InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC’s Hsu discusses managing tail risks
On March 31, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the American Bankers Association Risk 2022 Conference to discuss managing low probability, high impact risk events, or tail risks. In particular, Hsu highlighted the connection between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and heightened tail risks associated with geopolitical risk, cyber risk, and inflation risk. Hsu warned that multiple possible events stemming from the conflict, including cyber-attacks from Russia, broader conflict in Europe, and increased inflation could materialize simultaneously increasing the chances that tail risks materialize that could trigger a recession. Hsu noted that the increase of sanctions to oil and gas would put upward pressure on fuel prices, and “Ukraine’s role as a producer of wheat, neon, platinum, and palladium is also beginning to affect global prices in certain markets.” Despite the elevated risks, Hsu noted that enhanced stress testing has positioned large banks to absorb a range of shocks, but warned that “nonetheless, greater caution and risk management vigilance is warranted today, perhaps more than any time in recent memory.” Hsu also singled out risks associated with crypto assets and said that the OCC is collaborating with other agencies on “how to maintain a consistent, careful and cautious” approach to bank involvement in cryptocurrency. Hsu cautioned that in light of “limited or unreliable price histories” of crypto-assets, financial institutions should “carefully consider” the tail risks associated with factoring cryptocurrency positions into the overall risk management process. Hsu discussed his worry regarding the potential for crypto derivatives to create “wrong-way risk” in which a leveraged party use trades to “double-down” at the same time it is experiencing financial stress. Hsu stated that the OCC has engaged with government agencies in the U.K. and U.S. on “how to maintain a consistent, careful, and cautious approach to bank involvement in crypto.”
OFAC issues Ukraine general license and Russian FAQ
On March 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 24, Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to Continued Russian Efforts To Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, which authorizes certain transactions related to the provision of maritime services, provided such services are performed outside the covered regions and services are not performed on behalf of any entity located in, or organized under the laws of, the covered regions. The GL does not authorize “[a]ny new investment in the Covered Regions prohibited by E.O. 14065, unless separately authorized,” or “[a]ny transactions involving any person blocked pursuant to E.O. 14065, unless separately authorized.” OFAC also amended one Frequently Asked Question clarifying that Executive Order 14066 does not prohibit dealing in Kazakh-origin crude oil of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
OCC’s Hsu discusses improving crypto literacy
On March 8, acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael J. Hsu spoke before the Financial Literacy and Education Commission’s (FLEC) Public Meeting to discuss and commend FLEC’s efforts to improve crypto literacy and crypto education. In his remarks, Hsu described that a “younger, more financially vulnerable” population makes up a large portion of crypto owners, and that the risk of scams and hacks are increasing. He also argued that “it is hard to find neutral, trusted sources of information on crypto,” calling it “nearly impossible to find neutral information about something as simple as fees.” Describing “an urgent need for improved crypto literacy and education,” Hsu urged the commission to make available neutral, trusted educational materials to educate the public on crypto. He added that “consumers are left with an information landscape dominated by a lot of hype, jargon, attractive yields, and only boilerplate disclaimers about the risks they could face.”
Treasury releases guidance on E.O. banning Russian imports
On March 8, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) released a General License (GL) and several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) following President Biden’s announcement banning the import of Russian oil, liquefied natural gas, and coal to the U.S. President Biden announced an Executive Order earlier in the week, which prohibits certain imports and new investments with respect to continued Russian federation efforts in Ukraine. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) According to the announcement, the guidance is “to aid in the wind-down of deliveries of existing purchases that have already been contracted for.” GL 16, Authorizing Transactions Related to Certain Imports Prohibited by Executive Order of March 8, 2022 Prohibiting Certain Imports and New Investments With Respect to Continued Russian Federation Efforts to Undermine the Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity of Ukraine, prohibits certain imports from Russia from March 8 to April 22. The FAQs, which feature a new FAQ and several updated FAQs, provide guidance regarding the E.O.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on the U.S. sanctions response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine here.
Special Alert: Latest developments in OFAC sanctions against Russia
Beginning February 21, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control has issued significant sanctions in response to the Russian Federation’s military invasion of Ukraine and its recognition of Ukraine’s separatist regions.
Since Buckley’s last update on February 25, there have been a number of developments in the sanctions against Russia, which include:
- A prohibition on the importation into the United States of Russian crude oil and certain petroleum products, liquified natural gas, and coal
- A ban on new investment by U.S. persons in the Russian energy sector
- The imposition of asset blocking sanctions on Vladimir Putin, Sergei Lavrov, numerous oligarchs and families with ties to Putin, and Russian-backed disinformation services
- Sanctions targeting Russia’s U.S. foreign reserves by prohibiting all dealings with Russia’s Central Bank, National Wealth Fund, and Ministry of Finance
- The issuance of the Russian Harmful Foreign Activities Sanctions Regulations, which codify the prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024, discussed below, and include several interpretations and general licenses
- The issuance of a general license that exempts “transactions related to energy” from certain prohibitions imposed under Executive Order 14024
2nd Circuit: Turkish bank not immune from sanctions
On October 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a district court’s ruling against a Turkish state-owned commercial bank (defendant) denying its bid for immunity based on its characterization of an “instrumentality” of a foreign service, which is not entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution at common law. The U.S. government alleged that the bank converted Iranian oil money into gold and hid the transactions as purchases of goods to avoid conflicting sanctions against Iran. The district court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and partially concluded that the defendant was not immune from prosecution because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) confers immunity on foreign services only in civil proceedings. Furthermore, the district court concluded that, “even assuming arguendo that FSIA did confer immunity to foreign sovereigns in criminal proceedings, [the defendant’s] conduct would fall within FSIA’s commercial activity exception.” Additionally, the district court rejected the defendant’s “contention that it was entitled to immunity from prosecution under the common law, noting that [the defendant] failed to cite any support for its claim on this basis.” The district court found that the defendant’s characterization of its activities as sovereign in nature “conflates the act with its purpose,” finding that the lender's alleged money laundering was the type of activity regularly carried out by private businesses. The fact that the defendant is majority-owned by the Turkish Government is irrelevant under FSIA even if it is related to Turkey’s foreign policy because “literally any bank can violate sanctions.”
On appeal, the 2nd Circuit noted that it was unnecessary to resolve a question presented in the case—if foreign governments can assert immunity against criminal, as well as civil, charges—since money laundering would qualify as a commercial activity exception. The appellate court noted that, “[t]he gravamen of the Indictment is not that [the bank] is the Turkish Government’s repository for Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds in Turkey,” but that “it is [the bank’s] participation in money laundering and other fraudulent schemes designed to evade U.S. sanctions that is the ‘core action.’” And, “because those core acts constitute ‘an activity that could be, and in fact regularly is, performed by private-sector businesses,’ those acts are commercial, not sovereign, in nature.” The opinion also notes that “[e]ven assuming the FSIA applies in criminal cases—an issue that we need not, and do not, decide today—the commercial activity exception to FSIA would nevertheless apply to [the defendant’s] charged offense conduct.” The appellate court agreed with the district court, concluding that the bank must face criminal charges in the U.S. for allegedly assisting Iran evade economic sanctions by laundering approximately $20 billion in Iranian oil and gas revenues.
OFAC reaches multiple settlements with companies that exported goods to Russia and Sudan
On September 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a roughly $1.4 million settlement with a Texas-based supplier of goods and services for the oil and gas industries (a subsidiary of a Netherlands corporation) for allegedly approving contracts that allowed a foreign subsidiary to supply goods to a Russian energy firm blocked under Directive 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) 13662, “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine,” as implemented by the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, between July 2015 and November 2016, U.S.-senior managers at the company approved five contracts for its foreign subsidiary to supply oil and exploration goods to the blocked energy firm, thus constituting a “prohibited provision of services involving a person determined to be subject to Directive 4 ([the blocked energy firm]), its property, or its interests in property.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including, among other things, that (i) U.S. senior managers knew that their approvals were for contracts to supply goods to a blocked entity; (ii) the company “acted directly contrary to U.S. foreign policy objectives by approving the sale of oil production or exploration equipment to an entity subject to the restrictions of Directive 4”; and (iii) the company should have recognized the risk involved when the contracts were approved.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including, among other things, that the company took meaningful corrective actions upon discovering the alleged violations to ensure sanctions compliance, and cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and entered into tolling agreements.
OFAC separately reached a $160,000 settlement with a subsidiary of a subsidiary of the same Netherlands corporation for its apparent violation of OFAC’s now-repealed Sudanese Sanctions Regulations. According to OFAC’s web notice, three of the subsidiary’s U.S. employees allegedly facilitated the sale and shipment of oilfield equipment intended for delivery to Sudan, which was, at the time of the transaction, an apparent violation.
OFAC sanctions international oil smuggling network
On August 13, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 13224 against several individuals and businesses allegedly involved in an international oil smuggling network supporting Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF). According to OFAC, senior IRGC-QF officials use proceeds from the designated persons’ involvement in Iranian oil exports, including through the shipment of Iranian oil to foreign customers, to help fund the group’s destabilizing regional activities. Director Andrea M. Gacki noted the “sales rely on key foreign intermediaries to obscure the IRGC-QF’s involvement” and stressed that OFAC “will continue to disrupt and expose anyone supporting these efforts.” As a result of the sanctions, all property and interests in property belonging to the sanctioned persons are blocked. OFAC’s announcement further noted that OFAC regulations generally prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with designated persons, adding that “foreign financial institutions that knowingly facilitate significant transactions for, or persons that provide material or certain other support to, the persons designated today risk exposure to sanctions that could sever their access to the U.S. financial system or block their property or interests in property under U.S. jurisdiction.”
District Court grants summary judgment against student loan debt-relief defendant
On August 10, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment against an individual defendant in an action by the CFPB against a lender and several related individuals and companies (collectively, “defendants”) for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), and Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB filed a complaint in 2020 claiming the defendants violated the FCRA by, among other things, illegally obtaining consumer reports from a credit reporting agency for millions of consumers with student loans by representing that the reports would be used to “make firm offers of credit for mortgage loans” and to market mortgage products. However, the Bureau alleged that the defendants instead resold or provided the reports to numerous companies, including companies engaged in marketing student loan debt relief services. The defendants also allegedly violated the TSR by charging and collecting advance fees for their debt relief services, and violated both the TSR and CFPA by placing telemarketing sales calls and sending direct mail to encourage consumers to consolidate their loans, while falsely representing that consolidation could lower student loan interest rates, improve borrowers’ credit scores, and allow borrowers to change their servicer to the Department of Education. Settlements have already been reached with certain defendants (covered by InfoBytes here, here and here).
Responding to the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment against the individual defendant, the court, among other things, held that undisputed evidence showed that the individual defendant “obtained and later used prescreened lists from [a consumer reporting agency] without a permissible purpose” in order to send direct mail solicitations from the businesses that he controlled to consumers on the lists as opposed to firm offers of credit or insurance. The court also found that the individual defendant violated the TSR by mispresenting material aspects of the debt relief services and violated the CFPA by making false statements to induce consumers to pay advance fees for these services. Furthermore, the court rejected the individual defendant’s arguments involving boilerplate evidentiary objections and Fifth Amendment and statute of limitation claims. Because the individual defendant “was heavily involved in and controlled much of the [student loan debt relief businesses’] activities,” the court found that he acted recklessly and granted the Bureau’s motion for summary judgment, finding that injunctive relief, restitution, and a civil money penalty are appropriate remedies.
New York continues to postpone collection on certain debts
On February 1, the attorney general of New York announced an extension of its previous order to halt the collection efforts on certain debts through February 28, 2021. Consumers with student loan debt and medical debt owed to the state will receive an additional 28-day hiatus on payments including a freeze on the accrual of interest on the debts—in order to allow them to deal with the effects of Covid-19. Specifically, the moratorium on collection applies to: (i) “[p]atients that owe medical debt due to the five state hospitals and the five state veterans' home[s]”; (ii) “[s]tudents that owe student debt due to State University of New York (SUNY) campuses”; and (iii) “[i]ndividual debtors, sole-proprietors, small business owners, and certain homeowners that owe debt relating to oil spill cleanup and removal costs, property damage, and breach of contract, as well as other fees owed to state agencies.” New Yorkers who have other types of debt that are owed to the state and who are referred to the Office of the Attorney General may apply for a temporary freeze on collection by submitting an application which can be found here.