InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
OCC to Host Workshops for Community Bank Directors in April
On April 25 and 26, the OCC will be hosting two workshops for directors of national community banks and federal savings associations supervised by the OCC. The April 25 workshop will cover “Risk Governance,” including both practical information to help directors effectively measure and manage risks, and insight into the OCC’s approach to risk-based supervision and major risks in the financial industry. The April 26 workshop will focus specifically on credit risk within a loan portfolio, including how to stay informed of changes in credit risk, identifying trends, recognizing problems, the roles of the board and management, and how to effect change.
CFPB Monthly Complaint Report Focuses on Credit Cards; 2016 Annual Report to Congress Highlights FDCPA Activities
On March 28, the CFPB released its monthly complaint report highlighting consumer complaints as of March 1 of this year. The report states that the Bureau has handled approximately 1,136,000 consumer complaints across all categories, of which 10 percent (116,200) relate to credit cards. A few of the most common findings raised by consumers are: (i) issues with fraudulent charges—both with respect to being billed for charges not initiated by them and experiencing difficulties having charges removed even after a dispute has been resolved in their favor; (ii) issues regarding reward program requirements and benefits; and (iii) issues regarding identity theft complaints, specifically with respect to “credit card accounts being fraudulently opened in their name even after an alert was placed on their credit file.” The report discloses that credit card complaints, along with complaints regarding debt collection practices, constituted the most prolific category of consumer complaints in February 2017. Credit reporting complaints and mortgage complaints are the second and third most common complaints, respectively. As previously reported in InfoBytes last month, student loan complaints continued to show the greatest increase year-over-year for the same three month time period of December to February—551 complaints from 2015/2016 versus 2,913 complaints in 2016/2017.
Furthermore, the report’s geographic spotlight this month, Massachusetts, represented 1.8 percent of the total number of complaints nationally handled by the CFPB, and while debt collection complaints were “significantly lower” than the national average (20 percent as compared to 27 percent), the rate of mortgage complaints was roughly at the national average.
Also this month, on March 6, the CFPB submitted to Congress its sixth annual report summarizing its efforts to administer the FDCPA and highlighting the work done by the CFPB and the FTC, both of whom “work closely to coordinate” FDCPA enforcement actions (see prior InfoBytes coverage on FTC letter summary). The report discusses consumer complaints and debt collection enforcement activity, amicus briefs filed in FDCPA-related cases, consumer education efforts, and initiatives regarding rulemaking, research, and policy. FDCPA examinations performed in 2016 “identified a number of violations of the law …including false representations made by debt collectors to consumers, unlawful fees charged by debt collectors, and illegal disclosure of debts to third parties.” Furthermore, the examinations “also found instances in which debt sellers sold accounts for collection that did not properly reflect that the accounts were discharged in bankruptcy, were fraudulent, or had already been paid . . . Additionally . . . [i]n the cases that were concluded in 2016, $39 million was paid in restitution for consumers who were impacted by illegal debt collection practices and $20 million in civil penalties.”
Former Thailand Tourism Chief Sentenced to 50 Years for Accepting Bribes
On March 29, the former governor of the Tourism Authority of Thailand was reportedly sentenced in Thailand to 50 years in prison for accepting $1.8 million in bribes from 2002 to 2007 from two U.S. filmmakers in exchange for rights to organize the Bangkok International Film Festival. The former tourism chief was also ordered to forfeit the bribe money. Her daughter received a 44-year prison sentence for her own involvement. In 2009, the U.S. filmmakers, who paid the bribes, were convicted in the U.S. on charges of FCPA violations. A U.S. federal court sentenced the filmmakers to six months incarceration, three years of supervised release, and $250,000 in restitution.
The former tourism chief and her daughter were also indicted in the U.S. in January 2009 for the same underlying conduct. The indictment raised interesting questions about the United States pursuing corruption on the “demand side,” in light of the fact that the FCPA does not criminalize the receipt of bribes. The indictment instead alleged money laundering violations and related charges. The former tourism chief moved to dismiss the U.S. indictment based on the double jeopardy provision of the Thai-US extradition treaty. The decision on her motion was stayed, pending the outcome of the Thai prosecution.
Fourth Circuit Permits DOJ to Reject FCA Settlement After Government Declined to Intervene; Declines to Reach Issue of Statistical Sampling
In an opinion handed down on February 22, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided that the DOJ retains an unreviewable right to object to a proposed settlement agreement between a relator and a defendant even after the Government has declined to intervene in the case. See United States ex rel. Michaels v. Agape Senior Community, Inc., No. 15-2147 (4th Cir. Feb 14, 2017). The case concerned a qui tam relator who had alleged that Agape Senior Community and associated entities violated the FCA by submitting false claims to federal health care programs for nursing home related services that were not provided or provided to patients that were not eligible for them. After the Government declined to intervene in the case, the relator agreed to settle with defendants. However, the DOJ objected to the proposed settlement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1)—which provides that an FCA lawsuit “may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal and their reasons for consenting”—arguing, among other things, that “the settlement amount was “appreciably less than . . . the Government’s estimate of total damages.”
The Fourth Circuit concluded that, while a relator has the right to pursue his or her FCA claim after the United States declines to intervene, “the Attorney General possesses an absolute veto power over voluntary settlements in FCA qui tam actions.” In reaching this conclusion, the appellate panel emphasized the fact that, in an FCA case, the United States Government is a real party in interest, and, as such, it suffered damages as a result of the fraudulent conduct at issue. The holding largely aligns with existing Fifth and Sixth Circuit precedent, establishing an absolute veto power for the United States over settlements in declined FCA cases. However, the ruling stands at odds with the Ninth Circuit standard set forth in U.S. ex rel. Killingsworth v. Northrop Corp., 25 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 1994), which ruled that, once it has declined to intervene, the Government can object to a proposed settlement only for “good cause,” and a settlement agreement may be invalidated only following a hearing to determine if the settlement is fair and reasonable.
On the issue of statistical sampling, the district court had determined that the use of statistical sampling evidence would be improper when a case turns on the medical necessity for individual patients. Though the issue was certified for interlocutory review, the Appellate panel declined to decide this issue because, among other reasons, the use of statistical sampling is not a pure question of law and, as such, interlocutory review had been “improvidently granted.”
Additional information and materials covering the FCA, the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (PFCRA) can also be found in BuckleySandler’s False Claims Act and FIRREA Resource Center.
Netherlands-Based Financial Services Company Under Investigation by Dutch and U.S. Authorities for Activities Relating to a Russian Telecom Company
In an annual report filed with the SEC on March 20, 2017, a Netherlands-based financial services company, stated that it is under criminal investigation by Dutch authorities “regarding various requirements related to the on-boarding of clients, money laundering, and corrupt practices,” and that it has also received “related information requests” from U.S. authorities. A spokesperson for the Dutch prosecutor reportedly expressed suspicion that the company failed to report irregular transactions and may have enabled international corruption, including unusual payments made by a Russian telecom company to a government official in Uzbekistan through a shell company. The russian company settled bribery charges with the U.S. and Dutch governments in February 2016, admitting to paying bribes amounting over $114 million to an Uzbek official and agreeing to pay over $397 million in penalties to the DOJ and SEC for violations of the FCPA. The financial services comapny stated that it is cooperating with the ongoing investigations and requests of Dutch and U.S. authorities.
FTC Commissioners Testify Before Senate Committee on Enforcement Efforts to Combat Fraud
On March 21, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen and Commissioner Terrell McSweeny testified before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Data Security to describe the agency’s law enforcement work to combat fraud. The testimony noted that in the past year, the agency obtained judgments of more than $11.9 billion to consumers “harmed by deceptive and unfair business practices” and received more than three million consumer complaints. Commissioner Terrell McSweeny noted that the “top three categories of complaints were debt collection, impostor frauds, and identity theft,” and that for the first time “imposter scam complaints . . . surpassed the number of identity theft complaints.” FTC Acting Chairman Maureen K. Ohlhausen also presented testimony and emphasized two populations in particular—military consumers and small businesses—both of whom are attractive targets for fraudsters, and for whom the agency actively works with to provide fraud recognition tools to prevent future victims. Also discussed at the hearing was the creation of the Office of Technology Research and Investigation to help the agency “keep abreast of technology changes affecting consumers” as well as the agency’s fraud prevention and education outreach initiatives that impact “tens of millions of people and businesses each year.”
OCC Announces February 2017 Enforcement Actions
On March 17, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) released a list of administrative enforcement actions taken against banks and bank officers in February. Several of the reported actions included payment of civil money penalties (CMPs) for, among other things, violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act, Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) deficiencies, and unsafe or unsound practices by institution-affiliated parties for breaches of fiduciary duty. Among the actions containing CMPs a Tennessee bank fined $1 million for deficiencies related to billing practices with regard to an identity protection product consumers paid for but never received, and a California bank fined $1 million for continuous non-compliance with a 2010 Consent Order for BSA deficiencies including “inadequate risk assessment process[es], inadequate system of internal controls, inadequate suspicious activity monitoring and reporting process[es], inadequate customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence programs, ” as well as having a “BSA/AML independent audit [that] failed to identify . . . significant internal control weaknesses.”
Department of Education Withdraws Student Loan Guidance; Bipartisan Legislation Introduced to Require APR Disclosure on Federal Student Loans
On March 16, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) Acting Assistant Secretary Lynn B. Mahaffie notified relevant agencies that the Department is withdrawing statements of policy and guidance regarding repayment agreements and liability for collection costs on Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans as previously stated in its July 10, 2015 Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) GEN 15-14. GEN 15-14 barred a "guaranty agency from charging collection costs to a defaulted borrower who (i) responds within 60 days to the initial notice sent by the guaranty agency after it pays a default claim and acquires the loan from the lender; (ii) enters into a repayment agreement, including a rehabilitation agreement; and (iii) honors that agreement.” The Department emphasized that the "position set forth in the DCL would have benefited from public input on the issues discussed in the DCL,” and as a result, the Department has withdrawn the DCL and will not require compliance without the opportunity for the public to provide comments.
Earlier in the month, Representatives Randy Hultgren (R-IL), Luke Messer (R-IN), and David Scott (D-GA) reintroduced the Transparency in Student Lending Act (H.R. 1283)—bipartisan legislation requiring the disclosure of the annual percentage rate on federal loans issued by the Department of Education. In 2008 the Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements were applied to private loans, but not to federal student loans—an omission that does a “gross disservice” to borrowers according to Hultgren. “The Department of Education is the largest consumer lender in the United States, and should provide the most transparent and helpful information to borrowers. Helping borrowers understand their debt obligations is an important first step to ensuring they are able to make their payments, and also helps prevent taxpayers from being on the hook for delinquent borrowers,” noted Hultgren.
FFIEC Releases Joint Report to Congress on Reducing Regulatory Burdens
On March 21, member agencies of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) announced the release of their Joint Report to Congress: Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act (the Report), which details their review of rules affecting financial institutions and the effect of regulations on smaller institutions. The review—required by the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act to be conducted at least once every ten years—included the participation of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the National Credit Union Administration, and included the consideration of more than 230 written and 130 oral comments from financial institutions, trade associations, and consumer and community groups, as well as numerous comments obtained at outreach meetings.
The members of the FFIEC described several joint initiatives, including actions taken to:
- Simplify regulatory capital rules for community banks and savings associations;
- Streamline reports of condition and income (Call Reports);
- Increase the appraisal threshold for commercial real estate loans; and
- Expand the number of institutions eligible for less frequent examination cycles.
In addition, the Report also described actions taken by each agency to “update rules, eliminate unnecessary requirements, and streamline supervisory procedures.”
CFPB Fines National Credit Reporting Company $3 Million for Alleged Deceptive Practices
On March 23, the CFPB ordered a nationwide credit reporting company and its subsidiaries to pay $3 million for allegedly deceiving consumers about how credit scores they marketed and sold were used by lenders. The consent order claims the company developed its own proprietary credit scoring model (PLUS Score), which was used to generate credit scores from information in a consumer’s credit file. The company then allegedly deceptively marketed and sold the “educational” credit score as the same type of score lenders use to make credit decisions, when in fact lenders did not use the scores. Moreover, there were instances of significant discrepancies between the “educational” credit scores that the company sold to consumers and the actual credit scores used by the lenders. The Bureau also alleges the company—up until March 2014—violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by requiring consumers to view advertisements before they could access their credit reports. Pursuant to the consent order, the company must pay a $3 million civil money penalty, truthfully inform consumers about the nature of the credit scores it sells, and develop and implement an effective compliance management system to ensure its advertising practices comply with federal consumer laws. As previously reported in InfoBytes, earlier this year the CFPB issued consent orders against two different nationwide credit reporting companies for similar allegations.