InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CSBS announces first MSB Accreditation
On September 28, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that the Ohio Division of Financial Institutions received its first Money Service Business (MSB) Accreditation. According to the announcement, the MSB Accreditation—which is offered by CSBS together with the Money Transmitter Regulators Association—certifies that the “state has the resources and necessary processes in place to ensure MSBs in that state operate safely and soundly, follow BSA/AML standards and abide by state and federal consumer protection laws.”
The Accreditation is part of the CSBS Vision 2020 program. Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on CSBS Vision 2020 here.
CSBS announces single exam for money transmitters
On September 15, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced the launch of a single, streamlined examination for money transmitters operating nationwide (i.e., in 40 or more states), known as “MSB Networked Supervision.” The single exam—which will apply to “78 of the nation’s largest payments and cryptocurrency companies”—will be led by one state overseeing a group of examiners sourced from around the country. MSB Networked Supervision is a result of recommendations from the CSBS Fintech Industry Advisory Panel and CSBS Vision 2020 (covered by InfoBytes here).
New York AG settles with student loan debt collector for $600k
On September 11, the New York attorney general announced one of the nation’s largest debt collectors will pay $600,000 in restitution to student loan borrowers and will make significant changes to its debt collection practices in order to resolve allegations that it made false, misleading, and deceptive statements in lawsuits and in communications with borrowers. According to the AG, the debt collector, among other things, (i) filed complaints that falsely identified trusts, which hold the defaulted loans, as the borrower’s “original creditor,” when in fact, the trusts are the assignees of the original financial institutions that originated the loans; (ii) filed various misleading sworn affidavits; (iii) filed complaints that represented borrowers applied for loans from a “servicing agent” when, in fact, borrowers never dealt with the entity; (iv) filed lawsuits beyond the applicable three-year statute of limitations; and (v) threatened legal action against borrowers even though the trusts “could not or would not sue because the statute of limitations for suing on the debt had expired.”
The assurance of discontinuance requires the debt collector to stop identifying the trusts as the original creditor and to cease using misleading language in communications with borrowers. In addition, the debt collector must (i) provide enhanced staff training; (ii) stop filing lawsuits beyond the statute of limitations, and voluntarily dismiss all wrongfully-filed lawsuits; (iii) voluntarily release “all pending garnishments, levies, liens, restraining notices, attachments, or any other judgment enforcement mechanism” obtained as a result of judgments obtained in wrongfully-filed lawsuits where the statute of limitations has expired; (v) take steps to vacate any judgment obtained in any of these wrongfully-filed lawsuits; and (vi) pay restitution to certain borrowers or to the state to be disbursed as appropriate.
California DBO investigates auto title lender over out-of-state bank partnership
On September 3, the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) announced a formal investigation into a California auto title lender to determine whether the lender is evading state interest rate caps through a recent partnership with a Utah-based bank. The California Fair Access to Credit Act—enacted in 2019—caps annual simple interest rates on loans between $2,500 and $10,000 made by state-licensed lenders at around 36 percent (covered by InfoBytes here). The CDBO asserts that prior to the new interest rate caps taking effect, the auto title lender frequently made loans carrying interest rates in excess of 100 percent. Rather than reducing its interest rates to comply with the new law, the lender “stopped making state-licensed auto title loans in California,” and instead used “its existing lending operations and personnel” to market and service auto title loans purportedly made by the Utah-based bank. These loans, the CDBO claims, still carry interest rates greater than 90 percent, but because the Utah-based bank is not regulated or supervised by the CDBO it is not subject to the interest rate caps when lending in California. According to the CDBO, its investigation is intended to find out whether the auto title lender’s “role in the arrangement is so extensive as to require compliance with California’s lending laws” and if the arrangement is a “direct effort to evade the Fair Access to Credit Act,” which CDBO contends would be illegal.
NYDFS issues guidance on mortgage registration fees
On September 1, NYDFS issued guidance to regulated mortgage lenders and servicers clarifying that mortgagees cannot charge registration fees imposed by municipalities when a mortgage defaults to mortgagors’ accounts. The guidance reminds mortgagees that the state’s mortgage servicing regulation, 3 NYCRR Part 419, allows mortgagees to collect only certain types of fees from a mortgagor, consisting of “attorney’s fees, late and delinquency fees, property valuation fees, and fees for services actually rendered to a mortgagor when such fees are reasonably related to the cost of rendering the service to the borrower.” NYDFS asserts that municipality-required default registration fees do not fall under the specified list and therefore cannot be charged to a mortgagor. The guidance instructs mortgagees to refund any such fees that have been collected, or to reverse any such fees that have been charged to accounts. Moreover, the guidance directs mortgagees to create a log of any registration fee charges and their subsequent corrections for inspection during their next NYDFS examination.
California DBO addresses MTA licensing exemptions
Last month the California Department of Business Oversight (CDBO) released two new opinion letters covering aspects of the California Money Transmission Act (MTA) related to the sale of foreign currency and the agent of the payee exemption.
- Sale of Foreign Currency. The redacted opinion letter concludes that the company’s banknote replenishment service does not trigger the licensing requirements of the MTA because the company does not engage in “selling or receiving payment instruments, selling or receiving stored value, or receiving money for transmission.” Moreover, the CDBO determined that the company “does not issue anything to the business except for the foreign currency that was ordered, and does not receive money from the business for purpose of transmission.”
- Agent of Payee Exemption - Payment Processing Service. The redacted opinion letter concludes that neither the company’s pay-in services nor pay-out services are exempt from the MTA. According to the letter, the company provides payment processing services to online gaming operators (merchants), which allow the merchants’ customers to submit payments to engage in online gaming, such as sports betting and daily fantasy sports betting. The CDBO determined that the pay-in and pay-out services provided by the company “constitute ‘receiving money for transmission,’” as required for the MTA to apply, because the company “receives money from the [c]ustomers for transfer to the [m]erchants” for the pay-in service and “receives money from the [m]erchants for transfer to the [c]ustomers” for the pay-out service. However, the agent of the payee exemption does not apply to the pay-in services, despite an agreement that establishes the company as the merchant’s agent, because the funds received by the company are not owed to the merchant when they are received by the company. Instead, such funds are retained in an account for the benefit of the merchant until a gambling debt is owed to the merchant. For the pay-out services, the exemption does not apply because the merchant’s customer does not provide any goods or services to the merchant for which the merchant’s payment to the customer is owed. The CDBO also advised that some of the proposed payments described in the company’s request may involve sports betting, which is an illegal activity in the state, and cautioned that the opinion “applies only to activities that are currently legal in California and does not relieve [the company] from its obligation to comply with other applicable state and federal laws.” Furthermore, the CDBO stated that MTA licenses cannot be issued to companies engaged in the transmission of money to facilitate unlawful activities.
Texas State Securities Board halts cryptocurrency debit card investment scheme
On August 14, the Texas State Securities Board issued a cease and desist order against three South African companies and an officer of the companies (collectively, “defendants”) accused of violating the state’s securities act by engaging in an international cryptocurrency debit card scheme. The defendants allegedly solicited Texas residents to make investments that promised guaranteed gains based on the number of cardholders that eventually signed up for the cryptocurrency debit card. The cryptocurrency debit card was promoted as a prepaid Mastercard that would allow cardholders to use various types of stablecoins to avoid certain taxable events. However, the defendants allegedly intentionally failed to disclose the risks associated with the use of stablecoins (e.g. stablecoin transactions are not reversible and “a party sending stablecoins to an address accepts the risk that the party may lose access to, or any claim on, the stablecoins”), nor did they disclose that legislation and regulations may negatively impact the taxation of cryptocurrencies. Additionally, the order states that the defendants concealed business information about their relationships, contracts, compensation, and the use of the funds, and that because they are not registered as dealers or agents with the Texas State Securities Board, they cannot sell their investment products in Texas.
New York issues language access FAQs for debt collectors
On August 7, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) issued FAQs addressing the language access amendments to the city’s debt collection rules, which became effective on June 27. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the new rules, among other things, require debt collectors to request and retain language preference information from each consumer and prohibit debt collectors from providing false, inaccurate, or incomplete translations to a consumer in the course of collecting a debt. The FAQs note that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Department has extended the enforcement grace period to October 1. The FAQs cover, among other things, details regarding the (i) annual report requirements; (ii) the application of the rules to creditors collecting non-default debts; and (iii) statement requirements when debt collectors do not provide any language access services.
Missouri amends mortgage broker licensing requirements
On July 6, the Missouri governor signed SB 599, which, among other things, modifies the state’s mortgage broker licensing requirements. Specifically, the legislation (i) provides that a prelicensing education course that is completed by an applicant will not satisfy the state’s education requirement if the course precedes an application “by a certain period” as established by the Nationwide Multi-State Licensing System and Registry (NMLSR); (ii) requires persons with various financial relationships with a business applicant for a residential mortgage loan broker license to furnish fingerprints to the NMLSR for submission to the FBI and any other authorized government entity for a background check; and (iii) allows the Director of the Division of Finance to waive the requirement that residential mortgage loan brokers maintain at least one full-service office in the state of Missouri for persons “exclusively engaged in the business of loan processing or underwriting,” or providing mortgage loan servicing. The legislation is effective August 28.
NYDFS discusses state CRA exams and Covid-19 considerations
On June 30, NYDFS issued two industry letters aimed at reminding New York regulated banking institutions of their responsibilities under New York State’s Community Reinvestment Act (New York CRA) with respect to minority-and women-owned businesses, as well as opportunities to receive NYCRA credit for Covid-19 pandemic activities.
The first industry letter discusses the state’s recent amendments to the New York CRA, which were effective January 11, 2020, and require NYDFS to consider “several aspects of banking institutions’ activities with respect to minority- and women-owned businesses.” These include, among other things, (i) “‘the banking institution’s participation, including investments, … in technical assistance programs for small businesses and minority- and women-owned businesses’”; and (ii) “‘banking institution’s origination of … minority-_and women-owned business loans within its community or the purchase of such loans originated in its community.’” NYDFS notes that later this year, it will begin to request information regarding programs related to minority- and women-owned businesses in order to begin evaluating banks under the new amendments. NYDFS also provided a spreadsheet with sample requests for guidance.
The second industry letter describes the circumstances in which regulated institutions may receive New York CRA credit for activities taken in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, which the announcement notes is consistent with the guidance federal regulators have issued on the same topic (covered by InfoBytes here and here).