Skip to content

Exception Tracking Spreadsheet (TicklerTrax™)
Downloaded by more than 1,000 bankers. Free Excel spreadsheet to help you track missing and expiring documents for credit and loans, deposits, trusts, and more. Visualize your exception data in interactive charts and graphs. Provided by bank technology vendor, AccuSystems. Download TicklerTrax for free.

Click Now!


Top Story Compliance Related

12/15/2020

OFAC sanctions Iranian intel officers involved in abduction

The Treasury Department has designated two senior officials of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) who were involved in the abduction of Robert A. “Bob” Levinson on Iran’s Kish Island on or about March 9, 2007. Senior Iranian officials authorized Levinson’s abduction and detention and launched a disinformation campaign to deflect blame from the Iranian regime. The individuals designated today, Mohammad Baseri and Ahmad Khazai, acted in their capacity as MOIS officers in the abduction, detention, and probable death of Mr. Levinson.

For identity information on Baseri and Khazai, see BankersOnline's OFAC Update.

12/15/2020

FBAR deadline extended again

FinCEN has posted Notice 2020-1 to extend yet again the filing date for certain Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) filings.

Because a proposed rulemaking FinCEN issued on March 10, 2016, which proposes to revise the regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act regarding FBARs is not yet finalized, FinCEN is further extending the filing due date to April 15, 2022, for individuals whose filing due date for reporting signature authority was previously extended by Notice 2019-1. This extension applies to the reporting of signature authority held during the 2020 calendar year, as well as all reporting deadlines extended by previous Notices 2019-1, 2018-1, 2017-1, 2016-1, 2015-1, 2014-1, 2013-1, 2012-1 and 2012-2, along with Notices 2011-1 and 2011-2.

For all other individuals with an FBAR filing obligation, the filing due date remains April 15, 2021.

12/14/2020

CFPB Fall 2020 rulemaking agenda

The Bureau has published its Fall 2020 Rulemaking Agenda, which lists the regulatory matters that it expects to focus on for the remainder of 2020 through the spring of 2021. Key among these are:

  • In addition to completing and publishing the October 30, 2020, final rule on debt collection, the Bureau has also engaged in testing of time-barred debt disclosures that were not the focus of the May 2019 proposal. In early 2020, after completing the testing, the Bureau published a supplemental NPRM related to time-barred debt disclosures. The Bureau expects to issue a final rule in December 2020 addressing, among other things, disclosures related to the validation notice and time-barred debt.
  • The Bureau is continuing a rulemaking to address the anticipated expiration of the LIBOR index On Monday, November 30, regulatory authorities in the UK announced that they are considering extending the availability of US$ LIBOR for legacy loan contracts until June 2023 instead of the end of 2021. In light of this development, the Bureau anticipates publishing the final rulemaking on the LIBOR transition later than the January 2021 target identified in the Unified Agenda.
  • The Bureau is participating in interagency rulemaking processes with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency to develop regulations to implement the amendments made by the Dodd-Frank Act to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) concerning appraisals. These amendments require implementing regulations for quality control standards for automated valuation models (AVMs). The Agencies will continue to develop a proposed rule to implement the Dodd-Frank Act’s AVM amendments to FIRREA.
  • The Bureau anticipates issuing an NPRM in spring 2021 to consider possible amendments to the Bureau’s mortgage servicing rules to address actions required of servicers working with borrowers affected by natural disasters or other emergencies.
  • The Bureau anticipates publishing two NPRMs in early 2021 concerning possible revisions to the 2015 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). One of these follows an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in May 2019 concerning certain data points that are required to be reported under the HMDA rule and coverage of certain business or commercial purpose loans, addressing concerns about regulatory burden. The second would address the public disclosure of HMDA data in light of consumer privacy interests, so that stakeholders can concurrently consider and comment on the collection and reporting of data points and public disclosure of those data points. This NPRM will follow up on the Bureau’s 2018 final policy guidance regarding disclosure of the HMDA data. (These proposed rules may not be released by the anticipated February target in the Unified Agenda.)

The Bureau has also added two new items to its long-term agenda. First, the Bureau will weigh feedback from its assessment of the TRID Rule suggesting that modifications of certain aspects of that rule make it more effective. Second, the CFPB has begun research that focuses on providing information to consumers about the costs associated with payday loans. The results of the qualitative testing will inform the Bureau in deciding whether and how to move forward with quantitative testing that might support possible future rulemaking or other actions related to payday loan disclosures.

In August 2020, the Bureau also began its review of Regulation Z rules that implement the CARD Act of 2009, with a focus on an interim final rule and three final rules published by the Federal Reserve Board from July 2009 to April 2011.

12/14/2020

McWilliams remarks at Federal Reserve Bank Supervision Conference

In a presentation at the Federal Reserve Board Conference on Bank Supervision: Past, Present, and Future, FDIC Chairman McWilliams discussed the steps taken by the FDIC in the last two years to improve its supervisory program. She noted the FDIC's task is really quite simple:

  • Foster a technological transformation in the industry we oversee, promoting a safe, dynamic, technology-driven marketplace for financial services;
  • Develop a more dynamic supervision model that improves FDIC effectiveness and promotes financial stability; and
  • Do it all in a manner that reduces unnecessary regulatory burden and cuts compliance costs for banks.

McWilliams said of the agency's current project to leverage technology to engage more regularly and more informally to discuss operations, understanding emerging risks, and resolve questions surrounding new products and services, “When we are successful, this system will reduce the reporting burden for institutions and the compliance costs of an annual examination, while simultaneously providing greater visibility for the FDIC into an institution's financial health and into the health of the entire financial system. And, because we are engaging more regularly, the FDIC will be able to help institutions identify and mitigate risks to financial health or consumers before they become bigger, more challenging problems.”

12/14/2020

FDIC Board meeting tomorrow

The FDIC Board of Directors will hold an open meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, December 15, 2020, via a and subsequently made available on-demand approximately one week after the event.

Selected items from the Summary Agenda for the meeting include—

  • Final Rule on Revising the FDIC’s Regulations Concerning Collection of Delinquent Civil Money Penalties.
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Computer-Security Incident Notification.
  • Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Additional Exemptions to Suspicious Activity Report Requirements (12 CFR part 353).
  • Final Rules on the Removal and Rescission of Transferred OTS Regulations
  • Combined Final Rule on Brokered Deposits and Interest Rate Restrictions.
  • Final Rule on Parent Companies of Industrial Banks and Industrial Loan Companies.

12/11/2020

Payment processor and CEO pay $1.5M for consumer fraud

The Federal Trade Commission has announced that Complete Merchant Solutions, LLC (CMS) and its former CEO, Jack Wilson, have settled charges that they illegally processed millions of dollars in consumer credit card payments for fraudulent schemes when they knew or should have known that the schemes were defrauding consumers. Those schemes include Apply Knowledge and Tarr, which were ultimately shut down by an FTC enforcement action, and USFIA, which was shut down following an enforcement action by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

The FTC alleges that CMS and Wilson ignored clear red flags of illegal conduct by those schemes, such as high rates of consumer chargebacks, use of multiple merchant accounts to artificially reduce chargeback rates so as to evade detection by banks and the credit card associations, submission of sham chargeback reduction plans, and the use of merchant accounts to process payments for products and services for which the merchant did not get approval from the bank holding the accounts.

The proposed order requires CMS and Wilson to pay $1.5 million to the FTC for use in providing refunds to harmed consumers. In addition, among other restrictions, CMS and Wilson are banned from acting as a payment processor for any companies that offer “free trials” for nutraceutical products, and prohibited from engaging in credit card laundering and helping clients evade fraud monitoring programs established by financial institutions.

12/11/2020

FinCEN issues new 314(b) sharing information

In prepared remarks at the American Bankers Association/ American Bar Association Financial Crimes Enforcement Conference, Kenneth Blanco, FinCEN Director, announced that FinCEN was issuing important guidance clarifying how financial institutions may fully utilize FinCEN’s 314(b) information sharing program. A new 314(b) Fact Sheet was issued yesterday as the result of the feedback provided by financial institutions and through our own experiences at FinCEN. It is intended to clarify in greater detail the circumstances where 314(b) applies, with the hope of enhancing participation and utility of the 314(b) program. [FinCEN rescinded previously issued guidance (FIN-2009-G002) and a former administrative ruling (FIN-2012-R006) with the publication of the new Fact Sheet.]

The main themes of the 314(b) Fact Sheet are:

  • Financial institutions may share under Section 314(b) information relating to activities that they suspect may involve possible terrorist financing or money laundering. This includes, but is not limited to, information about activities they suspect involve the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity (SUA). Importantly, our guidance clarifies that:
  • Financial institutions do not need to have specific information that these activities directly relate to proceeds of an SUA, or to have identified specific proceeds of an SUA being laundered.
  • Financial institutions do not need to have made a conclusive determination that the activity is suspicious.
  • Financial institutions may share information about activities as described, even if such activities do not constitute a “transaction.” This includes, for example, an attempted transaction, or an attempt to induce others to engage in a transaction. This clarification is significant and addresses some uncertainty with sharing incidents involving possible fraud, cybercrime, and other predicate offenses when financial institutions suspect those offenses may involve terrorist acts or money laundering activities.
  • In addition, the guidance notes that there is no limitation under Section 314(b) on the sharing of personally identifiable information, or the type or medium of information that can be shared (to include sharing information verbally).
  • An entity that is not itself a financial institution under the Bank Secrecy Act may form and operate an association of financial institutions whose members share information under Section 314(b). Notably, this includes compliance service providers.
  • An unincorporated association governed by a contract among the group of financial institutions that constitutes its members may engage in information sharing under Section 314(b).

Director Blanco also discussed FinCEN’s COVID-19 Response, Expansion of Rapid Response Program, Guidance to Financial Institutions, FinCEN Advisories, Medical Fraud, Imposter Scams and Money Mules, Cybercrime and Cyber-Enabled Crime , Unemployment Insurance Fraud, Charities Fact Sheet, COVID-related SAR Filings, Rulemakings, and Stakeholder Engagement.

12/11/2020

OFAC targets more human rights abusers

Yesterday, OFAC targeted perpetrators of serious human rights abuse across several countries in the Western Hemisphere, Middle East, and Eurasia. Yesterday’s actions were taken under Executive Order 13818, which builds upon and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, and targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption. OFAC also designated one Yemeni individual pursuant to E.O. 13611, “Blocking Property of Persons Threatening the Peace, Security, or Stability of Yemen.”

For information on the individuals and entities OFAC designated in these actions, see BankersOnline's OFAC Update.

12/10/2020

Agencies resolution plans actions announced

A joint press release from the Federal Reserve Board and FDIC has announced several resolution plan actions. Resolution plans, commonly known as living wills, must describe a financial company's strategy for rapid and orderly resolution in bankruptcy in the event of material financial distress or failure of the company.

First, the agencies confirmed that weaknesses previously identified in the resolution plans for several large foreign banks—Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, and UBS—have been remediated.

Second, the agencies finalized guidance for the resolution plans of certain large foreign banks. The final guidance modifies the proposed guidance, which was issued in March of this year, in several ways. The agencies tailored their expectations around resolution capital and liquidity, derivatives and trading activity, as well as payment, clearing, and settlement activities. The scope of the guidance was also modified to generally cover foreign banks in category II of the agencies' large bank regulatory framework. As a result, the guidance will apply to the 2021 resolution plans from Barclays, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank, and also to MUFG (Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group) for its full plan due in 2024.

And third, the agencies provided information for large foreign and domestic banks that will inform the content of their next resolution plans, which now are due December 17, 2021. In particular, these targeted plans will be required to include core elements of a firm's resolution strategy—such as capital, liquidity, and recapitalization strategies—as well as how each firm has integrated changes to and lessons learned from its response to the coronavirus into its resolution planning process. The information applies to foreign and domestic banks in categories II and III of the large bank regulatory framework.

  • Federal Register notice: Guidance for Resolution Plan Submissions of Certain Foreign-Based Covered Companies
  • List of 15 Domestic and Foreign Banks Required to Submit Next Resolution Plans by December 17, 2021

12/10/2020

Bureau sues debt collector BounceBack, Inc.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has sued BounceBack, Inc.. a Kansas City, Missouri-based operator of bad-check pretrial-diversion programs on behalf of more than 90 district attorneys' offices throughout the country. The Bureau alleges that in the course of implementing this program, BounceBack violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (CFPA). The Bureau’s complaint seeks injunctions against BounceBack, as well as damages, redress to consumers, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the imposition of a civil money penalty.

The Bureau's complaint alleges that since at least 2015, in the course of administering these bad-check pretrial-diversion programs, BounceBack used district-attorney letterheads to threaten more than 19,000 consumers with prosecution if they did not pay the amount of the check, enroll and pay for a financial-education course, and pay various other fees. BounceBack failed to—

  • reveal to consumers that BounceBack—and not district attorneys—sent the letters
  • reveal that district attorneys almost never prosecuted these cases, even when consumers ignored BounceBack’s threats. In fact, in most cases, BounceBack did not refer cases for prosecution, even if the check writer failed to respond to its collection letter.
  • include disclosures required under the FDCPA.

The Bureau alleges that BounceBack’s conduct violated the FDCPA, was deceptive under both the FDCPA and the CFPA, and that its violations of the FDCPA constituted violations of the CFPA.

Pages

Training View All

Penalties View All

Search Top Stories