InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
SEC suit alleges fraudulent ICO
On January 21, the SEC announced that it filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against a blockchain company and the company’s founder (defendants) for allegedly “conducting a fraudulent and unregistered initial coin offering (ICO).” The SEC alleges, among other things, that from 2017 until 2018, the defendants raised $600,000 from nearly 200 investors through promoting an ICO of digital asset securities called “OPP Tokens,” using material misrepresentations to create the false impression that the defendants’ platform was creating notable growth in the company. The defendants marketed the tokens by making misstatements to potential investors, greatly exaggerating the numbers of providers that were “willing to do business on, and contribute content to, [defendants’] blockchain-based platform.” The complaint also alleges that in marketing the ICO, the defendants provided a catalog of small businesses eligible to use the defendants’ platform that numbered in the millions, in order to create the false impression that the platform had a huge base of users. In reality, the catalog was not compiled by the defendants, but was simply acquired from a vendor. Additionally, the SEC alleges that the defendants provided numerous customer reviews in its promotions to create the impression that the platform had many users creating content, which were actually reviews stolen from a third-party website. The SEC charges that in addition to the above allegations, the defendants misrepresented that they had filed an SEC registration statement for the ICO. The SEC seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, civil money penalties, and a permanent bar preventing the founder from serving as officer or director of any public company.
Point-of-sale finance company enters into consent order with California DBO
On January 16, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) and a point-of-sale finance company entered into a consent order to resolve the DBO’s allegations that the company had made loans without a license to California consumers. According to the order, the company applied for a license under the California Financing Law (CFL) in September 2019. The DBO initially denied the company’s license application on December 30, 2019 (previously covered by InfoBytes here) and issued a statement of issues explaining its reasoning. The DBO found that the company’s transactions were disguised loans subject to the CFL. The company had argued that its transactions were credit sales not subject to the CFL. Ultimately, the company agreed to resolve the matter and pay $282,000 in refunds to consumers and a $28,200 fine for unlicensed lending. Additionally, the company agreed to “cease providing loans or extensions of credit to California residents by means of purchasing credit sales contracts from merchants” and “only provide loans or extensions of credit to California residents under the authority of a license issued by the Commissioner under the CFL.” Simultaneous with the announcement of the consent order, the DBO issued the company a license.
FDIC extends deadline for comments on innovation pilot programs
On January 14, the FDIC again published a notice and request for comments in the Federal Register on innovation pilot programs. The FDIC first solicited comments on innovation pilot programs in November, with comments due by January 6. As no comments were submitted, the agency is once again requesting comments on the programs, which, as previously covered by InfoBytes, it hopes will spur collaboration “with innovators in the financial, non-financial, and technology sectors to, among other things, identify, develop, and promote technology-driven innovations among community and other banks in a manner that ensures the safety and soundness of FDIC-supervised and insured institutions.”
Comments must be received by February 13.
SEC announces 2020 OCIE exam priorities
On January 7, the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE) announced the release of its 2020 Examination Priorities. The annual release of exam priorities provides transparency into the risk-based examination process and lists areas that pose current and potential risks to investors. OCIE’s 2020 examination priorities include:
- Retail investors, including seniors and those saving for retirement. OCIE places particular emphasis on disclosures and recommendations provided to investors.
- Information security. In addition to cybersecurity, top areas of focus include: risk management, vendor management, online and mobile account access controls, data loss prevention, appropriate training, and incident response.
- Fintech and innovation, digital assets and electronic investment advice. OCIE notes that the rapid pace of technology development, as well as new uses of alternative data, presents new risks and will focus attention on the effectiveness of compliance programs.
- Investment advisers, investment companies, broker-dealers, and municipal advisers. Risk-based exams will continue for each of these types of entities, with an emphasis on new registered investment advisers (RIA) and RIAs that have not been examined. Other themes in exams of these entities include board oversight, trading practices, advice to investors, RIA activities, disclosures of conflicts of interest, and fiduciary obligations.
- Anti-money laundering. Importance will be placed on beneficial ownership, customer identification and due diligence, and policies and procedures to identify suspicious activity.
- Market infrastructure. Particular attention will be directed to clearing agencies, national securities exchanges and alternative trading systems, and transfer agents.
- FINRA and MSRB. OCIE exams will emphasize regulatory programs, exams of broker-dealers and municipal advisers, as well as policies, procedures and controls.
CFPB and Utah AG to hold joint office hours in Salt Lake City
On January 9, the CFPB and the Utah attorney general’s office announced that the first of the American Consumer Financial Innovation Network’s (ACFIN) joint office hours will be held in Salt Lake City, Utah on January 30. The CFPB’s announcement states that the office hours are intended to “provide innovators with the opportunity to discuss issues such as financial technology, innovative products or services, regulatory sandboxes, no action letters, and other matters related to financial innovation with officials from the CFPB and state partners.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, the CFPB, along with a number of state regulators, established ACFIN in September with the aim of reducing “regulatory burdens” and increasing “regulatory certainty for innovative financial products and services.” Members of ACFIN currently include state AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah; and state financial regulators from Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and Tennessee. ACFIN membership is open to any state and federal partners interested in joining.
California governor proposes strengthening state consumer protection authority and increasing financial innovation
On January 10, the California governor submitted his proposal for California’s 2020-2021 state budget, which would, among other things, include the creation and administration of the California Consumer Protection Law (Law). The governor’s budget summary indicates that “[t]he federal government’s rollback of the CFPB leaves Californians vulnerable to predatory businesses and leaves companies without the clarity they need to innovate.” The proposed Law is intended to provide “consumers with more protection against unfair and deceptive practices when accessing financial services and products.” To create and administer the Law, the proposed budget contemplates the expansion of the Department of Business of Oversight’s (DBO) authority to “protect consumers” and “foster the responsible development of new financial products.” In light of the expanded role, the governor also proposed renaming the DBO to the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation. The governor’s budget includes an allocation to the DBO of a $10.2 million Financial Protection Fund and 44 positions in 2020-2021, which would increase to $19.3 million and 90 positions in 2022-2023 for creating and implementing the Law.
According to the DBO’s website, the DBO currently “provides protection to consumers and services to businesses engaged in financial transactions” and “oversees the operations of state-licensed financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, money transmitters, issuers of payment instruments and travelers checks, and premium finance companies.” Under the governor’s budget proposal summary, in addition to the DBO’s current functions, the DBO will have greater authority to “pursue unlicensed financial service providers not currently subject to regulatory oversight such as debt collectors, credit reporting agencies, and financial technology (fintech) companies, among others.”
The budget proposal summary provides that the DBO’s new activities will include:
- Offering services to educate consumers (e.g., older Americans, students, military service members, and recent immigrants).
- Licensing and examining industries that are currently under-regulated.
- Analyzing market patterns and developments for evidence-based policies and enforcement.
- Enforcing against unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices.
- Establishing a new Financial Technology Innovation Office, which will be tasked with proactively promoting “responsible development of new consumer financial products.”
- Providing legal support for the administration of the Law.
- Expanding administrative and IT staff to support the DBO’s increased authority.
The details of the Governor’s budget proposal have not yet been published.
CSBS releases Vision 2020 Accountability Report on fintech initiatives
On January 7, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) released a report by its Fintech Industry Advisory Panel outlining progress made on several initiatives to streamline state licensing and supervision of financial technology companies. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the panel was convened in 2017 as part of Vision 2020—a state regulator initiative to modernize the regulation of fintech companies and other non-banks by creating an integrated, 50-state system of licensing and supervision. The Accountability Report charts progress on initiatives identified by the panel, which, according to the announcement, fit into four focus areas: (i) the use of CSBS regtech for licensing and exams, including expanding the use of NMLS among states across all license types for nonbank financial services, developing “state licensing requirements for multi-state consistency,” and launching a new state examination system; (ii) improved consistency among states, including 26 states signing on to the Multistate Money Service Business (MSB) Licensing Agreement, which is intended to streamline the MSB licensing process; (iii) the creation of uniform definitions and practices and the development of a 50-state MSB model law and state accreditation programs for MSBs, which will encourage greater consistency among states; and (iv) increased regulatory transparency, including online resources for state guidance and exemptions, as well as information sessions with regulators and industry to discuss fintech developments.
California DBO denies point-of-sale lending license application; issues related guidance
On December 30, the California Department of Business Oversight (DBO) announced the denial of a Minnesota-based point-of-sale company’s application to make loans under the California Financing Law (CFL) after determining the company had already been making unregulated loans to California consumers in violation of the CFL. According to the DBO’s Statement of Issues, the fintech company offers a product that allows consumers to enter into small installment loans in order to make online purchases at participating merchants. The company contended that it purchases credit sale contracts from merchants selling goods to consumers, and argued that these types of purchases do not qualify as loans subject to the CFL. However, following a review of the company’s application and products, the DBO concluded that the company structured its merchant partners’ purported credit sales to evade otherwise applicable consumer protections. Moreover, the DBO stated in its press release that the company’s “extensive role in its merchants’ transactions and pre-existing relationship with some consumers who were parties to the purported credit sales showed that [the company] was making loans under California law.” According to the decision, “[e]xtensive third-party involvement in the underlying credit sale may cause transactions to be deemed loans, regardless of form . . . even if the underlying credit sale is bona fide” (italics in original).
The DBO also issued a separate legal opinion advising a different, unidentified lender that its deferred payment products meet the Civil Code and case law definition of “loans” and therefore require a CFL license to be offered in the state. Among other things, the DBO argued that it is unclear as to why the lender’s products—which the lender claims “are not loans but similar to a forbearance”—would be exempt from the CFL, reiterating that loans and forbearances are both subject to usury provisions. The DOB noted that point-of-sale financing transactions may meet the definition of a loan when: (i) the transactions are treated like loans by the consumer, merchant, and third-party financer, “despite contradictory language in the applicable contracts”; (ii) there is an extensive relationship between the merchant and third-party financer; (iii) disclosures are not clearly made to the consumer about the role of the third-party financer and all financing terms; and (iv) “the financing transaction is not otherwise regulated.”
Fed issues new fintech compliance bulletin
On December 17, the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) released a new issue of the Consumer Compliance Supervision Bulletin focusing on supervisory insights into consumer compliance issues related to fintech to assist financial institutions with assessing and managing risk associated with technological innovation. Among the topics covered in the bulletin, are (i) managing risk with fintech collaborations—the Fed stresses the importance of creating strong policies and procedures, as well as board and senior management oversight, comprehensive and tailored training, and risk monitoring; (ii) managing UDAP risks with online and mobile banking platforms—the Fed recommends a focus on ensuring consistency and accuracy in disclosures on the platforms and the regular monitoring of complaints; and (iii) managing possible fair lending risks resulting from targeted online marketing—the Fed suggests careful monitoring over marketing activities and vendors, as well as close review of filters used with internet advertising to prevent excluding populations with legally protected characteristics. The bulletin will be featured on the agency’s new fintech page previously covered by InfoBytes here.
FDIC issues brokered-deposits proposal
On December 12, the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) requesting comments on revisions to the agency’s brokered deposit regulations implementing Section 29 of the FDI Act, and also issued an associated factsheet. The regulations were originally implemented in the late 1980s, and the FDIC more recently issued guidance in the form of FAQs in 2016. The FDIC’s NPRM follows an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking issued last December (previously covered by InfoBytes here), that requested feedback on ways in which the agency could improve its brokered deposit regulation. According to the FDIC, the NPRM would modernize and establish a new framework to ensure the “classification of a deposit as brokered appropriately reflects changes in the banking system, including banks’ use of new technologies to engage and interact with their customers.” Among other things, the NPRM would: (i) revise the “facilitation” prong of the deposit broker definition so that it applies to persons who engage in specified activities; (ii) revise two exceptions under Section 29—the first would allow a wholly owned operating subsidiary to be eligible for the insured depository institution exception to the “deposit broker” definition in certain circumstances, while the second would amend the “primary purpose exception” for agents or nominees whose primary purposes are not the placement of funds with insured depository institutions for customers (the FDIC plans to establish an application process for third parties who want to take advantage of the primary purpose exception); and (iii) continue to consider an agent’s placement of brokered CDs as deposit brokering, and continue to be report such deposits as brokered. Chair McWilliams provided remarks (linked here) about brokered deposit regulation at a Brookings Institution event the day before the NPRM was adopted.
Board member Martin Gruenberg voted against the NPRM, stating that the proposal would “significantly weaken” the rule and would narrow the scope of deposits that are considered brokered “without adequate justification and expose the banking system to significantly increased risk.”
Comments on the NPRM are due within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register.