InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FTC, Florida permanently shut down grant funding operation
On December 8, the FTC and the Florida attorney general announced that a Florida-based grant funding company and its owner (collectively, “defendants”) will be permanently banned from offering grant-writing and business consulting services as a result of a lawsuit the regulators brought against the defendants in June. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Consumer Protection Act, the FTC Act, and the Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices Act by deceptively marketing their services to minority-owned small businesses. Among other things, the defendants (i) promised grant funding that did not exist and/or was never awarded; (ii) misled customers about the status of grant awards; and (iii) failed to honor a “money-back guarantee” and suppressed customer complaints. The defendants agreed to the terms of a proposed court order, which would ban them from providing grant-related services and business consulting, and prohibit them from making misrepresentations regarding advertised products or services. Defendants would also be required to turn over certain property to be sold in order to provide refunds to affected businesses. The proposed order also includes a more than $2 million monetary judgment, which is partially suspended due to defendants’ inability to pay.
Senators ask federal agencies about banks’ ties to crypto firms
On December 7, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Tina Smith (D-MN) sent letters to the heads of the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC seeking information on how the agencies assess risks associated with banks’ relationships with cryptocurrency firms. The senators expressed concerns related to recent revelations that “crypto may be more integrated into the banking system than regulators are aware.” The senators asked the agencies a series of questions, including (i) whether the regulators plan to conduct a review of crypto firms’ relationships with banks; (ii) the names of regulated banks engaged in crypto-related activities, such as providing crypto custody services and acting as nodes to verify customer payments; and (iii) the estimated total dollar volume for each specific activity per bank. The responses were requested by December 21.
FCC orders companies to block student loan scam calls
On December 8, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau ordered voice service providers to cease carrying robocalls related to known student loan scams and specifically designated a service believed to account for more than 40 percent of student loan robocalls in October. The FCC’s order provides written notice to all voice service providers regarding suspected illegal robocalls that have been made in violation of the TCPA, the Truth In Caller ID Act of 2009, or the TRACED Act. Specifically, the order “directs all U.S.-based voice service providers to take immediate steps to mitigate suspected illegal student loan-related robocall traffic.” The order further noted that if a provider fails to “take all necessary steps” to avoid carrying suspected illegal robocall traffic, the provider may be “deemed to have knowingly and willfully engaged in transmitting unlawful robocalls.” According to FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, the Commission is “cutting these scammers off so they can't use efforts to provide student loan debt relief as cover for fraud.”
DOJ, SEC reach $460 million FCPA settlement with global technology company
On December 2, the DOJ announced that it fined a Swiss-based global technology company $315 million to settle criminal charges related to allegations that, from 2015 to 2017, the company engaged in a bribery scheme with an electricity provider owned by the South African government. As part of the scheme, the company arranged to use a third party to pay a high-ranking South African government official at the electricity provider in exchange for awarding business to the global technology company. The settlement was the DOJ’s first coordinated resolution with authorities in South Africa. Authorities in South Africa separately brought corruption charges against the high-ranking South African government official. In addition to the financial penalty, the company entered into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement in connection with a criminal information charging the company with conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions, conspiracy to violate the FCPA’s books and records provisions, and substantive violations of the FCPA. Two of the company’s subsidiaries located in Switzerland and South Africa each pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA.
The next day on December 3, the SEC announced that the company agreed to pay $75 million to settle the SEC’s claims. The company consented to the SEC’s cease-and-desist order which stated that it violated the anti-bribery, books and records, and internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA and the Exchange Act. The SEC also ordered the company to pay more than $72 million in disgorgement. However, the Commission deemed the disgorgement order satisfied by the company’s reimbursement of its ill-gotten gains to the South African government as part of an earlier civil settlement based largely on the same underlying facts as the SEC’s action.
Senators request information from California bank on its relationship with collapsed crypto exchange
On December 5, Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Roger Marshall (R-KS) asked the CEO of a California-based bank for information regarding its relationship with several cryptocurrency firms founded by the CEO of a now-collapsed crypto exchange. In their letter, the senators pressed the CEO for an explanation for why the bank failed to monitor for and report suspicious transactions to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and asked for information about how deposits it was holding on behalf of the collapsed exchange and related firm were being handled. The senators stressed that the bank has a legal responsibility under the Bank Secrecy Act to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program that may have flagged suspicious activity. “Your bank's involvement in the transfer of [the collapsed exchange’s] customer funds to [the related firm] reveals what appears to be an egregious failure of your bank’s responsibility to monitor for and report suspicious financial activity carried out by its clients,” the letter said. The senators asked the bank to respond to a series of questions by December 19.
Treasury official flags “de-risking” as a concern in combating illicit financial risks
On December 5, Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes at the U.S. Department of Treasury Elizabeth Rosenberg outlined key illicit finance risks impacting the broader financial system during the ABA/ABA Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference. Rosenberg noted that for many nations, the illicit finance threat posed by Russia related to its invasion into Ukraine is a top priority. She commented that more than 30 countries immediately implemented sanctions or other economic measures against Russia, and that since then, the U.S. and other countries have created an expansive, multilateral web of restrictions targeting Russia’s ability to fund its war. Rosenberg also recognized that by reassessing their understanding of Russian illicit financial risks and implementing adaptive measures, companies and financial institutions play an important role in providing critical insight into emerging threats. Rosenberg also discussed Treasury’s risk-based approach to crafting policy responses, including those related to beneficial ownership transparency, investment adviser misuse, and the use of residential and commercial real estate to hide and grow illicit funds.
Rosenberg warned, however, that there are challenges in implementing a truly risk-based approach. She pointed to observations made by the Financial Action Task Force, which showed that while many countries and their financial institutions “are keenly aware of where enhanced due diligence is needed,” many “often can not readily identify the inverse: places where simplified due diligence should be expected and permitted.” She cautioned that focusing on high-risk areas rather than lower-risk parts “is not without costs,” and illustrated a common form of de-risking that occurs “when financial institutions categorically cut off relationships or services to avoid perceived risks—for example, certain geographic regions—rather than applying a nuanced, risk-based approach.” Doing so can lead to “deleterious effects,” she warned, such as excluding businesses based on their location or status, or impacting emerging markets that could serve underbanked populations. Rosenberg said Treasury intends to study these concerns through the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, and will develop a strategy for addressing de-risking, including recommendations on ways to improve public-private engagement on the issue, regulatory guidance and adjustments, and international supervision.
FinCEN’s Das discusses agency’s priorities
On December 6, FinCEN acting Director Himamauli Das spoke before the ABA/ABA Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference about how FinCEN is addressing new threats, new innovations, and new partnerships, in addition to its efforts to implement the AML Act. Das first began by speaking about beneficial ownership requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). He noted that a final rule was issued in September, which implemented the beneficial ownership information reporting requirements (covered by InfoBytes here). He also stated that a second rulemaking, concerning access protocols to the beneficial ownership database by law enforcement and financial institutions, may be released before the end of the year, and that work is currently underway on a third rulemaking concerning revisions to the customer due diligence rule. With regard to anti-corruption, Das noted that the agency has been working with the Biden administration, and highlighted three alerts issued by FinCEN in 2022 that highlight “the risks of sanctions and export controls evasion by Russian actors, including through real estate, luxury goods, and other high-value assets.” Das explained that the alerts “complement ongoing U.S. government efforts to isolate sanctioned Russians from the international financial system.”
Transitioning into discussing effective AML/CFT programs, Das said that the “AML Act’s goal of a strengthened, modernized, and streamlined AML/CFT framework will ultimately play out over a series of steps as we implement all of the provisions of the AML Act.” He then described how the AML Act requires FinCEN to work with the FFIEC and law enforcement agencies to establish training for federal examiners in order to better align the examination process. He further noted that the AML/CFT priorities and their incorporation into risk-based programs as part of the AML Program Rule are “crucial” for providing direction to examiners on approaches that improve outcomes for law enforcement and national security.
Das also highlighted the digital asset ecosystem as a key priority area for FinCEN and acknowledged that the area has seen “continuing evolution” since 2013 and 2019, when the agency released its latest related guidance documents on the topic. Das explained that FinCEN is taking a “close look” at the elements of its AML/CFT framework applicable to virtual currency and digital assets to determine whether additional regulations or guidance are necessary, which “includes looking carefully at decentralized finance and its potential to reduce or eliminate the role of financial intermediaries that play a critical role in our AML/CFT efforts.”
Appellate court reverses BIPA decision
On November 30, the Illinois Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District reversed and remanded a trial court’s decision to grant a defendant plating company’s motion for summary judgment in a Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) suit. The plaintiff began working for the defendant in 2014. From the beginning of his employment, the plaintiff clocked into his job using a fingerprint, but the defendant did not have a written retention-and-destruction schedule for biometric data until 2018. The plaintiff was subsequently terminated and then filed suit claiming that the defendant violated BIPA by failing to establish a retention-and-destruction schedule for the possession of biometric information until four years after it first possessed the plaintiff’s biometric data. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that section 15(a) of BIPA established no time limits by which a private entity must establish a retention-and-destruction schedule for biometric data. The plaintiff appealed.
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, finding that Section 15(a) specified that a private entity “in possession of” biometric data must develop a written policy laying out its retention and destruction protocols, and the duty to develop a schedule is triggered by possession of the biometric data. The appellate court noted that its decision “is consistent with the statutory scheme, which imposes upon private entities the obligation to establish [BIPA]-compliant procedures to protect employees' and customers' biometric data.” The appellate court went on to note that it “can discern no rational reason for the legislature to have intended that a private entity ‘develop’ a ‘retention schedule and guidelines for permanently destroying’ (id. § 15(a)) biometric data at a different time from that specified in the notice requirement in section 15(b), which itself must inform the subject of the length of time for which the data will be stored (i.e., retained), etc.” The appellate court concluded “that the duty to develop a schedule upon possession of the data necessarily means that the schedule must exist on that date, not afterwards,” and stressed that this is “the only reasonable interpretation” in light of BIPA's “preventive and deterrent purposes.”
Furthermore, the appellate court rejected the defendant’s argument that “the statutory duty is satisfied so long as a schedule exists on the day that the biometric data possessed by a defendant is no longer needed or the parties’ relationship has ended," stating that the statutory language “belies this interpretation.”
Fannie expands underwriting eligibility to help "credit invisible" borrowers
On December 6, Fannie Mae announced enhancements to its Desktop Underwriter to create more homeownership opportunities for “credit invisible” borrowers by changing its automated underwriting system to expand eligibility and further simplify the borrowing process for loans where borrowers do not have a credit score. Fannie noted that close to 15 percent of Black and Latino/Hispanic people are credit invisible (as compared to nine percent of their white and Asian counterparts), explaining that these imbalances lead to racial disparities in access to credit and quality affordable housing. “We believe consumers should benefit from their responsible money management habits and a steady stream of income when buying a home, even if they don’t have an established credit history,” Mallory Evans, Executive Vice President and Head of Single-Family Business at Fannie Mae, said in the announcement. “Traditional lending practices make it hard for borrowers with no credit score to access credit, so we’ve taken steps that may help them responsibly qualify for a home loan using data that provides a more holistic view of how they manage their money.”
Beginning December 10, enhancements made to the Desktop Underwriter will (i) update borrower eligibility criteria for those with no credit score to align with Fannie’s standard selling guide requirements; (ii) enable the system to evaluate “a borrower’s monthly cash flow over a 12-month period to potentially enhance their credit risk assessment”; and (iii) simplify the mortgage process by automating the current selling guide requirement for documenting nontraditional sources of credit.
CFPB says TILA does not preempt NY law on commercial disclosures
On December 7, the CFPB issued a preliminary determination that New York’s commercial financing disclosure law is not preempted by TILA because the state’s statute regulates commercial financing transactions and not consumer-purpose transactions. The CFPB issued a Notice of Intent to Make Preemption Determination under the Truth in Lending Act seeking comments pursuant to Appendix A of Regulation Z on whether it should finalize its preliminary determination that New York’s law, as well as potentially similar laws in California, Utah, and Virginia, are not preempted by TILA. Comments are due January 20, 2023. Once the comment period closes, the Bureau will publish a notice of final determination in the Federal Register.
Explaining that recently a number of states have enacted laws to require improved disclosures of information contained in commercial financing transactions, including loans to small businesses, in order to mitigate predatory small business lending and improve transparency, the Bureau said it received a written request to make a preemption determination involving certain disclosure provisions in TILA. While Congress expressly granted the Bureau authority to evaluate whether any inconsistencies exist between certain TILA provisions and state laws and to make a preemption determination, the statute’s implementing regulations require the agency to request public comments before making a final determination.
While New York’s Commercial Financing Law “requires financial disclosures before consummation of covered transactions,” the Bureau pointed out that this applies to “commercial financing” rather than consumer credit. The request contended that TILA preempts New York’s law in relation to its use of the terms “finance charge” and “annual percentage rate”—“notwithstanding that the statutes govern different categories of transactions.” The request outlined material differences in how the two statutes use these terms and asserted “that these differences make the New York law inconsistent with Federal law for purposes of preemption.” As an example, the request noted that the state’s definition of “finance charge” is broader than the federal definition, and that the “estimated APR” disclosure required under state law “for certain transactions is less precise than the APR calculation under TILA and Regulation Z.” Moreover, “New York law requires certain assumptions about payment amounts and payment frequencies in order to calculate APR and estimated APR, whereas TILA does not require similar assumptions,” the request asserted, adding that inconsistencies between the two laws could lead to borrower confusion or misunderstanding.
In making its preliminary determination, the Bureau concluded that the state and federal laws do not appear “contradictory” for preemption purposes based on the request’s assertions. The Bureau explained that the statutes govern different transactions and disagreed with the argument that New York’s law impedes the operation of TILA or interferes with its primary purpose. Specifically, the Bureau stated that the “differences between the New York and Federal disclosure requirements do not frustrate these purposes because lenders are not required to provide the New York disclosures to consumers seeking consumer credit.”