Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
On September 8, the FDIC updated its brokered deposits FAQs by adding an FAQ to illustrate an example of when a broker is “proposing deposit allocations” under the “matchmaking” definition. According to the FAQ, if an individual identifies at which banks to place the funds of individual customers of a broker dealer as part of a broker dealer sweep program, the person is “proposing deposit allocations” for purposes of the “matchmaking” definition. The new FAQ explains that this is true even if the broker dealer determines the group of banks, or the order of banks, at which the person can propose placing individual depositor's funds or the maximum amount that can be placed at each bank. In addition, the guidance explains that a person that is “proposing deposit allocations” at, or between, more than one bank, also satisfies the other criteria in the matchmaking definition.
The FDIC also provided a public list of all entities that have submitted public notices for the primary purpose exception as of August 31, 2021. Of the two exceptions that require notice filing, the majority of the filers so far claimed an exception based on “enabling transactions” business relationships whereby 100 percent of depositors’ funds that an agent or nominee places, or assists in placing, at depository institutions are placed into transactional accounts that do not pay any fees, interest, or other remuneration to the depositor.
On August 9, President Biden issued an Executive Order (E.O.) on “Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Belarus.” According to the E.O., expanding the scope will address the national emergency declared in E.O. 13405, “finding that the Belarusian regime’s harmful activities and long-standing abuses aimed at suppressing democracy and the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Belarus—including illicit and oppressive activities stemming from the August 9, 2020, fraudulent Belarusian presidential election and its aftermath, such as the elimination of political opposition and civil society organizations and the regime’s disruption and endangering of international civil air travel—constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.” The E.O blocks property and interests in property that are in the U.S. or in the possession or control of certain persons who meet one or more of the criteria set forth in the order, including those who are determined, among other things: (i) “to be a political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality of the Government of Belarus”; (ii) “to be or have been a leader or official of the Government of Belarus”; and (iii) “to operate or have operated in the defense and related materiel sector, security sector, energy sector, potassium chloride (potash) sector, tobacco products sector, construction sector, or transportation sector of the economy of Belarus, or any other sector of the Belarus economy as may be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State.” The Treasury Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is authorized to take actions, including promulgating rules and regulations, to carry out the purposes of the E.O.
The same day, OFAC issued Belarus General License (GL) 4, related FAQs 916, 917 and 918, and added names to OFAC’s SDN list. Specifically, GL 4 authorizes the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Belaruskali OAO through December 8.
On July 12, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License (GL) 40, “Authorizing Certain Transactions Involving the Exportation or Reexportation of Liquefied Petroleum Gas to Venezuela.” GL 40 permits transactions and activities otherwise prohibited by Executive Order 13884 (covered by InfoBytes here) involving “the Government of Venezuela, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), or any entity in which PdVSA owns, directly or indirectly, a 50 percent or greater interest.” OFAC also published two new FAQs, 914 and 915, related to GL 40.
- Daniel R. Alonso to moderate an interactive roundtable at the Latin Lawyer and GIR Connect: Anti-Corruption & Investigations Conference
- APPROVED Checkpoint Webcast: You have license renewal questions, we have answers
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “Fintech trends” at the BIHC Network Elevating Black Excellence Regional Summit
- Jeffrey P. Naimon to discuss "Truth in lending” at the American Bar Association National Institute on Consumer Financial Services Basics
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss anti-money-laundering at FELABAN Spanish-language webinar “Perspective for banks: LAFT, FINCEN, OFAC, Cryptocurrency”
- Daniel R. Alonso to discuss "What’s new in BSA/AML compliance?" at the Institute of International Bankers Regulatory Compliance Seminar
- Jon David D. Langlois to discuss "Regulatory update: What you need to know under the new boss; It won’t be the same as the old boss" at the IMN Residential Mortgage Service Rights Forum (East)
- Benjamin B. Klubes to discuss “Creating a Fantastic Workplace Culture”
- John R. Coleman and Amanda R. Lawrence to discuss “Consumer financial services government enforcement actions – The CFPB and beyond” at the Government Investigations & Civil Litigation Institute Annual Meeting
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss "Consumer financial services" at the Practising Law Institute Banking Law Institute
- Jonice Gray Tucker to discuss “Regulators always ring twice: Responding to a government request” at ALM Legalweek