Skip to main content
Menu Icon Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • FinCEN deputy director discusses innovation, non-bank supervision, and “culture of compliance”

    Financial Crimes

    On September 11, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Deputy Director Jamal El-Hindi delivered remarks at the 2019 Money Transmitter Regulators Association’s annual conference. El Hindi’s remarks focused on innovation and reform pertaining to the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), supervision in the non-bank financial institution sector and coordination with state supervisors, and “the importance of a strong culture of compliance and what it means in a national and global security context.” According to El-Hindi, the BSA/anti-money laundering system “is good; but it can always be improved,” including through innovations that can “help better detect and safeguard against illicit activity.” El-Hindi reiterated FinCEN’s policy statement from December 2018, which encouraged innovation in the banking sector. (Previously covered by InfoBytes here.)

    El-Hindi also highlighted recent discussions related to the role artificial intelligence can play in reducing false positives to assist human analysis, and the potential for blockchain technology to enhance transparency through the understanding of customer identity or transaction profiles. He noted that these themes and others emerged from FinCEN’s recent “Innovation Hours Program,” which encourages fintech companies, regtech companies, and financial institutions to present to FinCEN new and innovative products and services for potential use in the financial sector. The program’s upcoming September meeting will focus on innovations in “know your customer” compliance, BSA reporting, and core inter-bank payment and messaging systems associated with industry anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism efforts. Additionally, El-Hindi noted that FinCEN’s enhanced supervision of nonbank financial institutions involves “actively prioritizing and engaging in,” among other activities, (i) conducting examinations of “specialized, rapidly evolving” financial services providers (e.g., virtual currency exchangers and administrators); (ii) identifying sector data to support FinCEN's analytic endeavors; and (iii) developing a stronger framework for risk assessments of the nonbank financial sector “from both the compliance and illicit activity standpoints.” El-Hindi closed his remarks by encouraging FinCEN and other regulators to discuss with foreign counterparts “the concept of a culture of compliance in the United States and what underpins it, and explore with our counterparts concepts that could underpin a culture of compliance in their own jurisdictions.”

    Financial Crimes FinCEN Of Interest to Non-US Persons Bank Secrecy Act Anti-Money Laundering Combating the Financing of Terrorism Fintech Regtech Nonbank

    Share page with AddThis
  • California DBO releases draft regulations for commercial financing disclosures

    State Issues

    In July, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) issued a request for comment on the first draft of regulations implementing the state’s new law on commercial financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in September 2018, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction—defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”—the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the DBO.

    The draft regulation provides general format and content requirements for each disclosure, as well as specific requirements for each type of covered transaction. In addition to the detailed information in the draft regulation, the DBO has released model disclosure forms for the six financing types, (i) closed-end transactions; (ii) open-ended credit plans; (iii) general factoring; (iv) sales-based financing; (v) lease financing; and (vi) asset-based lending. Additionally, the draft regulation uses an annual percentage rate (APR) as the annualized rate disclosure (as opposed to the annualized cost of capital, which was considered in the December 2018 request for comments, covered by InfoBytes here). Moreover, the draft regulation provides additional information for calculating the APR for factoring transactions as well as calculating the estimated APR for sales-based financing transactions.

    Comments on the draft regulations are due by September 9.

    State Issues Small Business Lending Fintech Disclosures APR Commercial Finance Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Nonbank

    Share page with AddThis
  • California DBO requests comments on future rulemaking for commercial financing disclosures

    State Issues

    On December 4, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) released an invitation for comments from interested stakeholders in the development of regulations to implement the state’s new law on commercial financing disclosures. As previously covered by InfoBytes, on September 30, the California governor signed SB 1235, which requires non-bank lenders and other finance companies to provide written consumer-style disclosures for certain commercial transactions, including small business loans and merchant cash advances. Most notably, the act requires financing entities subject to the law to disclose in each commercial financing transaction —defined as an “accounts receivable purchase transaction, including factoring, asset-based lending transaction, commercial loan, commercial open-end credit plan, or lease financing transaction intended by the recipient for use primarily for other than personal, family, or household purposes”—the “total cost of the financing expressed as an annualized rate” in a form to be prescribed by the DBO.

    The act requires the DBO to first develop regulations governing the new disclosure requirements, addressing, among other things, (i) definitions, contents, and methods of calculations for each disclosure; (ii) requirements concerning the time, manner, and format of each disclosure; and (iii) the method to express the annualized rate disclosure and types of fees and charges to be included in the calculation. While the DBO has formulated specific topics and questions in the invitation for comments covering these areas, the comments may address any potential area for rulemaking. Comments must be received by January 22, 2019.

    State Issues Small Business Lending Fintech Disclosures APR Commercial Finance Agency Rule-Making & Guidance Nonbank

    Share page with AddThis
  • Colorado judge rules FDIA does not completely preempt state usury claims against a non-bank

    Courts

    On March 21, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) does not completely preempt a Colorado state regulator’s claims that a non-bank lender violated state law and remanded the case back to state court. The underlying action results from charges brought by the administrator of Colorado’s Uniform Consumer Credit Code against a non-bank lender – which the administrator argues is the “true lender” of loans issued by a New Jersey-chartered bank – for allegedly overcharging interest and other fees in violation of state law. In granting the motion to remand, the court noted that the administrator sufficiently alleged the non-bank was the “true lender” of the loans in question as the non-bank provided the website through which customers apply for the loans, determined the criteria for marketing the loans, decided which applications receive loans, and purchased the loans within two days after they were made by the New Jersey bank. The district court concluded that while courts are split as to banks, because the true lender of the loans was a non-bank, complete preemption by FDIA does not apply even though the non-bank lender has a “close relationship” with a state or national bank. The district court also stated that whether the non-bank is a “true lender” is “not relevant to the issues of complete preemption, which determine whether remand is warranted.”

    Courts Preemption State Issues Usury Interest Rate Nonbank True Lender FDIA

    Share page with AddThis

Upcoming Events