InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS and Fed order bank to pay fines for BSA/AML non-compliance
On January 19, the Federal Reserve Board and NYDFS each issued separate enforcement actions against one of the largest banks in the world for alleged compliance deficiencies and violations under BSA/AML. The Fed issued its cease and desist order and ordered the bank to pay a civil money penalty of $2.4 million. The NYDFS also issued a similar consent order with a monetary penalty of $30 million.
According to the Fed’s order, an investigation into the bank’s practices determined that the New York branch lacked any formal policies or training on confidential supervisory information (CSI). Additionally, the order required the bank to submit a written plan to enhance internal compliance controls to the Fed, including designation of a CSI officer, among other requirements. According to NYDFS’s order, the bank previously entered into a 2018 cease and desist order with the Fed to address “significant deficiencies” in its compliance with BSA/AML requirements and OFAC regulations. NYDFS conducted an examination in 2022 and found that deficiencies cited in the 2018 order persisted for several more years. A subsequent examination in 2023 found that the bank had made significant efforts toward enhancing its compliance programs and successfully remediated prior deficiencies. Per this most recent order, NYDFS found that the bank’s BSA/AML program was not in compliance for several years; the bank failed to maintain appropriate accounting records; and the bank failed to submit a report after discovering the occurrence of “embezzlement, misapplication, larceny, forgery, fraud, [or] dishonesty[.]” The consent order stipulated several remediation requirements, including a status report to NYDFS on the bank’s BSA/AML compliance.
Texas resolves securities fraud case with decentralized finance lending platform
Recently, a decentralized finance crypto lending platform and its owners (respondents) entered into a settlement agreement with a Texas regulatory agency, resolving an emergency cease-and-desist action brought in June 2023. The Texas State Securities Board alleged that respondents committed securities fraud in connection with the offers and sales of investments, falsely denied the platform’s impending bankruptcy, and “secretly” transferred customer funds to a crypto exchange, as well as offered unregistered securities. Under the terms of the settlement, respondents have agreed to, among other things, (i) inform clients of its plan for asset return within seven days of the settlement and provide a seven-day window for clients to withdraw assets through the app; (ii) continue to provide customer support to prior customers; (iii) pay an administrative fine; and (iv) cease-and-desist from selling unregistered securities in the state without admitting or denying the allegations. Texas also agreed to dismiss its emergency cease-and-desist order as part of the settlement.
Colorado Attorney General fines debt collector $500,000 for collecting on illegal loans
On January 16, the Colorado State Attorney General (AG) reached a settlement agreement with a third-party debt collection company that is ordered to pay $500,000 to the State. The company previously contracted to collect debt from consumers on behalf of unlicensed lending entities associated with Native American tribes, or Tribal Lending Entities (TLEs). According to the settlement agreement, none of the TLEs were licensed Colorado lenders and all of their loan agreements with consumers contained finance charge terms that exceeded the Uniform Consumer Credit Code’s 12 percent finance charge cap on unlicensed lenders—with most having interest rates that exceeded 500 percent APR and some up to 900 percent APR. The AG alleged that, between 2017 and 2022, the company violated the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by using “unfair or unconscionable means” to collect on defaulted TLE-issued loans by representing to consumers that the entire loan balance was owed to the TLEs, that the company was legally authorized to collect the payments, and that consumers were legally obligated to pay the full amount. The company denies that its conduct violated any state law and otherwise denies all allegations of wrongdoing. Along with the penalty, the company will be barred from collecting on any debt where the loan’s APR exceeded the 12 percent cap and will provide the State with a list of affected consumers within 30 days.
Illinois proposes rule to evaluate mortgage community reinvestment
Recently, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation issued a proposed rule pursuant to the Illinois Community Reinvestment Act (ILCRA). The ILCRA is modeled off the Community Reinvestment Act but expands its scope of covered financial institutions to include credit unions and licensed entities. The proposed rule will help the Department administer and enforce the ILCRA in an equitable manner. The rule establishes a framework and criteria by which the Department will evaluate a covered mortgage licensee’s record of helping to meet the mortgage credit needs of Illinois, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and individuals, through different tests and performance standards depending on the number of loans made by a covered mortgage licensee. Tests and considerations for evaluating licensees’ record include a lending test, service test, performance record, data collection and reporting, and content and recordkeeping of information received from the public.
To mitigate the impact on small businesses, a licensee that has made less than 200 home mortgage loans in Illinois in the last calendar year will not be subject to the service test. Furthermore, licensees that made less than 100 home mortgage loans in Illinois in the previous calendar year will have less frequent examinations than those with more than 100. Based on the licensee’s performance under the lending and service tests, the proposed rule specifies that a licensee’s rating of “outstanding”; “satisfactory”; “needs to improve”; or “substantial noncompliance” will affect how frequent they are evaluated. Compliance with the proposed rule is required six months from its effective date, and comments are due by February 26.
District Court denies stay of CFPB case against lender
On January 12, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied a defendant-mortgage lender’s motion to stay a case filed by the CFPB. The defendant argued that judicial economy—the preservation of the court’s time and resources—favored the stay because the defendant’s pending motion to dismiss is premised on the same constitutional issue addressing the CFPB’s funding structure now before the Supreme Court (see continuing InfoBytes coverage here and here). In opposition, the CFPB argued that the Supreme Court may take months to issue a ruling, the public interest in enforcement of consumer protection laws, and the failure to show how an adverse ruling in the Supreme Court case would definitively result in dismissal of this case.
The District Court sided with the CFPB, stating that as of now, the CFPB “is a valid agency that is entitled to enforce the consumer financial laws.” With the stay denied, the court will now consider the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
OCC publishes bank guidance on shortening the standard settlement cycle following SEC final rule
On January 17, the OCC issued its OCC Bulletin 2024-3 which highlighted the actions banks should take to prepare for the upcoming changes to the standard settlement cycle. These new changes are designed to “reduce the credit, market, and liquidity risks” in securities transactions. According to the OCC Bulletin, these banking rules follow the SEC’s final rule that shortened the standard settlement cycle from the second business day after the trade (T+2) to the first business day after the trade (T+1). As previously covered in InfoBytes, the settlement cycle was last shortened from (T+3) days to (T+2) days in 2018. The OCC encouraged banks to prepare for the T+1 change since it will affect many banking activities; accordingly, the OCC listed many factors that a bank’s management should consider when identifying systems and changes to enhance.
This Bulletin replaces and rescinds OCC Bulletin 2017-22 and OCC Bulletin 2018-05, both related to the shortening of the settlement cycle. The rules will go into effect on May 28, 2024, and the OCC expects banks to be prepared by then.
NYDFS pens guidance for vetting key senior officials within financial institutions
On January 22, NYDFS issued an industry letter titled “Guidance on Assessment of the Character and Fitness of Directors, Senior Officers, and Managers” for banks and other financial institutions (Covered Institutions) to notify them of NYDFS’s expectations. The final guidance came after a review process conducted over the past year where twenty comments indicated the need for Covered Institutions to build “robust character and fitness” policies. NYDFS asked that these Covered Institutions develop and maintain a framework to vet senior officials’ character and fitness during onboarding and on a regular basis.
According to the guidance, each Covered Institution is expected to “define sensitive issues, warning signs, and other indicators” that would be cause for concern. The depth and nature of each Covered Institution’s assessment is tailored to each institution, and the guidance does not demand a defined period for the review, but NYDFS supplied a list of suggested questions for Covered Institutions to use as best practices for vetting key individuals. (These questions are not mandated, however.) NYDFS noted that Covered Institutions are expected to review materials related to the character and fitness assessment of key persons. The guidance’s appendix lists suggested questions, including whether the key person has reviewed and understood pertinent policies and whether the interviewee has ever been charged or convicted of a crime or has previously been sanctioned or censured by a securities regulator.
CFPB proposes rule making certain NSF fees “abusive”
On January 24, the CFPB released a proposed rule that would identify the charging of non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on transactions that financial institutions decline instantaneously or near-instantaneously as an “abusive” act or practice. The rule would prohibit financial institutions from charging such fees. The proposed rule defines a “covered transaction” as a consumer’s attempt to withdraw, debit, pay, or transfer funds from their account that is declined instantaneously or near-instantaneously by a “covered financial institution” due to insufficient funds. Further, instantaneously, or near-instantaneously-declined transactions are characterized as transactions that are processed in real-time with “no significant perceptible delay to the consumer when attempting the transaction.” One-time debit card transactions that are not preauthorized, ATM transactions, and certain person-to-person transactions would be covered by the proposed rule. The proposed rule would not cover (i) transactions declined or rejected due to insufficient funds hours or days after a consumer’s attempt; (ii) checks and ACH transactions (given that they are not able to be instantaneously declined); (iii) transactions authorized at first, even if they are later rejected or fail to settle due to insufficient funds. The proposed rule defines “covered financial institution” in line with Regulation E’s definition of “financial institution.”
Although the CFPB noted that currently financial institutions do not typically charge NSF fees on the proposed covered transactions and acknowledged that it was proposing the “rule primarily as a preventive measure,” it expressed concern that financial institutions who do not currently charge NSF fees for “covered transactions” may have an incentive to do so as other regulatory interventions reduce other sources of fee income. Further, the CFPB considered whether its concerns could be addressed through certain disclosures, but declined to pursue that course of action, citing challenges in implementation across diverse payment channels and interfaces. Even if feasible, the CFPB added, such disclosures might be costly and may not fully prevent abusive practices.
Moreover, the proposed rule clarifies the CFPB’s current interpretation of the prohibition on abusive acts or practices and distinguish prior views set forth in the preamble of a separate rule—the CFPB’s 2020 rule rescinding certain provisions of the 2017 Rule on Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans’ (2020 Rescission Rule). Abusive practices are defined to include, among other things, acts or practices that take “unreasonable advantage” of a consumer’s “lack of understanding . . . of the material risks, costs, or conditions” of a consumer product or service. The CFPB proposes to “clarify” its prior interpretation of this prohibition, by articulating its view that a “lack of understanding” need not be “reasonable” to form the predicate of an abusive act or practice. In the CFPB’s view, this distinguishes the abusiveness prohibition from the longstanding prohibition on “unfair” practices, which requires showing that consumers could not “reasonably avoid” consumer injury by, for example, reading disclosures or understanding that a particular transaction would overdraw the balance in their account and result in fees. The Bureau’s current view is that the 2020 Rescission Rule conflated “reasonable avoidability” and “lack of understanding,” contrary to the text and purpose of the abusive conduct prohibition. In addition, the CFPB proposes clarifying that, notwithstanding the 2020 Rescission Rule’s emphasis on the “magnitude” and “likelihood” of harm, the “materiality” requirement pertains to understanding “risks,” not necessarily “costs” or “conditions.” The CFPB explained that a consumer’s lack of understanding of costs does not always align with the analysis of harm likelihood and magnitude, for example, it suffices to demonstrate that a company exploits consumer ignorance about a fee (“cost”) in a specific situation, even if consumers generally understand the “risk” of fees. The CFPB has preliminarily determined that consumers charged NSF fees on covered transactions would “lack understanding of the material risks, costs, or conditions of their account at the time they are initiating covered transactions.”
In the CFPB’s view, financial institutions are taking “unreasonable advantage” of consumers when they impose NSF fees on covered transactions because the financial institution: (i) profits from a transaction but provides no service in return; (ii) chooses to impose NSF fees when instantaneously declining a transaction at no cost or negligible cost is an option; (iii) benefits from negative consumer outcomes caused by their lack of understanding; and (iv) profits from economically “vulnerable” consumers’ lack of understanding or hardship, instead of providing services to alleviate it.
Among other things, the CFPB seeks comments on the proposed parameters of covered transactions, whether the practices identified in the proposed rule are broad enough to address the “potential consumer harms,” and submission of data on covered financial institutions’ cost to decline covered transactions. Comments must be received by March 25. Finally, the CFPB is proposing an effective date of 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
Ginnie Mae to explore a new reverse MBS
On January 16, Ginnie Mae announced its plans to consider the development of a new securitization product in connection with broader efforts to expand its existing Home Equity Conversion Mortgage (HECM) mortgage-backed securities program. Specifically, Ginnie Mae is considering the viability of a securitization product that would accept HECM loans with balances above 98% of the FHA’s Maximum Claim Amount. Ginnie Mae stated that the proposed product reflects efforts to address liquidity issues affecting the stability of secondary mortgage markets, which are crucial for older Americans who may need to rely on home equity for financial support.
CFPB proposes new rule on overdraft lending, opens comment period
On January 17, the CFPB issued a proposed new rule to restrict overdraft fees charged by financial institutions. Historically, the Federal Reserve Board exempted banks from credit disclosure requirements when an overdraft was needed to honor checks (for a fee). The proposed rule would recharacterize overdrafts as extensions of credit, which would extend the consumer credit protections in TILA that apply to other forms of credit to overdraft credit.
According to the related Fact Sheet, the proposed rule would only apply to financial institutions with assets of $10 billion or more. The CFPB offered financial institutions two options on deciding how much to charge customers. First, a financial institution may adopt a “breakeven standard,” charging a fee needed to offset losses for written off overdrawn account balances and direct costs traceable to the provision of courtesy overdrafts. Second, a financial institution may employ a “benchmark fee,” of either $3, $6, $7, or $14, derived by the CFPB from analyzing charge-off losses and cost data. Comments to the rule must be received on or before April 1, 2024. In addition, the proposal would prohibit requiring the customer to use preauthorized electronic fund transfers for repayment of covered overdraft fees by these institutions. The final overdraft rule is expected to go into effect on October 1, 2025.