InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New Jersey orders company to stop selling unregistered securities
On July 19, the New Jersey Bureau of Securities (Bureau) announced a cease and desist order against a financial services company for allegedly selling unregistered securities in the form of interest-earning cryptocurrency accounts and failing to explain to investors that the accounts were not licensed in New Jersey. According to the order, the company has been funding its lending operations and proprietary trading business since 2019 by selling interest-bearing cryptocurrency accounts that are not protected by or registered with any federal or state securities regulator. The order notes that the company “held the equivalent of $14.7 billion from the sale of these unregistered securities in violation of the Securities Law.” In addition, the order, which become effective July 22, requires the company to stop selling any unregistered security or violating any securities law. According to the Bureau, the recent action “comes amid rising concerns over the proliferation of decentralized finance platforms like [the company] that seek to reinvent traditional financial systems such as banks and brokerages for digital asset investors,” and that “[u]nlike traditional, regulated banks and brokerage firms, however, investors’ losses are not insured against or protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or Securities Investor Protection Corporation.”
SEC settles with company over misrepresentation of ICO
On July 14, the SEC announced a settlement with the owners and operators of a software platform provider, resolving allegations that the company violated anti-touting provisions by failing to disclose the compensation it received from issuers of the digital asset securities it profiled. According to the order, the company’s website, which was accessible in the U.S. from 2016 to August 2019, publicized offerings for digital tokens. The platform claimed to “list” or profile the “best” token offerings, such as so-called initial coin offerings (ICOs) and initial exchange offerings. The company also allegedly claimed that its “mission [was] to make it easy and safe for people around the world to join ICOs.” According to the order, the platform profiled more than 2,500 different token offerings, which compromised fundraising of over $10 billion. The SEC alleged that the company violated provisions of the Securities Act, such as Section 2(a), because the digital tokens publicized by the company included those that were offered and sold as investment contracts, and 17(b), because the company promoted a security without disclosing that they received compensation for doing so. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a civil money penalty of $154,434 and $43,000 in disgorgement, and provides that the company must cease and desist from committing or causing any future violations of the anti-touting provisions of the federal securities laws. SEC Commissioners Hester M. Peirce and Elad L. Roisman dissented from the settlement, stating they agreed that “touting securities without disclosing the fact that you are getting paid, and how much, violates Section 17(b)” but “[they] are disappointed that the Commission’s settlement with [the company] did not explain which digital assets touted by [the company] were securities[.]”
DFPI addresses cryptocurrency MTA licensing exemptions
Recently, California’s Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to certain cryptocurrency activities. According to the letter, the requesting company intends to provide an internet-enabled peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplace for the purchase and sale of certain decentralized digital currencies. The P2P marketplace will enable buyers and sellers of the specified cryptocurrency “to connect and arrange for the direct settlement of purchases and sales between such users” through a variety of means, such as bank transfers, gift cards, money transmission, debit card, credit card, among others. Additionally, the company’s P2P marketplace will allow customers to (i) buy goods or services with the specified cryptocurrency from unaffiliated, third-party online retailers who accept that cryptocurrency as a form of payment; (ii) exchange their cryptocurrency for the rights to a US dollar-backed stablecoin; and (iii) remit funds in different currencies, including foreign currency. The company emphasized that it will “not collect, store, or transmit any digital or fiat currency” in any of its four proposed products. DFPI concluded that the Delaware company’s proposed services are not subject to licensing under the MTA, explaining that the sale and purchase of cryptocurrency directly between two parties, in which the company does not facilitate the exchange of the fiat currency or the cryptocurrency, does not meet the definition of money transmission. Likewise, the company’s other proposed products do not constitute money transmission either. DFPI reminded the company, however, that its determination is limited to the facts as presented and that at any time DFPI may determine that the activities are subject to regulatory supervision. Moreover, the letter does not relieve the company from any FinCEN or federal agency obligations.
FINRA reminds firms to disclose digital asset involvement
On July 8, FINRA issued Regulatory Notice 21-25, reminding firms to notify their FINRA risk-monitoring analysts if they currently engage in, or plan to engage in, activities regarding digital assets. The notice discusses the types of activities of interest to FINRA, which include, among other things: (i) transactions in digital assets; (ii) pooled funds investing in digital assets; (iii) derivatives associated with digital assets; (iv) engagement in an initial or secondary offering of digital assets; (v) participation in cryptocurrencies and other virtual coins and tokens; (vi) acceptance or mining of cryptocurrency; and (vii) “recording cryptocurrencies and other virtual coins and tokens using distributed ledger technology or any other use of blockchain technology.” The notice encourages firms to promptly notify their risk monitoring analyst in writing on an ongoing basis.
FATF advances work on proliferation finance, virtual assets
On June 25, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) concluded its fourth plenary meeting, in which it “advanced its core work on virtual assets, proliferation finance, digital transformation, and peer member assessments.” Among other things, FATF finalized and adopted guidance on proliferation financing risk and mitigation. FATF also completed a second 12-month review on how well jurisdictions and the private sector have implemented anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligations on virtual assets and virtual assets service providers (VASPs). FATF found that jurisdictions and the VASP sector continue to make progress implementing the revised standards, but that “weak or non-existent AML/CFT implementation in many countries remains a key source of risk.” Additionally, FATF completed a report examining the financing of racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, completed a report on money laundering risks arising from conservation crimes, and adopted mutual evaluation reports on Japan and South Africa that provide assessments of both countries’ “AML/CFT and counter-proliferation financing legal frameworks as well as the measures in place to implement these frameworks effectively.”
SEC settles with blockchain company over unregistered ICO
On June 22, the SEC announced a settlement with an intellectual property search software platform provider and its CEO resolving allegations that the company made materially false and misleading statements in connection with an unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) of digital asset securities. According to the order, the company raised $7.6 million from investors by offering and selling digital tokens. In promoting the ICO, the company and its CEO made multiple materially false statements to investors and potential investors, including false statements about the company’s revenues, number of employees, and the platform’s user base. The SEC alleges that the company violated Section 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act because the digital assets it offered and sold were securities under federal securities laws, and the company did not have the required registration statement filed or in effect, nor did it qualify for an exemption from registration. The order, which the company consented to without admitting or denying the findings, imposes a $7.6 million penalty, and requires the company to “destroy all [of the digital tokens] in their possession or control,” publish notice of the order on the company’s social media accounts, request removal of the tokens from trading platforms, and refrain from participating in future offerings of a digital asset security.
FinCEN recognizes law enforcement agencies for use of BSA data
On June 24, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) honored the recipients of its 2021 Law Enforcement Awards Program, which recognizes agencies that use Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data provided by financial institutions to successfully pursue and prosecute criminal investigations. The awards were presented in eight different categories related to: (i) Covid-19 fraud; (ii) cyber threats; (iii) transnational organized crime; (iv) transnational security threats; (v) state and local law enforcement; (vi) third-party money launderers; (vii) a suspicious activity review team; and (viii) significant fraud. Awards work included investigation into Paycheck Protection Program fraud that resulted in the seizure of case over $3 million, seizure of over $47 million dollars in narcotics proceeds, and seizure of 300 cryptocurrency accounts, among other work. FinCEN acting Director Michael Mosier stated that “[t]he law enforcement work that we recognize today highlights both the importance of an effective partnership between FinCEN, financial institutions, and our law enforcement agencies, and the value of BSA reporting in protecting the American people from fraud, cybercrime, and the illicit finance threats confronting our nation.”
Waters establishes Digital Assets Working Group
On June 16, Chairwoman of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters (D-CA) announced the organization of the “Digital Assets Working Group of Democratic Members” to develop “legislation and policy solutions” on issues emerging in the digital asset space, including those related to (i) the regulation of cryptocurrency; (ii) the use of blockchain and distributed ledger technology; and (iii) the potential development of a U.S. central bank digital currency (see InfoBytes coverage on matters related to a CBDC here). During the first hearing held by the Task Force on Financial Technology, Waters stated that the working group will “focus on making sure there is responsible innovation in the cryptocurrency and digital asset space,” noting that “[a]s cryptocurrencies, central bank digital currencies and other digital assets enter the mainstream, the Committee will look at how digital assets have begun to enter many aspects of our lives—from payments to investments to remittances—and consider how to devise legislation to support responsible innovation that protects consumers and investors while promoting greater financial inclusion.”
Texas permits banks to provide virtual currency custody services
On June 10, the Texas Department of Banking issued Industry Notice 2021-03, which notifies supervised Texas state-charted banks that they “may provide customers with virtual currency custody services, as long as the bank has adequate protocols in place to effectively manage the risks and comply with applicable law.” The Department noted that Texas state-chartered banks have long provided customers with safekeeping and custody resources through secure storage of assets, which is a critical role in the banking business. “While custody and safekeeping of virtual currencies will necessarily differ from that associated with more traditional assets the [Department] believes that the authority to provide these services with respect to virtual currencies already exists pursuant to Texas Finance Code §32.001,” the notice provided. In addition, the type of virtual currency a bank chooses to utilize will depend on that bank’s expertise, risk appetite, and business model. The notice also pointed out that the Department determined that custody services may be offered by a Texas state-chartered bank in a capacity that is fiduciary or non-fiduciary. A non-fiduciary capacity will allow the bank to act “as a bailee, taking possession of the customer’s asset for safekeeping while legal title to that asset remains with the customer.” Alternatively, in its fiduciary capacity, the bank will have oversight to control virtual currency assets as it would any other type of asset held in such capacity. The notice warned, however, that if a bank is offering virtual currency services, bank management must conduct due diligence and carefully examine the risks involved in offering a new product or service through a methodical risk assessment process.
Senate holds hearing on central bank digital currency
On June 9, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy held a hearing titled “Building A Stronger Financial System: Opportunities of a Central Bank Digital Currency” to discuss the potential opportunities of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Among the issues discussed at the hearing were protecting consumer privacy and security, financial inclusion, and the Federal Reserve’s authority.
The Honorable J. Christopher Giancarlo, Senior Counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, was a witness on behalf of the Digital Dollar Project (DDP). The digital dollar, proposed by the Fed, would be distributed through the two-tiered banking system and operated alongside physical currency and commercial bank money. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) asked how a CBDC should be designed, implemented, and regulated to reduce the risk of fraud and ensure privacy. Giancarlo, who stated he is not convinced of the need for CBDC, but believed in the need to examine this issue, said the DDP convened a privacy subcommittee which addressed four principles: (i) economic privacy; (ii) security; (iii) inclusion; and (iv) sufficient transparency to provide settlement and payment certainty. When Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) questioned witness Dr. Neha Narula, Director of the Digital Currency Initiative at MIT, on security risks associated with cryptocurrencies, she responded that, with respect to ransomware attacks, the issue is that valuable data has not been properly secured, and suggested that a CBDC could have built-in safeguards. She also believed that open source software is critical for security.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested that banks use “abusive” practices and that the crypto industry has promised a better and more inclusive financial system, which reduces cost and improves quality. When Warren asked if a well-designed CBDC could help people who are poorly served by the current financial system, Narula emphasized the importance of designing a CBDC with a focus on accessibility and reducing barriers to access.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued that Americans should not be subject to excessive fees to access their own money. He also noted that a CBDC may work with a solution he has proposed, called No-Fee Accounts, which would be available to every American and backed by the Fed. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard noted in a speech that a CBDC may address concerns regarding the lack of federal deposit insurance and banking supervision for nonbank issuers of digital assets, and that “new forms of private money may introduce counterparty risk into the payments system in new ways that could lead to consumer protection threats or, at large scale, broader financial stability risks.” Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) expressed his concerns around the Fed’s position in retail banking services and was doubtful that the Fed would provide high quality customer service, while Ranking Member John Kennedy (R-LA) questioned if it is appropriate for the federal government to get entangled in the credit markets by way of a CBDC.