InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB and Fed issue final amendments to Regulation CC
On June 24, the CFPB and the Federal Reserve Board (Fed) announced a final rule amending Regulation CC to adjust dollar amounts cited in the rule for inflation. The Dodd-Frank Act requires that the dollar amounts be adjusted for inflation every five years by the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The agencies selected July as the CPI-W month and will use July 2011 to July 2018 as the initial inflation measurement period. If there is no aggregate percentage increase in the CPI-W or it is negative, the dollar amounts will not be adjusted. The final rule also implements certain measures of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act , including extending coverage of the Expedited Funds Availability Act to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.
The compliance date for the adjustment amounts is July 1, 2020. Other amendments are effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
FTC finalizes rule providing free credit monitoring for servicemembers
On June 24, the FTC finalized the “Free Electronic Credit Monitoring for Active Duty Military Rule,” which implements the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act requirement for nationwide consumer reporting agencies (CRAs) to provide free electronic credit monitoring services for active duty military consumers. The proposed rule, issued in November 2018 (covered by InfoBytes here), defined the term “electronic credit monitoring service” as a service through which the CRAs provide, at a minimum, electronic notification of material additions or modifications to a consumer’s file and requires CRAs to notify active duty military consumers within 24 hours of any material change. The proposal noted that CRAs may require that active duty military provide contact information, proof of identity, and proof of active duty status in order to use the free service and outlines how a servicemember may prove active duty status, such as with a copy of active duty orders. Additionally, the proposal prohibited CRAs from requiring active duty military consumers to purchase a product in order to obtain the free service.
In response to comments on the proposal, the final rule refers to the definition of “active duty military consumer” in the FCRA, which requires that the servicemember be assigned to service away from their usual duty station, or be a member of the National Guard, regardless of whether the National Guard member is stationed away from their normal duty station. The FTC noted that commenters requested the requirement that the servicemember be stationed away from their normal duty station be eliminated but “the statutory language limit[ed] the Commission’s discretion on [the] topic.” However, the FCRA does not apply the same duty station requirement to the National Guard. Additionally, the final rule, among other things (i) requires CRAs to provide free access to a credit file when it notifies an active duty military consumer about a material change to the file; (ii) extends the amount of time the CRAs have to notify an active duty military consumer of a material change from 24 hours to 48 hours; and (iii) prohibits CRAs from requiring that active duty military consumers agree to terms or conditions as a requirement to obtain their free credit file, unless the terms or conditions are necessary to comply with certain legal requirements.
While the final rule goes into effect three months after publication in the Federal Register, CRAs will be allowed to comply with certain portions of the final rule by offering existing credit monitoring services to active duty military consumers for free, for a period of up to one year from the effective date.
Federal and state enforcement agencies coordinate on robocall crackdown
On June 25, the FTC announced a major crackdown on illegal robocalls named “Operation Call it Quits,” which includes 94 enforcement actions from around the country brought by the FTC and 25 other federal, state, and local agencies. In addition to actions targeting the actors, the operation also includes a consumer education initiative and promotion of the development of technology-based solutions to block robocalls and fight caller ID spoofing. In addition to the 87 other enforcement actions brought under the initiatives, the FTC announced four new actions, some of which were filed by the DOJ on the FTC’s behalf, and three new settlements targeting robocallers for violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), among other things. The FTC alleges many of the actors used illegal robocalls to contact financially distressed consumers regarding interest rate reductions, sell fraudulent money-making opportunities, pitch free medical alert systems, or develop leads for solar energy companies. The affected consumers in these actions were often listed on the Do Not Call Registry. The FTC provided a complete list of the 94 actions brought under Operation Call it Quits.
State Attorneys General participating in the initiative are: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. Additionally, local agencies include: the Consumer Protection Divisions of the District Attorneys for the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, and Santa Clara, California; the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; and the Los Angeles City Attorney.
CFTC awards a reduced $2.5 million to whistleblower after reporting delay
On June 24, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced a whistleblower award of approximately $2.5 million to an individual who reported information that led to a successful enforcement action. The CFTC noted that the award was reduced because of the individual’s unreasonable delay in reporting the violations to the CFTC. CFTC officials emphasized that while there may be reasons to delay reporting, “[this] case illustrates the importance of reporting violations to the CFTC as soon as reasonably possible. Reporting early lessens the harm violators can inflict on the public and hastens our investigations to bring the culprits to justice.” The associated order does not provide details of the information provided or the related enforcement action. Since 2014, the CFTC has awarded over $90 million to whistleblowers, whose information has led to more than $730 million in sanctions.
FATF establishes binding measures on virtual currency regulation
On June 21, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued a statement confirming that FATF members agreed to regulate and supervise virtual asset financial activities and related service providers. On the same day, FATF issued a statement noting that it “adopted and issued an Interpretive Note to Recommendation 15 on New Technologies (INR. 15) that further clarifies the FATF’s previous amendments to the international Standards relating to virtual assets and describes how countries and obliged entities must comply with the relevant FATF Recommendations to prevent the misuse of virtual assets for money laundering and terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation.” As previously covered by InfoBytes, in October 2018, FATF urged all countries to take measures to prevent virtual assets and cryptocurrencies from being used to finance crime and terrorism and updated The FATF Recommendations to add new definitions for “virtual assets” and “virtual asset service providers” and to clarify how the recommendations apply to financial activities involving virtual assets and cryptocurrencies.
According to FATF announcement, INR. 15 establishes “binding measures,” which require countries to, among other things, (i) assess and mitigate risks associated with virtual asset activities and service providers; (ii) license or register service providers and subject them to supervision; (iii) implement sanctions and other enforcement measures when service providers fail to comply with an anti-money laundering/combating the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) obligation; and (iv) ensure that service providers implement the full range of AML/CFT preventive measures under the FATF Recommendations, including customer due diligence, record-keeping, suspicious transaction reporting, and screening all transactions for compliance with targeted financial sanctions.
President Trump imposes new sanctions on Iran; OFAC announces designations
On June 24, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13876, “Imposing Sanctions with Respect to Iran,” which: (i) imposes sanctions on Iran’s Supreme Leader’s Office (SLO); and (ii) targets persons appointed to certain official or other positions by the Supreme Leader and/or his office for allegedly taking actions to “destabilize the Middle East, promote international terrorism, and advance Iran’s ballistic missile program, and Iran’s irresponsible and provocative actions in and over international waters.” Among other things, E.O. 13876 authorizes the Secretaries of Treasury and State to impose sanctions on a foreign financial institution if it is determined that it has knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transactions in these sectors, or for or on behalf of a blocked person. These sanctions would prohibit the opening of, or impose strict conditions on maintaining, a correspondent account or payable-through account by such foreign financial institutions in the United States.
On the same day, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated eight senior commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) pursuant to E.O. 13224, which “provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations.” According to OFAC, the sanctions are meant to reinforce the President’s newly issued E.O. 13876. As a result of the designations, “all property and interests in property of these targets that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons must be blocked and reported to OFAC.” OFAC noted that persons who engage in transactions with the designated individuals and entities may be exposed to sanctions themselves or subject to enforcement action.
23 states agree to streamline money service licensing process for fintech companies
On June 24, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) announced that financial regulators from 23 states have now agreed to a multi-state compact that will offer a streamlined licensing process for money services businesses (MSB), including fintech firms. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in February 2018, the original agreement included seven states. According to the announcement, 15 companies are currently involved in the initiative, and as of June 20, they have received 72 licenses. The 23 states participating in the MSB licensing agreement are: California, Connecticut, Georgia, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi. North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wyoming.
Japanese bank pays $33 million to settle NYDFS claims of weak BSA/AML controls
On June 24, the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), together with the New York Attorney General, announced a $33 million settlement with a Japanese bank resolving allegations the bank’s internal controls—specifically, its anti-money laundering (AML), Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions compliance programs—at its New York Branch were “systematically deficient” between November 2014 and November 2018. This allegedly resulted in violations of state and federal laws and regulations, as well as two previous NYDFS consent orders from 2013 and 2014. The settlement resolves an action that was commenced by the bank against NYDFS in connection with a 2017 application with the OCC to convert its state-licensed branches in New York, Illinois, and California and its state-licensed agency offices in Texas to federally licensed branches and agency offices. The action sought to block a NYDFS order that would keep the bank under its supervisory purview notwithstanding the OCC’s granting of the federal charter. The settlement indicates that neither NYDFS, NYAG, or the bank admit any wrongdoing, but have agreed to dismiss all outstanding claims, upon the bank’s monetary payment. The settlement states that NYDFS releases the bank of any further obligations related to the previous consent orders and notes that it “will not attempt to exercise any visitorial power or other supervisory, regulatory, or enforcement authority over [the bank] or its branches or agencies.”
Multinational retailer settles FCPA claims by DOJ and SEC for $282 million
On June 20, the DOJ announced a $137 million settlement with a U.S.-based multinational retailer (the Retailer) and its wholly owned Brazilian subsidiary (the Subsidiary) to resolve claims they violated the FCPA. The Retailer entered into a non-prosecution agreement, while the Subsidiary pleaded guilty. On the same day, the SEC issued an administrative order requiring the Retailer to pay $144 million in disgorgement and interest. The SEC stated that the Retailer failed to “operate a sufficient anti-corruption compliance program for more than a decade as the retailer experienced rapid international growth.” In total, the Retailer will pay more than $282 million to settle the charges.
According to the DOJ announcement, from 2001 to 2011, the Retailer failed to implement and maintain internal accounting controls related to anti-corruption, and senior officials were aware of the failures. The failures allegedly allowed the Retailer’s foreign subsidiaries in Mexico, India, Brazil and China to hire third-party intermediaries (TPIs) “without establishing sufficient controls to prevent those TPIs from making improper payments to government officials in order to obtain store permits and licenses,” which, in turn, allowed the foreign subsidiaries to open stores faster, earning the company additional profits. In its non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ, in addition to the monetary penalty, the Retailer agreed to: (i) appoint an independent compliance monitor for a two-year term; and (ii) continue to cooperate with the DOJ’s investigation. The monetary penalty amount was calculated by reducing by 25 percent the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range for the portion of the penalty applicable to conduct in Brazil, China, and India, and reducing by 20 percent the bottom of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines fine range for the portion of the penalty applicable to conduct in Mexico.
VA encourages relief for Arkansas borrowers
On June 20, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) issued Circular 26-19-16, encouraging mortgagees to provide relief for VA borrowers impacted by severe storms and flooding in Arkansas. Among other forms of assistance, the Circular encourages loan holders and servicers to (i) extend forbearance to borrowers in distress because of the severe storms and flooding; (ii) establishes a 90-day moratorium from the disaster date on initiating new foreclosures on affected loans; (iii) waives late charges on affected loans; and (iv) suspends credit reporting. The Circular is effective until July 1, 2020. Mortgage servicers and veteran borrowers are also encouraged to review the VA’s Guidance on Natural Disasters.
Find continuing InfoBytes coverage on disaster relief guidance here.