|
|
|
|
| APRIL 2014 SUMMARY |
Volume 1, Issue 2 |
BuckleySandler's Financial Crimes practice group is pleased to produce this monthly newsletter. While read alone or in conjunction with the monthly financial crimes webinar series, it is our intention to provide a forum in which industry leading practices can be discussed and enhanced.
|
|
IN THIS ISSUE:
Upcoming FinCrimes Webinar: Emerging Payments | BSA/AML & OFAC | Virtual Currency & Payment Systems | Anti-Corruption & FCPA | Civil Enforcement | Consumer Issues | State AGs
UPCOMING FINCRIMES WEBINAR: UNDERSTANDING AND MANAGING RISKS IN THE EMERGING PAYMENTS ARENA
Please join BuckleySandler and invited experts for a discussion of the following topics:
- The risks and rewards of banking emerging e-commerce technologies
- State and Federal licensing issues for emerging e-commerce companies
- Regulatory expectations for financial institutions and emerging technology companies
Who Should Attend: This webinar will be of particular interest to in-house legal, compliance, and risk management personnel at banks and other financial services providers.
When: Thursday, May 22, 2014 from 12:00 to 1:00 pm EST
Complimentary registration: https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/465928432
Registration required. Please no outside law firms, government agency personnel, consulting firms, or media. After registering and being approved, you will receive a confirmation email containing instructions for joining the webinar.
BSA/AML & OFAC:
FinCEN Issues Five Rulings on Application of BSA Regulations to Certain Activities
On April 29, FinCEN issued five rulings in response to companies who sought clarification regarding whether their company is a money service business under the BSA. In FIN-2014-R006, FinCEN determined that a company that operates an online real-time deposit, settlement, and payment services platform for banks, businesses, and consumers is considered a money transmitter, not a provider of prepaid access, and should be registered as a money services business under BSA regulations. In two other rulings—FIN-2014-R004 and FIN-2014-R005— FinCEN clarified the exemption from the money transmitter definition for persons that accept and transmit funds “only integral to the sale of goods or the provision of services, other than money transmission services.†Read more...
Treasury Implements Additional Russia Sanctions
On April 28, the Treasury Department announced additional sanctions in response to developments in Ukraine by designating seven Russian government officials and 17 entities, including numerous financial institutions, pursuant to Executive Order 13661. That order authorizes sanctions on, among others, officials of the Russian Government and any individual or entity that is owned or controlled by, that has acted for or on behalf of, or that has provided material or other support to, a senior Russian government official. The designated individuals will be subject to an asset freeze and a U.S. visa ban, and the companies will be subject to an asset freeze. In addition, the Department of Commerce imposed additional restrictions on 13 of the companies by imposing a license requirement with a presumption of denial for the export, re-export or other foreign transfer of U.S.-origin items to the companies. Further, the Departments of Commerce and State tightened review of export license applications for any high-technology items that could contribute to Russia’s military capabilities, and plan to revoke any existing export licenses that meet the tightened conditions.
FinCEN Announces Enforcement Action Over MSB’s Currency Transaction Reporting
On April 24, FinCEN released an assessment of civil money penalty against a Florida money services business (MSB) and its owner for failing to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act’s program, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. FinCEN determined that since at least 2008, the MSB, which operated as both an independent check casher and as a foreign currency exchange dealer, willfully violated the BSA by failing to register with FinCEN and failing to develop and implement an effective AML program. Specifically, FinCEN found that the MSB lacked adequate AML programs to verify the identities of persons conducting transactions, to monitor for suspicious activities, to identify currency transactions exceeding $10,000, and to ensure that the MSB filed the required currency transaction reports (CTRs) in a timely manner. According to FinCEN, the MSB also failed to implement internal controls sufficient for creating and retaining adequate BSA records related to currency exchange, and its owner and compliance officer failed to conduct a BSA/AML risk assessment. As a result of the compliance deficiencies, FinCEN determined the MSB failed to file, or failed to timely file CTRs on $4.5 million worth of transactions. The MSB and its owner admitted to these determinations and agreed to pay a $10,000 penalty.
OFAC Announces $6 Million Settlement To Resolve Alleged Cuba Sanctions Violations
On April 18, OFAC announced that a privately held travel services provider based in the Netherlands but majority-owned by U.S. persons agreed to pay nearly $6 million to resolve allegations that over a roughly six-year period the company’s business units mostly outside the U.S. provided services related to travel to or from Cuba, which assisted 44,430 persons. OFAC states that such business activities constitute alleged violations of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. The company voluntarily self-disclosed the alleged violations to OFAC, the vast majority of which occurred prior to such disclosure. OFAC claims that the company (i) failed to exercise a minimal degree of caution or care regarding its obligations to comply with OFAC sanctions against Cuba by processing unauthorized travel related transactions for more than four years before recognizing that it was subject to U.S. jurisdiction; (ii) processed a high volume of transactions and assisted a large number of travelers, which caused significant harm to the objectives of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations; and (iii) failed to implement an adequate compliance program. OFAC’s Cuba Penalty Schedule sets a base penalty for the alleged violations at $11,093,500, which was reduced given that (i) the conduct at issue was the company’s “first violationâ€; (ii) the company provided substantial cooperation during OFAC’s investigation of the alleged violations, including by agreeing to toll the statute of limitations and by providing OFAC with detailed and well-organized documents and information; and (iii) the company already has taken significant remedial action in response to the alleged violations.
International Financial Services Association Launches AML Working Group
On April 15, BAFT, an international financial services association for organizations engaged in international transaction banking, announced the creation of a new Anti-Money Laundering and Know Your Customer Trade Finance Sound Practices working group. The group will focus on the needs of the transaction banking industry’s heightened focus on maintaining compliance with increasing regulatory expectations involving AML, combating the financing of terrorism, and KYC practices. The group will review “red flags†identified in different jurisdictions, identify common challenges, and develop best practices, which it will consolidate and publish for use by other trade practitioners.
OMB Reviewing Significant AML Proposed Rule
On April 11, the Treasury Department submitted to the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) FinCEN’s long-awaited proposed rule to establish customer due diligence requirements for financial institutions. Under executive order, each agency is required to submit for regulatory review rules resulting from “significant regulatory actions,†and OIRA has 90 days to complete or waive the review. The public portion of the FinCEN rulemaking has been ongoing since February 2012 when FinCEN released an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to solicit comment on potential requirements for financial institutions to (i) conduct initial due diligence and verify customer identities at the time of account opening; (ii) understand the purpose and intended nature of the account; (iii) identify and verify all customers’ beneficial owners; and (iv) monitor the customer relationship and conduct additional due diligence as needed. FinCEN subsequently held a series of roundtable meetings, summaries of which it later published.
VIRTUAL CURRENCY & PAYMENT SYSTEMS:
New York Targets Online Lenders Through Debit Card Networks
On April 30, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) again expanded the scope of its activities targeting online payday lenders by announcing that two major debit card network operators agreed to halt the processing of payday loan deductions from bank accounts owned by New York consumers who allegedly obtained illegal online payday loans. The DFS asserts that in response to increased regulatory pressure on online lenders’ use of the ACH network—known as Operation Choke Point—those lenders are using debit card transactions to collect on payday loans originated online to New York residents. The DFS believes such loans violate the state’s usury laws. The DFS also sent cease-and-desist letters to 20 companies it believes are “illegally promoting, making, or collecting on payday loans to New York consumers.†The DFS’s assault on online lenders publicly began in February 2013 when it warned third-party debt collectors about collecting on allegedly illegal payday loans, and was first expanded in August 2013 when the DFS sent letters to 35 online lenders, including lenders affiliated with Native American Tribes, demanding that they cease and desist offering allegedly illegal payday loans to New York borrowers. At the same time, the DFS asked banks and NACHA to limit such lenders’ access to the payment system. DFS subsequently expanded its effort in December 2013 when it began targeting payday loan lead generation companies.
House Committee Members Express Concerns About Operation Choke Point
On April 8 the House Financial Services Committee held a hearing with the general counsels of the federal banking agencies regarding, among other things, Operation Choke Point, the federal enforcement operation reportedly intended to cut off from the banking system certain lenders and merchants allegedly engaged in unlawful activities. Numerous committee members from both sides of the aisle raised concerns about Operation Choke Point, as well as the federal government’s broader pressure on banks over their relationships with nonbank financial service providers, including money service businesses, nonbank lenders, and check cashers. Committee members asserted that the operation is impacting lawful nonbank financial service providers, who are losing access to the banking system and, in turn, are unable to offer needed services to the members’ constituents. The FDIC’s Richard Osterman repeatedly stated that Operation Choke Point is a DOJ operation and the FDIC’s participation is limited to providing certain information and resources upon request. Mr. Osterman also asserted that the FDIC is not attempting to, and does not intend to, prohibit banks from offering products or services to nonbank financial service providers operating within the law, and that the FDIC’s guidance is clear that banks are neither prohibited from nor encouraged to provide services to certain businesses, provided they properly manage their risk. Similarly, the OCC’s Amy Friend stated that the OCC wants to ensure that banks conduct due diligence and implement appropriate controls, but that the OCC is not prohibiting banks from offering services to lawful businesses. She stated the OCC has found that some banks have made a business decision to terminate relationships with some nonbank providers rather than implement additional controls.
State Regulators Circulate Model Consumer Guidance on Virtual Currency
On April 23, the CSBS’s Emerging Payment Task Force, together with the North American Securities Administrators Association, released “Model State Consumer and Investor Guidance on Virtual Currency.†The model guidance provides basic background information on virtual currency, and tips for consumers considering buying, selling, transacting with, or investing in a virtual currency.
Texas Issues Licensing Guidance for Virtual Currency Firms
On April 3, the Texas Department of Banking issued a supervisory memorandum on the regulatory treatment of virtual currencies under the Texas Money Services Act. The memorandum states that money transmission licensing determinations regarding transactions with decentralized virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, referred to by the Banking Department as cryptocurrencies, turn on whether cryptocurrencies should be considered “money or monetary value†under the Money Services Act. The memorandum concludes that cryptocurrencies currently cannot be considered “money or monetary value†because they are not currencies as that word is defined in the Money Services Act, and a unit of cryptocurrency is not a claim under the Act. However, when a cryptocurrency transaction includes sovereign currency, it may constitute money transmission depending on how the sovereign currency is handled. The memorandum provides examples of common types of transactions involving cryptocurrencies and whether they would constitute money transmission subject to state licensing requirements. For example, the Department states that exchanging cryptocurrency for sovereign currency through a third party exchanger is generally money transmission, and that exchange of cryptocurrency for sovereign currency through an automated machine is usually but not always money transmission. The Department advises that cryptocurrency businesses conducting money transmission must comply with state licensing requirements. The Department further advises that (i) a money transmitter that conducts virtual currency transactions is subject to a $500,000 minimum net worth requirement; (ii) a license holder may not include virtual currency assets in calculations for its permissible investments; and (iii) license applicants who handle virtual currencies in the course of their money transmission activities must submit a current third party security audit of their relevant computer systems.
ANTI-CORRUPTION & FCPA:
DOJ, SEC Announce More Charges in Broker-Dealer Foreign Bribery Case
On April 14, the DOJ and the SEC announced additional charges in a previously announced case against employees of a U.S. broker-dealer related to an alleged “massive international bribery scheme.†The DOJ announced the arrest of the CEO and a managing partner of the New York-based U.S. broker-dealer on felony charges arising from an alleged conspiracy to pay bribes to a senior official in Venezuela’s state economic development bank in exchange for the official directing financial trading business to the broker-dealer. The SEC, whose routine compliance examination detected the allegedly illegal conduct, announced parallel civil charges against the same two executives. Broker-dealer employees charged earlier in the case pleaded guilty last August for conspiring to violate the FCPA, the Travel Act, and anti-money laundering laws, as well as for substantive counts of those offenses, relating, among other things, to the scheme involving bribe payments. In November 2013, the Venezuelan bank senior official pleaded guilty in Manhattan federal court for conspiring to violate the Travel Act and anti-money laundering laws, as well as for substantive counts of those offenses, for her role in the scheme.
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT:
Comptroller Curry Takes Vendor Management Message to Third-Party Providers
On April 16, Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry spoke to attendees of the Consumer Electronics Show Government Conference, taking his concerns about banks’ vendor relationships and cybersecurity risks to potential third-party technology service providers. Comptroller Curry explained the banking system’s vulnerability to cyberattacks given its significant reliance on technology and telecommunications, and expressed particular concern about potential attacks on community banks. He reiterated several of the specific risk issues he recently discussed with community bankers. Comptroller Curry (i) outlined risks related to the consolidation of bank vendors; (ii) identified as a “special problem†banks’ reliance on foreign vendors, and cautioned banks to consider the legal and regulatory implications of where their data is stored or transmitted; and (iii) expressed concern about vendors’ access to important and confidential bank and customer data. He assured attendees that the OCC is not trying to discourage the use of third-party vendors, but in explaining the OCC’s particular focus on controls and risk management practices employed by vendors that provide services to banks and thrifts, Comptroller Curry advised vendors of the OCC’s authority under the Bank Service Company Act to issue enforcement actions and its authority to examine vendors designated as Technology Service Providers. He reported that banks have asked the OCC to more actively supervise critical service providers and stated that in working to protect the banking system the OCC will have to “look beyond individual financial institutions to the range of vendors and customers that have access to some part of its infrastructure and systems.â€
CONSUMER ISSUES:
Debt Settlement Firm Pleads Guilty in CFPB’s First Criminal Referral
On April 8 the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York announced that a debt settlement company and its owner pled guilty to fraud charges, resolving the first criminal case referred to the DOJ by the CFPB. The DOJ alleged that from 2009 through May 2013, the company systematically exploited and defrauded over 1,200 customers with credit card debt by charging them for debt settlement services the company never provided. The DOJ claimed that the company (i) lied about and/or concealed its fees, and falsely assured customers that fees would be substantially less than those the company eventually charged; (ii) deceived customers by fraudulently and falsely promising that the company could significantly lower borrower debts when, for the majority of its customers, the company allegedly did little or no work and failed to achieve any reduction in debt; and (iii) sent prospective customers solicitation letters falsely suggesting that the agency was acting on behalf of or in connection with a federal governmental program. The company’s owner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The company pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and faces a fine of up to twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the offense, and up to five years’ probation. The defendants also entered into a stipulation of settlement of a civil forfeiture action and consented to the entry of a permanent injunction barring them from providing, directly or indirectly, any debt relief or mortgage relief services in the future. The CFPB subsequently dismissed its parallel civil suit.
STATE AGs:
New York AG Action Targets Out-of-State Retail Installment Obligation Finance Companies
On April 30, New York Attorney General (AG) Eric Schneiderman announced that four out-of-state companies alleged to have financed retail installment obligations (RIOs) at rates in excess of the state’s usury cap agreed to recast the RIOs at a rate of not more than 16% and provide repayment or credits to impacted New York consumers. The settlements are the latest in a series of actions in New York targeting out-of-state or online lenders and finance companies that make loans in New York without obtaining a license to operate in that state. Read more…
Illinois AG Licensing Enforcement Actions Target Payday Loan Lead Generator, Lenders
On April 7, Illinois Attorney General (AG) Lisa Madigan sued a payday loan lead generator to enforce a 2012 cease and desist order issued by the state’s Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. The regulator and the AG assert that the state’s Payday Loan Reform Act (PLRA), which broadly defines “lender†to include “any person or entity . . . that . . . arranges a payday loan for a third party, or acts as an agent for a third party in making a payday loan, regardless of whether approval, acceptance, or ratification by the third party is necessary to create a legal obligation for the third party,†required the lead generator to obtain a license before operating in Illinois. The AG claims that the lead generator violated the state’s Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by offering and arranging payday loans in knowing violation of the PLRA’s licensing and other requirements. The suit also alleges that the lead generator knowingly matched Illinois consumers with unlicensed members of the generator’s payday lender network. The AG is seeking a permanent injunction and a $50,000 civil penalty. On the same day, the AG also announced it filed suits against four online payday lenders for failing to obtain a state license, making payday loans with interest rates exceeding state usury caps, and otherwise violating state payday loan limitations. Those suits ask the court to permanently enjoin the lenders from operating in Illinois and declare all existing payday loan contracts entered into by those lenders null and void, with full restitution to borrowers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
