InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
NYDFS and international bank enter into second supplemental consent order over BSA/AML compliance deficiencies
On November 21, NYDFS and an international bank entered into a second supplemental consent order covering its settlement over alleged deficiencies in the bank’s Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money laundering and Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) compliance program controls. As previously covered by Infobytes, in 2012, the bank agreed to engage an independent on-site monitor for 24 months to evaluate the New York branch’s BSA/AML and OFAC compliance programs and operations and was issued a $340 million civil money penalty. In 2014 NYDFS issued a subsequent consent order outlining the monitor’s findings, including reports of significant failures in the bank’s transaction monitoring. The 2014 order extended the engagement of the monitor for another two years, outlined remedial measures to address continued deficiencies, and required the bank to pay an additional $300 million civil money penalty. In April 2017, NYDFS and the bank entered into the first supplemental consent order to modify the 2012 and 2014 orders, acknowledging the bank made significant improvements in its BSA/AML compliance program but extended the monitor through December 2018 with all the other terms and conditions of the 2012 and 2014 consent orders remaining in full effect.
Now, beginning January 1, 2019, the second supplemental order issued by NYDFS requires the bank to engage an independent consultant, selected by the regulator, for a period of up to one year, with a possible extension of one additional year, to provide guidance for completing remediation called for in the 2012 and 2014 consent orders. In response to the second supplemental order, the bank stated it remained “committed to completing the remaining tasks necessary for that remediation.”
OFAC reaches settlement with company for alleged Ukrainian sanctions violations
On November 27, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced a $87,507 settlement with an aerospace and defense technology company for three alleged violations by a former subsidiary of the Ukraine-Related Sanctions Regulations (URSR). According to OFAC, the settlement resolves potential civil liability for the former subsidiary’s alleged involvement in the “indirect export of components to be incorporated into commercial air traffic control radar” through Canadian and Russian distributors “to a person owned 50 percent or more, directly or indirectly, by a person identified on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons.”
In arriving at the settlement amount, OFAC considered the following as aggravating factors: (i) the former subsidiary’s failure to recognize warning signs; (ii) the transactions, which constituted the apparent violations, were reviewed and approved by the Director of Global Trade Compliance, and “resulted in harm to the sanctions program objectives of the URSR”; (iii) the company and former subsidiary are large, sophisticated entities; and (iv) the company and its compliance personnel previously violated Iranian Transaction and Sanctions Regulations, while the former subsidiary was subject to a consent agreement as a result of recurring compliance failures.
However OFAC also considered mitigating factors, including (i) the former subsidiary has not received a penalty or finding of a violation in the five years prior to the transactions at issue; (ii) the company has cooperated with OFAC and implemented remedial measures, including terminating the violative conduct and implementing steps to minimize the risk of reoccurring conduct; and (iii) the company voluntarily disclosed the alleged violations on behalf of the former subsidiary.
Visit here for additional InfoBytes coverage on Ukraine sanctions.
Court grants summary judgment in favor of bank in TCPA action
On November 13, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota held that a bank’s predictive dialing systems do not violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), granting summary judgment for the bank. According to the opinion, a customer of a national bank changed his phone number and his previous number was reassigned to the plaintiff in the case. The customer did not inform the bank he had changed his phone number, and between September 2015 and December 2015, the bank called the plaintiff’s cell phone 140 times. The plaintiff subsequently informed the bank he was not a customer and the bank ceased calling the cell phone number. In January 2016, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the company violated the TCPA by placing auto-dialed calls to his cell phone. The court stayed the action pending the result of the D.C. Circuit case ACA International v. FCC (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert), which narrowed the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of “autodialer” under the TCPA.
In reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, the court disagreed with the plaintiff that the company’s predictive dialing systems qualified as an autodailer under the TCPA. Citing to ACA International, the court noted that predictive dialers are not always autodialers under the Act, the equipment must have the capacity to randomly or sequentially generate numbers to dial, and the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the systems has this capability. Moreover, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that it should follow the 9th Circuit, which recently broadened the definition of autodialer under the TCPA (covered by InfoBytes here), concluding that other courts’ narrow interpretations were more persuasive (InfoBytes coverage available here).
FTC settles with one student loan debt relief operation; seeks separate permanent injunction against another
On November 20, the FTC announced a settlement with operators of a student loan debt relief operation to resolve allegations that the defendants defrauded consumers through programs offering mortgage assistance and student debt relief. Regarding the student debt operations, the FTC alleged that the defendants falsely offered student borrowers reduced monthly payments or loan forgiveness by falsely claiming to be affiliated with the Department of Education. In a 2017 complaint, the FTC alleged that the defendants also falsely promised foreclosure prevention and mortgage relief to distressed homeowners, but instead collected advance fees in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule. Among other things, the settlement includes a judgment of more than $9 million—which will be partially suspended once the defendants turn over all assets worth approximately $305,000 because of their inability to pay—and bans the defendants from participating in debt relief and telemarketing activities in the future.
The same day, the FTC also announced it was charging a separate student loan debt relief operation with violations of the FTC Act and the TSR for allegedly engaging in deceptive practices when marketing and selling their debt relief services. According to the complaint, the operators of the scheme—which include a recidivist scammer previously banned from participating in debt relief activities—allegedly “promoted a 96 percent success rate in reducing consumers’ student loan payments.” However, the FTC stated that consumers who purchased the debt relief services and often paid illegal upfront fees “often did not receive any debt relief and lost hundreds of dollars.” On November 13, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a temporary restraining order and asset freeze at the FTC’s request. The FTC seeks a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent future violations, as well as redress for injured consumers through “rescission or reformation of contracts, restitution, the refund of monies paid, and the disgorgement of ill-gotten monies.”
Agencies finalize new 2019 thresholds for TILA and CLA
On November 21, the CFPB and the Federal Reserve Board finalized the annual dollar threshold adjustments that govern the application of Regulation Z (Truth in Lending Act) and Regulation M (Consumer Leasing Act) to credit transactions, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Each year the thresholds must be readjusted based on the annual percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W). The exemption threshold for 2019, based on the annual percentage increase in the CPI-W, is now $57,200 or less, except for private student loans and loans secured by real property, which are subject to TILA regardless of the amount.
Agencies issue joint proposal on community bank leverage ratio for qualifying organizations
On November 21, the Federal Reserve Board, FDIC, and OCC jointly announced a proposed rule to simplify capital requirements for qualifying community banking organizations that opt into the community bank leverage ratio framework. Among other criteria, qualifying organizations must have “less than $10 billion in total consolidated assets, limited amounts of certain assets and off-balance sheet exposures, and a community bank leverage ratio greater than 9 percent.” FDIC FIL-77-2018 provides an overview of the proposed regulation amendments—required under Section 201 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act—which would allow qualifying organizations to satisfy (i) generally applicable leverage and risk-based capital requirements; (ii) the prompt corrective action framework’s well-capitalized ratio requirements; and (iii) any other generally applicable capital and leverage requirements. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Agencies propose $400,000 threshold for residential appraisal requirement
On November 20, the OCC announced a joint notice of proposed rulemaking with the Federal Reserve Board and the FDIC, which raises the threshold for residential real estate transactions requiring an appraisal to $400,000 from its current level of $250,000. According to the OCC, the proposal is in response to feedback that the current exemption threshold has not increased to keep pace with the price appreciation in the residential real estate market. The proposal includes the rural residential appraisal exemption included in the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (previously covered by InfoBytes here). Additionally, among other things, the proposal implements the Dodd-Frank Act mandate that institutions appropriately review appraisals for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Comments will be due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.
Auto lender pays $11.8 million to resolve investigation into add-on product and loan extension program
On November 20, the CFPB announced a settlement with a Texas-based auto lender to resolve allegations that the lender violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by deceptively marketing an auto-loan guaranteed asset protection (GAP) add-on product and misrepresenting the impact on consumers of obtaining a loan extension. Regarding the GAP add-on product, which was intended to cover a “gap” between the consumer’s primary auto insurance payout and the consumer’s outstanding loan balance in the event of a total vehicle loss, the CFPB alleged that the lender failed to disclose to consumers that if their loan-to-value was greater than 125 percent, they would not receive the “true full coverage” advertised with the GAP add-on product. Regarding extensions of auto loans, the CFPB alleged, among other things, that the lender failed to “clearly and prominently” disclose that interest accrued during a loan extension would be paid before principal when the consumer resumed making payments on the extended loan. Under the order, the lender must, among other things, (i) pay $9.29 million in consumer restitution; (ii) clearly and prominently disclose the terms of the GAP add-on product and loan extension; and (iii) pay $2.5 million in a civil money penalty.
Two ICO issuers settle SEC charges for securities offering registration violations
On November 16, the SEC announced cryptocurrency-related settlements imposing civil money penalties against two companies that allegedly offered and sold digital tokens through initial coin offerings (ICO). The settlements are the SEC’s first cases imposing civil money penalties based solely on alleged ICO securities offering registration violations. According to the SEC, the two companies allegedly violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by offering and selling ICO tokens without (i) registering them pursuant to federal securities laws; or (ii) qualifying for an exemption to registration requirements. Under the terms of the settlement agreements (available here and here), the companies—who have neither admitted nor denied the findings—have each agreed to pay a $250,000 civil money penalty, and will also (i) return funds to impacted investors; (ii) register the digital tokens as securities; and (iii) file periodic reports with the SEC.
Colorado Division of Securities issues cease-and-desist orders against ICOs
On November 20, the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Division of Securities (Division) released a statement announcing four new cease-and-desist orders taken against companies for allegedly selling unregistered securities through initial coin offerings (ICOs) to Colorado consumers. The orders come as a result of investigations conducted by the Division’s ICO Task Force, which was created to investigate potentially fraudulent activity. According to the announcement, the Colorado Securities Commissioner has now signed orders for 18 cases against ICOs, and currently has at least two additional pending orders.