InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
New York DFS Takes Action Against Bank for BSA/AML Compliance Deficiencies
On March 12, the New York DFS issued a consent order against a Germany-based global bank for alleged Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering (BSA/AML) compliance violations that occurred between 2002 and 2008. According to the DFS’s press release, certain bank employees were selected “to manually process Iranian transactions — specifically, to strip from SWIFT payment messages any identifying information that could trigger OFAC-related controls and possibly lead to delay or outright rejection of the transaction in the United States.” The DFS also alleges that the bank’s New York branch failed to implement proper BSA/AML compliance thresholds, allowing certain alerts regarding suspicious transactions to be excluded. Under the terms of the consent order, the bank must pay a $1.45 billion penalty, to be distributed as follows: $610 million to the DFS; $300 million to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York; $200 million to the Federal Reserve; $172 million to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office; and $172 million to the U.S. DOJ. Additionally, the order requires that the bank “terminate individual employees who engaged in misconduct, and install an independent monitor for Banking Law violations in connection with transactions on behalf of Iran, Sudan, and a Japanese corporation that engaged in accounting fraud.”
New York AG Set to Propose Whistleblower Legislation
On February 26, New York AG Eric Schneiderman announced that he intends to propose state legislation to reward and protect employees who report information about misconduct in the banking, insurance, and financial services industries. The “Financial Frauds Whistleblower Act” would allow for compensation to individuals who voluntarily report fraud, and whose information results in more than $1 million in penalties or settlement. In addition, the legislation would prohibit retaliation from the employer and guarantee the confidentiality of the whistleblower’s information.
CSBS Issues Policy, Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and Request for Comment Regarding State Regulation of Virtual Currency
As previously reported in our January 8 Digital Commerce & Payments alert and in InfoBytes, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) issued a Policy on State Regulation of Virtual Currency (the “Policy”), Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and a request for public comment regarding the regulation of virtual currency on December 16, 2014. The Policy and Draft Model Regulatory Framework were issued through the work of the CSBS Emerging Payments Task Force (the “Task Force”). The Task Force was established to explore the nexus between state supervision and the development of payment systems and is seeking to identify where there are consistent regulatory approaches among states.
State Bank Regulators Request Feedback On Model Framework for Virtual Currency Activities
On December 16, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced its draft regulatory framework and requested public comment on specific questions intended to aid state regulators on the regulation of virtual currencies. The regulation of virtual currency activities currently varies from state to state. The draft framework is intended to create uniform state regulation. Comments are due by February 16, 2015.
NY DFS Takes Action Against Foreign Bank Regarding Transactions with Sanctioned Countries
On November 18, the New York DFS announced a consent order with a foreign bank for allegedly misleading regulators regarding its transactions with sanctioned countries, most notably Iran, Sudan, and Myanmar. According to the press release and consent order, from approximately 2007 through 2008, the bank convinced a consulting firm to “water down” reports submitted to regulators on its transactions. Specifically, the bank pressured the consulting firm to alter an historic transaction review (HTR) report to exclude key information, such as: (i) the English translation of the bank’s wire transfer instructions, which included a statement that the bank conducted business with “’enemy countries’ of the U.S.;” (ii) a majority of the consultant’s description of the bank’s wire transfer activities; and (iii) information “concerning [the bank’s] potential misuse of OFAC screening software” in connection with its wire transfer activities. The DFS ordered the bank to pay $315 million in penalties, in addition to the $250 million the DFS ordered the bank to pay June 2013 in connection with its sanctioned transactions.
Court Orders Company to Comply with Rule 34
On October 16, a California district court issued a declaratory judgment ordering a company to comply with Rule 34 as cited in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 34 has two specific and separate requirements: (i) “[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;” and (ii) [if] a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information (ESI), a party must produce it in a form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable forms.” In this case, the defendant served initial document requests to the company. The parties agreed to meet and discussed about how the company would produce the requested documents. Thereafter, the company produced 41,000 pages of ESI consisting of flash drive and email. The drive and email contained no custodial index, table, or categories – just all folders of files. The Court ruled that, although the company satisfied with the first requirement of Rule 34, the company failed to adhere to the second requirement because the company must (i) either organize and label each document it has produced or it shall provide custodial and other organizational information along the lines outlined above and (2) produce load files for its production containing searchable text and metadata. Venture Corp. v. Barrett, 5:13-cv-03384-PSG, WL 5305575 (N.D. Cal. Oct.16, 2014)
Virginia AG Endorses Electronic Signatures for Voter Registration
On September 26, Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring issued a letter declaring that the Virginia State Board of Elections is not legally precluded from directing general registrars to accept voter registration applications with electronic signatures. “It is my opinion that, although no law requires the acceptance of mailed voter registration applications with electronic signatures, the State Board of Elections is not precluded from directing that general registrars accept such applications, and the State Board, in its discretion, may do so[.]” The letter also stated that the Board of Elections also has authority to establish standards to ensure the security of voter information and to verify the authenticity and validity of the electronic signatures. The letter validates the Board of Election’s decision to accept electronic signatures during the 2013 gubernatorial election.
New York Sanctions Bank For Alleged Failure To Comply With Prior AML Settlement
On August 19, the New York DFS announced a consent order with a British bank to resolve claims that the bank and its U.S. subsidiary failed to remediate AML compliance deficiencies as required by a prior settlement with the DFS that required the bank to, among other things, implement a transaction monitoring program. The DFS states that the compliance monitor appointed as part of the prior agreement determined that the procedures adopted by the bank to detect high-risk transactions contained errors and other problems that prevented the bank from identifying high-risk transactions for further review. The DFS asserts that the bank failed to detect these problems because of a lack of adequate testing both before and after implementation of the monitoring system. The DFS also claims the bank failed to properly audit its monitoring system. Under the latest consent order, the bank must: (i) suspend its dollar clearing operations for high-risk retail business clients of the bank’s Hong Kong subsidiary; (ii) obtain prior DFS approval to open a U.S. Dollar demand deposit account for any customer who does not already have such an account with the U.S. entity; and (iii) pay a $300 million penalty. The bank also must implement additional compliance enhancements, including enhanced due diligence and know-your customer requirements.
New York Announces Latest Action Against A Bank Consulting Firm
On August 18, the New York DFS announced an settlement with a bank consulting firm to resolve allegations related to certain services it performed for a bank charged last year with sanctions violations. The consulting firm allegedly altered an historical transaction review (HTR) report submitted to regulators regarding wire transfers that the bank completed on behalf of sanctioned countries and entities. At the bank’s request, the firm allegedly removed from the original HTR report key information and warning language concerning the bank’s transactions. Specifically, the DFS alleges that the firm: (i) removed the English translation of the bank’s wire stripping instructions; (ii) removed a regulatory term to describe the wire-stripping instructions and a discussion of the activities; and (iii) deleted “several forensic questions” that the firm identified as necessary for consideration in connection with the HTR report. The agreement prohibits the firm from doing business with any DFS-regulated institution for two years and requires the firm to: (i) pay a $25 million penalty; and (ii) implement certain reforms to address the conflicts of interest within the consulting industry.
Massachusetts Regulator Issues Advisory Opinion On Debt Validation
Last month, the Massachusetts Division of Banks (DOB) issued an advisory opinion addressing whether an oral request by a debtor for certain records to validate a debt (pursuant to 209 CMR 18.18(3)) triggers a debt collector’s obligation to provide such documents within five business days. The DOB advised that a debt collector’s receipt of an oral request for such records from a consumer (or a consumer’s attorney) is sufficient to trigger the debt collector’s obligation and may serve to commence the five business day period in which the required response must be returned to the consumer.