InfoBytes Blog
Filter
Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.
CFPB announces all new advisory committee members
On September 7, the CFPB released the new membership details of the Consumer Advisory Board, the Community Bank Advisory Council, and the Credit Union Advisory Council. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in June, acting Director, Mick Mulvaney, removed all the current members of the advisory committees in an effort to right-size its advisory councils and ramp up outreach to external groups, as explained in a blog post by the Bureau’s policy associate director for external affairs. The Consumer Advisory Board now consists of nine members, down from 28, and the Community Bank Advisory Council and the Credit Union Advisory Council each consist of seven members, down from 19 and 18 respectively. Previously, Consumer Advisory Board members served three year terms and Advisory Council members served two year terms. All committee members will now serve a one-year term.
District court denies bank’s motion to dismiss; rules homeowner’s claims under California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices can proceed
On September 5, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California denied a national bank’s motion to dismiss certain alleged violations of both the California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) and the state’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) as cited in the homeowner’s first amended complaint. According to the order, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the bank engaged in debt collection activities that went “beyond the scope of an ordinary foreclosure process” under the Rosenthal Act “when it attempted to collect on the original amount due under the promissory note rather than the [loan modification] agreement.” The bank countered and argued that when it acted as the mortgage loan servicer for the homeowner in the context of foreclosure proceedings it was not subject to liability under the Rosenthal Act because “courts have held ‘that the Rosenthal Act [is] not applicable to residential mortgage loans.” However, the court rejected the bank’s argument and found, among other things, that (i) the homeowner adequately pleaded the bank engaged in debt collection activities; (ii) as determined by the 9th Circuit, “mortgage servicers may be subject to the Rosenthal Act for collection activities surrounding a loan modification agreement”; and (iii) the plaintiff’s allegations concerning the bank’s debt collection practices may be subject to the Rosenthal Act and are sufficient to withstand the bank’s motion to dismiss. Concerning the alleged UCL violation, the court determined that the plaintiff’s factual allegations supported her claims.
FinCEN grants permanent relief from Beneficial Ownership Rule for CDs and certain automatic renewal products
On September 7, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued a notice granting permanent relief for financial institutions from the Beneficial Ownership Rule’s requirements to obtain and verify the identity of beneficial owners of legal entity customers, with respect to certificate of deposit rollovers (CDs) and loans that renew automatically. The exception applies only to the rollover, renewal, modification, or extension of the following types of accounts occurring on or after May 11, 2018: CDs; existing loans, commercial lines of credit, and credit card accounts that do not require underwriting reviews; and safe deposit box rental renewals. The exception does not apply to the initial opening of these types of new accounts. FinCEN noted that it will not provide any other exception from a financial institution's anti-money laundering compliance obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Visit here for continuing InfoBytes coverage on beneficial ownership and customer due diligence requirements here.
OFAC adds Syrians to Specially Designated Nationals List
On September 6, the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added five entities and four individuals to OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List for facilitating financial transactions and shipments of fuel and weapons in support of the Syrian government’s regime. The new sanctions, issued pursuant to Executive Order 13582, generally prohibit transactions by U.S. persons with those listed, and all assets belonging to the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked and must be reported to OFAC.
Visit here for continuing InfoBytes coverage on Syrian sanctions.
5th Circuit rejects enforcement of CFPB CID for failing to allege a violation
On September 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit declined to enforce a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) issued by the CFPB against a Texas public records company, after holding the Bureau did not comply with Dodd-Frank when it issued the CID. After initially receiving the CID, the Texas company objected to its Notification of Purpose as inadequate, as it read, “whether consumer reporting agencies, persons using consumer reports, or other persons have engaged or are engaging in unlawful acts and practices in connection with the provision or use of public records information in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act . . . or any other federal consumer law.” In response, the Bureau filed a petition in federal court seeking to enforce the CID and the lower court granted the petition, holding that the Notification of Purpose provided fair notice of the violations under investigation as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. The 5th Circuit disagreed, however, finding that the CID did not identify an alleged violation. The court noted that the CID only made references to the FCRA, a “broad provision of law that the CFPB has authority to enforce,” and “any other federal consumer financial law,” which subsequently “defeats any specificity provided by the reference to the FCRA.” The court emphasized that it could not review the CID under the “reasonable relevance” standard, because the CID failed to identify the conduct under investigation and concluded that the Bureau does not have “unfettered authority to cast about for potential wrongdoing.”
FTC settles with debt collection operators for alleged fraudulent collections
On September 7, the FTC announced a series of settlements with the operators of a Georgia-based debt collection business for allegedly violating the FTC Act by making false, or misleading claims and threats during debt collection. As previously covered by InfoBytes, in November 2017, the FTC filed a complaint alleging that the defendants threatened legal action, garnishment, and imprisonment if purported debts were not paid, and in other instances, attempted to collect debts after consumers provided proof that the debt was paid off. Each settlement order (available here, here, and here) imposes a $3.4 million penalty against the defendants, which, after surrendering certain assets, will be partially suspended due to the inability to pay. The settlement orders ban the defendants from the business of debt collection, and prohibit the defendants from (i) misrepresenting information related to financial products and services, and (ii) disclosing, using, or benefitting from the consumer information obtained through the course of the debt collection activities.
CFPB proposes revisions to trial disclosure policy, creating “Disclosure Sandbox”
On September 10, the CFPB published a proposal to revise its trial disclosure policy in order to “more effectively encourage companies to conduct trial disclosure programs.” The current trial disclosure policy, authorized by Section 1032(e) of the Dodd-Frank Act, was finalized in 2013 and allows for approved company disclosures to be deemed in compliance with, or exempted from, applicable federal disclosure requirements during the testing period. For the past five years, under the current policy, the Bureau has not approved a single company program for participation. The proposed revisions intend to create a “Disclosure Sandbox” and increase company participation in the program by, among other things, (i) streamlining the application process and providing formal determinations within 60 days of submission; (ii) increasing guidance during the testing period; (iii) providing procedures for requesting extensions of successful programs, as the Bureau expects most testing periods will start at two years; (iv) coordinating with other regulators of similar programs to allow companies to conduct a Bureau Disclosure Sandbox program without going through the Bureau’s application process; and (v) clarifying that trade groups may apply to the program on behalf of its members. Comments on the proposal must be received by October 10.
Real estate broker and nephew of former UN Secretary-General sentenced for trying to bribe a foreign official
On September 6, U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York reportedly sentenced a real estate broker to six months in prison for trying to pay $2.5 million in bribes to a Qatari official in connection with a sale of a high rise building complex in Vietnam. The New York Times reported that Judge Ramos stated that he believed the broker deserved a lenient sentence. Law360 reported that Judge Ramos cited, among other factors, the consequences of a longer sentence on the broker’s immigration status. The sentence was ultimately far below what the government had requested.
As FCPA Scorecard previously reported, the broker pleaded guilty in January 2018 to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and one count of violating the FCPA. He is a nephew of a former UN Secretary-General.
Additionally, on September 6, the SEC announced that the broker had agreed to pay $225,000 in disgorgement to settle civil FCPA violations arising from his conduct. The SEC’s order concluded that he violated the anti-bribery and books and records provisions of the FCPA.
See previous FCPA Scorecard coverage here.
Netherlands-based financial services company settles Netherlands corrupt practices case and receives SEC declination
On September 4, a Netherlands-based financial services company announced in its Form 6-K filing that it had agreed to pay a penalty of $782 million and disgorgement of $115 million to resolve corruption charges by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (“DPPS”). The DPPS charges related to the company’s prevention of money laundering, client on-boarding, and corrupt practices. The company acknowledged its “serious shortcomings in the execution of customer due diligence policies to prevent financial economic crime” and “regrets that these shortcomings enabled customers to misuse accounts.”
On September 5, following the settlement with the DPPS, the company announced in a new Form 6-K filing that it received a formal notification from the SEC that it had concluded its own FCPA investigation and did not intend to recommend an enforcement action. The company first disclosed the SEC investigation in March 2017. The response from the SEC is consistent with the new policy against so-called piling on issued by DOJ in May 2018. The policy is intended to encourage coordination among enforcement authorities to avoid duplicative penalties. See previous FCPA Scorecard coverage here.
London-based offshore drilling company receives double declination in FCPA investigation
On September 4, a London-based offshore drilling company, announced in its Form 8-K filing that the DOJ and the SEC will not take action against the company, ending their investigations into alleged corruption related to a drilling services agreement between an acquired subsidiary, and a Brazilian state-owned oil company. According to the filing, the SEC letter stated that the agency “did not intend to recommend any enforcement action” related to the alleged irregularities. The DOJ letter acknowledged the company’s full cooperation in the investigation.