank’s failure to screen for any potential nexus to an OFAC-sanctioned country or entity prior to processing related transactions through the U.S. financial system and occurring due to shortcomings in the banks policies and procedures. The settlement agreement does, however, note that the Apparent Violations constituted a non-egregious case, that the Bank voluntarily self-disclosed the Apparent Violations, and that the applicable total base penalty amount for the apparent violations was $955,750—well above the $516,105 amount OFAC assessed.
Notably, in the agreement’s concluding paragraph, OFAC highlights, as a general matter, the risks associated with both “subsidiaries in high-risk industries–such as securities firms” and, in particular “online payment platforms when the financial institution is unable to restrict access for individuals and entities located in comprehensively sanctioned countries.”
OCC FinTech Proposal Draws a Range of Comments from Industry Stakeholders
A number of stakeholders submitted comment letters this week in response to the OCC's recent proposal to move forward with developing a special purpose national bank charter for financial technology (“FinTech”) companies and accompanying white paper outlining the OCC’s authority to grant such charters to FinTech companies and potential minimum supervisory standards for successful FinTech bank applicants. With the comment period for its white paper closing this week, the bank regulator drew a range of reactions from the stakeholders, several of which are described below:
Consumer Bankers Association (CBA): In its comment letter, the CBA noted that the OCC needs to provide more clarity about the regulatory and supervisory framework that will be applied to FinTech companies, and to proceed cautiously and “provide the public with more information about the potential risks and rewards presented by” FinTech companies. The trade association recommended that the OCC utilize its new Office of Innovation and Responsible Innovation Framework to conduct a study of the FinTech sector to provide sufficient information to evaluate the need for and public benefits of a FinTech charter. Although the CBA confirmed support for “any effort to enhance the ability of banks to innovate,” it stated that it could not “yet support the inclusion of fintech companies into the federal banking system.”
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA): In its comment letter, the ICBA stressed the need for the OCC to issue new chartering rules pursuant to the procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act, in consultation with the other bank regulators, and that ultimately these new institutions should be subject to the same supervision and regulation as community banks. The ICBA also expressed “strong concerns about issuing special purpose national bank charters to fintech companies without spelling out clearly the supervision and regulation that these chartered institutions and their parent companies would be subject to.”
American Bankers Association (ABA). The ABA’s comment letter expressed support of a special purpose national bank charter for FinTech companies, as long as existing rules and oversight are applied evenly and fairly. The letter noted, among other things, that significant benefits of financial innovation for consumers are “only realized when innovations are delivered responsibly,” which can be ensured by regulation and oversight. The letter added that “answers to many difficult questions should be made before granting any special purpose charter, including how to ensure that regulations and consumer protection are applied evenly; what protections must be in place to preserve existing laws regarding the separation of banking and commerce; and how would enforcement of operating agreements be accomplished.” The ABA also urged the OCC to work with other agencies “carefully and cooperatively” before any new charter is approved.
Financial Services Roundtable (FSR): Finally, a comment letter submitted by the FSR commended the OCC for developing the proposal, noting that regulations and regulators need to evolve with technology and changing customer preferences. The FSR letter noted that the OCC’s initiative should ensure parity among national charters, and not result in a two-tiered national banking system under which special purpose FinTech banks are subject to compromised supervisory standards. The letter added that to ensure parity in regulation and supervision, “the OCC may find it necessary to re-evaluate some standards applicable to full-service national banks and, as mentioned previously, examine the existing regulatory constraints inhibiting national banks from engaging in responsible innovation.”
Rep. Wilson Introduces Bill to Delay Fiduciary Rule
On January 6, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) introduced the Protecting American Families’ Retirement Advice Act, a bill that would delay by two years the effective date of the Department of Labor’s “fiduciary rule.” As discussed previously on InfoBytes, the fiduciary rule—which is presently set to take effect in April 2017—expands the definition of “investment advisor” to include a “wider array of advice relationships,” thereby imparting new standards on financial advisors and brokers handling retirement accounts. In a statement, Rep. Wilson described the Fiduciary Rule as “one of the most costly, burdensome regulations to come from the Obama Administration.” Wilson’s proposed legislation seeks to delay the rule’s implementation in order to “giv[e] Congress and President-elect Donald Trump adequate time to re-evaluate.”
London-based Bank Agrees to $32 Million Settlement with OCC Concerning Faulty Foreclosure Claims
On January 11, the OCC reported that it has ordered a large London-based bank to pay $32.5 million to settle claims that the bank failed to properly follow the regulator’s orders to improve mortgage foreclosure practices that led to borrowers being harmed after the 2008 credit crisis. Specifically, the OCC had accused the bank in 2015 of failing to meet the demands it had agreed to, and the agency imposed certain additional restrictions on the company’s mortgage-servicing abilities until it fixed the alleged shortcomings. The regulator also noted that the bank had failed to properly file documents in certain bankruptcy cases after the orders (for which it was ordered to pay $3.5 million in remediation to borrowers). The OCC confirmed, however, that the bank is now in compliance with all OCC orders related to the alleged foreclosure practices.
FDIC Announces New Regulatory Actions Against Florida-based Bank
On December 30, the FDIC announced new regulatory actions against a Florida-based bank. Along with the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, the FDIC issued a new Consent Order against the $121.5 million-asset bank, based on allegations that the bank had engaged in “unsafe or unsound” banking practices, or practices which constituted a violation of law or regulation in the following areas: (i) weakness in asset quality, (ii) capital adequacy, earnings, (iii) management effectiveness, (iv) liquidity, (v) sensitivity to market risk, and (vi) compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA).
Among other things, the Order notes that the bank currently falls short of FDIC requirements for qualifying as “well capitalized,” qualifying merely as “adequately capitalized,” and therefore must boost its capital levels or face continued restrictions on its operations. The Order also states that the bank—which consented to the Order without admitting or denying the charges—now has 120 days to meet its capital requirements and 60 days to submit a capital plan to both: (i) achieve and maintain the capital requirements; and (ii) provide for a contingency plan to sell or merge the bank.
FinCEN Issues Guidance on Sharing Suspicious Activity Reports with U.S. Parents and Affiliates of Casinos
On January 4, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidance to “confirm that, under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its implementing regulations, a casino that has filed a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) may share the SAR, or any information that would reveal the existence of the SAR, with each office or other place of business located within the United States of either the casino itself or a parent or affiliate of the casino.” As explained in the guidance, FinCEN expects that the anti-money laundering efforts of the casino’s affiliates could be enhanced by virtue of their access to a clearer and more comprehensive picture of the activities the casino has identified as suspicious. The guidance also specified that casinos may not share SARs or information that would reveal the existence of a SAR with non-U.S. offices or affiliates, individuals or entities within the casino’s corporate famile that perform functions unrelated to gaming, a financial institution without an independent SAR obligation, or unaffialited money services businesses located within the casino. Finally, the guidance specified that a domestic affiliate that receives a SAR or revealing information from a casino may not further share that SAR with an affiliate of its own.
OFAC Amends Executive Order Regarding Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities to Include Interfering With or Undermining Election Processes
On December 28, 2016, the President announced the issuance of an Executive Order Taking Additional Steps To Address The National Emergency With Respect To Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities thereby amending Executive Order 13694. Among other things, the new Executive Order allows for the imposition of sanctions on individuals and entities determined to be responsible for tampering, altering, or causing the misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions. Five entities and six individuals have been identified and will be added to OFAC’s SDN List, the latest version of which can be accessed here.