InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
FinCEN updates list of FATF-identified jurisdictions with AML/CFT deficiencies
On October 31, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued an advisory reminding financial institutions that, on October 19, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) updated two documents that list jurisdictions identified as having “strategic deficiencies” in their anti-money laundering and combatting the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) regimes. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.) The first document, the FATF Public Statement, identifies two jurisdictions, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Iran, that are subject to countermeasures and/or enhanced due diligence (EDD) due to their strategic AML/CFT deficiencies. The second document, Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: On-going Process - 19 October 2018, identifies jurisdictions with strategic AML/CFT deficiencies that have developed an action plan with the FATF to address those deficiencies: the Bahamas, Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Pakistan, Serbia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, and Yemen. Notably, the Bahamas, Botswana and Ghana have been added to the list due to the lack of effective implementation of their AML/CFT frameworks. FinCEN urges financial institutions to consider both the FATF Public Statement and the Improving Global AML/CFT Compliance: On-going Process documents when reviewing due diligence obligations and risk-based policies, procedures, and practices.
District Court rejects motion to dismiss robocall claims, says predictive dialer is autodialer
On October 30, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin denied a company’s motion to dismiss allegations that it violated the TCPA when it used a predictive dialer to try to collect a debt from the plaintiff. According to the opinion, the plaintiff alleged the company called him repeatedly without permission in an attempt to collect a debt using a predictive dialer. The company moved to dismiss because the plaintiff did not allege that the company used an autodialer with the ability to dial random or sequential phone numbers, which the company argued was required by the TCPA. The court found that a predictive dialer is an autodialer under the TCPA even if it does not generate random or sequential numbers. This conclusion was based on a 2003 FCC ruling, which stated that predictive dialers are autodialers “even if the device does not dial random or sequentially generated numbers.” The court further noted that the decision reached by the D.C. Circuit in ACA International v. FCC—which set aside the FCC’s 2015 interpretation of an autodialer as unreasonably expansive—did not invalidate the FCC’s 2003 order. (See previous Buckley Sandler Special Alert on ACA International here.) Based on this analysis, the court concluded that the plaintiff had established the three elements necessary to allege a TCPA violation.
OCC proposes changes to annual stress test reporting requirements
On October 31, the OCC published in the Federal Register proposed changes to its “stress test” rules for covered financial institutions, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The proposal would, among other things, (i) revise the OCC reporting requirements to mirror the Federal Reserve Board’s proposed Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (CCAR) reporting form FR Y-14A for covered institutions with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more; (ii) implement the revised asset threshold mandated by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act; and (iii) remove the Retail Repurchase worksheet. Comments on the proposed changes must be received by December 31.
FTC, New York Attorney General sue New York debt collection operation
On November 1, the FTC announced a joint action with the New York Attorney General against a New York-based debt collection company for allegedly violating the FTC Act, the FDCPA, and New York state law by using false or deceptive tactics to collect money from consumers, sometimes resulting in the consumer paying more than what they allegedly owed. According to the complaint, the company’s employees threatened consumers with arrest or lawsuits while falsely posing as law enforcement officials or attorneys. Additionally, the employees allegedly added “more pressure” to consumers by telling them they owed more than the company’s records indicated they did, using forms to show a higher balance than the actual client balance—a practice known as “overbiffing.” On October 25, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York granted a temporary restraining order, halting the company’s allegedly illegal activity and freezing the company’s assets. The complaint seeks a (i) permanent injunction; (ii) consumer redress; and (iii) civil money penalties under New York law.
Interestingly, as covered by InfoBytes here, FTC Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a concurring statement in another recent FTC action, suggesting the FTC should seek to partner with other enforcement agencies that have the authority to obtain monetary settlements from FTC targets. In this complaint, the New York Attorney General is seeking civil money penalties against the debt collectors under New York General Business Law § 350-d.
FINRA fines broker-dealer firm for AML program deficiencies
On October 29, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) entered into a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC), fining a broker-dealer $2.75 million for identified deficiencies in its anti-money laundering (AML) program. According to FINRA, design flaws in the firm’s AML program allegedly resulted in the firm’s failure to properly investigate (i) certain third-party attempts to gain unauthorized access to its electronic systems, and (ii) other potential illegal activity, which should have led to the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs). FINRA notes that this failure primarily stemmed from the firm's use of an inaccurate “fraud case chart,” which provided guidance to employees about investigating and reporting requirements related to suspicious activity where third parties use “electronic means to attempt to compromise a customer's email or brokerage account.” Consequently, FINRA alleges that the firm failed to file more than 400 SARs and did not investigate certain cyber-related events. Among other things, FINRA also asserts that the firm failed to file or amend forms U4 or U5, which are used to report certain customer complaints, due to an overly restrictive interpretation of a requirement that complaints contain a claim for compensatory damages exceeding $5,000.
The firm neither admitted nor denied the findings set forth in the AWC agreement, but agreed to address identified deficiencies in its programs.
U.S. hits law firm with FHA violations; loan modifications discriminated against Hispanic borrowers
On October 30, the U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Florida filed a lawsuit against a Florida legal services provider and two of its officers (defendants) for allegedly violating the Fair Housing Act by “intentionally discriminating against Hispanic homeowners by targeting them with a predatory mortgage loan modification and foreclosure rescue services scheme.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants, among other things, (i) targeted borrowers through the use of Spanish-language advertisements that allegedly promised to cut mortgage payments in half; (ii) promised payments would be lowered “in a specific timeframe in exchange for thousands of dollars of upfront fees and continuing monthly fees of as much as $550,” without delivering the promised loan modifications; (iii) instructed borrowers to stop making monthly mortgage payments and to stop communicating with their lenders; and (iv) had borrowers sign English-language contracts while only translating the provisions regarding payment. The complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from participating in discriminatory activities on the basis of national origin, and requests monetary damages and civil penalties.
9th Circuit denies petition for en banc rehearing of TCPA action against gym
On October 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied a California gym’s petition for a rehearing en banc of the court’s September decision reviving a TCPA putative class action. As previously covered by InfoBytes, the appeals court vacated a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of the gym, concluding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the text system used by the gym—which stores numbers and dials them automatically to send the messages—qualified as an “autodialer” under the TCPA. Notably, in vacating the summary judgment order, the 9th Circuit performed its own review of the statutory definition of an autodialer in the TCPA, because the recent D.C. Circuit opinion in ACA International v. FCC (covered by a Buckley Sandler Special Alert) set aside the FCC’s definition. Through this review, the appeals court concluded that the TCPA defined an autodialer broadly as “equipment which has the capacity—(i) to store numbers to be called, or (ii) to produce numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator—and to dial such numbers automatically (even if the system must be turned on or triggered by a person).”
Fed proposes supervisory categories
On October 31, the Federal Reserve announced a proposed rulemaking to more closely match certain regulations for large banking organizations with their risk profile. The proposal would establish four risk-based categories for applying the regulatory capital rule, the liquidity coverage ratio rule, and the proposed net stable funding ratio rule for banks with $100 billion or more in assets. Specifically, the Federal Reserve proposes to establish the four categories using risk-based indicators, such as size, cross-jurisdictional activity, weighted short-term wholesale funding, nonbank assets, and off-balance sheet exposure. According to the proposal, the most significant changes will be for banks are in the two lowest risk categories:
- Banks with $100 billion to $250 billion in total consolidated assets would generally fall into the lowest risk category and would (i) no longer be subject to the standardized liquidity requirements; (ii) no longer be required to conduct company-run stress tests, and (iii) be subject to supervised stress tests on a two-year cycle.
- Banks with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets, or material levels of other risk factors, that are not global systemically important banking institutions (GSIBs), would (i) have reduced liquidity requirements; and (ii) only be required to perform company run stress tests on a two-year cycle. These banks would still be subject to annual supervised stress tests.
Banks in the highest two risk categories, including GSIBs, would not see any changes to capital or liquidity requirements. A chart of the proposed requirements for each risk category is available here.
Comments on the proposal must be received by January 22, 2019.
Additionally, the Federal Reserve released a joint proposal with the OCC and FDIC that would tailor requirements under the regulatory capital rule, the Liquidity Coverage Ratio and the proposed Net Stable Funding Ratio to be consistent with the prudential standard changes.
Freddie Mac releases various selling updates in Guide Bulletin 2018-19
On October 31, Freddie Mac released Guide Bulletin 2018-19, which announces selling updates, including updates to the Settlement/Closing Disclosure Statement that sellers are required to use for mortgages with note dates on or after September 25, 2017. Effective immediately, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have jointly agreed that sellers “must create or obtain . . . the [c]losing [d]isclosure form for each [m]ortgage, regardless of whether another form might also be required by a [s]tate or local law.” Bulletin 2018-19 additionally states that, with the exception of certain servicing transactions, the Settlement/Closing Disclosure Statement means the closing disclosure required under TILA for mortgages subject to TRID rules, “whether or not the TRID rules apply to the transaction.”
Among other things, Bulletin 2018-19 also (i) updates certain rental income and documentation requirements; (ii) removes the special loan-to-value (LTV)/total LTV (TLTV)/Home Equity Line of Credit TLTV ratio requirements for a “no cash-out” refinance of a mortgage owned or securitized by Freddie Mac with settlement dates on or after February 1, 2019; and (iii) removes the mandatory expiration date on Guide Form 960 (the Concurrent Transfer of Servicing Agreement), eliminating the need for sellers to submit a new guide form each year.
FTC settles with online student loan refinance lender for allegedly deceptive marketing
On October 29, the FTC announced a settlement with an online student loan refinance lender resolving allegations the lender violated the FTC Act by misrepresenting in television, print, and internet advertisements how much money student loan borrowers can save from refinancing their loans with the company. The complaint alleges that the lender inflated the average savings consumers have achieved refinancing through the lender, in some instances doubling the average savings by selectively excluding certain groups of consumers from the data. The complaint also alleges that in some instances, the lender’s webpage misrepresented instances where a loan option would result in the consumer paying more on a monthly basis or over the lifetime of the loan, simply stating the savings would be “0.00.” Although the lender did not admit or deny any of the allegations, it agreed to a consent order that requires it to cease the alleged misrepresentations and agree to certain compliance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements.
Notably, Commissioner Rohit Chopra issued a concurring statement in this matter suggesting that in instances where the FTC is unable to obtain monetary remedies, it should seek to partner with other enforcement agencies that have the additional legal authority to obtain monetary settlements from the targets of the FTC enforcement action.