InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Distilled beverage company settles FCPA charges for $19 million
On October 27, the DOJ announced it had entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with a Chicago-based distilled beverage company to pay over $19 million in criminal penalties related to a conspiracy to violate the “anti-bribery, internal controls, and books and records provisions of the FCPA.” According to the DOJ, from 2006 through the end of the third quarter of 2012, the company’s Indian subsidiary paid bribes to numerous Indian government officials in exchange for the approval of a license to bottle a certain beverage product for sale in India, and to gain or retain general business opportunities in the Indian market. The bribes were authorized by an executive of the company’s Indian subsidiary, but the payments were made through third parties, such as the beverage bottler or distributors. The DOJ’s announcement stated that the company also “agreed with others to fail to implement and maintain an adequate system of internal accounting controls,” which would have helped to detect the subsidiaries’ “longstanding practice of making corrupt payments,” and the company was warned by outside advisors of the “risks associated with improper activities by third parties in India.”
As part of the deferred prosecution agreement, the company agreed to cooperate with the DOJ’s ongoing investigations and prosecutions, to improve its compliance program, and to report to the DOJ on those improvements. The company’s penalty reflected a 10 percent discount off the bottom of the applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines due to its cooperation and remediation; however, the DOJ noted that the resolution reflects a number of factors including, among other things, (i) the involvement of a company executive officer; (ii) an ineffective compliance program in place when the misconduct occurred; and (iii) significant delays caused by the company in reaching a timely resolution.
As previously covered by InfoBytes, the company settled related FCPA allegations with the SEC in July 2018 for over $8 million. However, the DOJ did not credit any portion of the SEC penalty because the company “did not seek to coordinate a parallel resolution with the department.”
CFPB settles with ninth lender on misleading VA advertising
On October 26, the CFPB announced a settlement with a ninth mortgage lender for mailing consumers advertisements for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mortgages that allegedly contained misleading statements or lacked required disclosures. According to the Bureau, the lender allegedly sent false, misleading, and inaccurate direct-mail advertisements for VA guaranteed mortgage loans to servicemembers and veterans in violation of the CFPA, the Mortgage Acts and Practices – Advertising Rule (MAP Rule), and Regulation Z. Among other things, the Bureau alleged the advertisements (i) stated credit terms that the lender was not actually prepared to offer, such as the interest rate and annual percentage rate applicable to the advertised mortgage; (ii) made misrepresentations about “the existence, nature, or amount of cash or credit available to the consumer in connection with the mortgage”; (iii) failed to include required disclosures; (iv) gave the false impression that the mortgage products would help eliminate or reduce debt; and (v) made misleading comparisons in advertisements involving actual or hypothetical loan terms.
The settlement imposes a civil money penalty of $1.8 million and bans the lender from future advertising misrepresentations similar to those identified by the Bureau. Additionally, the settlement requires the lender to use a compliance official to review mortgage advertisements for compliance with consumer protection laws, and to comply with certain enhanced disclosure requirements.
The latest enforcement action is part of the Bureau’s “sweep of investigations” related to deceptive VA-mortgage advertisements. Previously, the Bureau issued consent orders against eight other mortgage lenders for similar violations, covered by InfoBytes here, here, here, and here.
CFPB settles with bank for HMDA filing errors
On October 27, the CFPB announced a settlement with a national bank, resolving allegations that the bank reported inaccurate HMDA data for 2016 and 2017 mortgage transactions. According to the consent order, the bank allegedly violated HMDA, Regulation C, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act by failing to report accurate data among the 7,000 mortgage applications reported in 2016 and 2017. Specifically, the Bureau alleged that the submissions contained “significant errors,” with an internal audit of the 2016 filing identifying a 40 percent error rate and the Bureau’s review of the 2017 filing identifying a 16 percent error rate. The Bureau asserted that the 2016 errors were caused by “a lack of appropriate staff, insufficient staff training, and ineffective quality control,” while the 2017 errors were “directly related to weaknesses in [the bank]’s compliance-management system (CMS).” In 2013, the bank entered into a consent order with the Bureau for similar issues; thus, the Bureau concluded the 2016 and 2017 errors were “intentional and not bona fide” as the bank allegedly failed to maintain a “CMS with procedures reasonably adapted to avoid” the errors since the previous order.
The consent order requires the bank to, among other things, pay a $200,000 civil money penalty and develop a HMDA compliance-management system that includes policies, procedures, and an internal audit program that regularly tests the HMDA data integrity.
Nonbank lender argues CFPB redlining action is flawed
On October 23, a Chicago-based nonbank mortgage company moved to dismiss a CFPB redlining action on the grounds that the Bureau’s complaint “improperly seek[s]” to expand ECOA to “prospective applicants.” As previously covered by a Buckley Special Alert, in July, the Bureau filed a complaint against the mortgage company alleging the mortgage company engaged in redlining in violation of ECOA and the Consumer Financial Protection Act. The Bureau argued, among other things, that the company redlined African American neighborhoods in the Chicago area by discouraging their residents from applying for mortgage loans from the company and by discouraging nonresidents from applying for loans from the company for homes in these neighborhoods. To support its arguments, the Bureau cited to (i) a number of racially disparaging comments allegedly made by the owner and employees on the company’s broadcasts; (ii) the company’s comparatively low application volume from African American neighborhoods and applicants; (iii) its lack of specific marketing targeting the African American community in Chicago; (iv) and its failure to employ African American mortgage loan officers.
In support of its motion to dismiss, the mortgage company argued that the Bureau’s complaint is “flawed” by seeking to expand the reach of ECOA to “prospective applicants” and regulate the company’s behavior before a credit transaction begins. In addition to expanding the application of ECOA, the company argued that the Bureau is attempting to impose—through Regulation B’s “discouragement” definition—(i) “affirmative requirements to target advertising to specific racial or ethnic groups”; (ii) “a demographic hiring quota”; and (iii) “a requirement to have business success with specific racial or ethnic groups.” Moreover, the company argued the Bureau’s interpretation of ECOA and Regulation B violates the company’s First Amendment rights by attempting to regulate “the content and viewpoint of protected speech . . . in a way that is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.” Lastly, the company argued the Bureau similarly violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause by seeking to enforce Regulation B’s definition of “discouragement,” because it is unconstitutionally vague.
Whistleblower receives record $114 million award
On October 22, the SEC announced a more than $114 million award to a whistleblower in connection with successful agency enforcement action. The SEC’s press release states that the award “consists of an approximately $52 million award in connection with the SEC case and an approximately $62 million award arising out of the related actions by another agency.” The award is the highest award issued to date by the SEC. The SEC also noted that, “[a]fter repeatedly reporting concerns internally, and despite personal and professional hardships, the whistleblower alerted the SEC and the other agency of the wrongdoing and provided substantial, ongoing assistance that proved critical to the success of the actions.” The redacted order determining the whistleblower award further states that the whistleblower voluntarily provided significant information. The SEC also denied award applications submitted by three other claimants, citing determinations made by the Claims Review Staff that “their information did not ‘lead to’ the success of the Covered Action,” and that, among other things, the submitted information did not relate to the SEC’s charges and was not used by staff in the enforcement action.
The SEC has now paid approximately $676 million to 108 individuals since the inception of the program.
Fed targets flood insurance violations
On October 15, the Federal Reserve Board announced an enforcement action against a New York-based bank for alleged violation of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) and Regulation H, which implements the NFIA. The consent order assessed a $546,000 penalty against the bank for an alleged pattern or practice of violations of Regulation H, but did not specify the number or the precise nature of the alleged violations. The maximum civil money penalty under the NFIA for a pattern or practice of violations is $2,000 per violation.
Senator Brown objects to Bureau’s SEFL reorganization proposal
On October 21, Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) asked CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger to delay the implementation of a proposed reorganization of the Bureau’s Division of Supervision, Enforcement, and Fair Lending (SEFL) until after the election and a determination is made as to whether Kraninger will continue as Director. According to Brown, the proposed SEFL reorganization would remove the Office of Enforcement’s (Enforcement) “voice and role in critical SEFL decisionmaking processes,” and “introduces inefficiency and confusion.” Brown addressed several concerns, including that the proposed reorganization would (i) disband Enforcement’s Policy and Strategy Team, whose duties include determining overall priorities and strategies; (ii) strip “Enforcement of its seat at the table and vote to determine whether potential violations of federal consumer financial law should be resolved through supervisory examinations or through an enforcement action”; (iii) strip “Enforcement of its authority to open new research matters (precursors to investigations) or new investigations of potential violations of federal consumer financial laws”; (iv) strip “Enforcement of its E-Litigation Team, which provides specialized technology expertise and manages electronic data discovery from initial Enforcement investigations through trial”; and (v) strip “Enforcement of its representation in the ‘Clearance’ process, which will exclude Enforcement from sharing its views and potential concerns with other Bureau offices regarding proposed rules, regulations, guidance, advisory opinions, or other public Bureau statements.” Brown cautioned that while establishing a “consistent and unified SEFL approach to policy and strategic planning” may have merit, the manner in which this objective is achieved must be addressed.
FinCEN penalizes first bitcoin “mixer” $60 million for violating BSA
On October 19, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) announced a civil money penalty against an individual exchanger who founded and operated two convertible virtual currency (CVC) platforms known as “mixers” or “tumblers” for allegedly violating the Bank Secrecy Act’s (BSA) registration, program, and reporting requirements. According to FinCEN, the exchanger, among other things, (i) accepted and transmitted CVC through a variety of means, which “contain[ed] the proceeds of various acts of cybercrime”; (ii) conducted over 1,225,000 transactions for customers; and (iii) “is associated with virtual currency wallet addresses that have sent or received over $311 million.” FinCEN also contends that the exchanger advertised his services to customers on the dark web and circumvented BSA’s requirements by disregarding his obligations and operating the platforms as unregistered money service businesses (MSB).
Under FinCEN’s 2013 guidance and 2019 clarification, exchangers and administrators of CVC are money transmitters and therefore subject to BSA regulations, with mixers and tumblers subject to the same rules. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here and here.) According to FinCEN, the exchanger’s activities qualified him as a virtual currency exchanger, MSB, and a financial institution under the BSA. As such, the exchanger was required to register as an MSB with FinCEN, establish and implement an effective written anti-money laundering program, detect and file suspicious activity reports, and report currency transactions, which he failed to do. The order requires the exchanger to pay a $60 million civil money penalty.
Agencies propose codifying that supervisory guidance lacks force of law
On October 20, the Federal Reserve Board, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, and OCC released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which seeks to codify the “Interagency Statement Clarifying the Role of Supervisory Guidance issued by the agencies on September 11, 2018 (2018 Statement).” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the 2018 Statement confirmed that supervisory guidance “does not have the force and effect of law, and [that] the agencies do not take enforcement actions based on supervisory guidance.” The Statement emphasized that the intention of supervisory guidance is to outline agencies’ expectations or priorities and highlighted specific policies and practices the agencies intend to take relating to supervisory guidance to further clarify the proper role of guidance, including: (i) not citing to “violations” of supervisory guidance; (ii) limiting the use of numerical thresholds or other “bright-line” requirements; (iii) limiting multiple issuances of guidance on the same topic; (iv) continuing to emphasize the role of supervisory guidance to examiners and to supervised institutions; and (v) encouraging supervised institutions to discuss supervisory guidance questions with their appropriate agency contact.
In addition to codifying the above elements of the 2018 Statement, the proposal would amend the 2018 Statement by (i) clarifying that references in the Statement limiting agency “criticisms” includes criticizing institutions “through the issuance of [matters requiring attention] MRAs and other supervisory criticisms, including those communicated through matters requiring board attention, documents of resolution, and supervisory recommendations”; and (ii) adding that supervisory criticisms should be “specific as to practices, operations, financial conditions, or other matters that could have a negative effect on the safety and soundness of the financial institution, could cause consumer harm, or could cause violations of laws, regulations, final agency orders, or other legally enforceable conditions.”
Comments are due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, which has not yet occurred.
OFAC reaches $4.1 million settlement with holding company to resolve Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations violations
On October 20, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a more than $4.1 million settlement with a Nebraska-based multinational conglomerate holding company to resolve 144 apparent violations of the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations engaged in by its indirectly wholly owned Turkish subsidiary. According to OFAC’s web notice, the Turkish subsidiary, in violation of the company’s compliance policies, allegedly sold goods to two third-party Turkish distributors knowing that the goods “would be shipped to a distributor in Iran for resale to Iranian end-users, including several entities later identified as meeting the definition of the Government of Iran.” The Turkish subsidiary also purchased goods manufactured by other company subsidiaries, and allegedly took measures “to obfuscate its dealings with Iran” and conceal these activities from the company. Employees of certain other company subsidiaries also allegedly received communications revealing that these orders may have been intended for Iranian end users; however only one of these subsidiaries warned the Turkish subsidiary that such transactions were prohibited.
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered various aggravating factors, including that (i) the Turkish subsidiary’s management “willfully engaged” in prohibited transactions, and certain senior management “intentionally concealed its dealings with Iran”; (ii) certain company subsidiaries had knowledge, or reason to know, that some of the products sent to the Turkish subsidiary were intended for Iran; and (iii) the Turkish subsidiary “demonstrated a pattern of conduct by knowingly engaging in prohibited dealings for approximately three years.”
OFAC also considered various mitigating factors, such as (i) the company voluntarily self-disclosed the apparent violations, and cooperated with the investigation; (ii) the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates signed a tolling agreement; and (iii) the company has undertaken remedial measures, including enhancing its compliance procedures for foreign subsidiaries, to minimize the risk of similar violations from occurring in the future.