InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB Issues Advisory Bulletin on Detecting and Preventing Consumer Harm from Production Incentives
In a November 28 advisory bulletin entitled Detecting and Preventing Consumer Harm from Production Incentives, the CFPB highlights examples from its supervisory and enforcement experience in which incentives contributed to substantial consumer harm. The bulletin also describes compliance management steps that supervised entities should take to mitigate risks posed by incentives. Among other things, the CFPB clarifies that it is not outlawing sales incentives or other similar programs, but rather is cautioning companies that such programs can lead to abuse. As explained in the bulletin, “[t]ying bonuses or employment status to unrealistic sales goals or to the terms of transactions may intentionally or unintentionally encourage illegal practices such as unauthorized account openings, unauthorized opt-ins to overdraft services, deceptive sales tactics, and steering consumers into less favorable products.”
IG Report Concludes that IRS Lacks Compliance Strategy For Virtual Currencies
On November 8, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report evaluating the IRS’s strategy for addressing income produced via virtual currencies. The report which was completed on Sept. 21, but released Tuesday, observed that none of the agency’s divisions have yet developed any type of compliance initiatives or guidelines for conducting examinations or investigations specific to tax noncompliance related to virtual currencies. Accordingly, the TIGTA recommended that the IRS develop a comprehensive strategy for virtual currencies such as Bitcoin to help ensure compliance with tax law. The report also recommended that the IRS provide updated guidance to reflect the necessary documentation requirements and tax treatments necessary for the various uses of virtual currency and that the agency revise third-party reporting documents so that they identify how much virtual currency was used in taxable transactions. The IRS agreed with each of these three recommendations.
Brazilian Aircraft Maker Resolves FCPA Charges for Over $205 Million
A Brazilian aircraft manufacturer, will pay more than $205 million to the SEC and the DOJ to resolve alleged FCPA violations stemming from payments made through its third-party agents to officials in the Dominican Republic, Saudi Arabia, and Mozambique that allegedly resulted in more than $83 million in profits for the company. Pursuant to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement with DOJ, the Brazilian company must pay a penalty of more than $107 million and must retain an independent corporate compliance monitor for three years. The company will also pay more than $98 million in disgorgement and interest to the SEC, but it may receive a credit of up to a $20 million depending on the amount of disgorgement it pays in a parallel civil proceeding in Brazil. Additional FCPA Scorecard coverage of the company's investigation can be found here, here, and here.
FinCEN Acting Director Comments on Recent Casino Actions and Culture of Compliance
On October 3, FinCEN Acting Director Jamal El-Hindi issued a statement regarding anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism compliance. According to Acting Director El-Hindi, two recent actions against casinos represent failure to (i) adequately train staff at every level in the organization; and (ii) properly file - or file at all – Suspicious Activity Reports and Currency Transaction Reports. Still, Acting Director El-Hindi acknowledged that casinos in general have improved their AML compliance efforts. Acting Director El-Hindi stated that FinCEN will continue to work with casinos on their compliance efforts, and cautioned that “[a] good compliance culture is one where doing the right thing is rewarded, and where ‘looking the other way’ has consequences.”
CFPB Orders Small-Dollar Lender to Pay $10 Million for Debt Collection Practices; Releases Compliance Bulletin
On December 16, the CFPB announced a consent order against a Texas-based small-dollar lender for alleged violations of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), and the EFTA’s implementing regulation, Regulation E. According to the CFPB, beginning in July 2011, the company engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices and violated Regulation E by (i) visiting consumers’ homes and places of employment to collect debts; (ii) contacting third parties for reasons other than to acquire consumers’ location information, which put consumers at risk of their information being disclosed to third parties, and ignoring requests to stop calling consumers’ workplaces; (iv) making false threats of litigation if consumers did not pay the past due amount; (v) misrepresenting the company’s ability to, and routine practice to, run credit checks on loan applicants; (vi) requiring consumers to pay using pre-authorized electronic fund transfers; (vii) causing consumers to incur fees from their banks due to electronic withdrawal practices; and (viii) misrepresenting a consumer’s ability to repay loans early and to revoke authorization for electronic withdrawal authorization. The CFPB’s administratively-filed consent order requires the company to pay $7,500,000 towards refunding consumers affected by its practices, and pay a civil money penalty of $3,000,000. In addition, the order prohibits the company from collecting on defaulted loans owed by approximately 130,000 consumers, and from engaging in unfair and deceptive debt collection practices in the future.
The CFPB simultaneously released Compliance Bulletin 2015-07, warning creditors, debt buyers, and third-party collectors of potentially unlawful in-person debt collection practices. Specifically, the bulletin reminds the financial services industry of debt collection practices prohibited by the Dodd-Frank Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, including (i) engaging in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices; (ii) communicating with a consumer at any place or time that the debt collector knows, or should know, to be inconvenient to the consumer; (iii) communicating with persons other than the consumer (and other identified parties, except in certain circumstances) for purposes other than acquiring location information; (iv) “‘us[ing] unfair or unconscionable means to collect, or attempt to collect, debt’”; and (v) “‘engag[ing] in any conduct the consequences of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse a person in connection with collecting a debt.’”
Multiple Agencies Take Action Against Paris-Based Investment Bank for Sanctions Violations
On October 20, the DOJ, OFAC, the NYDFS, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, and the Federal Reserve simultaneously announced that a Paris-based investment bank would pay a total of more than $787 million to settle multiple alleged violations of U.S. sanctions regulations. The OFAC settlement resolves allegations that the investment bank and certain predecessor banks, between August 6, 2003 and September 16, 2008, processed 4,055 transactions – for a total of approximately $337,043,846 – to or through U.S. financial institutions that involved countries and/or persons subject to the sanctions regulations administered by OFAC. The investment bank settled with OFAC for more than $329,500,000, an amount that reflects the agency’s consideration of the following aggravating factors: (i) the investment bank had indications that its actions had the potential to constitute violations of the U.S. law before the earliest date of the apparent violations; (ii) several managers of the investment bank were aware of the conduct that led to the violations; (iii) the investment bank’s conduct resulted in significant harm to various sanctions programs OFAC oversees and their associated policy objectives; (iv) the investment bank’s size and sophistication, along with its global presence; and (v) the investment bank’s failure to maintain proper controls to prevent the violations from occurring and otherwise maintain an adequate compliance program.
In addition to OFAC’s settlement, parallel actions against the bank resulted in the investment bank agreeing to pay (i) $385 million to the NYDFS; (ii) $90.3 million to the Federal Reserve; (iii) $156 million to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office; and (iv) $156 million to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
FinCrimes Webinar Series Recap: The Role of Corruption Risk in a Financial Crimes Compliance Program
BuckleySandler hosted a webinar, The Role of Corruption Risk in a Financial Crimes Compliance Program: What are Banks Doing to Detect Corruption in the Wake of the FIFA Scandal?, on September 24, 2015 as part of their ongoing FinCrimes Webinar Series. Panelists included Thomas Coupe, EMEA Global Financial Crimes at Bank of America Merrill Lynch; and Compliance; Gaon Hart, Global Anti-Bribery & Corruption Policy and Education Lead at HSBC; and Denisse Rudich, Financial Crimes Compliance Specialist at Firedrake Consulting. The following is a summary of the guided conversation moderated by Jamie Parkinson, partner at BuckleySandler, and key take-aways you can implement in your company.
Best Practice Tips and Take-Aways:
- Corruption risk for a financial services firm is presented both directly and indirectly. Corruption risk is presented directly when an employee or third parties acting on behalf of an institution act in a way that implicated anti-corruption laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, U.K. Bribery Act or another anti-corruption law. Corruption risk is presented indirectly when a customer seeks to use a financial institution for a corrupt deal or to hold or transmit funds associated with a corrupt scheme.
- It is important to have one person your organization can look to when an anti-corruption concern arises. This person should serve as the point of contact for your regulators and have the ability to quickly escalate concerns to senior management and the board of directors.
- New customers with past corruption issues present special challenges. Be sure that your onboarding and due diligence processes are able to identify and evaluate these concerns.
- Bear in mind that corruption risk management also requires looking at your organization internally. This means examining your own employees for conflicts issues, evaluating your organization’s sponsorships and donations, and performing due diligence on your third-party suppliers.
- Effective anti-corruption risk management requires cultivating a culture within your organization that supports your efforts. This is an area that regulators are increasingly interested in.
Structuring an Effective Corruption Risk Management Function
The panelists began the session by discussing where best to locate corruption risk management within a bank. The panelists observed that corruption risk management differs from other financial crimes areas, such as anti-money-laundering, because it is more inwardly focused. Panelists commented that, for some institutions, corruption risk management might be a better fit with areas that deal more with the culture of the organization, such as reputational risk and conduct risk. One panelist observed that the regulators have been increasing their focus on the culture of organizations, heightening the importance of this aspect of corruption risk management.
The panelists discussed the most efficient way to structure an organization’s anti-corruption standards. Generally, the panelists agreed that it makes the most sense to develop centralized standards based on the most stringent anti-corruption statutes, such as the FCPA and UK Bribery act. This approach will help account for the extraterritorial application of the FCPA and UK Bribery act. The panelists recommended developing add-on standards that apply in countries where there is a local statute with additional requirements. In particular, the panelists observed that local statutes may provide different rules for entertainment expenses and facilitating payments.
The panelists observed that corruption-risk screening should be integrated into the onboarding process for new customers. In this area, it is important to consider the differences between Public Officials (“PO’s”) and Politically-Exposed Persons (“PEP’s”). One key issue to be aware of is that screening tools and databases designed to identify PEP’s may miss lower-level PO’s. PEP screening tools may also miss State-Owned Enterprises; for example if the government owns only a small share of the company. Therefore, it is important to look closely at new customers and suppliers to identify if there are indirect links to government officials, or if the company has a history of working closely with the government, or if the company’s beneficial ownership raises any concerns.
One of the panelists observed that a new customer with past corruption issues presents special concerns in the due diligence process. Here, robust due diligence is needed to assess what changes the customer has implemented since the corruption issue came to light, and whether they have cooperated with the authorities and/or compliance monitors. Heightened monitoring should also be put in place for these customers.
Responding to a Corruption Concern
The panelists discussed how to respond when the bank receives news that a counterparty or a customer may pose a corruption risk. Here, the panelists agreed that it is important to have a well-thought out and comprehensive incident response plan in place. This plan should:
- Identify who in the organization is the designated point person for coordinating the response. This person should serve as the contact point for regulators, and be able to quickly escalate issues to senior management and board of directors. Along these lines,
- Specify who is to be notified of the issue and when. The panelists stressed the need for the incident plan to also address reputational risk to the bank.
- Lay out steps that allow the bank to determine if the corruption risk affects the bank, and if so, to what degree. This will involve using databases to search for names of both corporate and individual customers. This will also require setting up suspense accounts if needed and reporting these accounts as appropriate. After addressing the funds on hand within the bank, it will be necessary to perform a historical look-back for suspicious transactions.
The panelists also discussed how to respond to corruption concerns that arise from within the organization. The panelists observed that AML monitoring tools will often detect transactions that may present a corruption risk. Therefore, it makes sense to have close communication between the AML function and corruption risk management. The panelists concluded the discussion by observing that corruption risk should become as central to a bank’s business function as credit-risk has been traditionally.
FinCEN's Associate Director for Enforcement Delivers Remarks at BSA Conference
On June 18, FinCEN’s Associate Director for Enforcement, Stephanie Brooker, delivered remarks at the Bank Secrecy Act Conference, focusing on three main areas: (i) BSA filing trends, the value of BSA data, and compliance development in the casino industry over the past year; (ii) FinCEN’s enforcement approach and recent enforcement developments; and (iii) the significance of establishing and maintaining a culture of compliance throughout the business and compliance sides of casinos and card clubs. In addition, Brooker noted certain principles at the core of FinCEN’s enforcement program: (i) transparency in the agency’s rationale behind its enforcement actions; (ii) accountability, ensuring that financial institutions, and any individual related to the financial institution, take responsibility for violations of the BSA; and (iii) giving credit where credit is due by considering an institution’s “documented improvements in AML compliance over time.” Finally, Brooker stressed that in order for a financial institution to successfully maintain a culture of compliance, its business side and business leaders must take AML controls and BSA compliance seriously, meaning that “every casino employee, from the top down, views AML compliance as part of his or her responsibility.”
OCC Comptroller Delivers Remarks Regarding BSA/AML Compliance
On March 2, OCC Comptroller Curry delivered remarks before the Institute of International Bankers regarding BSA/AML compliance obligations for financial institutions. During his remarks, Comptroller Curry emphasized that a top priority for the OCC has been to strengthen BSA/AML compliance at its supervised institutions. In this regard, the OCC has (i) modified its bank examination process so that BSA deficiencies receive proper emphasis in the evaluation of safety and soundness; (ii) focused on the BSA/AML risks posed by third-party relationships; (iii) required that institutions adequately resource their BSA/AML compliance programs; (iv) required institutions to assign accountability for BSA/AML compliance across all business lines presenting BSA/AML risk; and (v) taken enforcement action to enforce BSA/AML compliance when appropriate. Through his remarks, Comptroller Curry also addressed the need to improve the BSA/AML regulatory framework itself. Specifically, Comptroller Curry indicated that the OCC wanted (i) to streamline the SAR reporting process, (ii) to find better ways to use technology to advance BSA/AML goals, and (iii) to increase information sharing by creating safe harbors from civil liability both for financial institutions that file SARs and for financial institutions that share information about financial crimes with each other.
NCUA To Join Fair Lending Webinar Hosted By The Federal Reserve Board
On October 15, the NCUA released a statement noting that Jamie Goodson, Director of Consumer Compliance Policy and Outreach in the National Credit Union Administration’s Office of Consumer Protection, will participate in the scheduled webinar, “Fair Lending Hot Topics.” Regulators from the Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the FDIC, the OCC, the Justice Department, and HUD are also scheduled to participate in the webinar on October 22. Webinar topics include, among others, auto lending enforcement, fair lending risk assessments, and mortgage pricing risks. The webinar is part of an ongoing series of consumer compliance events.