InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Market regulators discuss cryptocurrency oversight gaps during Senate Banking Committee hearing
On February 6, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs held a hearing entitled, “Virtual Currencies: The Oversight Role of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission” to discuss the need for unified measures to close regulatory gaps in the cryptocurrency space. Committee Chairman Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, opened the hearing by briefly discussing the rise in interest in virtual currencies among Americans, as well as investor education and enforcement efforts undertaken by the SEC and the CFTC. Crapo commented that he was interested in learning how regulators plan to safeguard investors. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), ranking member of the Committee, spoke about the importance of pursuing “the unique enforcement of regulatory demands posed by virtual currencies.”
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton commented in prepared remarks that the SEC does not want to “undermine the fostering of innovation through our capital markets,” but cautioned that there are significant risks for investors when they participate in an entity’s initial coin offering (a method used to raise capital through decentralized autonomous organizations or other forms of distributed ledgers or blockchain technology) or buy and sell cryptocurrency with firms that are not compliant with securities laws. Speaking before the Committee, Clayton stated that the SEC has some oversight power in this space but supported collaborating with Congress and states on new regulations for cryptocurrency firms. “We should all come together, the federal banking regulators, CFTC, the SEC—there are states involved as well—and have a coordinated plan for dealing with the virtual currency trading market,” Clayton stressed.
In prepared remarks, CFTC Chairman Chris Giancarlo discussed different approaches to regulating distributed ledger technologies and virtual currencies. “‘Do no harm’ was unquestionably the right approach to development of the internet. Similarly, I believe that ‘do no harm’ is the right overarching approach for distributed ledger technology,” Giancarlo said. “Virtual currencies, however, likely require more attentive regulatory oversight in key areas, especially to the extent that retail investors are attracted to this space.”
Giancarlo referenced a joint op-ed in which the two chairmen discussed whether the “historic approach to the regulation of currency transactions is appropriate for the cryptocurrency markets,” and offered support for “policy efforts to revisit these frameworks and ensure they are effective and efficient for the digital era.” The chairmen also agreed that the lack of a clear definition for what cryptocurrencies are has contributed to regulatory challenges, but stressed that their agencies would continue to bring enforcement actions against fraudsters. Both the SEC and CFTC have joined a virtual currency working group formed by the Treasury Department—which also includes the Federal Reserve and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network—to discuss cryptocurrency jurisdiction among the agencies and understand where the gaps exist.
See here for additional InfoBytes coverage on initial coin offerings and virtual currency.
Review procedures need enhancing according to GAO’s Regulatory Flexibility Act compliance report
On January 30, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its annual report on federal financial regulators’ compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Specifically, the report assessed whether certain regulators adhered to the RFA when drafting and implementing regulations that may affect small entities. Such regulators include the Federal Reserve, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, CFPB, FDIC, OCC, and SEC (collectively, the "agencies"). Under the RFA, the agencies must either (i) certify that a rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, or (ii) perform a regulatory flexibility analysis to assess the rule’s impact on small entities and “consider alternatives that may minimize any significant economic impact of the rule.” The report disclosed issues related to certifications. Examples included (i) providing incomplete disclosures of data sources or methodologies of economic analysis and impact; (ii) failing to provide definitions for criteria used to determine a “substantial number” or a “significant economic impact”; and (iii) relying on alternative and potentially outdated definitions of small entities. Additionally, GAO noted that many regulators were unable to provide supporting documentation for their analyses. GAO presented 10 recommendations for enhancing compliance procedures, and stressed that regulators should “develop and implement specific policies and procedures for consistently complying with RFA requirements and related guidance for conducting RFA analyses.” Specific recommendations for each agency are located here.
SEC declines enforcement against global oil exploration company in FCPA investigation for second time
Houston-based global oil exploration company announced in a January 29, 2018 8-K filing that the SEC had concluded its second investigation relating to the company’s operations in Angola, and that SEC staff did not intend to recommend an enforcement action. The SEC’s investigation began in March 2017. As detailed in previous FCPA Scorecard posts, this follows the DOJ’s February 2017 declination and the SEC’s January 2015 declination following other investigations of the company’s Angola operations.
SEC and CFTC issue joint statement on virtual currency enforcement actions; CFTC files lawsuits alleging cryptocurrency fraud
On January 19, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a joint statement to reiterate the agencies’ positions on virtual currency enforcement and stress that they “will look beyond form, examine the substance of the activity and prosecute violations of the federal securities and commodities laws.” As previously discussed in InfoBytes last year (see here and here), the SEC determined that federal securities laws apply to anyone who offers and sells securities in the United States, regardless of the manner of distribution or whether dollars or virtual currencies are used to purchase the securities, while the CFTC announced that virtual currencies are commodities. Additionally, both agencies filed enforcement actions in 2017 against firms based upon fraud allegations (coverage available here and here).
Separately, on January 18, the CFTC filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against two individuals and their companies, alleging commodities law violations and fraud in the cryptocurrency market. In the first complaint, the CFTC alleged that a UK-registered company and its owner solicited cryptocurrency investments from members of the public for a commodity pool, but misrepresented the company’s trading expertise, misappropriated over $1 million of the pool’s funds, and failed to engage in the proposed investments with the pooled funds. In the second complaint, the CFTC alleged that a New York-based company and its owner operated a deceptive and fraudulent scheme in which they solicited cryptocurrency transfers in exchange for virtual currency investment advice and trading guidance, but never actually provided such advice. The CFTC further claimed the company concealed its scheme after collecting customer funds by removing its internet presence and ceasing communications with those customers. The suits seek, among other things, disgorgement of profits, civil monetary penalties, restitution, and a ban on commodities trading for the defendants.
Criminal charges unsealed against former American hedge fund firm executive
The DOJ recently unsealed criminal charges against former hedge fund executive. This indictment follows a civil suit filed in January 2017 against him and others by the SEC regarding FCPA violations. In 2016, the DOJ and SEC also pursued a joint FCPA enforcement action against his former employer, alleging various bribes, self-dealing, and other malfeasance relating to the procurement of mineral, oil, and other natural resource contracts in African counties.
While the SEC’s initial January 2017 civil matter against him alleged FCPA violations, the recently announced criminal indictment does not directly charge him with violating the FCPA. He is alleged to have obstructed the DOJ and SEC’s investigations of his former company and made false statements, but also to have committed investment advisor fraud.
Supreme Court to review whether SEC’s ALJ appointment process is constitutional
On January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it had granted a writ of certiorari in Lucia v. SEC—a case which challenges the SEC’s practice of appointing administrative law judges (ALJs) and moves the Court to consider whether the ALJ appointment practice violates the Appointments Clause (Clause) of the Constitution. In Lucia, the petitioner—against whom an ALJ had issued sanctions, imposed a lifetime securities ban, and fined $300,000—appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and argued that ALJs are officers of the United States and therefore subject to provisions of the Clause, including the requirement that officers be appointed by the president, the head of a department, or a court of law. However, the D.C. Circuit upheld the ALJs sanctions and ruled that ALJs are not “inferior officers” subject to the Clause. In his petition for certiorari, the petitioner claimed that because he was subjected to a “trial before an unconstitutionally constituted tribunal,” the ALJ’s decision should be dismissed or a new hearing granted.
Notably, last November, the Solicitor General of the United States submitted a brief on behalf of the SEC to the Supreme Court, arguing that the SEC views in-house judges as officers of the U.S. government—not mere employees—who are subject to the Clause. Additionally, on November 30, the SEC ratified the appointment of its ALJs to resolve “any concerns that administrative proceedings presided over by its ALJs violate the Appointments Clause.”
A decision by the Court may resolve a split between the D.C. Circuit, which has ruled that ALJs are not “inferior officers” of the U.S. government, and the Tenth and Fifth Circuits, which disagreed and ruled separately that ALJs are officers.
See also previous Lucia coverage in an InfoBytes blog post and a Special Alert concerning the effect a decision in Lucia may have on the ongoing litigation in PHH v. CFPB.
FINRA Fines Brokerage Firm $2.8 Million for Customer Protection Rule Violations
On December 27, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced that it fined a New York-based brokerage firm $2.8 million based on allegations that the firm violated the SEC’s Customer Protection Rule and due to other related supervisory failures. According to the Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), from March 2008 to June 2016, the firm did not have reasonable processes in place to ensure that its control systems were operating properly. As a result of these design flaws, the firm failed to properly segregate customers’ foreign and domestic securities in appropriate control locations, leading to deficits in securities valued at hundreds of millions of dollars.” The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement.
SEC Obtains Emergency Court Order Against Canadian Firm for Allegedly Violating Federal Securities Law; Halts Initial Coin Offering
On December 4, the SEC announced it had obtained an emergency court order to freeze the assets of a Canadian company and the company’s founders (Defendants) and block Defendants’ ability to continue to raise funds through an initial coin offering (ICO). At the time the order was issued, the ICO had raised $15 million since August by “promising investors returns of 1,354% in under 29 days.” This is the first enforcement action taken by the SEC’s recently established Cyber Unit, whose focus includes distributed ledger technology and initial coin offering violations. (See previous InfoBytes Cyber Unit coverage here.)
According to a complaint filed December 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Defendants allegedly violated the anti-fraud and registration provisions of U.S. federal securities laws by making a series of materially false and misleading statements when marketing and selling securities as digital tokens/cryptocurrencies to obtain investor funds. From August to the present, Defendants purportedly raised $15 million through the ICO, and made false representations including, among other things, that: (i) the firm consisted of large teams of experts across the globe, and (ii) investors would receive certain promised returns (1,354% in less than a month) on investments if all tokens were sold. Further, Defendants allegedly failed to disclose (i) that a portion of the proceeds from the ICO funds would pay personal expenses, and (ii) that the company’s principal executive was “a known recidivist securities law violator in Canada.” The SEC seeks relief in the form of permanent injunctions, monetary penalties and interest, and an “officer-and-director bar and a bar from offering digital securities” against the company’s founders.
American Multinational Retail Corporation Sets Aside $283 Million for Potential Resolution of FCPA Allegations
On November 16, an American multinational retail corporation disclosed in an SEC filing that it has set aside $283 million for a potential resolution with DOJ and SEC of alleged FCPA violations. The investigation into possible FCPA violations in Mexico was first disclosed in the company’s December 2011 SEC filing and, in subsequent filings, the company stated that the allegations had been expanded to include possible violations in Brazil, China, and India, among others.
In its November 16 filing, the company reiterated that it has been cooperating with the DOJ and SEC in their investigations, and the discussions with these government agencies has progressed such that the company can reasonably estimate a probable loss of $283 million, although it noted that the company cannot assure that its efforts to resolve these matters will ultimately succeed as anticipated.
Click here for FCPA Scorecard’s prior coverage of this matter.
SEC Releases FY 2017 Annual Report on Enforcement Priorities and Results
On November 15, the SEC Division of Enforcement released a report highlighting the division’s priorities for the coming year and summarizing the enforcement actions from FY 2017. Division Co-Directors Stephanie Avakian and Steven Peikin identify and discuss the five core principles that guide their decision making: (i) “Focus on the Main Street Investor”; (ii) “Focus on Individual Accountability”; (iii) “Keep Pace With Technological Change”; (iv) “Impose Sanctions That Most Effectively Further Enforcement Goals”; and (v) “Constantly Assess the Allocation of [the Division’s] Resources.”
The report highlights the two new initiatives announced in 2017 as key priorities: the Cyber Unit and Retail Strategy Task Force (previously covered by InfoBytes). The report also gives an overview of the 754 FY 2017 enforcement actions, including a summary of the various remedies the Division sought.