InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC’s Hsu discusses priorities for safeguarding trust in banking
On September 15, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the Exchequer Club to discuss several agency priorities relating to reducing inequality, adapting to digitization, acting on climate change, and guarding against complacency. In prepared remarks, Hsu stressed the importance of safeguarding trust in banking. While he acknowledged the value of strong rules and regulations, Hsu cautioned that rules “are not adaptive to emerging risks” and “cannot perceive and respond to trends and developments that may erode or threaten trust.” He further emphasized that regulators must coordinate efforts to ensure stability and fairness, and pointed to the growth of cryptocurrency and decentralized finance as areas where it is imperative that regulators work together to ensure activities taking place within the banking system or those that are facilitated by banks are trustworthy. “Innovation is important, but safeguarding trust is paramount,” Hsu stressed. Additionally, Hsu noted that “coordination among all financial regulators will also be needed in the future to ensure a level playing field and limit regulatory arbitrage and to keep shadow banking at a safe distance from the regulated financial system. These goals cannot be achieved if the financial regulatory agencies, including state banking supervisors, do not work together. Public trust in bank regulators will rise or fall depending on our ability to do so.”
New York enters judgment against crypto platform and CEO
On September 13, the New York attorney general announced a judgment against an unregistered virtual currency trading platform and its CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly defrauding thousands of investors across the country out of millions of dollars by converting investor funds without their consent. According to the AG, in June, the New York Supreme Court granted the AG’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the appointment of a temporary, court-appointed receiver with special powers to safeguard investments already made on the trading platform. The defendants failed to comply with the preliminary injunction by creating, offering, and selling a new virtual currency and failed to respond to the AG’s complaint. The judgment permanently appoints the court receiver to obtain, safeguard, and return all assets invested and traded through the trading platform and imposes a money judgment against the defendants of $3,061,511, both together and separately. In addition, the judgment requires the defendants to permanently cease their illegal and fraudulent operations and puts in place a permanent receiver to protect investors’ funds.
SEC says digital asset trading company violated the Exchange Act
On September 13, the SEC announced charges against three media companies (respondents) for allegedly violating the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) by conducting an illegal unregistered offering of stock and coin security. In addition, two of the companies were also charged for allegedly conducting an illegal unregistered offering of a digital asset security. According to the SEC’s order, between April and June 2020, the respondents generally solicited thousands of individuals to invest in a common stock offering. During the same time period, two of the companies solicited individuals to invest in their offering of a digital asset coin security. As a result of these two unregistered securities offerings, whose proceeds were commingled, the respondents collectively raised approximately $487 million from over 5,000 investors.
The order finds that, through both the stock and coin offering, the respondents violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling securities without having properly registered. The order, to which the companies consented without admitting or denying the findings, notes that the respondents are banned from participating in any offering of a digital asset security, and are required to cease and desist from future violations of the Securities Act and assist the SEC staff in the administration of a distribution plan, among other things. Two of the companies agreed to pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of approximately $434 million plus prejudgment interest of approximately $16 million, in addition to a civil penalty of $15 million each. The other company agreed to pay disgorgement of approximately $52 million plus prejudgment interest of almost $2 million, as well as a civil penalty of $5 million. The order also establishes a Fair Fund to return monies to injured investors.
SEC charges cryptocurrency lending platform involved in $2 billion scheme
On September 1, the SEC filed a complaint against an online cryptocurrency lending platform, its founder, and an additional executive and his affiliated company (collectively, “defendants”) alleging they fraudulently raised approximately $2 billion from retail investors through a global unregistered offering of investments involving digital assets. According to the SEC, the defendants sold securities in the form of investments tied to the company’s lending program, and falsely promised investors that its purported proprietary “volatility software trading bot” could generate monthly returns as high as 40 percent. However, the SEC alleged that instead of trading investor funds, the defendants used the funds for their own benefit, such as transferring funds to a digital wallet controlled by their top U.S. promoter (one of the defendants here). To hide the fact that they were not trading the funds as promised, the SEC claimed the defendants “conducted a Ponzi-like scheme in which they at times used funds deposited by newer investors in order to satisfy withdrawal demands made by earlier investors.” The SEC charged the defendants with violating antifraud and registration provisions of the federal securities laws, and is seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. In a parallel action, the DOJ announced the same day that the top U.S. promoter pleaded guilty to criminal charges for his role in the cryptocurrency scheme.
District Court prevents disposal of cryptocurrency linked to hack
On August 23, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York preliminarily enjoined defendants “from selling, transferring, assigning, encumbering, or otherwise disposing of cryptocurrency transferred in [] transactions” following a July attack on a cryptocurrency exchange network with New York-based operations. According to the cryptocurrency exchange plaintiff’s petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO), the defendants allegedly hacked the network in order to make fraudulent transfers and defraud U.S. users by generating fake bitcoin in violation of the Commodities Exchange Act. The plaintiff contended that the defendants “transferred the cryptocurrency to other exchanges serving New York customers with the intent to sell them,” adding that if the defendants “are permitted to undertake such sales, they will almost certainly transact with New York-based counterparties.” The plaintiff urged the court to issue an injunction, arguing that because the defendants are foreign and it is “impossible to identify hackers intent on fraud, there is almost no likelihood that they would pay a damage award. Short of receiving an injunction of already-identified, fraud-begotten cryptocurrency, there is no way for Petitioner to secure ultimate recovery.” The court’s order also kept in place other third-party exchanges’ existing freezes on accounts thought to hold any of the cryptocurrency at issue. The order is intended to aid the plaintiff in its impending arbitration with the defendants.
DFPI addresses MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released several new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to virtual currency and agent of payee rules. Highlights from the redacted letters include:
- Agent of Payee – Fund Transfers in Connection with Real Estate Closing Transactions. The redacted opinion letter reviewed whether a company—licensed as a money transmitter in several states, including California, and registered with FinCEN as a money services business—is eligible for the agent-of-payee exemption under the MTA. The company proposes to “facilitate fund transfers in connection with real estate closing transactions” during which it “will be authorized to receive real estate closing funds on behalf of its customer (the seller of real estate).” The payment funds will first flow from the buyer of real estate to the company via the buyer’s lawyer or title company, and then from the company to the seller after the company converts the funds from U.S. dollars to another currency. By providing these services, the company, as the seller’s agent, will receive money from the buyer pursuant to a preexisting written contract between the company and the seller. DFPI concluded that “[t]o the extent these fund transfers take place in California or are with, to, or from persons located in California, [the company’s] services constitute “receiving money for transmission” because [the company] receives money from the buyer for transfer to the seller.” However, DFPI noted that a provision in the written contract, which appoints the company as the agent of the seller when the seller is located in California, allows the company’s services to satisfy the requirements of the agent-of-payee exemption in Financial Code section 2010, subdivision (l). The agent-of-payee exemption, DFPI stressed though, does not apply to sellers outside of California.
- Bitcoin ATM Kiosk. Two redacted opinion letters (see here and here) examined whether the sale and purchase of bitcoin through ATMs/kiosks described by the companies is subject to licensure under the MTA. In each instance, the transaction will only be between the consumer using the ATM/kiosk and the company, the transaction will be completed instantly without involving third parties, and any bitcoin sold will be provided from the company’s own inventory. Moreover, the letters state that the companies do not hold virtual currency on behalf of customers nor do they act in a fiduciary capacity. Because the companies’ activities are limited to selling bitcoin, DFPI determined that an MTA license is not required because the activities “do[] not involve the sale or issuance of a payment instrument, the sale or issuance of stored value, or receiving money for transmission.” DFPI reminded the companies that its determination is limited to the activities specified in the letters and does not relieve them from any FinCEN, federal, or state regulatory obligations.
SEC says digital asset trading company violated the Exchange Act
On August 9, the SEC announced charges against a digital asset trading company for operating an unregistered online digital asset exchange in connection with its operation of a trading platform that facilitated buying and selling of digital asset securities. According to the SEC’s order, the company operated a web-based trading platform that facilitated buying and selling digital assets, which included digital assets that were investment contracts and therefore securities. The order finds that, “[n]otwithstanding its operation of the [Company] Trading Platform, [the company] did not register as a national securities exchange nor did it operate pursuant to an exemption from registration at any time, and its failure to do so was a violation of Section 5 of the Exchange Act,” despite operating as a Rule 3b-16(a) system under the Exchange Act. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a disgorgement fee of $8,484,313, a prejudgment interest fee of $403,995, and a civil penalty of $1.5 million, for a total of $10,388,309. The order also provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Exchange Act and establishes a fair fund for the benefit of victims.
SEC settles with company selling securities through DeFi platform
On August 6, the SEC announced a settlement with two individuals and their company for the alleged unregistered sale of over $30 million of securities using smart contracts and decentralized finance technology, and for misleading investors regarding the operations and profitability of their business. According to the SEC’s order, the company offered and sold securities in unregistered offerings through a program from February 2020 to February 2021, which used smart contracts to sell two types of digital tokens: one type that could be purchased using specified digital assets and paid 6.25 percent in interest; and the other type that purportedly provided holders certain voting rights, some excess of profits, and the ability to profit from resales in the secondary market. The SEC alleged that the company violated provisions of the Securities Act, such as Section 5(a) and 5(c), by offering and selling securities without having a registration statement filed or in effect. In addition, the company violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making materially false statements and engaging in other deceptive acts regarding business operations and profitability. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a civil money penalty of $125,000 to each individual and a total of $12,849,354 in disgorgement. The order also provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the Exchange Act.
NYDFS to start collecting and publishing board diversity data
On July 29, NYDFS announced in an industry letter that it will start collecting gender, racial, and ethnic board and management composition data as of December 31, 2019 and 2020 from state-regulated (i) banking institutions with over $100 million in assets; (ii) non-depository financial institutions with over $100 million in gross revenue; and (iii) entities authorized to engage in virtual currency business activities. Citing its authority under Banking Law 37(3) to “require any banking organization to make special reports to her at such times as she may prescribe,” the Superintendent stated NYDFS plans to collect data over late summer and will publicly publish findings on an aggregate basis in the first quarter of 2022. The results will be categorized by institution type and other relevant factors to “allow firms to assess where they stand relative to their peers” and hopefully “raise the bar for the entire industry.” In the future, the NYDFS would consider collecting and disclosing similar information, “including on a more granular basis.” The letter also set out the NYDFS’ expectation that institutions would (i) make the diversity of their leadership “a business priority and integrate it into their corporate governance”; (ii) “pay close attention to their talent pipeline of future diverse leaders, in addition to the diversity of its affiliates”; and (iii) “view diversity like other strategic priorities.”
SEC obtains TRO and asset freeze against investment scam
On July 19, the SEC announced that it had obtained a temporary restraining order and asset freeze to halt an ongoing fraud offering by a Las Vegas-based company and two individual defendants, including a recidivist, (collectively, “defendants”) that allegedly raised more than $12 million from nearly 300 retail investors. According to the complaint, the defendants violated several provisions of securities laws by allegedly promising investors that their money would be invested in securities, bitcoin, and other cryptocurrencies based on recommendations made by an “[a]rtificial intelligence supercomputer,” which allegedly “consistently generate[d] enormous returns” and allowed the defendants to guarantee fixed returns of 20-30 percent annually with compounding interest. However, the SEC alleged that over 90 percent of the defendants’ funds came from investors, and that the defendants did not use these funds for the stated purposes. Rather, defendants transferred millions of dollars to one of the individual defendant’s personal bank accounts, paid millions of dollars to promoters who led investors to the defendants, and made “Ponzi-like” payments to other investors. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.