InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FinCEN Highlights Information Sharing Program Among Regulatory, Law Enforcement Agencies
On January 6, FinCEN released a fact sheet highlighting its Section 314(a) Program of the USA PATRIOT Act. Under the Section 314(a) Program, federal, state, local and foreign law enforcement are able to contact, through FinCEN, over 43,000 points of contact at more than 22,000 financial institutions to locate accounts and transactions of individuals or organizations engaged in, or reasonably suspected of, terrorism or money laundering. According to FinCEN, since its inception, the 314 Program has aided in 1,909 money laundering and 459 terrorism/terrorist financing criminal investigations. In addition, based on feedback from law enforcement, the Program has contributed to 95 percent of 314(a) requests lead to an arrest or indictment.
FinCEN Fines Former CCO For Maintaining Ineffective AML Program
Recently, FinCEN announced a $1 million civil money penalty against the former Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) of a large financial services company for allegedly violating the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and its implementing regulations. In its complaint, FinCEN alleges that the CCO, from 2003 through 2008, failed to implement and maintain an effective AML program and file timely Suspicious Activity Reports as required by the BSA. As a result, the company’s money transfer system was used to carry out fraudulent activities causing customers to incur substantial losses. In addition to the penalty, FinCEN is seeking to prohibit the former CCO from participating, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of any financial institution.
Senate Banking Committee Elects New Chairman
On January 7, the Republican members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs elected Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala) as its new chairman for the 114th Congress. Sen. Shelby previously served as Committee chairman from 2003 to 2006. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) will serve as the Committee’s ranking member.
SEC Issues Report on Examination Findings of Credit Rating Agencies
On December 23, the SEC released its annual staff report on the findings of examinations of credit rating agencies registered as nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs). As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC must examine each NRSRO at least once per year and provide a report summarizing its findings. As a result of the examinations, the staff recommended NRSROs improve a number of areas, including (i) the use of affiliates or third-party contractors in the credit rating process, (ii) management of conflicts of interest related to the rating business operations, and (iii) adherence to policies and procedures for determining or reviewing credit ratings. In addition, the agency issued a separate report to Congress on the state of competition, transparency, and conflicts of interest among NRSROs.
Fed Appoints New Director of Monetary Affairs Division
On January 6, the Federal Reserve appointed Thomas Laubach as director of the Division of Monetary Affairs. Mr. Laubach will advise the board and the Federal Open Market Committee on the conduct of monetary policy. Mr. Laubach first joined the Board’s staff officially in 2001, and has also served as a visiting senior economist at both the Bank for International Settlements and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr. Laubach succeeds William B. English, who was appointed senior special adviser to the Board.
CSBS Issues Policy, Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and Request for Comment Regarding State Regulation of Virtual Currency
As previously reported in our January 8 Digital Commerce & Payments alert and in InfoBytes, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) issued a Policy on State Regulation of Virtual Currency (the “Policy”), Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and a request for public comment regarding the regulation of virtual currency on December 16, 2014. The Policy and Draft Model Regulatory Framework were issued through the work of the CSBS Emerging Payments Task Force (the “Task Force”). The Task Force was established to explore the nexus between state supervision and the development of payment systems and is seeking to identify where there are consistent regulatory approaches among states.
Connecticut Banking Regulator Fines Tribal Payday Lenders
On January 6, the Connecticut Department of Banking issued a cease and desist order against the head of an American Indian tribe and two payday loan companies owned by the tribe for allegedly violating a state cap on interest rates. The order requires (i) the two companies pay a combined civil penalty of $800,000 and (ii) that the head of the tribe pay a civil penalty in the amount of $700,000.This action is considered to be the first enforcement action ever against the leader of a Native American tribe.
Large National Bank Fights Against Latest Suit Alleging Improper Overdraft Fees
On January 6, a large national bank filed a motion to dismiss a suit alleging it charged improper overdraft fees. Filed last year in the Central District of California, the suit claims the bank violated federal and state laws – the EFTA and California’s unfair competition law – by posting customers’ larger debit transactions first, causing customer accounts to deplete faster resulting in more overdraft fees. In its motion, the bank claims it voluntarily stopped charging overdraft fees for one-time debit card transactions and most ATM withdrawals prior to the effective date of the amended regulations. The bank also argues that state law claims regarding good faith practices are preempted by the federal National Banking Act (NBA). The matter is scheduled to be heard on March 3. Stanionis et al v. Bank of America, No. 14-cv-2222
FinCrimes Webinar Recap: Dealing with PEPs - AML & Corruption Risks
BuckleySandler hosted a webinar, Dealing with PEPs: AML & Corruption Risks, on December 18, 2014 as part of its ongoing FinCrimes Webinar Series. Panelists included Mary Butler, Deputy Chief, International Unit, at the Asset Forfeiture & Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division at the U.S. Department of Justice; Paul Dougherty, Managing Director of the anti-money laundering program for the United States and Canada at Bank of America; and Noreen Fierro, Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer of the Group Insurance Division of Prudential Financial. The following is a summary of the guided conversation moderated by Jamie Parkinson, partner at BuckleySandler, and key take-aways you can implement in your company.
Key Tips and Take-Aways:
- Make sure that the organization has appropriate procedures in place to identify Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) and that those procedures appropriately explain how a PEP is defined by the institution.
- Understand the different global standards for PEP compliance and, where appropriate, have country-specific policies and procedures to manage onboarding and monitoring.
- Encourage cooperation among the different financial crime compliance disciplines within your institution to assist in identifying and monitoring PEPs.
Onboarding and Monitoring PEP Accounts
The session began with a discussion of the basic regulatory requirements associated with the onboarding of PEP accounts. The panel addressed the significance of having specific policies and established procedures to identify PEPs on the front end. Specifically, the panelists noted the importance of having procedures that discuss the borrower approval process, the steps taken to onboard the customer and how those steps differ from normal customer onboarding steps, and who is involved in the process. The panelists further noted that regulators pay significant attention to how transactions are monitored for PEPs in comparison to normal customers and what the organization does when an account is flagged. With regard to the actual onboarding procedures, the panelists noted that the primary concern is associated with identifying risks associated with the PEP and investigating the source of the PEPs funds.
Global Approaches to PEP Programs
The panelists then discussed the complications that arise when dealing with the global application of PEP requirements. Specifically, the panelists noted the significant differences from country to country regarding who qualifies as a PEP and whether or not an individual’s status as a PEP continues after the individual leaves his position. Significantly, one of the panelists noted that their company took a country by country approach with regard to PEP onboarding and monitoring in order to address the differences. Panelists further noted a concern regarding the duplication of names between OFAC screening lists and local country lists. Panelists also noted that because of the global nature of PEP regulations, they tend to refer to Senior Foreign Political Figures as Senior Political Figures, even though official guidance uses the foreign distinction.
Intersection of PEPs, Money Laundering and Corruption
Panelists next discussed how the DOJ views the intersection of programs dealing with money laundering and corruption. The panel noted the significant cooperation that exists between individuals working in different areas associated with AML and bribery. The panel highlighted the importance of Suspicious Activity Reports and their use in investigating alleged illegal conduct. The panel also noted that with the increase in disclosure requirements, it is becoming easier to find evidence of money laundering and to eventually recover those illegal proceeds.
Dealing with Local Political Officials
In response to questions from attendees, the panelists then shifted to discussing the domestic application of PEP policies and procedures. The key points discussed were associated with how local political officials are categorized when dealing with PEPs. Specifically, the panelists noted the difficulties associated with deciding how broadly to extend the definition of a PEP with regard to local political officials. The panel suggested that the primary concern when defining local PEPs was to make sure that an organization’s policies and procedures are clearly defined and at least reasonably defensible. Panelists observed that the key regulatory concern is not that the definitions should be identical, but that entities have reasonable definitions that are enforced uniformly.
Monitoring Techniques and Metrics
The panel also discussed the specific complications associated with dealing with the monitoring of PEP accounts. The panelists noted that one of the key aspects of account monitoring is to leverage any AML programs currently in place and allowing that process to help identify any particularly suspicious practices. Furthermore, the panelists pointed out that a key aspect of dealing with suspicious PEP activity is the filing of SARs. One panelist also noted that, while not required statutorily, cooperation with local law enforcement can greatly assist the DOJ with recovering any illegal proceeds.
Special Alert: CSBS Issues Policy, Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and Request for Comment Regarding State Regulation of Virtual Currency
On December 16, 2014, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”) issued a Policy on State Regulation of Virtual Currency (the “Policy”), Draft Model Regulatory Framework, and a request for public comment regarding the regulation of virtual currency. The Policy and Draft Model Regulatory Framework were issued through the work of the CSBS Emerging Payments Task Force (the “Task Force”). The Task Force was established to explore the nexus between state supervision and the development of payment systems and is seeking to identify where there are consistent regulatory approaches among states.
The Policy
As a result of its work to date, the Policy recommends that “activities involving third party control of virtual currency, including for the purposes of transmitting, exchanging, holding, or otherwise controlling virtual currency, should be subject to state licensure and supervision.” The Policy states that state regulators have determined certain activities involving virtual currency raise concerns in three areas: consumer protection, marketplace stability, and law enforcement.
The Task Force’s intentional technology-neutral approach targets “licensable activities” – activities performed by one party, in a position of trust, acting on behalf of another. It recommends that such licensable activities be regulated by amending current laws, or when necessary, enacting new legislation to cover the transmission, exchanging, and holding of value of currencies. The Policy recommends that those who service these transactions through mobile wallets, vaults, payment processors, and others should be appropriately licensed.
The Policy targets certain activities:
- Transmission
- Exchange (e.g., sovereign to virtual, virtual to sovereign, or virtual to virtual)
- Services that facilitate third-party exchange, storage, and/or transmission of virtual currency through any medium (e.g., wallets, vaults, kiosks, merchant-acquirers, and payment processors).
The Task Force notes that the Policy explicitly does not cover either merchants or consumers whose use of virtual currencies is solely to purchase goods or services; or for activities that utilize similar technologies, such as cryptography-based ledger systems, but are not financial in nature nor used for financial recordkeeping.
The Draft Model Regulatory Framework
The Draft Model Regulatory Framework proposes a system for state licensing and supervision of certain virtual currency activities. The Draft Model Regulatory Framework addresses the following areas of concern regarding businesses engaged in virtual currency activities: licensing requirements and systems, financial strength and stability, consumer protection issues, cybersecurity, compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and Anti-Money Laundering, recordkeeping, and regulatory supervision.
Request For Public Comment
The CSBS is looking for public comment on the Draft Model Regulatory Framework in two main areas:
- The Licensing Regime for the Virtual Currency Business. What should such a regime look like? How can states best streamline the process? How should laws that apply to regular money transmitters, such as escheatment or funds availability, be applied to the virtual currency business?
- Risk Management. What is an appropriate level of identification for customers? How should BSA/AML regulations change to address virtual currencies? What role should cyber risk insurance play? What sorts of consumer protections will be necessary?
The specific questions posed by the CSBS are found here. The creation of a new licensing regime, in addition to laws that will govern future litigation structure, will influence the direction states take in regulating virtual currencies.
Members of the industry have until February 16, 2015 to respond to the RFC.