InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Agencies file lawsuit in scheme targeting the elderly
On February 1, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), along with the CFTC and 26 other state regulators, announced a complaint against a precious metals dealer and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly perpetrating a $68 million fraudulent scheme against more than 450 individuals nationwide, specifically against the elderly. According to the complaint, the defendants allegedly utilized false statements on its website regarding the risk and safety of their traditional retirement accounts and used fear tactics to convince senior citizens to purchase the precious metals. The complaint alleged that the company violated the federal Commodity Exchange Act by targeting the elderly and advising them to dissolve their savings and traditional retirement accounts in order to purchase their highly inflated and overpriced products, and that defendants had misrepresented their credentials and advised customers that the products were “a safe and conservative investment.” The complaint seeks disgorgement, civil monetary penalties, restitution, permanent registration and trading bans, and a permanent injunction against further violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, state regulatory laws, and CFTC regulations.
The same day, the SEC filed a complaint against the defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for allegedly violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, plus interest, and civil penalties.
FDIC discusses post-financial crisis legal claims and enforcement proceedings
Recently, the FDIC reported on legal claims and enforcement proceedings taken by the agency during the financial crisis in the years from 2008 to 2013. During this time period, the FDIC stated it “pursued and defended more legal claims in both its receivership and corporate capacities than during the savings and loan and banking crisis of the 1980s and early 1990s.” In its receivership capacity, the FDIC investigated and litigated many professional liability claims and sought to enter and collect on criminal restitution and forfeiture orders related to failed banks. The agency also pursued many enforcement claims and other actions related to both open and failed banks in its corporate capacity. The report discussed numerous topics, including the FDIC’s investigation into the residential mortgage-backed security (RMBS) portfolios of failed insured depository institutions (IDIs), which often “revealed that RMBS portfolios suffered heavy losses because the credit quality of loans collateralizing the RMBS was much lower than the credit quality represented in the RMBS offering documents.” Ultimately, 19 lawsuits were filed by the FDIC on behalf of eight receiverships seeking damages based on the IDIs’ purchases of RMBS. Other significant topics discussed within the report focus on LIBOR suppression claims, residential mortgage malpractice and/or mortgage fraud, criminal claims and recovery, income tax refund litigation, and administrative enforcement proceedings, among others.
CFPB studies criminal justice financial ecosystem
On January 31, the CFPB published a report studying the criminal justice financial ecosystem, which addressed financial challenges people and families face at every stage of the criminal justice process. According to Justice-Involved Individuals and the Consumer Financial Marketplace, contact with the criminal justice system is very common in the U.S. In 2019, 2.1 million adults were in jail or prison, 4.4 million were under community supervision, and 77 million adults (1 in 3) had a criminal record. These statistics, the Bureau stated, do not account for family members or friends who are often responsible for providing financial support for incarcerated individuals, and who often encounter financial impacts as a result. The Bureau reported that individuals often struggle to pay criminal justice debt and often face steep fines, including additional fees tacked on by third-party debt collectors that, if not paid, may result in incarceration. Additionally, the Bureau reported that the choice of financial service providers is limited within the criminal justice system, and that faced with little or no choice as to how to receive funds upon release from prison or jail, individuals often incur high fees to access their money and may experience difficulties resolving errors. Last October, the Bureau issued a consent order against a provider of financial services to prisons and jails, which alleged that the company engaged in unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices in violation of the CFPA by charging consumers fees to access their own funds on prepaid debit cards that they were required to use (covered by InfoBytes here). The report also found that governments are increasingly shifting incarceration costs to the incarcerated individuals and their families. These costs, the Bureau said, are often sourced to private companies that inflate prices above typical market costs, and raise serious concerns about the transparency, fairness, and availability of consumer choice in markets associated with the justice system.
CFPB releases regulatory agenda
On January 31, the CFPB released its semiannual regulatory agenda in the Federal Register, as part of the Fall 2021 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions. According to the CFPB, it “reasonably anticipates having the regulatory matters identified below under consideration during the period from November 1, 2021 to October 31, 2022.” The next agenda will be published in Spring 2022, which will update the recently released agenda through Spring 2023. Among other things, the agenda noted that the Bureau made “significant progress” on the implementation of Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, which covers banks’ collection, reporting, and disclosure of information on credit applications made by women-owned, minority-owned, and small businesses. Other highlights of the agenda include the Bureau’s: (i) continued collaboration with other federal agencies on regulations for automated valuation models under the FIRREA amendments to Dodd-Frank; (ii) expectation to issue a final rule on the transition away from the LIBOR index, which aims to ensure that loans tied to LIBOR are transitioned “in an orderly, transparent, and fair manner”; (iii) assessment of a rule implementing HMDA; (iv) work on regulations for PACE financing and its “continu[ed] engagement with stakeholders and collect information” from a Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, issued in March 2019 (covered by InfoBytes here); and (v) continued monitoring of consumer financial product markets and creation of working groups to focus on specific markets for potential future rulemakings.
OCC seeks comments on compliance risk for reverse mortgages
On January 28, the OCC published a notice and request for comment in the Federal Register seeking feedback on the renewal of its guidance for managing compliance and reputation risks for reverse mortgage products. The OCC, along with the FDIC, Federal Reserve Board, and the NCUA issued final guidance in 2010 focusing on the need for institutions “to provide adequate information to consumers about reverse mortgage products, to provide qualified independent counseling to consumers considering these products, and to avoid potential conflicts of interest.” The 2010 guidance also addressed related policies, procedures, internal controls, third party risk management, training, and program maintenance. The current notice seeks feedback on (i) whether the collection of the information is necessary and carries a practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the estimates of the information collection burden; (iii) methods for enhancing the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (iv) ways to minimize the information collection burden for respondents; and (v) “[e]stimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.” Comments are due March 29.
FDIC releases December enforcement actions
On January 28, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December. During the month, the FDIC made public eight orders, including one order issued in October 2021, and one notice. The administrative enforcement actions in the orders and notice consisted of “two Orders to Pay Civil Money Penalty, one Consent Order, one order terminating consent order, one voluntary termination of deposit insurance, two Section 19 Orders, one adjudicated cease and desist order, and one Notice of Charges.” Among the actions is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a North Dakota-based bank related to alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank: (i) “made, increased, extended, or renewed loans secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without requiring that the collateral be covered by flood insurance”; and (ii) “made, increased, extended or renewed a loan secured by a building or mobile home located or to be located in a special flood hazard area without providing timely notice to the borrower and/or the servicer as to whether flood insurance was available for the collateral.” The order requires the payment of a $4,500 civil money penalty.
FTC bans auto marketer over deceptive mailings
On January 28, the FTC announced that it had banned a marketing services company and its owner from the auto industry for allegedly misleading consumers that their websites were affiliated with a government stimulus program and sending consumers deceptive mailings regarding prizes they had supposedly won. According to the opinion, the respondents violated the FTC Act by utilizing deceptive and unfair practices such as sending misleading mailings to persuade consumers to visit auto sales sites by suggesting that these sites were affiliated with a government Covid-19 stimulus program when in fact the sales were not part of any such program. The respondents also allegedly quoted monthly payments to purchase vehicles on credit, but did not provide key financing terms required by law that consumers need to determine the true cost of the advertised loans. Additionally, the respondents allegedly sent direct mail advertisements that deceptively indicated that consumers had won specific, valuable prizes that could be collected upon visiting the car dealership. The FTC noted that the respondents conducted such mailings, despite entering into three prior consent orders with state authorities identifying the ads as deceptive. According to the order, the respondents, are, among other things, banned from advertising, selling, or leasing automobiles for 20 years, and are prohibited from misrepresenting any material fact while marketing any product or service of any kind, as well as from any further violations of TILA’s disclosure requirements.
FTC reports on social media fraud
On January 27, the FTC released a blog post regarding scam data usage on social media. Reports to the FTC showed that social media is increasingly used by scammers and “that social media was far more profitable to scammers in 2021 than any other method of reaching people.” The blog post, Social media a gold mine for scammers in 2021, reported that more than 95,000 people reported about $770 million in losses to fraud initiated on social media platforms in 2021. Additionally, the FTC noted that investment scams and romance scams had the most reported dollars lost.
CFPB publishes list of consumer reporting companies
On January 27, the CFPB released its annual list of consumer reporting companies, which identifies reporting companies that collect and sell access to people’s data. According to the CFPB, the list can be used “to see what information these firms have, dispute inaccuracies, and file lawsuits if the firms are violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” The list also, among other things, permits people to identify which companies provide this information at no cost, as well as search for those that provide specialized reporting by certain markets, including employment, tenant, insurance, and medical. According to a blog post published by the CFPB, features of the list include, among other things: (i) information on how to request a report; (ii) tips for checking specialty reports; and (iii) identity verification information. The CFPB also noted that it previously highlighted consumer complaints concerning nationwide reporting companies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB released a report, pursuant to Section 611(e)(5) of the FCRA, covering certain consumer complaints transmitted by the Bureau concerning the three largest nationwide consumer reporting agencies.
CFPB is monitoring for PSLF waiver compliance
On January 26, the CFPB encouraged consumers to take advantage of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) limited waiver program before the October 31 application deadline. As previously covered by InfoBytes, last October the Department of Education announced several changes to its PSLF program, including a time-limited PSLF waiver for qualifying borrowers, which allows all payments to count towards PSLF regardless of loan program, payment plan, or whether the payment was made in full or on-time. However, the Bureau noted that consumers are complaining of servicers not providing the support they need to get the full benefit of the PSLF limited waiver. The Bureau stated that it is monitoring servicers for illegal practices to ensure public service employees are able to access PSLF relief. Consumers who experience issues with servicers providing the necessary information, support, and processing are encouraged to submit a complaint to the Bureau.