InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DOJ Announces Mortgage Lending Discrimination Charges Against Massachusetts Bank
On November 30, the DOJ announced the filing of a complaint and proposed consent order against a Massachusetts-based bank alleged to have violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) by charging African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher prices for home loans than similarly situated white borrowers. From 2011 until at least 2014, the bank allegedly used a “target pricing” mortgage origination policy, assigning loan officers with a Minimum Base Price (MBP) they were expected to achieve on each home loan without regard to the borrower’s creditworthiness. According to the DOJ’s complaint, “African-American and Hispanic borrowers were served disproportionately by loan officers with higher MBPs than the loan officers serving white borrowers.” The complaint further alleges that, from April 2011 through December 2013, the bank authorized loan officers to price a loan higher than their assigned MBP, without documenting the reasons for doing so. Pending court approval, the DOJ’s proposed consent order will require the bank to (i) pay $1,175,000 as compensation to borrowers affected by its practices; (ii) establish a new loan pricing policy and a new loan officer compensation policy; (iii) provide fair lending and fair housing training to loan officers and bank employees; and (iv) establish a monitoring program designed to, at a minimum, assess loan pricing disparities.
In May 2013, the FDIC conducted a consumer compliance examination of the bank and found reason to believe that its lending practices violated the FHA and ECOA, prompting the agency to refer the matter to the DOJ on February 7, 2014.
UK Serious Fraud Office Issues First Deferred Prosecution Agreement with Johannesburg-based Financial Group
On November 30, the United Kingdom’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO), working with the DOJ and SEC, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with a Johannesburg-based financial group under the U.K.’s Bribery Act of 2010 regarding payments by two former employees that were allegedly made to bribe members of the Tanzanian government. The DPA represents the SFO’s first-ever DPA and the first use of Section 7 of the Bribery Act, failure of commercial organizations to prevent bribery, by any U.K. prosecutor. As part of this DPA, the financial group agreed to pay a combined $32.2 million in sanctions to the U.K. and Tanzania, and to cover the SFO’s litigation and investigation costs. The DPA also requires the financial group’s continued cooperation with authorities and the implementation of certain recommendations from its independent compliance consultants.
In addition to the DPA, the financial group agreed to pay $4.2 million to the SEC to settle charges related to the failure to disclose the underlying bribe payments in the bank’s offering documents and statements to potential investors. In light of the financial group’s cooperation with the SFO and the DPA, the DOJ reportedly closed its own investigation without bringing independent charges.
Notably, in one of the first examples of the SEC implementing its plan to make more defendants admit to the allegations against them as part of resolutions, the financial group agreed to the facts underlying the SEC charges.
Deputy Attorney General Yates Expands on DOJ's White-Collar Prosecution Policy
On November 16, the DOJ’s Deputy AG Sally Yates delivered remarks at the American Bankers Association and American Bar Association Money Laundering Enforcement Conference. Yates focused her remarks on recent revisions – originally outlined in a September 9 policy memorandum – to the United States Attorney’s Manual (USAM), as follows: (i) updating the corporate criminal cases section, specifically the “Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations” chapter, or the “Filip factors”; (ii) implementing an entirely new section to the civil cases chapter on enforcing claims against individuals in corporate matters; and (iii) updating its policy on parallel proceedings. First, the DOJ updated the Filip factors and the written guidance accompanying the factors to emphasize individual accountability in corporate cases and company cooperation in the DOJ’s investigation of individual wrongdoing. Yates highlighted the following policy change: “In the past, cooperation credit was a sliding scale of sorts and companies could still receive at least some credit for cooperation, even if they failed to fully disclose all facts about individuals. That’s changed now… providing complete information about individuals’ involvement in wrongdoing is a threshold hurdle that must be crossed before [the DOJ will] consider any cooperation credit.” Yates further noted that the new policy does not change the meaning of attorney-client privilege, but requires companies to turn over all relevant non-privileged information with the expectation that the companies respect the boundaries of attorney-client privilege. The USAM’s new chapter on civil cases mimics the individual accountability policies outlined in the Filip factors revisions, with the DOJ instructing its civil attorneys to abide by the same principles that guide criminal prosecutors’ efforts. Finally, revisions to the USAM’s parallel proceedings policy stress the importance of routine communication between criminal prosecutors and civil attorneys handling white collar matters to ensure a “resolution for both the individual and the corporation that is in the best interest of the public.”
DOJ Settles with For-Profit Education Company Over Alleged FCA Violations
On November 16, the DOJ announced a $95.5 million settlement with the country’s second-largest for-profit education company to resolve alleged federal and state violations of the False Claims Act (FCA). According to the DOJ’s complaint, the company’s admissions personnel received payment based on the number of students they enrolled, a violation of Title IV of the Higher Education Act’s (HEA) Incentive Compensation Ban (ICB) and the Regulatory Safe Harbor. The DOJ alleges that the company misrepresented its compliance with Title IV of the HEA to the Department of Education by certifying in Program Participation Agreements that it had not “paid to any persons or entities any commission, bonus, or other incentive payment based directly or indirectly on success in securing enrollments, financial aid to students, or student retention.” The Department of Education calculated that, from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2011, the company, having submitted “a variety of claims to the government for Title IV funding that it [knew] to be false based upon its non-compliance” with the ICB, received more than $11 billion in government funding. Under the terms of the settlement, the $95.5 million will be divided among the United States, the co-plaintiff states, and the whistleblowers and their counsel in the FCA cases filed separately in federal court in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Nashville, Tennessee.
Claims Management Company Discloses Possible FCPA Violations
On November 9, an Atlanta-based claims management firm disclosed that it reported possible FCPA violations to DOJ and SEC. The company discovered the possible violations during an internal audit and has since launched an investigation, using outside counsel and external forensic accountants. The company stated that it intends to cooperate with the SEC and the DOJ in this matter, but the filing did not elaborate on the nature or location of the potential violations.
Developments in Uzbekistan Telecommunications FCPA Investigations: Dutch Telecommunications Company Makes Provision in Connection with Investigation; DOJ Names Russian Telecommunications Company in Civil Forfeiture Action
On November 3, a Dutch telecommunications company announced that, based on its assessment of ongoing FCPA investigations, it would make a provision in the amount of $900 million in its third quarter financial statements. The company previously disclosed that the SEC, the DOJ, and the Dutch Public Prosecution Service were conducting investigations related to its business in Uzbekistan and prior dealings with a Gibralter-registered company that negotiates mobile phone licenses on behalf of the Uzbek government.
On November 5, another company under investigation for its conduct in Uzbekistan disclosed that the DOJ referenced it in a civil forfeiture complaint. The DOJ’s complaint was directed at an unnamed Uzbek government official, but the complaint alleged that the company and certain other parties made corrupt payments to the unnamed official to gain access to the Uzbek telecommunications market.
DOJ Joins SEC's Investigation of Pharmaceutical Company
On November 2, a pharmaceutical company disclosed that the DOJ requested documents and other information related to the company’s compliance with the FCPA. The SEC is also investigating the company’s compliance with the FCPA, a fact the company disclosed in May. The SEC’s subpoena sought information about the company’s grant-making activities worldwide, specifically naming Japan, Brazil, Turkey and Russia in its request, and also addressed non-FCPA items. The company said that it plans to cooperate with DOJ’s investigation.
DOJ Unseals Indictment Against Individuals for Alleged Involvement in Hacks Against Various U.S. Institutions
On November 10, the DOJ unsealed an indictment against three individuals, Gery Shalon, Joshua Samuel Aaron and Ziv Orenstein, for allegedly orchestrating and committing computer hacking crimes against U.S. financial institutions, brokerage firms, and financial news publishers. According to the DOJ, “these three defendants perpetrated one of the largest thefts of financial-related data in history – making off with the sensitive information of literally thousands” of Americans. The DOJ alleges that, from approximately 2012 to mid-2015, Shalon and Aaaron hacked financial institutions to steal the personal information of more than 100 million customers, and then manipulated the price of certain U.S. publicly traded stocks, seeking to “market the stocks, in a deceptive and misleading manner, to customers of the victim companies whose contact information they had stolen in the intrusion.” Additionally, Shalon engaged in illegal businesses with Orenstein between 2007 and July 2015, allegedly operating (i) unlawful internet gambling businesses; (ii) multinational payment processors for illegal pharmaceutical suppliers, counterfeit and malicious software distributors, and unlawful internet casinos; and (iii) Coin.mx, a Bitcoin exchange company that violated federal anti-money laundering laws. Through the defendants’ schemes, they profited hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal funds and, using aliases, laundered criminal proceeds through at least 75 international shell companies and bank and brokerage accounts. The defendants are charged with multiple counts of offenses, including conspiracy to commit computer hacking, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud and operation of an unlicensed money transmitting business.
The DOJ also announced the unsealing of a separate indictment against Anthony R. Murgio, who was arrested on complaint in July for operating Coin.mx in the United States.
Bank Settles with DOJ for $81.6 Million for Failing to Timely File Payment Change Notices for Homeowners in Bankruptcy
On November 5, the DOJ announced a proposed settlement with a bank for allegedly violating bankruptcy rules by not providing homeowners with required notices that would have allowed them to challenge the accuracy of increased mortgage rates. According to the DOJ, the bank acknowledged that, from December 1, 2011 to March 31, 2015, it failed to (i) file payment change notices (PCNs) 21 days before adjusting a debtor’s monthly mortgage payment, as required by federal regulations; and (ii) perform timely escrow analyses. Under the settlement, the bank will be required to pay over $80 million in restitution to homeowners in bankruptcy that were affected by its actions and will be required to update its internal procedures to prevent further violations, including improving its employee training and its quality control processes to ensure that PCNs are filed within the appropriate timeframe. The settlement was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland and is subject to court approval.
DOJ Announces Sentencing of Former DEA Agent for Criminal Involvement in Silk Road Investigation
On October 19, the DOJ announced that a former DEA agent was sentenced to 78 months in prison for crimes he committed while working as an undercover agent in the Silk Road investigation. On July 1, the former DEA agent pleaded guilty to charges of extortion, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Using his DEA-sanctioned persona, “Nob,” the former agent sold Ross Ulbricht – Silk Road’s convicted operator – fake drivers’ licenses and inside information about the investigation, directing Ulbricht to conceal his payments, which were made in bitcoin, using encrypted messaging. Understanding that the payments were government property and constituted evidence of a crime, the former agent admitted to falsifying reports and depositing the funds into his own personal bank accounts, receiving more than $100,000 in bitcoin payments from Ulbricht. In addition, the former agent created another, not government-sanctioned online persona, “French Maid,” which he used to solicit and receive approximately $100,000 in bitcoins from Ulbricht in exchange for information on the government’s Silk Road investigation. The former agent also admitted to serving as the chief compliance officer for a digital currency exchange company, even though he did not receive permission from the DEA to do so. In February 2014, the company alerted him to suspicious activity in a certain account, but, using his capacity as a DEA agent, the former agent directed the company to freeze $337,000 in cash and digital currency from the account, and then transferred $300,000 of the digital currency into an account he controlled. In addition to his prison sentence and post-sentence supervision, the former DEA agent will pay $340,000 in restitution.