InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Treasury seeks info on illicit finance, national security risks of digital assets
On September 19, the U.S. Treasury Department issued a request for comment (RFC) seeking feedback on illicit finance and national security risks posed by digital assets. The RFC, issued pursuant to Executive Order 14067 “Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets” (covered by InfoBytes here), requests public input on illicit finance risks, anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regulation and supervision, global implementation of AML/CFT standards, private sector engagement, and central bank digital currencies. The RFC also seeks feedback on actions the U.S. government and Treasury should take to mitigate these risks, in addition to whether public-private collaboration may improve efforts to address risks. Comments on the RFC are due November 3.
“Without appropriate controls and enforcement of existing laws, digital assets can pose a significant risk to national security by facilitating illicit finance, such as money laundering, cybercrime and terrorist actions,” U.S. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson said in the announcement. “As we work to implement the Illicit Finance Action Plan, hold bad actors accountable and identify potential gaps in existing enforcement, we look forward to receiving the public’s input on this urgent work.”
The RFC follows the September 16 release of Treasury’s Action Plan to Address Illicit Financing Risks of Digital Assets (covered by InfoBytes here).
California passes UDAAP legislation
On September 15, the California governor signed AB 1904, which amends Section 1770 of the Civil Code relating to financial institutions and addresses certain provisions under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. Among other things, the bill prohibits a covered person or a service provider from engaging in unlawful, unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices regarding consumer financial products or services, such as, among other things: (i) misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification; (ii) using deceptive representations of geographic origin; (iii) representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered; (iv) advertising goods or services with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and (v) making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of, price reductions. The bill authorizes the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation to bring a civil action for a violation of the law. The bill would also make unlawful the failure to include certain information, including a prescribed disclosure, in a solicitation by a covered person, or an entity acting on behalf of a covered person, to a consumer for a consumer financial product or service.
New NYDFS proposal to implement Commercial Finance Disclosure Law
On September 14, NYDFS published a notice of proposed rulemaking under New York’s Commercial Financing Disclosure Law (CFDL) related to disclosure requirements for certain providers of commercial financing transactions in the state. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFDL was enacted at the end of December 2020, and amended in February to expand coverage and delay the effective date. (See S5470-B, as amended by S898.) Under the CFDL, providers of commercial financing, which include persons and entities who solicit and present specific offers of commercial financing on behalf of a third party, are required to give consumer-style loan disclosures to potential recipients when a specific offering of finance is extended for certain commercial transactions of $2.5 million or less. Last December, NYDFS announced that providers’ compliance obligations under the CFDL will not take effect until the necessary implementing regulations are issued and effective (covered by InfoBytes here).
The newest proposed regulations (see Assessment of Public Comments for the Revised Proposed New Part 600 to 23 NYCRR) introduce several revisions and clarifications following the consideration of comments received on proposed regulations published last October (covered by InfoBytes here). Updates include:
- A new section stating that a “transaction is subject to the CFDL if one of the parties is principally directed or managed from New York, or the provider negotiated the commercial financing from a location in New York.”
- A new section requiring notice be sent to a recipient if a change is made to the servicing of a commercial financing agreement.
- An revised definition of “recipient” to now “include entities subject to common control if all such recipients receive the single offer of commercial financing simultaneously.”
- Clarifying language stating that the “requirements pertaining to the statement of a rate of finance charge or a financing amount, as that term appears in Section 810 of the CFDL, shall be in effect only upon the quotation of a specific commercial financing offer.”
- Provisions allowing providers to perform calculations based upon either a 30-day month/360-day year or a 365-day year, with the acknowledgment that different methods of computation may lead to slightly different results.
- An amendment stating that “a ‘provider is not required to provide the disclosures required by the CFDL when the finance charge of an existing financing is effectively increased due to the incurrence, by the recipient, of avoidable fees and charges.’”
- An acknowledgement of comments asking that 23 NYCRR Part 600 be identical to California’s disclosure requirements (covered by InfoBytes here) “or as consistent as possible.” In response, NYDFS said that while it generally agrees, and has consulted with the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), the regulations cannot be identical because the CFDL differs from the California Consumer Financial Protection Law and the Department cannot anticipate any future revisions DFPI may make to its proposed regulations.
Comments on the proposed regulations are due October 31.
Debt buyer will pay $12 million following allegations of unfair, deceptive practices
On September 20, the Massachusetts attorney general announced that a California-based debt collection company and its subsidiaries agreed to pay $12 million, including restitution and debt relief, for allegedly engaging in unfair and deceptive debt buying practices. According to the assurance of discontinuance, the debt collector allegedly violated state law by, among other things, (i) purchasing debts without obtaining all relevant documentation from the seller to ensure the debts were valid and accurate; (ii) exceeding the number of calls permitted when attempting to collect a debt and placing harassing debt collection calls; (iii) failing to prevent its collection law firm from using falsified or otherwise incorrect information about the existence of lawsuits and judgments; and (iv) attempting to collect debts that were beyond the statute of limitations or time-barred. The debt collector also allegedly “represented that certain vulnerable consumers were required to make good faith payments or enter an agreement for judgment with payment on a debt when the consumer had only exempt sources of income like social security disability benefits and pensions,” the AG said in the announcement. While the debt collector expressly denied the allegations, it agreed to pay $4.5 million and will reform its debt collection practices and cease to collect on more than 4,200 debts placed with the collection law firm for which a judgment could not be verified. These debts total approximately $7.5 million.
SEC targets crypto developer and influencer for sale of unregistered securities
On September 19, the SEC issued a cease and desist order against a software development company and its founder (collectively, “respondents”) for the unregistered offer and sale of crypto asset securities. The SEC also announced charges against a crypto influencer involved in promoting the company. According to the SEC’s order, from April 2018 into July 2018, the respondents allegedly conducted an unregistered securities offering of crypto asset securities, which raised approximately $30 million from nearly 4,000 investors. The SEC noted that the respondents told investors that the crypto asset securities would raise in value, that the company’s management would continue to improve the company, and that they would make the tokens available on a crypto trading platform. The order also found that the crypto asset securities were not registered with the SEC and were not applicable for a registration exemption. The SEC alleged the respondents violated the offering registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933.
According to the SEC’s complaint against the influencer, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the influencer purchased $5 million worth of the company’s crypto asset securities and promoted it on social media platforms from approximately May 2018 to July 2018. He also allegedly failed to disclose that the company had agreed to provide him a 30 percent bonus on the tokens that he purchased, as consideration for his promotional efforts. Additionally, the SEC alleged that he also organized an investing pool, despite not registering the offering with the SEC. The complaint alleged violations of the offering registration provisions of Section 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act, as well as violations of Section 17(b) of the Act, and seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
Without admitting or denying the allegations, the company agreed to pay $30 million in disgorgement, $4 million in prejudgment interest, and a $500,000 civil penalty. The company also agreed to destroy its remaining tokens, request the removal of its tokens from trading platforms, and publish the SEC’s order on its website and social media channels. The founder, without admitting or denying the SEC’s findings, agreed to refrain from participating in offerings of crypto asset securities for a period of five years and will pay a $250,000 civil penalty.
Brazilian airline agrees to $41 million FCPA settlement
On September 15, a São Paulo-based domestic airline agreed to pay over $41 million to resolve parallel civil and criminal investigations by the SEC and DOJ. The investigations related to a bribery scheme executed by the airline to secure favorable payroll tax and fuel tax treatment through two pieces of new legislation. At the time of the conduct, the airline was the largest air transportation and travel services group in Brazil and its shares traded on the New York Stock Exchange. The favorable tax treatment provided the airline, along with all other Brazilian airlines, reduced taxes and expenses.
According to the SEC and DOJ, a member of the airline’s Board of Directors (the “Director”) orchestrated the scheme, meeting and communicating with Brazilian officials and politicians and their close associates on numerous occasions. At one point, the Director communicated with a close associate of a Brazilian official who, “in turn, discussed the bribe schemes . . . with the Brazilian Official . . . via an ephemeral messaging application that uses end-to-end encrypted and content-expiring messages.” The servers of this messaging application were exclusively located in the United States (one the jurisdictional hooks relied on by the government).
The Director ultimately authorized and directed the bribe payments from the airline to officials, and payments were made both directly from the airline and from companies controlled by the Director to various companies controlled by Brazilian officials or their close associates. Some of the intermediary companies receiving the corrupt payments were based in the U.S. and some of the payments were transmitted through a U.S. correspondent bank. The payments made directly by the airline were authorized from the Director’s own “Cost Center,” which had been created under the airline’s legal department and over which the Director had full discretion with no clearly defined controls or limits. The payments were inaccurately recorded in the airline’s books and records as payments to various third-party vendors for services that were never actually rendered. The airline did not have an effective review process of the documentation submitted before or after the disbursement of funds to monitor whether the invoices were authentic or whether the payments were for bona fide expenditures.
As a result of this conduct, the SEC and DOJ determined that the airline violated the anti-bribery provisions, the books and records provisions, and the internal controls provisions of the FCPA.
To resolve the civil charges, the airline agreed to a cease-and-desist order, disgorgement and pre-judgment interest totaling $70 million, although all but $24.5 million was waived based upon the airline’s present financial condition.
To resolve the criminal charges, the airline entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). The original criminal penalty was calculated to be $87 million but was reduced to $17 million in light of the airline’s financial condition. In calculating the penalty, the DOJ acknowledged full credit for the airline’s cooperation, despite the fact that the airline did not self-report the violations. The DOJ also considered the airline’s remedial measures, which included terminating the Director at issue and relationships with all third-party vendors involved in the underlying misconduct, and a complete overhaul of its compliance program. However, the DPA did not require the appointment of a corporate compliance monitor.
The DOJ and SEC each agreed to offset $1.7 million in penalties the airline is expected to pay to resolve the parallel Brazilian proceedings against their respective resolutions.
2nd Circuit: NY law on interest payments for escrow accounts is preempted
On September 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s interest-on-escrow law impermissibly interferes with the incidentals of national bank lending and is preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA). Plaintiffs in two putative class actions obtained loans from a national bank, one before and the other after certain Dodd-Frank provisions took effect. The loan agreements—governed by New York law—required plaintiffs to deposit money into escrow accounts. After the bank failed to pay interest on the escrowed amounts, plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging, among other things, that under New York General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-601 (which sets a minimum 2 percent interest rate on mortgage escrow accounts) they were entitled to interest. The bank moved to dismiss both actions, contending that GOL § 5-601 did not apply to federally chartered banks because it is preempted by the NBA. The district court disagreed and denied the bank’s motion, ruling first that RESPA (which regulates the amount of money in an escrow account but not the accruing interest rate) “shares a ‘unity of purpose’ with GOL § 5-601.” This is relevant, the district court said, “because Congress ‘intended mortgage escrow accounts, even those administered by national banks, to be subject to some measure of consumer protection regulation.’” Second, the district court reasoned that even though TILA § 1639d does not specifically govern the loans at issue, it is significant because it “evinces a clear congressional purpose to subject all mortgage lenders to state escrow interest laws.” Finally, with respect to the NBA, the district court determined that “the ‘degree of interference’ of GOL § 5-601 was ‘minimal’ and was not a ‘practical abrogation of the banking power at issue,’” and concluded that Dodd-Frank’s amendment to TILA substantiated a policy judgment showing “there is little incompatibility between requiring mortgage lenders to maintain escrow accounts and requiring them to pay a reasonable rate of interest on sums thereby received.” As such, GOL § 5-601 was not preempted by the NBA, the district court said.
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit concluded that the district court erred in its preemption analysis. According to the appellate court, the important question “is not how much a state law impacts a national bank, but rather whether it purports to ‘control’ the exercise of its powers.” In reversing the ruling and holding that that GOL § 5-601 was preempted by the NBA, the appellate court wrote that the “minimum-interest requirement would exert control over a banking power granted by the federal government, so it would impermissibly interfere with national banks’ exercise of that power.” Notably, the 2nd Circuit’s decision differs from the 9th Circuit’s 2018 holding in Lusnak v. Bank of America, which addressed a California mortgage escrow interest law analogous to New York’s and held that a national bank must comply with the California law requiring mortgage lenders to pay interest on mortgage escrow accounts (covered by InfoBytes here). Among other things, the 2nd Circuit determined that both the district court and the 9th Circuit improperly “concluded that the TILA amendments somehow reflected Congress’s judgment that all escrow accounts, before and after Dodd-Frank, must be subject to such state laws.”
In a concurring opinion, one of the judges stressed that while the panel concluded that the specific state law at issue is preempted, the opinion left “ample room for state regulation of national banks.” The judge noted that the opinion relies on a narrow standard of preempting only those “state laws that directly conflict with enumerated or incidental national bank powers conferred by Congress,” and stressed that the appellate court declined to reach a determination as to whether Congress subjected national banks to state escrow interest laws in cases (unlike the plaintiffs’ actions) where Dodd-Frank’s TILA amendments would apply.
OCC releases enforcement actions data
On September 15, the OCC released a list of recent enforcement actions taken against national banks, federal savings associations, and individuals currently and formerly affiliated with such entities. Included in the release is an August 29 formal agreement between the OCC and a Texas-based bank in connection with allegedly unsafe or unsound practices relating to strategic and capital planning, credit risk management, Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses (ALLL) methodology, corporate governance, and internal controls. The agreement requires the bank to: (i) establish a compliance committee to monitor the bank’s progress in complying with the agreement’s provisions; (ii) report such progress to the bank’s board on a quarterly basis; and (iii) develop, implement, and adhere to, among other things, the ALLL Program, the contingency funding plan and any amendments thereto, and the internal audit program and any amendments or revisions thereto.
CFTC commissioner pushes for wrongdoing admissions in settlements
On September 19, CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero called on the agency to adopt her proposed Heightened Enforcement Accountability and Transparency (HEAT) Test, which would require defendants to admit wrongdoing in CFTC enforcement settlements. Expressing “deep concerns” with the CFTC’s practice of not seeking admissions of wrongdoing when settling the majority of enforcement cases (thus resulting in a majority of settlements where the defendant “neither admits nor denies” wrongdoing), Romero stressed that she does not support allowing defendants to settle without admitting their illegal conduct. Romero’s proposed HEAT Test would, among other things, (i) require defendants to acknowledge responsibility and wrongdoing to the public in cases where heightened accountability and acceptance of responsibility are in the public interest; (ii) require more defendants to admit their wrongdoing, thus maximizing public accountability, increasing transparency of a defendant’s wrongdoing, and heightening the deterrent impact of the agency’s enforcement settlements; and (iii) assist the CFTC in reviewing cases that may call for heightened scrutiny of these factors. Romero added that the CFTC should be more willing to take cases to trial when defendants are not willing to admit wrongdoing.
Treasury applauds deferral of Ukrainian debt payments through 2023
On September 14, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced that the Group of Creditors of Ukraine, which includes the U.S., concluded a Memorandum of Understanding to implement Ukraine’s request for a coordinated suspension of debt service through the end of 2023. According to Yellen, easing liquidity pressures will allow the Ukrainian government to direct additional spending towards its domestic needs and the welfare of its people. Yellen urged other official bilateral creditors, including private creditors, to support Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia’s invasion. The Group of Creditors of Ukraine issued a statement applauding measures taken by the Ukrainian government to address the economic and financial consequences of the war, and welcoming the conclusion of an agreement with bondholders and warrantholders to defer debt payments for two years.