InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CSBS says FDIC board nominees lack state bank regulatory expertise
On November 29, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors sent a letter to Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, to express their disappointment that none of the nominees to the FDIC Board of Directors have state bank supervisory experience. Last month, President Biden nominated Martin Gruenberg, who has been serving as acting chairman, to serve as chair and member of the board, and in September, Travis Hill and Jonathan McKernan were nominated to fill the board’s two vacant seats (covered by InfoBytes here and here). At the time of the announcement, CSBS President and CEO James M. Cooper issued a statement encouraging the U.S. Senate to ask nominees how they intend to work with state bank regulators. Cooper reiterated in his follow-up letter that the FDI Act requires that at least one board member have state bank supervisory experience, especially since having the Comptroller of the Currency seated on the board represents the interest of national banks. According to Cooper, fulfilling this statutory requirement “can only be met by a person who has worked in state government as a supervisor of state-chartered banks, and as the legislative history notes, [is] someone with ‘state bank regulatory expertise and sensitivity to the issues confronting the dual banking system.’” Cooper asked that the slate of nominees confirmed by the Senate includes at least one individual who fulfills this requirement.
The following day, during the Senate Banking Committee’s nomination hearing, Republican senators questioned Gruenberg’s role in a dispute between Democratic board members and former Chairwoman Jelena McWilliams related to a joint request for information seeking public comment on revisions to the FDIC’s framework for vetting proposed bank mergers. McWilliams eventually announced her resignation at the end of last year (covered by InfoBytes here). Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) called Gruenberg’s participation in the dispute “very disturbing,” and expressed concerns that his actions, along with some of his colleagues, “really undermines the [] FDIC and could have lasting implications.” Gruenberg countered that under the FDI Act, “the authority of the agency explicitly is vested in the board of directors, and the majority of the board has the authority to place items before the board.”
Some Republican senators also raised concerns with Gruenberg’s past involvement in Operation Choke Point, with Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) requesting that Gruenberg commit to actively preventing FDIC employees from “criticizing, discouraging or prohibiting banks from lending or doing business with any industries or customers that are operating in accordance with the law.” Gruenberg agreed to do so, saying this has been the FDIC’s policy. The FDIC’s current approach to cryptocurrency was also addressed, while Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) took issue with the fact that none of the board nominees fulfill the Biden administration’s push for diversity and inclusion.
FTC takes action against debt relief operation
On November 30, the FTC announced an action against three individuals and their affiliated companies (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly participating together in a credit card debt relief scheme since 2019. The FTC alleged in its complaint that the company violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using telemarketers to call consumers and pitch their deceptive scheme, falsely claiming to be affiliated with a particular credit card association, bank, or credit reporting agency and promising they could improve consumers’ credit scores after 12 to 18 months. The defendants also allegedly misrepresented that the upfront fee, which in some cases was as high as $18,000, was charged to consumers’ credit cards as part of the overall debt that would be eliminated, and therefore consumers would not actually have to pay this fee. The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted the Commission’s request to temporarily shut down the scheme operated by the defendants and froze their assets. The complaint requests, among other things, a permanent injunction to prevent future violations of the FTC Act and the TSR by the defendants.
District Court grants MSJ for plaintiff in FDCPA suit
On November 21, the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a defendant debt collection company’s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an FDCPA suit. According to the opinion, the plaintiff sent a letter to the defendant disputing the accuracy of the information being reported to the credit reporting agency, saying the amount of the debt was incorrect. The defendant received the letter on February 1, 2021, and on February 3, the defendant reported the debt to the CRA, but failed to note that the debt was disputed. The CRA then communicated information about plaintiff’s debt to additional third parties. The next reporting cycle for the plaintiff’s account closed on March 3, 2021. At that time, the defendant correctly reported that plaintiff’s debt was disputed. The defendant explained that although the servicer received the plaintiff’s dispute letter on February 1, 2021, “no one was able to analyze, process, and review” it until February 4, 2021, by which time it had already reported the debt to the CRA.
The defendant argued that it can take up to seven business days for its credit review team to review a dispute letter that it receives, and information about a disputed debt may be communicated to third parties in the interim. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue because there was no negative impact on her credit score as a result of the dispute not being transmitted.
According to the court, the defendant’s “system tolerates the communication of false information in cases where disputes arrive at its doorstep at the close of its monthly reporting periods, and it lacks procedures for promptly correcting information it later discovers was false at the time it was communicated to a third party.” The court also found that the plaintiff’s constitutional standing does not depend on proof of damage to her credit score.
Senators demand answers on collapsed cryptocurrency exchange; NYDFS seeks tougher crypto approach
On November 16, Senator Elizabeth Warren (MA-D) and Senator Richard Durbin (IL-D) sent a letter to the ex-CEO and his successor of a cryptocurrency exchange that filed for bankruptcy. In the letter, the senators requested a series of files from the cryptocurrency exchange, including copies of internal policies and procedures regarding the relationship between the firm and its affiliated crypto hedge fund. The senators stated that the cryptocurrency exchange’s customers and Americans “fear that they will never get back the assets they trusted to [the cryptocurrency exchange] and its subsidiaries.” Additionally, the senators argued that “the apparent lack of due diligence by venture capital and other big investment funds eager to get rich off crypto, and the risk of broader contagion across the crypto market that could multiply retail investors’ losses, ‘call into question the promise of the industry.’” The senators emphasized that “the public is owed a complete and transparent accounting of the business practices and financial activities leading up to and following the cryptocurrency lending firm's collapse and the loss of billions of dollars of customer funds.” Among other things, the senators asked the cryptocurrency exchange to provide requested information by November 28, including: (i) complete copies of all the firm’s and its subsidiaries’ balance sheets, from 2019 to the present; (ii) an explanation of how “a poor internal labeling of bank-related accounts” resulted in the firm’s liquidity crisis; (iii) a list of all the firm’s transfers to its affiliated crypto hedge fund; (iv) copies of all written policies and procedures regarding the relationship between the firm and its affiliated crypto hedge fund; and (v) an explanation of the $1.7 billion in the firm’s customer funds that were allegedly reported missing.
The same day, NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne Harris participated in a “fireside chat” before the Brooking Institute’s event, Digital asset regulation: The state perspective - Effective regulatory design and implementation for virtual currency. During the chat, Harris expressed her support for a national framework similar to what New York has because she believes that “it is proving itself to be a very robust and sustainable regime.” Harris also discussed NYDFS priorities regarding digital assets for the future, stating that crypto companies can expect more guidance on a number of key regulatory issues. Specifically, Harris disclosed that NYDFS will “have more to say on capitalization,” and “on consumer protection, disclosures, advertising … [and] complaints, making sure these companies have an easy way for consumers to complain.” She also warned that NYDFS will “bolster and broaden” its authority, adding that there is “lots of work for us to do to make clear the expectations that we have already, and to make sure that the things we have on the books equip us well to keep up with this marketplace.”
Senators Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) also sent a letter to the DOJ asking that the former CEO and any complicit company executives be held personally accountability for wrongdoing following the cryptocurrency exchange’s collapse.
On December 13, the House Financial Services Committee will hold a hearing to discuss the cryptocurrency exchange’s collapse and the possible implications for other digital asset companies.
FDIC releases October enforcement actions
On November 25, the FDIC released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in October. During the month, the FDIC made public ten orders consisting of “one consent order; one amended and restated consent order; one personal cease and desist order; three orders to pay civil money penalties; two Section 19 orders; and two orders terminating consent orders.” Among the orders is an order to pay a civil money penalty imposed against a Mississippi-based bank related to 128 alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act. Among other things, the FDIC claimed that the bank failed to obtain the required flood insurance or obtain an adequate amount of insurance coverage, at or before loan origination, for all structures in a flood zone. The order requires the payment of a $320,500 civil money penalty.
The FDIC also issued a consent order to a New York-based bank, which alleged that the bank had unsafe or unsound banking practices relating to weaknesses in the Bank’s Anti-Money Laundering/Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Program. The bank neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations but agreed to, among other things, increase its supervision, direction, and oversight of AML/CFT personnel and its AML/CFT program.
OFAC settles with virtual currency exchange to resolve IP address screening deficiencies
On November 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $362,158 settlement with a global virtual currency exchange for allegedly exporting services to users who appeared to be located in Iran when they engaged in virtual currency transactions on the exchange’s platform. According to OFAC’s web notice, the exchange’s platform allows users to buy, sell, hold, or exchange cryptocurrencies. Users can also trade fiat currency for cryptocurrency on the platform. The exchange’s anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance program screens customers at onboarding and daily thereafter, and reviews information about IP addresses generated at the time of onboarding to prevent users in sanctioned jurisdictions from opening accounts and conducting transactions. OFAC stated, however, that between October 2015 and June 2019, the exchange allegedly processed 826 transactions totaling roughly $1.6 million on behalf of individuals who appeared to be in Iran when the transactions happened. OFAC maintained that because the exchange failed to implement IP address blocking on transactional activity across its platform, “account holders who established their accounts outside of sanctioned jurisdictions appear to have accessed their accounts and transacted on Kraken’s platform from a sanctioned jurisdiction.” As a result, the exchange allegedly violated the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC determined that the exchange failed to exercise due caution or care for its sanctions compliance obligations by only applying its geolocation controls at the time of onboarding and not with respect to subsequent transactional activity even though it knew customers were located worldwide.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the exchange has not received a penalty notice from OFAC in the preceding five years, the exchange voluntarily self-disclosed the alleged violations and undertook significant remedial measures, such as (i) “adding geolocation blocking to prevent clients in prohibited locations from accessing their accounts” on the exchange’s platform; (ii) implementing blockchain analysis tools to assist with sanctions monitoring; (iii) expanding staff and providing compliance training; (iv) adding “additional screening capabilities to ensure compliance with OFAC’s ‘50 Percent Rule,’ including detailed reports on beneficial ownership; (v) contracting a vendor to assist with the identification and nationality verification through the use of artificial intelligence tools; and (vi) implementing automated controls designed to block certain accounts. In addition, the exchange agreed to invest an additional $100,000 in certain sanctions compliance controls as part of the settlement.
Providing context for the settlement, OFAC stated that this action “highlights the importance of using geolocation tools, including IP blocking and other location verification tools, to identify and prevent users located in sanctioned jurisdictions from engaging in prohibited virtual currency-related transactions”—both at the time of onboarding and throughout the lifetime of the account.
OFAC issues Venezuela-related general licenses
On November 26, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued Venezuela-related General License (GL) 41 following the resumption of talks in Mexico City to alleviate the suffering of Venezuelan people and restore democracy. GL 41 authorizes certain transactions related to the identified corporation and its subsidiaries’ joint ventures in Venezuela involving Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A (PdVSA) or any entity owned directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more, that would otherwise be prohibited by Executive Order (E.O.) 13850, as amended by E.O.s 13857 or 13884. OFAC noted that GL 41 prevents PdVSA from receiving profits from the oil sales by the identified corporation, and only authorizes certain specific activities. Other Venezuela-related sanctions and restrictions imposed by the U.S. remain in place. Concurrent with the issuance of GL 41, OFAC issued GL 8K, “Authorizing Transactions Involving Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) Necessary for the Limited Maintenance of Essential Operations in Venezuela or the Wind Down of Operations in Venezuela for Certain Entities,” as well as two new related FAQs. According to the announcement, “U.S. persons are authorized to provide goods and services for certain activities as specified in GL 41,” and “non-U.S. persons generally do not risk U.S. sanctions exposure for facilitating transactions that are authorized by GL 41.”
ECJ invalidates AML directive granting public access to beneficial ownership information
On November 22, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) announced a ruling invalidating a provision of the 2018 amended EU anti-money laundering directive that guaranteed public access to the beneficial ownership information of legal entities incorporated within member states. The case was referred to the ECJ by a Luxembourg court following two actions that disputed the compatibility of this directive with the beneficial owners’ fundamental right to privacy. The ECJ was asked to issue a preliminary ruling on a series of questions concerning the interpretation of “exceptional circumstances” and “disproportionate risk,” as well as the directive’s compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Charter) and the GDPR. Under the directive, member states are required to enter and maintain beneficial ownership information in registers that are accessible to the general public. The directive is intended to prevent the financial system from being exploited for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, and requires, with limited exemptions, that member states provide information on “the beneficial owner’s name, month and year of birth, nationality and country of residence, as well as the nature and extent of his or her beneficial interests.”
In its announcement, the ECJ said that public access to beneficial ownership information “constitutes a serious interference with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and the protection of personal data” provided in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. “[T]he potential consequences for the data subjects resulting from possible abuse of their personal data are exacerbated by the fact that, once those data have been made available to the general public, they can not only be freely consulted, but also retained and disseminated,” the ECJ wrote in the judgment, adding that “in the event of such successive processing, it becomes increasingly difficult, or even illusory, for those data subjects to defend themselves effectively against abuse.”
While the ECJ found that, by the measure at issue, the EU legislature is pursuing “an objective of general interest capable of justifying even serious interferences with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter, and that the general public’s access to information on beneficial ownership is appropriate for contributing to the attainment of that objective,” the “interference entailed by that measure is neither limited to what is strictly necessary nor proportionate to the objective pursued.” Additionally, the ECJ held that the amended “directive amounts to a considerably more serious interference with the fundamental rights guaranteed in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter” without being offset by any benefits that may result from the amended directive as compared to the previous version in terms of combating money laundering and terrorist financing. However, the ECJ did recognize that civil society and the press have a legitimate interest in accessing such information, given their role in the fight against money laundering.
States say student loan trusts are subject to the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair debt collection practices
On November 15, a bipartisan coalition of 23 state attorneys general led by the Illinois AG announced the filing of an amicus brief supporting the CFPB’s efforts to combat allegedly illegal debt collection practices in the student loan industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware stayed the Bureau’s 2017 enforcement action against a collection of Delaware statutory trusts and their debt collector after determining there may be room for reasonable disagreement related to questions of “covered persons” and “timeliness.” The district court certified two questions for appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit related to (i) whether the defendants qualify as “covered persons” subject to the Bureau’s enforcement authority; and (ii) whether the case can be continued after the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Seila Law v. CFPB (which determined that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but was severable from the statute establishing the Bureau—covered by a Buckley Special Alert). Previously, the district court concluded that the suit was still valid and did not need ratification because—pointing to the majority opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen (covered by InfoBytes here)—“‘an unconstitutional removal restriction does not invalidate agency action so long as the agency head was properly appointed[,]’” and therefore the Bureau’s actions are not void and do not need to be ratified, unless a plaintiff can show that “the agency action would not have been taken but for the President’s inability to remove the agency head.” The district court later acknowledged, however, that Collins “is a very recent Supreme Court decision” whose scope is still being “hashed out” in lower courts, which therefore “suggests that there is room for reasonable disagreement and thus supports an interlocutory appeal here.”
The states argued that they have a “substantial interest” in protecting state residents from unlawful debt collection practices, and that this interest is implicated by this action, which addresses whether the defendant student loan trusts are “covered persons” subject to the prohibition on unfair debt collection practices under the CFPA. Urging the 3rd Circuit to affirm the district court’s decision to deny the trusts’ motion to dismiss, the states contended among other things, that hiring third-party agencies to collect on purchased debts poses a large risk to consumers. These types of trusts, the states said, “profit only when the third parties that they have hired are able to collect on the flawed debt portfolios that they have purchased.” Moreover, “[d]ebt purchasing entities, including entities like the [t]rusts, are thus often even more likely than the original creditors to resort to unlawful tactics in undertaking collection activities,” the states stressed, explaining that in order to combat this growing problem, many states apply their prohibitions on unlawful debt collection practices “to all debt purchasers that seek to reap profits from these illegal activities, including those purchasers that outsource collection to third parties.” The Bureau’s decision to do the same is therefore appropriate under the CFPA, the states wrote, adding that “as a practical matter, these debt purchasers are as problematic as debt purchasers that collect on their own debt. The [t]rusts’ request to be treated differently because of their decision to hire third party agents to collect on the debts that they have purchased (and reap the profits on) should be rejected.”
District Court issues judgment against company bilking 9/11 first responders
On November 23, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a stipulated final judgment and order against a finance company, two related entities, and the companies’ founder and owner (collectively, “defendants”) for engaging in deceptive and abusive acts or practices under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA) related to the offering of cash advances to people on their settlement payouts from victim-compensation funds established for certain first responders to the World Trade Center attack on September 11, 2001.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2017, the CFPB and the New York attorney general filed a complaint alleging that the defendants engaged in deceptive and abusive acts by misleading consumers into selling expensive advances on benefits to which they were entitled by mischaracterizing extensions of credit as assignments of future payment rights, thereby causing the consumers to repay far more than they received. In March 2022, the district court ruled that the CFPB could proceed with its 2017 enforcement action against the defendants (covered by InfoBytes here) two years after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a 2018 district court order dismissing the case on the grounds that the Bureau’s single-director structure was unconstitutional, and that, as such, the agency lacked authority to bring claims alleging deceptive and abusive conduct by the company (covered by InfoBytes here).
The 2nd Circuit remanded the case to the district court, determining that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Seila Law LLC v. CPFB (holding that the director’s for-cause removal provision was unconstitutional but severable from the statute establishing the Bureau, as covered by a Buckley Special Alert) superseded the 2018 ruling. The appellate court further noted that following Seila, former Director Kathy Kraninger ratified several prior regulatory actions (covered by InfoBytes here), including the enforcement action brought against the defendants, and as such, remanded the case to the district court to consider the validity of the ratification of the enforcement action. The defendants later filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing that the Bureau could not use ratification to avoid dismissal of the lawsuit, but the Supreme Court declined the petition. (Covered by InfoBytes here). In 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Bureau’s enforcement action on the grounds that “it was brought by an unconstitutionally constituted agency” and that the Bureau’s “untimely attempt to subsequently ratify this action cannot cure the agency’s constitutional infirmity.” (Covered by InfoBytes here). The district court turned to the Supreme Court’s June 2021 majority decision in Collins v. Yellen, which held that “‘an unconstitutional removal restriction does not invalidate agency action so long as the agency head was properly appointed[.]’” Accordingly, the agency’s actions are not void and do not need to be ratified, unless a plaintiff can show that “the agency action would not have been taken but for the President’s inability to remove the agency head.” (Covered by InfoBytes here).
In the amended complaint, filed in July 2022, the Bureau and the New York AG alleged that, among other things, the defendants engaged in deceptive acts by misrepresenting to consumers that the company’s contracts created valid and enforceable assignments of their payment proceeds when, in fact, the assignments were not valid and enforceable. The amended complaint also alleged that the company misrepresented to consumers when they would receive funds from the company, often promising consumers an earlier date of disbursement than the actual disbursement. Additionally, the joint complaint alleged that the defendants violated state law by collecting on purported assignments that are void, unenforceable, and uncollectable, or alternatively, by collecting on contracts that functioned as loans with interest rates that exceed usury limits under state law, which are also void and on which no payment is due.
Under the terms of the final judgment, defendants must pay a $1 civil money penalty to the Bureau and must not take any action to collect any unpaid or future amounts owed by the harmed responders, which totals at least $600,000. Under the order, defendants must also refrain from participating in offering, brokering, or providing credit or advances of funds to individuals entitled to payments from governmentally created funds established to compensate victims of 9/11.