InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OFAC announces sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company
On January 28, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, PDVSA. As a result, all assets belonging to the company subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons generally are prohibited from dealing with the company. However, OFAC concurrently issued a number of licenses in order to authorize certain transactions with the company and its subsidiaries, including those necessary to wind down operations or existing contracts.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage of Venezuela actions and E.O.s.
OFAC lifts sanctions on designated companies linked to Russian oligarch
On January 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) lifted sanctions on three companies identified last April in connection with sanctions imposed against a Russian oligarch. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here on the full list of sanctioned Russian oligarchs and government officials.) Under the terms of removal from OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List), the companies reduced the sanctioned Russian oligarch’s “direct and indirect shareholding stake in these companies and severed his control.” The majority of directors on the companies’ boards going forward will be independent directors and include U.S. and European persons with no ties to identified persons on the SDN List. OFAC reports that the companies “have also agreed to unprecedented transparency for Treasury into their operations by undertaking extensive, ongoing auditing, certification, and reporting requirements.” The sanctions imposed against the Russian oligarch remain in place.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Ukraine/Russian sanctions.
Used car dealership fined $3 million by New York City for deceptive practices
On January 25, New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) announced that the city’s largest used car dealership must pay more than $3 million in civil penalties after the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings concluded the dealership used deceptive and illegal practices to profit from low-income and minority consumers. According to the decision, DCA alleged that the dealership engaged in over 90,000 instances of deceptive trade practice in violation of various consumer protection laws, including, among other things, (i) falsifying consumers’ income and/or monthly rent obligations on credit applications; (ii) falsely advertising the financial terms of deals in print and online; (iii) failing to provide documents in Spanish to certain Spanish-speaking consumers; and (iv) misleading consumers about the history and condition of the used cars they purchased. The administrative law judge declined to revoke the dealership’s license, as originally sought by DCA.
This fine is in addition to the settlement agreement between DCA and the used car dealership that required the dealership to pay nearly $142,000 in restitution to 40 consumers and pay $68,000 to cover outstanding loans originated as a result of the allegedly deceptive actions.
Virtual currency is not considered “money” in Pennsylvania; platforms do not need money transmitter license
The Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities recently published guidance stating that virtual currency, including “Bitcoin,” is not considered “money” under the state’s Money Transmitter Act (MTA). According to the guidance, only “fiat currency,” or currency issued by the U.S. government is considered “money” under the MTA and that to transmit money under the MTA, (i) fiat currency must be transferred with or on behalf of an individual to a third party; and (ii) the money transmitter must charge a fee for the transmission. Because virtual currency trading platforms (along with virtual currency kiosks, ATMs, and vending machines) never directly handle fiat currency and there is no transfer of money from a user to a third party, they are not money transmitters under the MTA and therefore do not need a license in order to operate in the state.
9th Circuit holds defendant’s website and mobile app must comply with ADA
On January 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to a national pizza chain’s website and mobile app “even though customers predominantly access them away from the physical restaurant” because the “statute applies to the services of a public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation.” According to the opinion, the plaintiff sued the defendant seeking damages and injunctive relief, contending that the defendant’s website and app did not work with his screen-reading software. The plaintiff requested that the court order the defendant to alter its website and app to comply with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 and make it accessible to individuals with disabilities as required by Title III of the ADA. The defendant argued that the ADA does not apply to its online offerings, and that applying the ADA would violate its due process rights.
Although the district court held that Title III of the ADA applied to the defendant’s website and app, it granted defendant’s motion to dismiss under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, stating that in order to “cure” due process concerns, it would require “meaningful guidance” on website accessibility standards yet to be issued by the DOJ in order “to determine what obligations a regulated individual or institution must abide by in order to comply with Title III.” On appeal, the 9th Circuit reversed the district court’s reliance on the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding it to be inapplicable since waiting for the DOJ to provide guidance on accessibility standards would cause “needless” delay of a resolution the lower court could determine. Moreover, the fact that the DOJ has not articulated a website accessibility standard does not violate a defendant’s due process rights because the “ADA articulates comprehensible standards to which [the defendant’s] conduct must conform.”
User’s lawsuit against online digital currency exchange must be arbitrated
On January 24, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the motion of an online digital currency exchange to compel arbitration in connection with a lawsuit alleging that the exchange negligently failed to prevent a scam. According to the opinion, the plaintiff contacted what he thought was the online exchange’s customer support to inquire about a pending transaction, but actually spoke with a hacker who used the personal information he disclosed to steal more than $200,000 worth of digital currency from his account. In his complaint, the plaintiff claimed that “stronger security measures” by the exchange would have prevented the scam. The exchange moved to compel arbitration, citing the arbitration agreement in the user agreement. In order to establish an account with the exchange, the user is required to check a box which states, “I certify that I am 18 years of age or older, and I agree to the User Agreement and Privacy Policy,” both of which are hyperlinked in the statement. The court found that this “express acceptance” required by the exchange was a clear signal that a user account would be subject to terms and conditions and that the plaintiff had inquiry notice of those terms. The court concluded that the plaintiff also assented to the terms based on witness testimony from the exchange’s “dispute analyst,” who testified that an account cannot be created unless the user checks the box agreeing to the user agreement, and a log of the plaintiff’s visit to the site contains the note “accepted_user_ agreement.” Accordingly, the court granted the exchange’s motion to compel arbitration.
FINRA provides 2019 risk monitoring and examination guidance
On January 22, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued new guidance on areas member firms should consider when seeking to improve their compliance, supervisory, and risk management programs. The 2019 FINRA Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter (2019 Priorities Letter) examines both new priorities as well as areas of ongoing concern, including the adequacy of firms’ cybersecurity programs. FINRA notes, however, that the 2019 Priorities Letter does not repeat topics previously addressed in prior letters, and advises member firms that it will continue to review ongoing obligations for compliance. Topics FINRA plans to focus on in the coming year include:
- Firms’ use of regulatory technology to help compliance efforts become “more efficient, effective, and risk-based.” FINRA will work with firms to understand risks and concerns related to supervision and governance systems, third party vendor management, and safeguarding customer data;
- Supervision of digital assets, including coordinating with the SEC to review how firms determine whether a given digital asset is a security and whether firms are implementing adequate controls and supervisions related to digital assets, such as complying with anti-money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act rules and regulations;
- Assessment of firms’ compliance with FinCEN’s Customer Due Diligence rule, which requires firms to identify beneficial owners of legal entity customers (as previously covered by InfoBytes here); and
- Financial risks, including credit risks, funding and liquidity planning.
FDIC fines banks for flood insurance violations, releases December enforcement actions
On January 25, the FDIC announced a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and individuals in December. The 15 orders include “two Section 19 orders; one civil money penalty; three removal and prohibition orders; four consent orders; one prompt corrective order; three terminations of consent orders; and one notice.” The FDIC assessed a civil money penalty against an Illinois-based bank for alleged violations of the Flood Disaster Protection Act (FDPA) and the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) including failing to (i) obtain flood insurance coverage on loans at origination; (ii) maintain flood insurance; and (iii) “properly force place flood insurance.”
A second civil money penalty was assessed against a Wisconsin-based bank for allegedly engaging in a pattern of violating the FDPA and the NFIA, including failing to (i) follow force placed flood insurance procedures, including notifying a borrower of a lapse in flood insurance coverage and force placing the necessary insurance in a timely fashion; (ii) obtain adequate flood insurance coverage on a loan at origination; and (iii) provide notice to a borrower concerning whether flood insurance under the NFIA was available for the collateral securing a loan.
There are no administrative hearings scheduled for February 2019. The FDIC database containing all 15 enforcement decisions and orders may be accessed here.
Waters announces subcommittee chairs, including newly formed Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion
On January 24, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters, announced that Joyce Beatty (D-OH) will serve as the first Chair of the newly formed Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion. According to Waters’ policy speech on January 17, the new Subcommittee will be “dedicated to looking at diversity and inclusion issues under the Committee’s jurisdiction.” Specifically, Waters cited to low representation of minorities and women in the financial services industry, particularly at the management level, as a reason for the creation of the subcommittee. Using the Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion of the federal financial services regulators as an example, Waters suggested that the subcommittee be responsible for overseeing diversity in management, employment, and business activities in the financial industry. In addition to diversity and inclusion, Waters noted that, among other things, fair housing, including conducting “robust oversight” of HUD, and fintech would be top priorities for the subcommittee.
Democrats request Otting explain comments about ending the GSEs conservatorship
On January 25, top Democratic Congressional leaders, Maxine Waters and Sherrod Brown, wrote to acting Director of the FHFA, Joseph Otting, requesting that he clarify and expand on his reported remarks concerning the administration’s plan to move Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (collectively, “GSEs”) out of conservatorship. Specifically, Otting reportedly told FHFA employees that he would soon announce a plan to move the GSEs out from under government control and that he was given a “clear mission” outlined by Treasury and the White House of “what they want to accomplish” with the agency. Waters and Brown expressed concern about Otting’s ability to lead the agency independently based on these comments, as well as a recent filing of the agency with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit stating that the agency would no longer defend the constitutionality of the FHFA’s structure. (Covered by InfoBytes here.) Waters and Brown also requested that Otting submit by February 1 a copy of the “mission that Treasury and the White House have outlined.” In response, Otting stated that he appreciated the Democratic leaders’ interest in housing finance, outlined the statutory duties of the FHFA, and welcomed input as they “begin the journey of evaluating the Enterprises and developing a framework for ending conservatorship.”
As previously covered by InfoBytes, in June 2018, the White House announced a government reorganization plan titled, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations.” The plan covers a wide-range of government reorganization proposals, including a proposal to end the conservatorship of the GSEs and fully privatize the companies.