InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FinCEN warns financial institutions about Russian sanctions evasion
On March 7, FinCEN issued an alert advising financial institutions to be vigilant against potential attempts to evade sanctions levied against Russian individuals, banks, and other entities in response to the situation in Ukraine. FinCEN provided several examples of red flag indicators that could help identify attempted sanctions evasions, including actions by state actors and oligarchs, and reminded financial institutions of their Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) reporting obligations.
The alert stressed that all financial institutions, including those with visibility into convertible virtual currency (CVC) flows identify and promptly report associated suspicious activity, and conduct appropriate, risk-based customer due diligence or enhanced due diligence as required. This includes CVC exchangers and administrators within or outside of Russia (which are generally considered to be money services businesses under the BSA) that retain at least some access to the international financial system. FinCEN noted that “[w]hile large scale sanctions evasion using [CVC] by a government such as the Russian Federation is not necessarily practicable, CVC exchangers and administrators and other financial institutions may observe attempted or completed transactions tied to CVC wallets or other CVC activity associated with sanctioned Russian, Belarusian, and other affiliated persons.”
Financial institutions are instructed to specifically watch for (i) transactions initiated from IP addresses located in Russia, Belarus, FATF-identified jurisdictions with anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism/counter-proliferation deficiencies, or other sanctioned jurisdictions; (ii) transactions connected to CVC addresses listed on OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List; and (iii) customers’ use of a CVC exchanger or foreign-located money service businesses in high-risk jurisdictions, including those with inadequate “know-your-customer” or customer due diligence measures. FinCEN also warned financial institutions of the dangers posed by Russian-related ransomware campaigns and encouraged financial institutions to refer to FinCEN and OFAC resources to help detect, prevent, and report potential suspicious activity.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
U.S.-EU release statement on Joint Financial Regulatory Forum
On March 1 and 2, EU and U.S. participants, including officials from the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve Board, CFTC, FDIC, SEC, and OCC, participated in the U.S. – EU Joint Financial Regulatory Forum to continue their ongoing financial regulatory dialogue. Matters discussed focused on six themes: “(1) market developments and current assessment of financial stability risks, (2) operational resilience and digital finance, (3) sustainable finance and climate-related financial risks, (4) regulatory and supervisory cooperation in capital markets, (5) multilateral and bilateral engagement in banking and insurance, and (6) anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT).”
While acknowledging that both the U.S. and EU are “experiencing robust economic recoveries,” participants warned that significant uncertainty and risks are created by the current geopolitical situation, as well as challenges stemming from the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, high energy prices, and supply-chain bottlenecks. “[C]ooperative international engagement to mitigate financial stability risks remains essential,” participants stressed. During the meeting, participants also discussed recent developments related to crypto-assets, digital finance, and so-called stablecoins, as well as the potential for a central bank digital currency, and “acknowledged the importance of ongoing international work on digital finance and recognized the benefits of greater international supervisory cooperation with a view to promote responsible innovation globally.”
In addition, participants discussed various topics, including those related to third-party providers; climate-related financial risks and challenges, including sustainability reporting standards; the transition from LIBOR; and progress made in strengthening their respective AML/CFT frameworks.
Special Alert: Latest developments in OFAC sanctions against Russia
Beginning February 21, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has issued significant sanctions in response to the Russian Federation’s military invasion of Ukraine and its recognition of Ukraine’s separatist regions.
Since Buckley’s last update on February 25, there have been a number of developments in the sanctions against Russia, which include:
- A prohibition on the importation into the United States of Russian crude oil and certain petroleum products, liquified natural gas, and coal
- A ban on new investment by U.S. persons in the Russian energy sector
- The imposition of asset blocking sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov, numerous oligarchs and families with ties to Putin, and Russian-backed disinformation services
- Sanctions targeting Russia’s U.S. foreign reserves by prohibiting all dealings with Russia’s Central Bank, National Wealth Fund, and Ministry of Finance
- The issuance of the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, which codify the prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024, discussed below, and include several interpretations and general licenses
- The issuance of a general license that exempts “transactions related to energy” from certain prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024
NYDFS will take expedited measures to enforce Russian sanctions
On March 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that NYDFS will increase its sanctions enforcement actions against Russia, including taking measures to expedite the procurement of blockchain analytics tools to detect exposure among regulated licensed virtual currency businesses to Russian individuals, banks, and other entities sanctioned by the Biden administration. “Accelerating the procurement process is a critical step to strengthen the Department's ability to enforce anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act laws in this immediate crisis and beyond,” the announcement stated, explaining that “[l]everaging purpose-built technologies and service providers for virtual currency protects the financial system from illicit activity including money laundering, terrorist financing and ransomware activity.” NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris added that monitoring transactions and exposure in real-time is imperative for preventing actors from attempting to evade sanctions through the transmission of virtual currency. The announcement follows NYDFS guidance on cybersecurity and virtual currency issued last week, which raised the specter of elevated cyber risk due to ongoing cyberattacks against Ukraine that could spill over to other networks, as well as potential direct attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) Governor Hochul also issued an Executive Order at the end of February, which directed all New York State agencies and authorities to review and divest public funds from Russia.
OFAC, DOJ measures aim for stronger compliance with Russian sanctions
On March 2, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the DOJ announced new measures to strengthen compliance with Russia-related sanctions in response to the situation in Ukraine. OFAC observed that in the past few days, Russia has taken measures “to use exporters to act as their agents and help them raise resources to prop up their currency and fund their priorities.” In response, OFAC reiterated that such actions taken on behalf of Russia’s Central Bank are prohibited. Newly issued and updated frequently asked questions address enhanced sanctions compliance measures and further explain recent sanctions, including prohibitions imposed pursuant to Directive 4 under Executive Order (E.O.) 14024, “Prohibitions Related to Transactions Involving the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, the National Wealth Fund of the Russian Federation, and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Additionally, the updated FAQs clarify, among other things, that energy payments can and should continue. As explained in OFAC’s announcement, General License (GL) 8A permits “U-turn transactions” so that energy payments may be processed through non-sanctioned, third-country financial institutions to allow the continuation of transactions that support the flow of energy to the market. OFAC also issued new FAQs and general licenses (see GLs 9A, 10A, 13, and 14) related to E.O. 14065, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Continued Russian Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine” to further clarify the stipulated prohibitions.
The same day, the DOJ launched Task Force KleptoCapture, “an interagency law enforcement task force dedicated to enforcing the sweeping sanctions, export restrictions, and economic countermeasures that the United States has imposed, along with allies and partners,” in order to “isolate Russia from global markets.” “The Justice Department will use all of its authorities to seize the assets of individuals and entities who violate these sanctions,” Attorney General Merrick B. Garland stated. The Task Force will be staffed with DOJ prosecutors, agents, analysts, and professional staff with expertise in sanctions and export control enforcement, anticorruption, asset forfeiture, anti-money laundering, tax enforcement, national security investigations, and foreign evidence collection. According to the announcement, the Task Force will use data analytics, cryptocurrency tracing, foreign intelligence sources, and information from financial regulators and private sector partners to investigate and prosecute violations of new and future sanctions (both those related to the Ukraine invasion as well as those imposed for prior instances of Russian aggression and corruption), and “combat[] unlawful efforts to undermine restrictions taken against Russian financial institutions,” including prosecuting persons who attempt to evade know-your-customer and anti-money laundering measures. The Task Force will also target efforts to use cryptocurrency to launder foreign corruption proceeds and sanctions evasion and “us[e] civil and criminal asset forfeiture authorities to seize assets belonging to sanctioned individuals or assets identified as the proceeds of unlawful conduct.”
SEC, states reach $100 million settlement over crypto lending product
On February 14, the SEC and state regulators reached a $100 million settlement with a New Jersey-based financial services company in parallel actions to resolve allegations that the company failed to register the offers and sales of its retail credit lending product—marking the SEC’s “first-of-its-kind action” taken with respect to crypto lending platforms. According to the SEC, the company offered a product whereby retail investors lent crypto assets to the company “in exchange for the company’s promise to provide a variable monthly interest payment.” Among other things, the SEC found that because the company’s product are securities under applicable law, the company was required to register its offers and sales of the product or qualify for an exemption—both of which the company failed to do. The company also allegedly violated the Securities Act by making misleading statements on its website concerning its collateral practices and the level of risk in its loan portfolio and lending activity. Additionally, the company allegedly violated the Investment Company Act by engaging in interstate commerce while failing to register as an investment company with the SEC. While the company neither admitted nor denied the findings, it agreed to pay $50 million to the SEC and another $50 million to 32 states to settle similar charges. The company also agreed to cease engaging in unregistered offers and sales of its product, and will stop offering or selling its product in the U.S. Additionally, the company’s parent company stated its intention to register the offer and sale of a new lending product under the Securities Act.
Chopra highlights consumer protection topics
On February 10, CFPB Director Rohit Chopra answered questions during a Washington Post Live session on several consumer protection topics. Citing auto lending as a top concern for the Bureau, Chopra noted that it is important for consumers to be able to shop around, refinance loans, and navigate a competitive market. He also discussed recent Bureau initiatives related to junk fees and overdraft/insufficient funds fees, and said the Bureau intends to sharpen its supervisory scrutiny in these spaces. Chopra stated that, as part of a fair and competitive market consumers want to know when they are being charged these fees, noting that financial institutions have started to transition away from dependency on these types of fees and instead implement programs that will allow a bank to determine what shortfall they will allow on an individual consumer basis. He added that the Bureau may eventually see if rulemaking will increase competition and upfront pricing.
Chopra also discussed the role agencies play in the future regulation of cryptocurrency. He noted that while most of the cryptocurrency market is currently related to speculative trading, this could change if one of the big tech payment platforms decides to expand its services to cryptocurrency. Chopra highlighted several concerns, including how payment data from these systems will be used, how money will be transacted, and how consumers will report fraud. He stated that the Bureau is closely monitoring this space and any regulation will be an interagency effort. While Chopra also discussed the need for transparency with respect to how big tech companies are tracking, monetizing, and harvesting consumer data, he stated it is too early to tell whether there is a need for rulemaking in this area. Chopra also discussed topics related to the buy-now-pay-later industry and student lending, and stated that the Bureau is monitoring both areas carefully.
McWilliams discusses her tenure at FDIC
On February 3, outgoing-FDIC Chairman Jelena McWilliams spoke at the Bipartisan Policy Center on both her tenure and technology’s role in facilitating a more inclusive financial system. In reflecting upon her time as Chairman, McWilliams opined that the “story of how financial regulators, central banks, and the global financial system responded to the pandemic is one of great success. Only three banks failed since the start of the pandemic, and none due to the pandemic itself.” She also pointed out that during the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDIC prioritized “improving supervision and resolution planning” and “the importance of strong capital levels,” particularly for large banks. McWilliams listed some of her accomplishments as Chairman, including “implement[ing] a recordkeeping rule,” “simplify[ng] the deposit insurance rules for trust accounts,” and “enhancing the FDIC’s readiness if it is ever called upon to resolve non-bank firms, such as central counterparties.” Central counterparties, McWilliams explained, play a critical role in the financial system as their clearing services are central to U.S. financial markets. McWilliams discussed the ways in which the FDIC enhanced competition, fostered innovation, and “supported third-party partnerships,” extolling these virtues as “the guiding principles of my chairmanship that helped forge the most vibrant financial market in the world.”
McWilliams also stated that a “key aspect of our pro-competition agenda” was to “moderniz[e] a broad range of our rules while maintaining our core safety and soundness focus.” In connection with “crypto assets,” McWilliams opined that her personal “view is that generally bank-issued stablecoins closely resemble digital representations of deposits.” She urged the FDIC to “to build off the work we have done and provide clarity to the public as soon as practicable, which could include promulgating amendments to the deposit insurance rules.” McWilliams said that she hopes regulators will be more welcoming of the “endless possibilities” that digital assets and blockchain technology have in enhancing the efficiency of payments.
Treasury stresses importance of regulating stablecoins
On February 8, Under Secretary for Domestic Finance Nellie Liang testified before the House Financial Services Committee that more must be done to clearly and consistently regulate stablecoins. Stablecoins’ “exponential growth” heightens “the urgency of ensuring that an appropriate regulatory framework is in place,” Liang stressed, adding that the value of stablecoins has grown over the last two years from roughly $5 billion in 2020 to approximately $175 billion today.
Liang encouraged lawmakers to consider two additional issues as they create policy: (i) regulations for “intermediaries” in the digital asset markets, including traditional financial actors such as banks and investment companies, as well as stablecoin issuers, custodial wallet providers, and digital asset exchanges; and (ii) potential systemic risk that may result from the build-up of leverage against digital assets, which “can play a key role in catalyzing and accelerating financial instability.” Liang compared the second issue to the 2007-2008 financial crisis. To address this risk, Liang stated that the Biden Administration is examining the role that leverage plays in the digital asset market, as well as the implications that leverage may have on the rest of the financial system. She also reiterated concerns raised in the President’s Working Group (PWG) on Financial Markets’ report on stablecoins (covered by InfoBytes here), which emphasized that stablecoins may be more widely used in the future as a means of payment and could increase “risks to users and the broader system.” Liang stressed that “[w]hile Treasury and the PWG fully support efforts by state and federal agencies to use existing authorities in support of their statutory mandates, we do not believe existing authorities provide a sufficient basis for comprehensive and consistent oversight of stablecoins.”
DFPI addresses several MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released two new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to the purchase and sale of digital assets and agent of payee rules. Highlights from the redacted letters include:
- Purchase and Sale of Digital Assets; Payment Processing Services. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring company’s client is required to be licensed under the MTA. The letter describes two types of transactions proposed to be conducted on the client’s online trading platform: (i) transactions in which customers purchase and sell digital assets from the company in exchange for fiat currency (Direct Purchase Transactions); and (ii) transactions in which merchants use the platform as a payment processor to accept digital assets from customers in exchange for non-fungible tokens (Payment Processing Transactions). DFPI concluded that the Direct Purchase Transactions do not require an MTA license because they do not “involve the sale or issuance of a payment instrument, the sale or issuance of stored value, or receiving money for transmission.” DFPI similarly concluded that the Payment Processing Transactions do not require licensure at this time because DFPI has “not yet determined that payment processing transactions involving digital assets constitute receiving money for transmission[.]” Notwithstanding, DFPI added that it has been “studying the cryptocurrency industry closely” and that “[a]t any time, the Department may determine these activities are subject to regulatory supervision. The Department may also adopt regulations or issue interpretive opinions that significantly restrict [the contemplated] business operations.”
- Agent of Payee. The redacted opinion letter addresses whether the inquiring company’s proposed payment processing activities are exempt from the MTA’s licensing requirements. The letter explains that the company proposes to process payments related to purchases of apps through a virtual marketplace that operates on the company’s point of sale terminals. Through the virtual marketplace, customers (generally small businesses or merchants) may purchase apps that are developed and licensed to customers by third-party developers. Pursuant to a developer agreement, the company is appointed by such third-party developers to act as an “agent” of the developers “to collect and hold all Gross Revenue on [the developers’] behalf and to remit the Remittance Amount to [the developers’] Payment Account.” DFPI concluded that receiving funds from a customer for the purposes of transmitting payments to the developer “constitutes ‘receiving money for transmission.’” However, DFPI noted that these activities also satisfy the “agent of payee” exemption requirements because, pursuant to the developer agreement, the company acts as an agent of the developer, and the company’s receipt of payment satisfies “the customer’s (payor’s) obligation to the Developer for goods or services.” Accordingly, DFPI concluded that while the activities described constitute “money transmission” the company is exempt from the MTA’s licensure requirement.
DFPI reminded the companies that its determinations are limited to the presented facts and circumstances and that any change could lead to different conclusions.