InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
Ukrainian Billionaire Files Motion to Dismiss Indictment
A Ukrainian billionaire indicted in 2013 for his alleged role in a conspiracy to bribe government officials in India to permit the mining of titanium minerals filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on May 9 in a federal district court in Illinois. The billionaire also faces money laundering and RICO charges along with five alleged coconspirators. In 2015, an Austrian court denied the United States’ extradition request, but that decision was eventually reversed and the billionaire was extradited earlier this year. See previous Scorecard coverage here.
The billionaire’s motion to dismiss focuses on the lack of jurisdictional contact between the charged conduct and the United States. It vigorously challenges the jurisdictional basis alleged in the indictment, which was that the billionaire’s coconspirators, but not the billionaire himself, transferred money through United States correspondent banks, traveled to the United states, and used email accounts and cellular phones hosted on servers in the United States. However, the billionaire claims that the indictment fails to allege that any of these contacts have any connection to the alleged bribery scheme and that he never entered the United States in connection with the charged conduct, and never made or received any phone calls or sent or received any emails regarding the allegations in the indictment.
The amount and quality of contacts with the United States required to support jurisdiction under the FCPA is a frequently contested issue. The United States has repeatedly taken the position that jurisdiction is proper even where the wrongful conduct took place outside the United States and did not involve any United States companies or citizens, so long as there was some contact with the United States. For example, in the recent Hungarian telecommunications company cases, emails sent through servers hosted in the United States were held to be sufficient to support jurisdiction. See previous Scorecard coverage here. The outcome of the billionaire’s motion to dismiss will shed further light on the jurisdictional standard.
Reports: American Multinational Retailing Corporation Nearing Resolution of Bribery Probe
Bloomberg reports that an American multinational retailing corporation is nearing a resolution of a five-year old joint inquiry by the DOJ and SEC. Citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reports that the company is preparing to pay $300 million to settle allegations that company employees paid bribes in Mexico, China, and India. The same source reported that the resolution will also include at least one guilty plea by a subsidiary of the company, a non-prosecution agreement for the parent company, and a monitorship.
In March of 2015, a federal district court in Arkansas dismissed with prejudice a consolidated shareholder derivative suit accusing the company's board of directors of concealing Mexican bribery claims from investors. The lawsuit was filed after a 2012 article by the New York Times reported that top officials at the company’s Mexican subsidiary oversaw millions of dollars in bribes in connection with the company’s expansion in Mexico. See previous Scorecard coverage here. The same article is believed to have touched off the DOJ’s and SEC’s inquiry. If true, a $300 million resolution would not be near the top end of FCPA resolutions.
Nevada Company Executives Agree to Pay Tribe $2.5 Million for Participating in Embezzlement and Kickback Scheme
On May 2, during a change of plea hearing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, a Nevada-based company and three of its executives pled guilty for their roles in a scheme to help tribal officials embezzle money and provide kickbacks to its payday lender officials. Specifically, the company pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, while one of the principals and the President and CEO both pled guilty to charges of “conspiracy to commit wire fraud and engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity.” The other principal pled guilty to charges of misprision of felony, according to the plea agreement. The plea agreements further stipulate that full restitution is due to the tribe in the amount of $2.5 million. The payment in the 2015 settlement of the civil case in this matter (see writ of execution in The Chippewa Cree Tribe of The Rocky Boy Reservation of Montana v. Encore Services No. 2:14-cv-01294-JCM-PAL (D. Nev. Feb. 2, 2015)) will offset the restitution in the criminal case. In addition, one of the principals and the President/CEO are responsible for paying an additional $700,000 each, according to the breakdown contained within two of the plea deals. Sentencing is scheduled for August 24.
Oklahoma Governor Vetoes Legislation Expanding High-Cost Payday Lending
On May 5, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin vetoed legislation that would have expanded consumer payday lending in the state. Oklahoma House Bill 1913—known as the “Oklahoma Small Loan Act”—would have allowed lenders to offer installment loans with terms no longer than 12 months and interest rates up to 17 percent per month. Fallin’s veto message to the House expressed concerns about adding another high interest loan product without eliminating or restricting existing payday loan products: “House Bill 1913 adds yet another level of high interest borrowing (over 200% APR) without terminating or restricting access to existing payday loan products.” Fallin further asserted that “some of the loans created by this bill would be more expensive than the current loan options.” Four years prior, Fallin vetoed Senate Bill 817 “due to [her] concerns with the frequency [with which] low-income families in Oklahoma were using these lending options, and the resulting high cost of repayment to those families.” In the veto message, Fallin requested that the state legislature seek advice from her office as well as consumer advocates and mainstream financial institutions if it decides to revisit these issues. Under Section 11 of Article 6 of the Oklahoma Constitution, the legislation can still be enacted if two-thirds of the members of both legislative chambers vote to override the veto. In earlier votes, the legislation fell short of the two-thirds threshold, passing the Oklahoma House 59-31 and the Senate by a 28-16 margin.
Notably, last year, the CFPB published proposed rules in the Federal Register affecting payday, title, and certain other high-cost installment loans (see previously posted Special Alert).
Massachusetts AG Announces Settlement with Student Loan Debt Relief Company
On April 28, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey announced a settlement with a student loan debt relief company to resolve allegations that the company charged consumers illegal upfront fees to receive debt relief assistance and falsely led customers to believe it was affiliated with the federal government. According to the Attorney General’s office, this is the fourth in a series of enforcement actions brought against student loan debt relief companies in the state. Under the terms of the April settlement, the company is required to refund $6,500 to 18 affected borrowers, must agree to discontinue providing student loan services, and is prohibited from selling or disseminating Massachusetts customer information collected. Previously in 2015 and 2016, Healey announced settlements with three debt relief companies, bringing the overall recovery total to-date to more than $260,000. In November 2015, the state launched the Student Loan Assistance Unit to assist borrowers unable to repay their loans (see previous InfoBytes summary).
American Bankers Association White Paper Addresses Concerns Over HMDA Expansion
On May 2, the American Bankers Association (ABA) issued a white paper to the Treasury Department on the implementation of the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rule as part of its continuing response to President Trump’s executive order outlining “core principles” for financial regulation (see previously issued Special Alert here). The white paper, HMDA – More Really is Less: The Data Fog Frustrates HMDA, presents several views held by the ABA including that the CFPB should (i) rescind requirements to collect any data fields not expressly required by HMDA; (ii) suspend the effective date of the 2015 HMDA rule until privacy and security concerns are addressed (see previously issued Special Alert here); (iii) exclude commercial loans from HMDA coverage; and (iv) revoke the new HMDA data elements added by the Dodd-Frank Act. The ABA noted that the Dodd-Frank Act added more than 13 new categories to the statutory HMDA data fields lenders are required to collect, and in the implementing regulation, Regulation C, the CFPB added 25 new data fields to the existing 23 fields. The ABA noted that the CFPB estimates that, in addition to existing costs of HMDA compliance, the additional annual costs of operations will be approximately $120.6 million conservatively (more if reporting quarterly) and lenders will incur a one-time additional cost of between $177 million and $326.6 million. Furthermore, the ABA states there still remains a need to address the “significant” privacy issues presented by the “vast trove of data points added by Dodd-Frank,” and that “the collection and transfer and warehousing of greatly increased and more sensitive data will necessitate even more robust and costlier private sector and government systems.” However, the ABA noted the Bureau has not initiated rulemaking to address the privacy issues presented.
Notably, last month, the CFPB issued a proposal in the Federal Register to amend the 2015 HMDA rule (see previously issued Special Alert here). The changes are primarily for the purpose of clarifying data collection and reporting requirements, and most of the clarifications and revisions would take effect in January 2018. The deadline to submit comments on the CFPB’s proposal is May 25, 2017.
FBI Issues PSA on Social Engineering Scams
On May 4, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center released a public service announcement (I-050417-PSA) citing losses to U.S. businesses of nearly $1.6 billion due to social engineering wire transfer and other payment scams between October 2013 and December 2016, with approximately one fifth of the losses coming in the last seven months of 2016. The FBI defines the crime as Business E-mail Compromise (BEC), a sophisticated scam targeting businesses that regularly perform wire transfer payments and/or work with foreign suppliers, and often specifically involves E-mail Account Compromise (EAC) of individuals that perform wire transfer payments. Victims range from small businesses to large corporations and deal in a wide variety of goods and services. According to the FBI, the five main BEC/EAC scam scenarios are: (i) a business working with a longstanding or trusted foreign supplier, where a perpetrator may impersonate the supplier and seek a change in payment instructions by e-mail, phone or fax; (ii) a high-level business executive whose e-mail account is compromised receiving or initiating a request for a wire transfer; (iii) a third party business contact receiving fraudulent correspondence, such as requests for invoice payment, through a compromised email account; (iv) impersonation of a business executive or attorney; and (v) data theft. The FBI also cites 2016 trends including a 480 percent increase in complaints filed by title companies targeted by scammers as part of a real estate transaction, a 50 percent increase in complaints filed by businesses working with dedicated foreign suppliers, and a large increase in W-2 and PII phishing occurring during the 2016 tax season.
Treasury Department Releases Report on Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
On April 10, the Treasury Department released the March 2017 Monthly Report to Congress on the status of its Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Among other things, the report provides updates on TARP programs such as the Capital Purchase Program, the Community Development Capital Initiative, and the Making Home Affordable Program, among others. Additionally, the report highlights, among other things, administration obligations and expenditures, insurance contracts, transaction reports, and projected costs and liabilities. On May 1, the Treasury issued a monthly TARP update noting principal, investment, income, and revenue totals affecting certain TARP programs.
American Bankers Association Argues for “Strong, Consistent” National Data Protection Standard
In a May 8 letter to Congress, the American Bankers Association (ABA) called on Congress to pursue national data protection standards for companies that handle consumers’ sensitive financial data. The letter notes that the financial sector has an excellent track record in protecting consumer data, citing data from the Identity Theft Resource Center indicating that only 0.2% of records exposed in data breaches were attributable to the financial sector, as opposed to the 81.3% of records exposed at businesses included retail, adding that the industry is highly motivated and under constant oversight to ensure that Federal privacy and data protection laws such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act are followed. On the other hand, the ABA notes, other industries are not required to protect consumer data under Federal law and have strongly opposed legislation that would add such requirements. The association concludes that a “strong, consistent national standard for fighting data breaches” is necessary to create a “security infrastructure that brings banks, payment networks and retailers together to safeguard sensitive financial data.”
CFPB Seeks Public Comment on its Plans for Assessing RESPA Mortgage Servicing Rule
On May 4, the CFPB issued a request for comment on its plans for assessing the 2013 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) servicing rule’s effectiveness in meeting the purposes and objectives outlined in the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the CFPB to assess each significant rule or order it adopts under Federal consumer financial laws. According to the request for comment and a May 4 blog post on the CFPB’s website, the self-assessment will focus on objectives to ensure that: (i) “[c]onsumers are provided with timely and understandable information to make responsible decisions about financial transactions”; (ii) “[c]onsumers are protected from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices and from discrimination”; (iii) “[o]utdated, unnecessary, or unduly burdensome regulations are regularly identified and addressed in order to reduce unwarranted regulatory burdens”; (iv) “[f]ederal consumer financial law is enforced consistently”; and (v) “[m]arkets for consumer financial products and services operate transparently and efficiently to facilitate access and innovation.”
In 2013, the Bureau adopted the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule and further amended the rule several times to address questions raised by the industry, consumer advocacy groups, and other stakeholders. The CFPB deemed the 2013 RESPA Servicing Final Rule, effective January 10, 2014, a “significant rule” for purposes of the Dodd-Frank Act. Importantly, however, in Footnote 10 of its most-recent request for comment, the Bureau clarifies that it “is not seeking comment on the amendments to the mortgage servicing rules that became or will become effective after the January 10, 2014 effective date.” (emphasis added) Accordingly, it appears that the Bureau is not presently seeking comments on the Amendments to Regulation X and Regulation Z that the CFPB published as a Final Rule (12 CFR Parts 1024 and 1026) in the October 19, 2016 edition of the Federal Register – see earlier InfoBytes coverage here – and which are slated to take effect in part on October 19, 2017 and in full on April 19, 2018.