InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
DFPI concludes MTA licensure not required for digital asset trading platform
On March 23, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released a new opinion letter covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to a digital asset trading platform. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring Company (a registered money services business) requires licensure under the MTA. The Company requesting an interpretive opinion operates a software platform that allows retail and institutional investors to buy and sell digital assets, including cryptocurrency, and access related services, within the platform. The letter explains that U.S. customers must fund an account on the Company’s platform prior to purchasing cryptocurrency with either fiat currency (U.S. dollars) or cryptocurrency. The letter also describes, among other things, how customers can buy from and sell to the Company cryptocurrencies on one or more cryptocurrency exchanges using the platform. In these transactions, the Company would sell or buy cryptocurrency from the customer at the selected price and settle the trade using fiat or cryptocurrency held in its own accounts. Simultaneously, the Company would execute a trade for its own benefit on the exchange offering the price selected by the customer. Customer funds would not be used to buy or sell cryptocurrency from or to the exchange. After executing a transaction, a customer may choose to withdraw all or part of the customer’s fiat or cryptocurrency from the platform, or may choose to maintain a balance to execute future transactions.
The DFPI stated that it “has not concluded whether a wallet storing cryptocurrency constitutes a form of monetary value representing a claim against the issuer and accepted for use as a means of redemption for money or monetary value or payment for goods or services.” As such, the DFPI will not require the Company to be licensed under the MTA to provide customers with an account via a proprietary software platform to transfer and store cryptocurrency in order to execute trades directly with the Company.
DFPI addresses MTA licensing requirements
Recently, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) released new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to a digital currency trading platform and the referral of customers to financial institutions. Highlights from the redacted letters include:
- Digital Currency Trading Platform. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring Company requires licensure under the MTA. The letter describes that the Company’s customers would transfer digital currency into the account they have with the Company, with the balance being reflected in the customer’s wallet issued by the Company. The letter further explains that the Company would provide California residents access to its digital currency trading platform to buy, sell, or hold digital currency and provide liquidity services. The letter also describes, among other things, how customers could use the platform, transfer digital currency into the account, and transfer fiat currency by transferring it from their own bank account or by debit or credit card to the Company. Customers would not be able to send fiat or digital currency to others, except in the context of a sale. DFPI concluded that while the Company’s wallets holding fiat currency meet the definition of stored value, licensure under the MTA was not required because the Company offered fiat currency wallets to customers solely to facilitate the trade of digital currency. DFPI also noted that the Company does not require licensure under the MTA to perform Platform trading services or to issue wallets holding digital currencies.
- Referral of customers to financial institutions. The redacted opinion letter examines whether the inquiring Company’s referral service is subject to the MTA. The letter describes that under this service, the Company would refer customers to banks, trust companies, and other entities which are either licensed as money transmitters in California or exempt from licensure. Under the proposed referral service, customers would be re-directed to a financial institution’s website where they could set up and fund an account. Customers wishing to buy, sell, or exchange cryptocurrency or fiat currency could do so from the Company’s website and use a third party’s software platform to input their order details. The platform would check to make sure that the customer has sufficient assets in the customer’s account with the financial institution to purchase the cryptocurrency. The financial institution would be the only party to hold, receive, or transmit all cryptocurrencies in the customer’s account. DFPI concluded that the referral service does not meet the definition of money transmission because the service entails connecting customers with financial institutions from which customers can buy, sell, or exchange cryptocurrency. Further, DFPI noted that the transactions between customers and financial institutions are also not money transmission because the customer would simply exchange cryptocurrency directly with the financial institution. Accordingly, DFPI held that licensure under the MTA is not required because the Company will not sell or issue payment instruments, sell or issue stored value, or receive money for transmission by offering the referral service.
NYDFS fines money transmitter $8.25 million for AML compliance failures
On March 16, NYDFS announced the imposition of an $8.25 million fine on a money transmitter alleged to have violated anti-money laundering (“AML”) requirements and New York law by failing to adequately supervise local agents in New York City that processed an unusual volume of suspicious transactions to China. NYDFS conducted an examination and enforcement investigation, which found that the company “did not adequately oversee the activity of six agents that saw a large spike in transaction volume of business with China.” According to the investigation, there were roughly 7,500 transactions aggregating approximately $30 million in 2014. These figures rose to more than 25,000 transactions aggregating more than $100 million during the period between January 2016 and May 2017. Most of these transactions were processed by small, store-front independent agents—“a clear indicator of increased money laundering risk, particularly given that the destination was known to carry a high AML risk,” NYDFS stated, adding that the company should have also addressed risks resulting from a suspicious pattern of different senders transmitting money to the same recipient. NYDFS acknowledged that the company, when alerted to the increased transaction activity, severed its relationship with the problematic agents and implemented remedial measures to improve supervision of its agents. Under the terms of the consent order, the company will pay an $8.25 civil money penalty and is required to submit a report to NYDFS outlining enhancements made with respect to new and existing agents, suspicious activity reporting program, and special transaction limitations. Additionally, NYDFS announced that the company will also update the Department on improvements to the policies and procedures of its Bank Secrecy Act/AML compliance program and will provide data to NYDFS for ongoing monitoring purposes.
DFPI reminds financial institutions of their sanctions compliance obligations
On March 4, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued guidance, in light of the evolving situation in Ukraine, to remind financial institutions of their sanctions compliance obligations under state and federal law. Licensees are reminded that they are prohibited from participating in financial transactions with individuals and entities listed on the SDN List, and encouraged to review specific, more limited sanctions that have been placed on several Russian entities. This information can be found on OFAC's website.
Additionally, licensees are strongly encouraged to immediately ensure their systems, programs, and processes comply with OFAC regulations, and review and monitor all transactions (particularly trade finance transactions and funds transfers) to identify and block transactions subject to sanctions. Licensees should also follow OFAC directions related to blocked funds.
DFPI further warned that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine increases the risk that listed individuals and entities will attempt to evade sanctions by using virtual currency transfers, and encouraged licensees to review OFAC Guidance to protect against these risks. Licensees engaged in transactions involving virtual currencies are instructed to implement policies, procedures, and processes to protect against the unique risks posed by virtual currencies and should “consider virtual currency-specific control measures including sanctions lists, geographic screening, and any other measures appropriate to the licensee’s specific risk profile.”
Additionally, DFPI cautioned that the “Russian invasion significantly elevates the cyber risk for the U.S. financial sector,” and licensees are instructed to take measures to mitigate cybersecurity threats, including adopting core cybersecurity hygiene measures, eliminating any non-essential networking protocols, ensuring procedures are able to address a ransomware attack, and reevaluating “plans to maintain essential services, protect critical data, and preserve customer confidence considering the realistic threat of extended outages.” Licensees are encouraged to track alerts from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.
Licensees conducting business in Ukraine and/or Russia should also “take increased measures to monitor, inspect, and isolate traffic from Ukrainian or Russian offices and service providers,” and “segregate networks for Ukrainian or Russian offices from the global network.”
NYDFS also recently issued similar guidance for New York state regulated entities on its cybersecurity and virtual currency regulations in response to the Russian invasion and recently imposed sanctions. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.)
NYDFS will take expedited measures to enforce Russian sanctions
On March 2, New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced that NYDFS will increase its sanctions enforcement actions against Russia, including taking measures to expedite the procurement of blockchain analytics tools to detect exposure among regulated licensed virtual currency businesses to Russian individuals, banks, and other entities sanctioned by the Biden administration. “Accelerating the procurement process is a critical step to strengthen the Department's ability to enforce anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act laws in this immediate crisis and beyond,” the announcement stated, explaining that “[l]everaging purpose-built technologies and service providers for virtual currency protects the financial system from illicit activity including money laundering, terrorist financing and ransomware activity.” NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris added that monitoring transactions and exposure in real-time is imperative for preventing actors from attempting to evade sanctions through the transmission of virtual currency. The announcement follows NYDFS guidance on cybersecurity and virtual currency issued last week, which raised the specter of elevated cyber risk due to ongoing cyberattacks against Ukraine that could spill over to other networks, as well as potential direct attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure. (Covered by a Buckley Special Alert.) Governor Hochul also issued an Executive Order at the end of February, which directed all New York State agencies and authorities to review and divest public funds from Russia.
NYDFS proposes partnership with CDFIs
On February 25, NYDFS announced a proposal to partner with Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) to deliver $150 million to small businesses. According to the announcement, the partnership was announced after Governor Kathy Hochul held a roundtable related to “how New York State can spur economic recovery in Black and brown communities,” as well as “new efforts to fight structural racism embedded in the financial system and support innovative community lending programs and economic development services focused on reaching communities of color.” The announcement pointed out that the partnership is part of the governor’s FY2023 budget, which proposed an unprecedented assistance package for small businesses, including more than $500 million to the state. Governor Hochul also announced an advisory council of New York State-chartered CDFIs and minority depository institutions, which will be led by NYDFS Superintendent Adrienne Harris, and “will elevate the specific concerns of New York CDFIs and MDIs to support communities of color and ensure their needs are met.”
DFPI reminds licensees of March 15 CFL annual report filing deadline
On February 17, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI) issued a reminder to all licensees under the California Financial Law (CFL) that annual reports are due to the commissioner by March 15. Forms and instructions for submitting the 2021 annual report are available on DFPI’s CFL webpage. DFPI also warned licensees that the commissioner may suspend or revoke a licensee’s license if an annual report is not submitted by the deadline. Specifically, Financial Code section 22715(a) states that the “commissioner may by order summarily suspend or revoke the license of any licensee if that person fails to file the report required by Section 22159 within 10 days after notice by the commissioner that the report is due and not filed. If, after an order is made, a request for hearing is filed in writing within 30 days and the hearing is not held within 60 days thereafter, the order is deemed rescinded as of its effective date.” DFPI also provided a penalty matrix reflecting assessable penalties based on a late-filing date.
SEC, states reach $100 million settlement over crypto lending product
On February 14, the SEC and state regulators reached a $100 million settlement with a New Jersey-based financial services company in parallel actions to resolve allegations that the company failed to register the offers and sales of its retail credit lending product—marking the SEC’s “first-of-its-kind action” taken with respect to crypto lending platforms. According to the SEC, the company offered a product whereby retail investors lent crypto assets to the company “in exchange for the company’s promise to provide a variable monthly interest payment.” Among other things, the SEC found that because the company’s product are securities under applicable law, the company was required to register its offers and sales of the product or qualify for an exemption—both of which the company failed to do. The company also allegedly violated the Securities Act by making misleading statements on its website concerning its collateral practices and the level of risk in its loan portfolio and lending activity. Additionally, the company allegedly violated the Investment Company Act by engaging in interstate commerce while failing to register as an investment company with the SEC. While the company neither admitted nor denied the findings, it agreed to pay $50 million to the SEC and another $50 million to 32 states to settle similar charges. The company also agreed to cease engaging in unregistered offers and sales of its product, and will stop offering or selling its product in the U.S. Additionally, the company’s parent company stated its intention to register the offer and sale of a new lending product under the Securities Act.
NYDFS locks maximum check-cashing fee at 2.27 percent
On February 14, NYDFS issued an emergency regulation halting annual increases on check-cashing fees and locking the current maximum fee set last February at 2.27 percent. “As our world evolves, so must our approach to regulation, which is why for the first time in Department history, we are reexamining the methodology used to determine the maximum check cashing fee,” Superintendent Adrienne A. Harris stated. “[NYDFS] has a responsibility to take a hard look at the impacts of financial products and services on New Yorkers, especially members of underserved communities.” NYDFS noted that the emergency regulation underscores its concerns over the fixed methodology used to determine annual check-cashing fees, which is based on the Consumer Price Index and is not, according to the Department, “necessarily a reliable or accurate indicator of the costs of operating within a specific sector of business, such as financial services.” NYDFS stated that it intends to promulgate a proposed regulation for a new fee methodology and will seek public comments before a final regulation is issued. The emergency regulation will remain in effect until a final regulation is adopted.
States settle with company on fraudulent MLO certifications
On February 10, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors announced that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation, Maryland’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, and the Oregon Division of Financial Regulation have reached a settlement agreement with the owner of a California-based company for providing false certificates claiming that mortgage loan originators (MLOs) took mandatory eight-hour continuing education courses as required for licensure under state and federal law. The three state financial regulators brought separate enforcement actions alleging violations of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act (SAFE Act) against the individual and his family (collectively, “respondents”) for their role in the “multi-state fraud scheme that involved hundreds of mortgage loan originators.” According to the announcement, the respondents have “agreed to fully cooperate and provide testimony against implicated mortgage loan originators,” and have “agreed to a lifetime restriction from direct and indirect involvement in businesses that provide mortgage lending-related education.” In addition to a $75,000 monetary penalty (which will be divided between the three states), the respondents have agreed to a non-compliance penalty of $15 million should they fail to fully comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The action follows a multistate $1.2 million settlement reached last month with 441 MLOs. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the enforcement action included the participation of 44 state agencies from 42 states, and required the settling MLOs to surrender their licenses for three months, pay a $1,000 fine to each state that is a signatory to the consent order in which the MLO holds a license, and take pre-licensing and continuing-education courses before petitioning or reapplying for an MLO endorsement or license.