InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC settles with manufacturer for violating Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations
On March 15, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control announced a $216,464 settlement with an Ohio-based manufacturer for alleged violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (ITSR). According to OFAC’s web notice, between 2013 and 2017, the company allegedly failed to act on multiple apparent warning signs and exported multiple shipments of goods to two European companies despite having “reason to know that the goods were intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation to Iran by the two European companies.” OFAC noted that the company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations and acknowledged that it “had actual knowledge” that some of the transactions were intended specifically for reexportation to Iran.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the company failed to follow up on multiple warning signs that the European companies were reexporting goods to Iran; (ii) senior leadership knew or should have known the goods were being reexported to Iran; and (iii) the company and senior leadership “had actual knowledge” that the two final shipments were to be reexported to an Iranian end-user.
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, including that the company (i) has had no prior sanctions history with OFAC; (ii) ceased all shipments to the European companies when it made its disclosure and requested that the goods be returned; (iii) cooperated with OFAC’s investigation and entered into tolling agreements; and (iv) strengthened its trade compliance and export policies and procedures to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future.
FTC permanently bans debt collectors
On March 15, the FTC announced that defendants in two cases will be permanently banned from the debt collection industry. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the FTC filed complaints against the defendants last year alleging the defendants used deceptive tactics to threaten false legal action through the use of robocalls to collect debts consumers did not owe or the operation did not have the right to collect. The actions were taken as part of the FTC’s “Operation Corrupt Collector”—a nationwide enforcement and outreach effort established by the FTC, CFPB, and more than 50 federal and state law enforcement partners to target illegal debt collection practices (covered by InfoBytes here).
Under the terms of the settlements (see here, here, and here), in addition to being permanently banned from participating in debt collection and debt brokering activities, the defendants are also prohibited from making misrepresentations to consumers, including (i) whether consumers are legally obligated to pay defendants; (ii) whether defendants are attorneys or affiliated with a law firm; (iii) the terms of any refund policy; and (iv) any material facts concerning products or services. The settlements also include monetary judgments of approximately $16.4 million and $11.2 million, which are both partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
CFPB declines to stay $51 million order for online payday lender
On March 9, the CFPB denied a request made by a Delaware online payday lender and its CEO (collectively, “respondents”) to stay a January 2021 final decision and order requiring the payment of approximately $51 million in restitution and civil money penalties, pending appellate review. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in 2015, the Bureau filed a notice of charges alleging the respondents (i) continued to debit borrowers’ accounts using remotely created checks after consumers revoked the lender’s authorization to do so; (ii) required consumers to repay loans via pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; and (iii) deceived consumers about the cost of short-term loans by providing them with contracts that contained disclosures based on repaying the loan in one payment, while the default terms called for multiple rollovers and additional finance charges. Former Director Kathy Kraninger issued the final decision and order in January, affirming an administrative law judge’s recommendation that the respondents’ actions violated TILA, EFTA, and the CFPA’s prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices by, among other things, deceiving consumers about the costs of their online short-term loans.
The Bureau’s March 9 administrative order determined that respondents (i) failed to show they have a substantial case on the merits with respect to their argument regarding ratification as an appropriate remedy for the respondents’ alleged constitutional violation; (ii) failed to show they “suffered irreparable harm” because the Bureau’s final decision does not infringe on the respondents’ constitutional rights and merely requires them to pay money into an escrow account; and (iii) failed to demonstrate that staying the final decision would not harm other parties and the public interest because the respondents might “dissipate assets during the pendency of further proceedings,” potentially impacting future consumer redress. The administrative order, however, granted a 30-day stay to allow respondents to seek a stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
FTC, multiple states halt charitable telefunding operation
On March 4, the FTC, together with state attorneys general from 38 states and the District of Columbia, the secretaries of state from Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Utah Division of Consumer Protection (collectively, “plaintiffs”), announced settlements with a telefunding operation whose charitable fundraising calls allegedly collected over $110 million using deceptive solicitations. The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged, among other things, that the defendants engaged in deceptive fundraising by placing more than 1.3 billion prerecorded robocalls to convince consumers to donate to “practically nonexistent charitable programs.” The charitable organizations then paid the defendants typically 80 to 90 percent of every donation, the complaint states, noting that certain defendants knew that almost none of the donations would be spent supporting the charitable programs. The plaintiffs contended that these false or misleading actions violated the FTC Act. Moreover, in many instances, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants knowingly violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by using soundboard technology to place the telemarketing calls. Using pre-recorded messages in calls to first-time donors is a violation of the TSR, the plaintiffs stated, as is using soundboard technology in calls to prior donors without first disclosing to recipients that they may opt-out of all future calls and providing them with a mechanism to do so.
Proposed settlements (see here, here, and here) reached with one group of defendants will, among other things, permanently ban them from engaging in any fundraising activities, conducting telemarketing to sell goods or services, or using existing donor information. The defendants will also be required to pay $110,063,848 each, which is either partially or fully suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay.
Additionally, proposed settlements reached with the two fundraising company defendants and their senior managers (see here, here, and here) will permanently prohibit them from engaging in any fundraising activities or consulting on behalf of a charitable organization or nonprofit organization claiming to work on behalf of causes similar to those noted in the complaint. These defendants will also be banned from using robocalls connected to telemarketing, engaging in abusive calling practices, or making misrepresentations about a good, service, or contribution. The defendants will further be required to disclose when a donation is not tax deductible. The individual defendants also are required to pay $110,063,843 each, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay, while the two corporate defendants, along with two of the individual defendants, are subject to a partially suspended monetary judgment of $1.6 million.
SEC issues more than $6.5 million in whistleblower awards
On March 9, the SEC announced an approximately $1.5 million whistleblower award in connection with a successful enforcement action. According to the redacted order, the whistleblower provided information that led to the opening of the investigation, and assisted enforcement staff by providing multiple written submissions and identifying potential witnesses. The whistleblower also met with enforcement staff multiple times to explain information.
Earlier, on March 4, the SEC announced a more than $5 million joint award to two whistleblowers who alerted enforcement staff to misconduct occurring abroad that would otherwise “have been difficult to detect.” According to the redacted order, the whistleblowers voluntarily submitted a joint tip that led to the opening of the investigation, and continued to assist enforcement staff by providing information that directly supported certain allegations in the enforcement action. However, in the same order, the SEC affirmed denial of two other claimants’ award claims after determining that the individuals did not submit information leading to the successful enforcement of the covered action. The SEC noted, among other things, that these claimants’ tips did not cause the opening of the investigation and that the information provided related to conduct by “entirely different companies” and was not used in the covered action.
The SEC has now paid approximately $759 million to 143 individuals since the inception of the whistleblower program in 2012.
Virginia reaches settlement with open-end credit plan lender
On March 4, the Virginia attorney general announced a settlement with an open-end credit plan lender, resolving allegations that the company violated Virginia consumer finance laws by (i) imposing a $100 origination fee on loans during a statutorily-mandated finance charge-free grace period; (ii) “[e]ngaging in a pattern of repeat transactions and ‘rollover’ loans with thousands of consumers who were required to close accounts that they paid down to a $0 balance,” but were then allowed to open new accounts for which new fees were charged on a monthly basis; and (iii) charging interest on accounts at an annual rate of 273.75 percent, far exceeding the 36 percent limit that open-end credit lenders are allowed to charge. Under the terms of the settlement, the company is permanently enjoined from further violating Virginia’s consumer finance laws, and is required to pay $850,000 in restitution and $150,00 in attorneys’ fees and settlement costs. The company must also provide more than $10 million in debt forbearance on “accounts that remain unpaid and that were not converted to a separate loan program in October 2018.”
FTC settles with income scam operation targeting Latina consumers
On March 2, the FTC announced a settlement with a company and its owners (collectively, “defendants”) that used Spanish-language ads targeting Latina consumers with false promises of large profits reselling luxury products. The action—a part of the FTC’s “Operation Income Illusion” sweep (covered by InfoBytes here)—alleged the defendants violated the FTC Act by making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims when marketing work-at-home opportunities. The FTC also claimed the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule by, among other things, misrepresenting material aspects of the investment opportunities and routinely using threats or intimidation “to coerce consumers to pay Defendants, including but not limited to threatening consumers with damage to consumers’ credit history, false legal actions, and reports to federal government authorities.” The proposed settlement imposes a $7 million judgment, which is partially suspended due to the defendants’ inability to pay. The defendants are also permanently banned from (i) selling any goods or service that is represented as a means for consumers to make money working from home or elsewhere; (ii) making any deceptive claims about the risk, liquidity, earnings potential, or profitability of any goods or services, and making such claims through telemarketing; and (iii) using threats or intimidation to coerce consumers to pay for goods or services.
NYDFS, mortgage lender reach $1.5 million cyber breach settlement
On March 3, NYDFS announced a settlement with a mortgage lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the state’s cybersecurity regulation (23 NYCRR Part 500) by failing to report it was the subject of a cyber breach in 2019. Under Part 500.17, regulated entities are required to provide timely notice to NYDFS when a cybersecurity event involves harm to customers (see FAQs here). A July 2020 examination revealed that the cyber breach involved unauthorized access to an employee’s email account, which could have provided access to personal data, including social security and bank account numbers. NYDFS also claimed that the lender allegedly failed to implement a comprehensive cybersecurity risk assessment as required by 23 NYCRR Part 500. Under the terms of the consent order, the lender will pay a $1.5 million civil monetary penalty, and will make further improvements to strengthen its existing cybersecurity program to ensure compliance with 23 NYCRR Part 500. NYDFS acknowledged that the mortgage lender had controls in place at the time of the cyber incident and implemented additional controls since the incident. NYDFS also acknowledged the mortgage lender’s “commendable” cooperation throughout the examination and investigation and stated that the lender had demonstrated its commitment to remediation.
CFPB sues payment processor for fraudulent practices
On March 3, the CFPB filed a complaint against an Illinois-based third-party payment processor and its founder and former CEO (collectively, “defendants”) for allegedly engaging in unfair practices in violation of the CFPA and deceptive telemarketing practices in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule. According to the complaint, the defendants knowingly processed remotely created check (RCC) payments totaling millions of dollars for over 100 merchant-clients claiming to offer technical-support services and products, but that actually deceived consumers—mostly older Americans—into purchasing expensive and unnecessary antivirus software or services. The tech-support clients allegedly used telemarketing to sell their products and services and received payment through RCCs, the Bureau stated, noting that the defendants continued to process the clients’ RCC payments despite being “aware of nearly a thousand consumer complaints” about the tech-support clients. According to the Bureau, roughly 25 percent of the complaints specifically alleged that the transactions were fraudulent or unauthorized. The Bureau noted that the defendants also responded to inquiries from police departments across the country concerning consumer complaints about being defrauded by the defendants. Further, the Bureau cited high return rates experienced by the tech-support clients, including an average unauthorized return rate of 14 percent—a “subset of the overall return rate where the reason for the return provided by the consumer is that the transaction was unauthorized.” The Bureau is seeking an injunction, as well as damages, redress, disgorgement, and civil money penalties.
SEC issues multiple whistleblower awards
On March 1, the SEC announced a more than $500,000 whistleblower award in connection with a successful enforcement action. According to the redacted order, two whistleblowers provided timely tips that revealed an ongoing fraud and formed the basis for the SEC’s action, as well as a related action from another government agency. The SEC noted that both whistleblowers provided “substantial, ongoing assistance” that conserved the agencies’ time and resources.
Earlier on February 25, the SEC announced whistleblower awards totaling more than $1.7 million in two separate enforcement actions. According to the first redacted order, the SEC awarded a whistleblower over $900,000 for providing significant information and documents, including “a critical declaration,” that helped expedite an investigation and allowed the SEC to “shut down an ongoing. . .scheme preying on retail investors.” In the second redacted order, a whistleblower was awarded over $800,000 for providing “important evidence of false and misleading statements made to investors,” which led to the “return [of] millions of dollars to harmed investors.”
The SEC has now paid approximately $753 million to 140 individuals since the inception of the program in 2012.