InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Senate Republicans say Chopra’s refusal to answer questions should disqualify him as next CFPB director
On July 13, Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee sent a follow-up letter to CFPB director nominee and FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra, claiming Chopra’s refusal to answer questions concerning potential violations of law at the Bureau should disqualify him from consideration as its next director. The Senators referred to Ranking Member Pat Toomey’s June 17 letter, which asked Chopra whether he was aware of any alleged improper treatment of, or efforts to, “sideline” Bureau employees. A similar letter was sent to CFPB acting Director Dave Uejio, asking for certain records on staff departures, separation incentives, and investigations. Uejio initially responded that the CFPB needed additional time to respond to the Senators’ request, then later sent a letter stating “it would not be appropriate for me to confirm or deny the placement of any Bureau employee on administrative leave or the pendency of any internal investigations into alleged employee misconduct” citing, among other things, confidentiality restrictions under the Privacy Act. Uejio stressed the CFPB’s compliance with all applicable laws and regulations designed to protect career employees and added that “no career Bureau Executive has been involuntarily separated” from the agency under his watch, nor has the CFPB taken disciplinary or adverse action against any such individuals or offered voluntary separation compensation (VSC) incentives “for any political or partisan reason.” Uejio also emphasized that Chopra has had no involvement with VSC decisions or internal investigations into employees.
Chopra currently awaits a Senate confirmation vote on his nomination.
Biden signs repeal of OCC’s “true lender” rule
On June 30, President Biden signed S.J. Res. 15, repealing the OCC’s “true lender” rule pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. Issued last year, the final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement, or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also provided that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.)
House votes to repeal OCC’s “true lender” rule
On June 24, the U.S. House passed S.J. Res. 15 by a vote of 218 - 208 to repeal the OCC’s “true lender” rule. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the U.S. Senate passed S.J. Res. 15 last month by vote of 52-47 to invoke the Congressional Review Act and provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the final rule. The measure now heads to President Biden who is expected to sign it. Issued last year, the final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement, or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Acting Comptroller of the Currency Michael Hsu issued a statement after the vote saying the OCC respects Congress’ role in reviewing regulations under the Congressional Review Act. He reaffirmed the OCC’s position that predatory lending has no place in the federal banking system and noted that moving forward the OCC “will consider policy options, consistent with the Congressional Review Act, that protect consumers while expanding financial inclusion.”
Senate holds hearing on central bank digital currency
On June 9, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy held a hearing titled “Building A Stronger Financial System: Opportunities of a Central Bank Digital Currency” to discuss the potential opportunities of a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Among the issues discussed at the hearing were protecting consumer privacy and security, financial inclusion, and the Federal Reserve’s authority.
The Honorable J. Christopher Giancarlo, Senior Counsel at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, was a witness on behalf of the Digital Dollar Project (DDP). The digital dollar, proposed by the Fed, would be distributed through the two-tiered banking system and operated alongside physical currency and commercial bank money. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) asked how a CBDC should be designed, implemented, and regulated to reduce the risk of fraud and ensure privacy. Giancarlo, who stated he is not convinced of the need for CBDC, but believed in the need to examine this issue, said the DDP convened a privacy subcommittee which addressed four principles: (i) economic privacy; (ii) security; (iii) inclusion; and (iv) sufficient transparency to provide settlement and payment certainty. When Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) questioned witness Dr. Neha Narula, Director of the Digital Currency Initiative at MIT, on security risks associated with cryptocurrencies, she responded that, with respect to ransomware attacks, the issue is that valuable data has not been properly secured, and suggested that a CBDC could have built-in safeguards. She also believed that open source software is critical for security.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) suggested that banks use “abusive” practices and that the crypto industry has promised a better and more inclusive financial system, which reduces cost and improves quality. When Warren asked if a well-designed CBDC could help people who are poorly served by the current financial system, Narula emphasized the importance of designing a CBDC with a focus on accessibility and reducing barriers to access.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) argued that Americans should not be subject to excessive fees to access their own money. He also noted that a CBDC may work with a solution he has proposed, called No-Fee Accounts, which would be available to every American and backed by the Fed. As previously covered by InfoBytes, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard noted in a speech that a CBDC may address concerns regarding the lack of federal deposit insurance and banking supervision for nonbank issuers of digital assets, and that “new forms of private money may introduce counterparty risk into the payments system in new ways that could lead to consumer protection threats or, at large scale, broader financial stability risks.” Ranking Member Pat Toomey (R-PA) expressed his concerns around the Fed’s position in retail banking services and was doubtful that the Fed would provide high quality customer service, while Ranking Member John Kennedy (R-LA) questioned if it is appropriate for the federal government to get entangled in the credit markets by way of a CBDC.
Senate launches Financial Innovation Caucus
On May 25, Senators Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), along with several other bipartisan Senators, announced the creation of the U.S. Senate Financial Innovation Caucus to highlight “responsible innovation in the United States financial system, and how financial technologies can improve markets to be more inclusive, safe and prosperous for all Americans.” The Senate will use the caucus “to discuss domestic and global financial technology issues, and to launch legislation to empower innovators, protect consumers and guide regulators, while driving U.S. financial leadership on the international stage.” The press release notes that the caucus is timely because of the “growing regulatory focus on digital assets,” which includes efforts by the Federal Reserve Board, SEC, and other foreign governments to create digital currencies. The caucus will focus on critical issues pertaining to the future of banking and U.S. competitiveness on the global stage, including: (i) distributed ledger technology (blockchain); (ii) artificial intelligence and machine learning; (iii) data management; (iv) consumer protection; (v) anti-money laundering; (vi) faster payments; (vii) central bank digital currencies; and (viii) financial inclusion and opportunity for all.
FTC seeks to restore Section 13(b) redress authority
On May 19, acting FTC Chairwoman Rebecca Kelly Slaughter published a letter reaffirming the need to restore the Commission’s ability to return money to harmed consumers following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. AMG Capital Management. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on April 22, the Court unanimously held that Section 13(b) of the FTC Act “does not authorize the Commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.” Last month, Slaughter testified before both House and Senate subcommittees on the need for Congressional action to clarify Section 13(b) and affirmatively confirm the FTC’s authority to seek permanent injunctions and other equitable relief for violations of any law under its enforcement authority (covered by InfoBytes here).
Slaughter’s letter, directed to Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS)—the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, respectively—addressed several issues raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce concerning recently introduce legislation (see H.R. 2668), which is intended to restore the FTC’s ability under Section 13(b) to seek consumer compensation in antitrust and consumer protection cases. Among other things, Slaughter disagreed with the Chamber’s position that Congress always intended for Section 13(b) to be used only in so-called “fraud cases.” She pointed to a 1994 action, in which Congress “directly ratified the FTC’s reliance on Section 13(b) in all manner of cases by expanding its venue and service of process provisions without placing any limitations on the types of cases to which Section 13(b) applies,” and noted that to date, the FTC has obtained billions of dollars of monetary relief for consumers, many of which were in non-fraud consumer protection cases. According to Slaughter, limiting the FTC’s ability to seek monetary relief to only “cases involving ‘egregious’ frauds” would allow companies and individuals “adjudicated to have engaged in unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices” to keep money earned from unlawful conduct at the expense of harmed consumers.
Slaughter also emphasized that limiting Section 13(b) to only ongoing or imminent conduct does not make sense. Waiting for violations to recur in order to obtain a federal court injunction, Slaughter argued, “creates weak incentives for compliance, and is an inefficient enforcement mechanism that will result only in more consumer harm.” In addressing the Chamber’s concern that statutory fix proposals lack a statute of limitations for monetary relief under Section 13(b), Slaughter emphasized that H.R. 2668 would provide a 10-year limit on monetary relief.
Senate moves to repeal OCC’s “true lender” rule
On May 11, the U.S. Senate passed S.J. Res. 15 by a vote of 52 - 47 to invoke the Congressional Review Act and provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the OCC’s “true lender" rule. Issued last year, the final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” (Covered by InfoBytes here.) In applauding the passage of the resolution, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who introduced S.J. Res. 15, stated that “strik[ing] down the ‘Rent-A-Bank’ rule will help prevent predatory lenders from ripping off consumers by charging loan-shark rates under deceptive terms.” He noted that the legislation has support from a broad array of stakeholder and consumer protection groups, including a bipartisan group of state attorneys generals and the Conference of State Bank Supervisors, as previously covered by InfoBytes here.
Ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) countered, however, that “[w]ithout the rule, the secondary market for these loans would be disrupted, which, again, disproportionately harms lower-income borrowers.” He further added that “[v]oting in favor of the CRA is a direct assault on fintech. It will make it harder for Congress to legislate here. It will make it harder for regulators to issue guidance and rules that promote fintech. Courts will see it as Congress buying into the notion that fintechs are ‘predatory’ lending. And it will scare away state legislatures from promoting fintech.”
S.J. Res. 15 now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.
Senators urge FinCEN to implement beneficial ownership database
On May 5, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Marco Rubio (R-FL) sent a letter to FinCEN’s Policy Division urging the implementation of a new company ownership database as a result of sweeping new anti-money laundering legislation. As previously covered in Infobytes, FinCen issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) in March seeking comments on a range of issues related to the implementation of the beneficial ownership information requirements under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which is included within the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2021, enacted in January as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The Senators stress that “FinCEN should ensure that authorized users, including law enforcement and national security officials, and financial institutions with customer consent, have early, timely, and full access to beneficial ownership information.” The letter also notes that the passing of the CTA “represents perhaps the most important anti-money laundering reform of the past decade. Despite the legislative success, this achievement can only be realized if the system works in practice.” The letter requests FinCEN to promptly execute a straightforward, efficient, and effective system.
State AGs urge Congress to rescind OCC’s “true lender” rule
On April 21, a coalition of 26 state attorneys general sent a letter urging Congress to exercise its authority under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) and rescind the OCC’s “True Lender Rule” in order to “safeguard states’ fundamental sovereign rights to protect their citizens from financial abuse.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the OCC’s final rule amended 12 CFR Part 7 to state that a bank makes a loan when, as of the date of origination, it either (i) is named as the lender in the loan agreement or (ii) funds the loan. The final rule also clarified that if “one bank is named as the lender in the loan agreement and another bank funds the loan, the bank that is named as the lender in the loan agreement makes the loan.” In their letter, the AGs expressed concern that the final rule “establishes a simplistic standard to redefine the meaning of ‘true lender,’” enabling predatory lenders to “circumvent” state interest-rate caps through “rent-a-bank” schemes, which would in turn allow banks to act as lenders in name only while passing state law exemptions for banks to non-bank entities. The letter references a complaint filed by eight state AGs against the OCC in January challenging the final rule (covered by InfoBytes here) and argues that in finalizing the rule the OCC “acted in a manner contrary to centuries of case law [and] the OCC’s own prior interpretation of the law,” and seeks to preempt state usury law and “infringe on the States’ historical police powers and facilitate predatory lending.”
In March, both House and Senate Democrats introduced CRA resolutions (see H.J. Res. 35 and S.J. Res. 15) intended to provide for congressional disapproval and invalidation of the OCC’s final rule. The OCC responded on April 14, arguing that “disapproval of the rule would return bank lending relationships to the previous state of legal and regulatory uncertainty, which. . . adversely affects the function of secondary markets and restricts the availability of credit.” The OCC further stated that the final rule is intended to enhance the agency’s ability to supervise bank lending and “does not change bank’s authority to export interest rates” nor does it “permit national banks to charge whatever rate they like” as both federal and state-chartered banks are required to conform to applicable interest rate limits. “Disparities of interest rates from state to state result from differences in the state laws that impose these caps, not OCC rules or actions,” the OCC stressed, adding that “[s]tates retain the authority to set interest rates.” However, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors sent a letter to Congress in support of S.J. Res. 15, disagreeing with the OCC and noting that the final rule, if it stands, would “eviscerate the power of state interest rate caps and rid state regulators of the most effective tool to protect consumers from such predatory lending.”
Congress overrides veto of NDAA with significant BSA/AML provisions
On January 1, the U.S. Senate voted to override President Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021, following a similar vote in the House a few days prior. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the NDAA includes significant changes to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and anti-money laundering (AML) laws under the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020, such as:
- Establishing federal disclosure requirements of beneficial ownership information, including a requirement that reporting companies submit, at the time of formation and within a year of any change, their beneficial owner(s) to a “secure, nonpublic database at FinCEN”;
- Expanding the declaration of purpose of the BSA and establishing national examinations and supervision priorities;
- Requiring streamlined, real-time reporting of Suspicious Activity Reports;
- Establishing a Subcommittee on Innovation and Technology within the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory Group to encourage and support technological innovation in the area of AML and countering the financing of terrorism and proliferation (CFT);
- Expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include dealers in antiquities;
- Requiring federal agencies to study the facilitation of money laundering and the financing of terrorism through the trade of works of art; and
- Including digital currency in AML-CFT enforcement by, among other things, expanding the definition of financial institution under the BSA to include businesses engaged in the transmission of “currency, funds or value that substitutes for currency or funds.”