InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Colorado reaches agreements with credit unions over unused GAP fees violations
Recently, the Colorado attorney general announced three separate settlements (see here, here, and here) with three credit unions resolving allegations that they neglected to refund unearned Guaranteed Automobile Protection (GAP) fees to Colorado consumers. The administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC), who is part of the Consumer Protection Division of the Department of Law and who led this investigation, concluded that the credit unions engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act by failing to provide GAP refunds automatically without waiting for a request from the consumer. Under the terms of the assurances of discontinuance, the credit unions have agreed to comply with all legal obligations and issue refunds to affected borrowers, and: (i) must comply with the UCCC rule’s GAP refund requirements; (ii) are subjected to an audit to verify the accuracy of their self-audits; and (iii) must send a confirmation letter pre-approved by the administrator to each consumer to whom a GAP refund was paid because of the self-audits. The AG noted that the “settlements are part of our office’s efforts to ensure lending institutions follow Colorado law and do not cheat hardworking consumers out of money they are entitled to under their lending and coverage agreements.”
FTC, DOJ halt deceptive credit repair operation
On March 21, the FTC and DOJ announced that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas entered a permanent injunction against a credit repair organization accused of allegedly defrauding consumers out of millions of dollars by promising to remove negative information from their credit reports, while actually filing fake identity theft reports to explain the negative items. (Press releases linked here and here.) According to the complaint, filed by the DOJ on behalf of the FTC, the defendants allegedly claimed their “two-step process” could remove negative items from consumers’ credit histories or credit reports through “advance disputing” of negative information and help boost credit scores by adding “credit building products” to consumers’ credit reports. However, according to the FTC, defendants failed to follow through on their credit repair promises, and instead filed identity theft reports even when consumers had not actually been victims of identity theft. The FTC claimed many consumers actually saw their credit scores decrease because the defendants’ “unsupported challenges rarely if ever cause[d] credit reporting agencies to delete or change any consumer’s credit information.” Company representatives also allegedly informed consumers that the process could boost consumers’ credit scores by 50-200 points within 90 days—a violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule. Additionally, the FTC claimed that the defendants illegally required consumers to pay upfront fees up to $1,500, and failed to include disclosures detailing cancellation policies or provide consumers with copies of the contracts they were required to sign in order to obtain the defendants’ services. The permanent injunction imposes financial restrictions on the defendants and halts their operations.
Senate holds hearing on the role of digital assets in illicit finance
On March 17, the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee held a hearing titled “Understanding the Role of Digital Assets in Illicit Finance” to consider the risks crypto technology and digital assets pose for consumers and the financial system. The Committee heard from several witnesses, including FinCEN’s Former Acting Director, Deputy Director/Digital Innovation Officer Michael Mosier, who stressed that policymakers should focus on finding a balance that does not only “chase bad actors but also prevents exploitation of the vulnerable from the start.” Chairman Sherrod Brown (D-OH) opened the hearing by explaining that the “dollar has safeguards to protect against crime and illicit activity” because companies dealing in real money “are required to know their customers, and report suspicious transactions.” In contrast, digital assets “make it easier for money launderers to use webs of transactions across the globe to cover their tracks” and hinders law enforcement agencies’ ability to trace illicit funds. Brown cautioned that “lax rules and little oversight” are providing bad actors more opportunities to “hide and move money in the dark” using cryptocurrency. He stressed, however, that President Biden’s recent executive order, which outlined a coordinated approach to digital asset innovation (covered by InfoBytes here), will “drive progress on this issue” and “jumpstart a coordinated strategy from law enforcement and regulators to fight bad actors who want to use crypto.” Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) took a different view, noting that the “traceable nature of many cryptocurrencies” can also support the detection and prevention of illicit crime, which is “a factor making [cryptocurrency] terribly risky to utilize for criminal purposes.” He also expressed concerns that the lack of regulatory clarity surrounding digital assets has driven innovation abroad.
Witnesses provided various recommendations designed to, among other things, reduce the risk of sanctions evasion through digital assets, as well as improve detection, disruption, and deterrence of the illicit use of digital assets. While one witness stated that “transparency of blockchains enhances the ability of policymakers and law enforcement to detect, disrupt, and ultimately, deter illicit activity,” another witness cautioned that “[e]ven with the latest blockchain analytics, investigations can take years to complete,” particularly because “prosecutors must demonstrate that an identifiable person is behind the criminal activity.”
FTC issues final order in FTC Act violations matter
On March 21, the FTC announced a final order resolving allegations that an online fashion retailer (defendant) allegedly violated the FTC Act by engaging in deceptive practices. As previously covered by InfoBytes, according to the complaint, the defendant allegedly violated the FTC Act by, among other things, misrepresenting that the product reviews on its website reflected the views of all purchasers who submitted reviews, when it actually suppressed certain negative reviews. The complaint further noted that the defendant utilized a third-party review management software to automatically post higher-rating reviews to its website, while withholding other lower-rating reviews for the defendant’s approval prior to posting—which never took place. According to the final order, the defendant is: (i) required to pay $4.2 million as monetary relief to the FTC; (ii) prohibited from misrepresenting information about product reviews; and (iii) required to publicly display all product reviews on its website.
Mississippi passes debt management provisions
Recently, the Mississippi governor signed HB 687, which establishes debt management services and licensing requirements. According to the bill, debt management service is defined as “[t]he receiving of money from a consumer for the purpose of distributing one or more payments to or among one or more creditors of the consumer in full or partial payment of the consumer's obligation,” among other things. A debt management service provider is “a person that provides or offers to provide to a consumer in this state any debt management services, in return for a fee or other consideration.” A debt management service provider does not include “[a]ny institution that is regulated, supervised or licensed by the department or any out-of-state institution that is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the National Credit Union Administration,” among other things. Additionally, one cannot operate as a debt management service provider with respect to consumers who are residents of this state without a license. The bill is effective July 1.
Indiana passes loan broker provisions
On March 18, the Indiana governor signed HB 1092, which amends the provisions regarding loan brokers that include requirements for licensing, as well as contract for the services of a loan broker. Among other things, the bill establishes that a loan processing company notice filing must be made on a form prescribed by the commissioner and include the: (i) loan processing company's business name, address, and state of incorporation or business registration; (ii) names of the owners, officers, members, or partners who control the loan processing company; and (iii) name of each individual who is employed by the loan processing company, including the unique identifier from the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) of each loan processor. Additionally, when a contract for the services of a loan broker is assigned, the loan broker shall provide a copy of the signed contract and a written disclosure of any agreement entered into by the loan broker to procure loans exclusively from one lender to each party to the contract. The bill is effective July 22.
SEC issues $3 million in whistleblower awards
On March 18, the SEC announced whistleblower awards totaling over $3 million to three individuals for providing information and assistance in three separate covered actions. According to the first redacted order, the SEC awarded approximately $1.5 million to a whistleblower for providing information which led to the successful prosecution of an enforcement action. Additionally, the whistleblower assisted the staff throughout the investigation. According to the second redacted order, the SEC awarded over $1 million to an individual who provided information that prompted Commission staff to open an investigation that led to the successful prosecution of an enforcement action. The whistleblower continued to provide assistance by participating in interviews and giving additional documents. In the third redacted order, the SEC awarded over $400,000 to a whistleblower whose comprehensive tip led to an investigation and who provided substantial ongoing cooperation. The whistleblower also raised concerns internally, causing the conduct to cease.
The SEC has awarded approximately $1.2 billion to 254 whistleblowers since issuing its first award in 2012.
CFTC awards $10 million to whistleblower
On March 18, the CFTC announced an approximately $10 million award to a whistleblower whose information led the agency to a successful Commodity Exchange Act enforcement action. According to the CFTC, the claimant voluntarily provided original, “useful information at the earliest stages of the investigation and later provided supplemental information.” The associated order also noted that because of the claimant’s allegations, CFTC staff were able to draft the earliest round of subpoenas.
The CFTC has awarded approximately $330 million to whistleblowers since the enactment of its Whistleblower Program under Dodd-Frank, with whistleblower information helping the CFTC prosecute enforcement actions leading to more than $3 billion in monetary sanctions.
OFAC sanctions Guatemalan drug trafficking organization connected to Mexican cartels
On March 18, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions pursuant to Executive Order 14059 against a drug trafficking organization tied to Mexican cartels, as well as the organization’s leaders, for engaging in actions that threaten the people and security of the U.S. and Guatemala. Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Brian E. Nelson stated that “Treasury and our U.S. and Guatemalan government partners will continue to use every available resource to dismantle these criminal networks” that have “engaged in, or attempted to engage in, activities or transactions that materially contributed to, or pose a significant risk of materially contributing to, the international proliferation of illicit drugs or their means of production.” As a result of the sanctions, the designated persons’ property located in the U.S. or held by U.S. persons are blocked and must be reported to OFAC. Additionally, OFAC regulations generally prohibit U.S. persons from participating in transactions with the designated persons.
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.