Skip to main content
Menu Icon
Close

InfoBytes Blog

Financial Services Law Insights and Observations

Filter

Subscribe to our InfoBytes Blog weekly newsletter and other publications for news affecting the financial services industry.

  • Massachusetts AG Leads AG Coalition Urging Senate to Oppose Joint Resolution to Set Aside CFPB Arbitration Rule

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On July 28, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, along with 20 other state attorneys general, issued a letter to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Charles Schumer, urging Senate leaders to oppose S.J.Res. 47—a joint resolution that would set aside the CFPB’s arbitration rule. As previously discussed in InfoBytes, on July 25, the House exercised its authority under the Congressional Review Act to pass a measure to strike down the rule. The coalition of state attorneys general support the CFPB’s proposed rule, which prohibits the use of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses in certain contracts for consumer financial products and services. The letter asserts that most customers lack the time and resources to enter into arbitration and that “[t]he CFPB’s Arbitration Rule would deliver essential relief to consumers, hold financial services companies accountable for their misconduct, and provide ordinary consumers with meaningful access to the civil justice system.”

    In 2016, AG Healey led a group of 17 state attorneys general who offered support to the CFPB in favor of the Bureau’s proposed rule and asserted a need for regulations that would prohibit such clauses outright. (See previous InfoBytes coverage here.)

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance State Attorney General CFPB Consumer Finance Arbitration U.S. Senate U.S. House Congressional Review Act

  • North Carolina Amends Collection Agency Definition

    State Issues

    On July 20, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper signed into law Senate Bill 415 (S.L. 149), which amends the state’s collection agency law to exclude persons engaged in routine billing services from the definition of a “collection agency.” Specifically, a “collection agency” does not include “corporations or associations engaged in accounting, bookkeeping, or data processing services where a primary component of such services is the rendering of statements of accounts and bookkeeping services for creditors.” The law went into effect July 20, 2017.

    State Issues Debt Collection State Legislation

  • Treasury Secretary Mnuchin Testifies Before House Financial Services Committee, Provides Overview of Tailored Regulatory Approach

    Federal Issues

    On July 27, the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing entitled “The Annual Testimony of the Secretary of the Treasury on the State of the International Financial System.” Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.) opened the full committee hearing asserting that “the unaccountable Washington bureaucracy must finally be held accountable, [and we] must address the regulatory cost of doing business in the U.S. under Dodd-Frank.” Rep. Hensarling commended President Trump’s Executive Order establishing the core principles for regulating the U.S. financial system and called it “vitally important to us all.”

    Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin was the only witness at the June 27 hearing, offering testimony and answering questions concerning, among other things, (i) praise for the Committee’s passage of the Financial CHOICE act; (ii) tailoring capital requirements for small, mid-sized, and region banks; (iii) identifying a “single, lead regulator” to reduce regulatory overlap; (iv) remedying the Volcker Rule; (v) making the CFPB more accountable through statutory changes; (vi) reforming housing finance, noting that the current system, “in which the GSEs remain in perpetual Federal Housing Finance Agency conservatorship . . .  is not sustainable and leaves taxpayers at risk”; and (vii) addressing tax reform.

    Federal Issues Department of Treasury House Financial Services Committee Dodd-Frank Financial CHOICE Act

  • OFAC Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President Maduro

    Financial Crimes

    On July 31, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that it was imposing sanctions on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, pursuant to Executive Order 13692, for undermining the country’s democracy and rule of law after recent elections and committing widespread human rights abuses. The sanctions prohibit any U.S. individual from dealing with President Maduro and freezes all assets belonging to him subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin explained that the July 30 “illegitimate elections confirm that Maduro is a dictator who disregards the will of the Venezuelan people. By sanctioning Maduro, the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela who seek to return their country to a full and prosperous democracy.”

    The July 31 sanctions follow an announcement on July 26 in which OFAC announced it was imposing sanctions against 13 current or former Venezuelan government officials associated with election corruption and human rights violations. As a result, all assets subject to U.S. jurisdiction are frozen and U.S. persons are prohibited from dealing with any of the individuals on the list.

    Financial Crimes Sanctions OFAC Department of Treasury

  • International oil field service company agrees to settle FCPA claim for $29 million in disgorgement and penalties

    Financial Crimes

    An international oil field service company recently settled allegations that the company improperly steered business to the friend of an Angolan official in exchange for that official awarding various oil contracts to the company. In total, the company agreed to pay the SEC $29.2 million, comprising $14 million in disgorgement, $1.2 million in prejudgment interest, and a $14 million penalty. The company’s former vice president also agreed to pay the SEC a $75,000 penalty related to these violations and other accounting irregularities.  

    This is the most recent settlement in a series of FCPA enforcement actions focusing on the company’s procurement processes and operations in various countries. A former subsidiary of the company settled similar FCPA allegations in 2009 related to alleged bribes paid to Nigerian officials to procure contracts in that country.    

    This settlement also highlights the role of whistleblowers in driving FCPA and other enforcement actions. A whistleblower employed by the company first alerted the company to potential FCPA issues in 2010, which resulted in the launching of an investigation into the allegations.

    Financial Crimes FCPA SEC Disgorgement Bribery Whistleblower

  • FDIC Updates Supervisory Guidance on Risk Management Examination Policies

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance

    On July 26, the FDIC issued Financial Institution Letter FIL-31-2017 to announce updates to its Risk Management Manual of Examination Policies. The revisions, which incorporated guidance from the FDIC’s Board of Directors, updated the Report of Examination Instructions regarding matters requiring board attention and “deviations from the safety and soundness principles underlying statements of policy.” The revision also included updated instructions for examiners to use when complying with examination schedules. The letter applies to all FDIC-supervised financial institutions.

    Agency Rule-Making & Guidance FDIC Risk Management Bank Supervision Vendor Management

  • CFPB Ombudsman’s Office Issues Mid-Year Update

    Consumer Finance

    In July, the CFPB Ombudsman’s Office issued its mid-year update for 2017. Each year, the Ombudsman is required to submit an annual report to the CFPB Director. The mid-year update outlines issues related to individual inquires made to the Ombudsman’s Office, the accessibility of CFPB print materials, whistleblower communications, Ombudsman Forums, Ombudsman Interactives, and the office’s independent outreach programs. Highlighted are several key points:

    • Individual Inquires. The Ombudsman’s Office reported that 820 inquiries were received from consumers, financial entities, consumer and trade groups, and others in the first six months of 2017—an increase from the 541 inquiries received during the same time frame the previous year
    • Whistleblower Communications. The Bureau continued to receive complaints about alleged violations of consumer financial protection laws. However, according to the Ombudsman, the contact points for whistleblowers have become more difficult to find since the CFPB’s 2016 website refresh. The Ombudsman’s Office provided suggestions to make the information easier to locate.
    • Ombudsman Forums. The Ombudsman’s Office recently conducted a forum with compliance officers, or people in similar roles, from companies that engage with the CFPB. The forum facilitated discussions on: (i) compliance management and the consumer complaint process; (ii) the public Consumer Complaint Database; (iii) the examination process; (iv) CFPB compliance tools and resources; and (v) current regulatory compliance process considerations. Additionally, an event with the associations of state government regulators is planned.
    • Ombudsman Interactives. The “Ombudsman Interactives” initiative was launched earlier this year to facilitate discussions similar to those at the Ombudsman Forums. Attendees at consumer, trade, and other conferences participated in the onsite interactives.
    • Ombudsman Outreach. The Ombudsman’s Office reported that it continues its independent outreach programs intended to share information on the CFPB’s resources and latest work. A coordinated outreach program held this year was attended by nationwide state banking associations.

    Consumer Finance CFPB State Regulators Consumer Complaints

  • OFAC Fines International Technology Subsidiary More Than $12 Million for Violating Iranian Sanctions

    Financial Crimes

    On July 27, the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced it had reached a settlement with a subsidiary of a Singapore-based international technology group for alleged violations of OFAC sanctions against Iran. OFAC claimed that between August 25, 2010 and November 5, 2011, the subsidiary entered into contracts with multiple Iranian companies, engaged several third-party vendors to provide goods and services for the contracts, and caused “at least six separate financial institutions to engage in the unauthorized exportation or re-exportation of financial services from the [U.S.] to Iran.” Furthermore, the subsidiary made a statement to a non-U.S. financial institution in Singapore (the Bank) stating, “In consideration of [the Bank] agreeing to continue providing banking services in Singapore to our company, we . . . hereby undertake not to route any transactions related to Iran through [the Bank], whether in Singapore or elsewhere.” However, the subsidiary began originating USD funds transfers through the Bank related to Iranian business transactions. Moreover, its actions provided “significant economic benefit” to Iran and individuals on OFAC’s List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons. Specifically, OFAC maintained the subsidiary violated the following sanctions programs: (i) the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and (ii) the Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. part 560.

    The settlement requires the company to pay more than $12 million to settle the claims, which the company did not voluntarily self-disclose to OFAC.

    Financial Crimes OFAC Sanctions Department of Treasury

  • OCC Requests Pre-Motion Conference to Discuss NYDFS Fintech Challenge

    Fintech

    On July 25, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Joon H. Kim, filed a letter with the federal court in that district on behalf of the OCC, requesting a pre-motion conference to discuss its anticipated motion to dismiss the New York Department of Financial Service’s (NYDFS) suit against the OCC’s special purpose fintech charter. See Vullo v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Case 17-cv-03574 (S.D.N.Y., Jul. 25, 2017). As previously covered in InfoBytes, NYDFS filed the lawsuit May 12 on the grounds that the charter is unlawful and would grant preemptive powers over state law. Kim cites the following three reasons for dismissal of NYDFS’s complaint:

    • NYDFS lacks standing to bring the suit because, although the OCC has “publically [sic] contemplated the possibility of issuing fintech charters…those public statements do not amount to a ‘final agency action’ subject to challenge under the [Administrative Procedure Act].” Indeed, since any harm NYDFS can identify is “conjectural or hypothetical,” and it has not suffered any “actual or imminent” injury, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
    • OCC’s interpretation of its statutory authority under the National Bank Act (NBA) refers to Section 5.20(e)(1), which “reasonably limits the issuance of charters to institutions that carry on at least one of three ‘core banking activities’ [such as] the receipt of deposits, the payment of checks, or the lending of money.” Thus, regulations that allow chartering approvals—even if the chartered companies don't take deposits—is reasonable because they carry on at least one core banking function.
    • The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution would protect fintech banks chartered under the relevant OCC rules and entitle them to NBA protections against state interference.   Kim noted that it “is well established that the Supremacy Clause operates in concert with the NBA to displace state laws or state causes of action that conflict with federal law or that prevent or significantly interfere with national bank powers.”

    The OCC faces a separate fintech lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Columbia brought by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors. (See previous Special Alert.)

    Fintech Agency Rule-Making & Guidance OCC NYDFS National Bank Act Litigation Licensing Fintech Charter

  • FinCEN, California U.S. Attorney Assess Civil Money Penalties Against Virtual Currency Transmitter and Operator for AML Violations

    Financial Crimes

    On July 27, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), in partnership with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, assessed a more than $110 million civil money penalty against an internet-based, foreign-located virtual currency transmitter for willfully violating the anti-money laundering (AML) provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act. A second, separate $12 million penalty was assessed against one of the company’s operators, a Russian national. Additionally, a California grand jury handed down a 21-count indictment against the currency transmitter and the Russian national. According to allegations, the company exchanged fiat currency in addition to virtual currencies such as bitcoin, and “facilitated transactions involving ransomware, computer hacking, identity theft, tax refund fraud schemes, public corruption, and drug trafficking.” The company also processed transactions using stolen funds.

    Pursuant to the terms of the assessment, from November 2011 through the present, both the company and the operator allegedly failed to (i) meet money services business (MSB) registration requirements; (ii) implement an effective AML program; (iii) detect suspicious transactions or file suspicious activity reports; and (iv) obtain and retain records for transmitted funds of $3,000 or more. FinCEN warned that regardless of ownership or location, foreign-located MSBs are “required to comply with U.S. AML laws and regulations . . . including AML program, MSB registration, suspicious activity reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.”

    This is the first action FinCEN has taken against a foreign-located MSB conducting business in the U.S.

    Financial Crimes Anti-Money Laundering Virtual Currency FinCEN Privacy/Cyber Risk & Data Security Bank Secrecy Act SARs Bitcoin

Pages

Upcoming Events