InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Treasury Department Announces $21 Million Resolution Of Alleged Iran and Sudan Sanctions Violations
On June 5, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Controls (OFAC) announced a Dutch aerospace firm has agreed to pay $21 million to resolve allegations that the company violated U.S. sanctions on Iran and Sudan. OFAC alleged that from 2005 to 2010, the company indirectly exported or re-exported aircraft spare parts to Iranian or Sudanese customers, which the company either specifically procured from or had repaired in the United States, and required the issuance of a license by a federal agency at the time of shipment. The company self-reported 1,112 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, and 41 apparent violations of the Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. The settlement includes the payment of a $10.5 million civil penalty to OFAC and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security, a forfeiture of an additional $10.5 million pursuant to a deferred prosecution agreement reached with the DOJ, and the acceptance of responsibility for its alleged criminal conduct. OFAC stated that the base penalty for the alleged violations was over $145 million, however it agreed to a lower settlement after considering that the company self-disclosed the violations and the company: (i) had no OFAC sanctions history in the five years preceding the date of the earliest of the alleged violations; (ii) adopted new and more effective internal controls and procedures, and (iii) provided substantial cooperation during the investigation.
Special Alert: Supreme Court To Hear TILA Rescission Case
On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 13-684, an appeal of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit’s September 2013 holding that a borrower seeking to rescind a loan transaction under TILA must file suit within three years of consummating the loan, and that written notice within the three-year rescission period is insufficient to preserve a borrower’s right of rescission.
TILA Section 1635 grants borrowers the right to rescind a transaction “by notifying the creditor” and provides that a borrower’s “right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction" even if the "disclosures required . . . have not been delivered.” In Jesinoski, the Eighth Circuit cited its July 2013 holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013), in which the court reasoned that the text of the statute, as explicated by the Supreme Court in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), established a strict limit on the time for filing suits for rescission. The Eighth Circuit expressly rejected an argument presented in an amicus brief filed by the CFPB that the lender, rather than the obligor, should be required to file suit to prevent rescission. To adopt the CFPB’s position, the court explained, “would create a situation wherein rescission is complete, in effect, simply upon notice from the borrower, whether or not the borrower had a valid basis for such a remedy. Under this scenario, the bank’s security interest would be unilaterally impaired, casting a cloud on the property’s title, an approach envisioned and rejected by Beach.”
In holding in favor of the lender, the Eighth Circuit joined the majority of the circuit courts that have addressed the issue—the First, Sixth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits all previously have held that a borrower must file suit within the three-year rescission period, while the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that written notice is sufficient to preserve a borrower’s statutory right of rescission. BuckleySandler filed an amicus brief in Keiran on behalf of a group of industry trade groups, as it has done in three other circuit court cases on this issue.
The Supreme Court now may resolve this circuit split. Like the prior circuit court cases, the Supreme Court’s review of the issue likely will draw attention and briefs from lenders, the CFPB, and consumer groups.
OFAC Announces Sanctions Settlement With Securities Intermediary
On January 23, the Treasury Department’s OFAC announced that a Luxembourg bank agreed to pay $152 million to resolve potential civil claims that the bank concealed the interest of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) in certain securities held in one of the Luxembourg bank’s custody accounts. OFAC claims that from December 2007 through June 2008, the bank held an account at a U.S. financial institution through which the CBI maintained a beneficial ownership in 26 securities valued at nearly $3 billion. After assuring OFAC of its intention to terminate all business with its Iranian clients, the bank allegedly transferred the securities to another European bank’s custody account at the Luxembourg bank. Though the transfer changed the record ownership of the securities, the custody account allowed CBI to retain beneficial ownership. OFAC alleged that in acting as the channel through which the CBI held interests in the securities, the Luxembourg bank exported custody and related securities services in violation of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. OFAC highlighted the bank’s “strong remedial response” after learning of the alleged lapse mitigated the penalty amount. Although OFAC did not identify the specific enhanced controls implemented by the bank, it encouraged other firms operating as securities intermediaries to implement certain specific measures: (i) make customers aware of the firm’s U.S. sanctions compliance obligations and have customers agree in writing not to use their account(s) with the firm in a manner that could cause a violation of OFAC sanctions; (ii) conduct due diligence, including through the use of questionnaires and certifications, to identify customers who do business in or with countries or persons subject to U.S. sanctions; (iii) impose restrictions and heightened due diligence requirements on the use of certain products or services by customers who are judged to present a higher risk; (iv) attempt to understand the nature and purpose of non-proprietary accounts, including requiring information regarding third parties whose assets may be held in the accounts; and (v) monitor accounts to detect unusual or suspicious activity.
Multinational Oil Services Company Resolves FCPA, Sanctions, And Export Control Matter
On November 26, the DOJ announced that Weatherford International—a multinational oil services company—and certain of its subsidiaries agreed to pay approximately $250 million in fines and penalties to resolve FCPA, sanctions, and export control violations. The DOJ alleged in a criminal information that the company knowingly failed to establish an effective system of internal accounting controls designed to detect and prevent corruption, including FCPA violations. The alleged compliance failures allowed employees of certain of the company’s subsidiaries in Africa and the Middle East to engage in prohibited conduct over the course of many years, including both bribery of foreign officials and fraudulent misuse of the United Nations’ Oil for Food Program. The company entered into a deferred prosecution agreement, pursuant to which it must pay an approximately $87 million penalty, retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for at least 18 months, and continue to implement an enhanced FCPA compliance program and internal controls. The subsidiaries pleaded guilty to related specific acts of corruption, including those alleged in a separate criminal information. The DOJ alleged, among other things, that employees of certain subsidiaries engaged in at least three schemes to pay bribes to foreign officials in exchange for government contracts. In addition the parent company agreed to pay over $65 million and submit to compliance and monitoring requirements to resolve parallel SEC civil allegations that the company violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA.
Separately, the parent company entered into an agreement with the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ, as well as an agreement with the Department of Commerce, to resolve alleged sanctions and export controls violations. Collectively, those agreements require the company to, among other things, pay $100 million in penalties and fines—inclusive of a $91 million settlement with OFAC—and undergo external audits of its efforts to comply with the relevant U.S. sanctions law for calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Those payments resolve allegations, described in part in another DOJ criminal information, that the company and certain subsidiaries exported or re-exported oil and gas drilling equipment to, and conducted business operations in, sanctioned countries—including Cuba, Iran, Sudan, and Syria—without the required U.S. Government authorization.
Treasury Fines Foreign Investment Firm Over Iran Sanctions Violations
On October 21, the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) imposed a $1.5 million civil penalty in an enforcement action against a UAE-based investment and advising company for violating the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations. OFAC determined that the firm recklessly or willfully concealed or omitted information pertaining to $103,283 in funds transfers processed through U.S.-based financial institutions for the benefit of persons in Iran. OFAC determined that the firm’s actions were egregious because (i) it did not voluntarily self-disclose the violations to OFAC, has no OFAC compliance program, and did not cooperate in the investigation, (ii) the firm’s management had actual knowledge or reason to know of the conduct, and (iii) the conduct resulted in potentially significant harm to the U.S. sanctions program against Iran.
Eighth Circuit Extends Recent TILA Rescission Holding
On August 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that borrowers facing foreclosure were required to file suit prior to the foreclosure sale to complete the exercise of their right to rescind under TILA. Hartman v. Smith, No. 12-1947, 2013 WL 4407058 (8th Cir. Aug. 19, 2013). In this case, the bank moved to foreclose after the borrowers failed to make payments to a real estate financing firm with which the borrowers had placed mortgages on the property. After the property was sold at a sheriff’s sale, the borrowers sued the bank and the financing firm, seeking, among other things, to rescind the loans under TILA on the basis that they provided written notice of rescission prior to the foreclosure sale. Applying its recent holding in Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., 720 F.3d 721 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013) that a borrower seeking rescission under TILA must file suit within three years to preserve the borrower’s right of rescission, the court again held that providing notice under TILA is a necessary but not sufficient predicate to exercising the right to rescind. Here, where the foreclosure sale occurred within the three-year rescission period, the court held that the borrowers were required to file a rescission action in a court prior to the foreclosure sale. Because they failed to do so, the court held that their rescission claim was barred.
Eighth Circuit Holds Borrowers Must File Suit Within TILA Three-Year Rescission Period
On July 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a borrower seeking rescission under TILA must file suit within three years, and that merely providing the lender notice is insufficient to preserve the borrower’s right of rescission. Keiran v. Home Capital, Inc., No. 11-3878 (8th Cir. Jul. 12, 2013). As the Tenth Circuit did last year, the Eighth Circuit reasoned that the text of the statute, as explicated by the Supreme Court in Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998), establishes that filing suit is required. Also like the Tenth Circuit, the court expressly rejected the CFPB’s argument that the lender, rather than the obligor, should be required to file suit to prevent rescission. To adopt the CFPB’s position, the court explained, “would create a situation wherein rescission is complete, in effect, simply upon notice from the borrower, whether or not the borrower had a valid basis for such a remedy. Under this scenario, the bank’s security interest would be unilaterally impaired, casting a cloud on the property’s title, an approach envisioned and rejected by Beach.” The holding is the latest in a series of circuit court decisions on this issue, with the majority of circuits now holding in favor of the lender and rejecting the position that notice extends the three-year TILA rescission right. BuckleySandler LLP filed an amicus brief in Keiran on behalf of the American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association, and Consumer Mortgage Coalition.
New York Announces Agreement to Resolve Alleged International Sanctions Violations
On June 20, New York announced a consent order with the New York branch of a foreign bank to resolve charges that the bank — over a five year period that ended more than five years ago — violated Bank Secrecy Act, Anti-Money Laundering and international sanctions rules by stripping from wire transfer messages information that could have been used to identify government and privately owned entities in Iran, Sudan, and Myanmar, and entities on the Specially Designated Nationals list issued by the OFAC and moving billions of dollars through New York on their behalf. The order requires the bank to pay a $250 million penalty, conduct a compliance review, and revise written compliance and management oversight plans. The compliance review must be conducted by an independent consultant that will be subject to the new DFS code of conduct for bank consultants described in a prior Byte. This is at least the second time in the last year that New York has taken a major action against a domestic branch of a foreign bank related to money laundering and international sanctions violations. In a previous instance, federal authorities followed with substantial civil and criminal penalties related to the same conduct.
New York Signals Crackdown on Bank Consultants with Substantial Fine, Temporary Ban
On June 18, New York announced an agreement with a bank consulting firm in connection with the firm’s work for a state-regulated bank alleged to have engaged in deceptive and fraudulent misconduct on behalf of client Iranian financial institutions in violation of anti-money laundering and sanctions rules. An investigation conducted by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) found that the consultant (i) failed to demonstrate autonomy and removed a recommendation aimed at rooting out money laundering from a written final report submitted to the DFS, and (ii) violated New York Banking Law § 36.10 by disclosing confidential information of other consulting firm clients to the bank. To resolve that investigation, the consulting firm agreed to (i) a voluntary one-year suspension from consulting work at any DFS-regulated institution, (ii) pay a $10 million penalty, and (iii) adopt a new code of conduct. The DFS intends for the code of conduct to serve as “a new model that will govern independent consulting firms that seek to be retained or approved by DFS.” The code of conduct states, among other things: (i) the financial institution and consultant must disclose all prior work by the consultant for the institution in the previous three years, (ii) the engagement letter must require that the ultimate conclusions and judgments will be that of the consultant based upon the exercise of its own judgment, (iii) the consultant and institution must submit a work plan for the engagement and timeline for completion of work, (iv) the DFS and the consultant must have ongoing communication, including outside the presence of the institution, and (v) the consultant must implement numerous record keeping, training, reporting, and other policies and procedures.
Obama Administration Targets Iranian Currency
On June 3, the Obama Administration announced a new Executive Order authorizing sanctions that directly target trade in Iran’s currency, the rial. The order authorizes the Treasury Secretary to take action against foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct or facilitate significant transactions for the purchase or sale of the rial, or that maintain significant accounts outside of Iran denominated in the rial. Specifically, the Treasury Secretary can (i) prohibit opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on maintaining, in the United States, a correspondent account or a payable-through account by such foreign financial institution; or (ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in. The order also (i) subjects to new sanctions persons and financial institutions that knowingly engage in transactions for the supply of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran, and (ii) expands sanctions against those who materially assist, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support to persons designated by Treasury as the “Government of Iran.”