On September 21, the DOJ and FTC entered into an agreement with the former vice president of a Texas-based debt collection company, to resolve allegations that that he violated Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 807 of the FDCPA. The stipulated order enters a civil penalty of $496,000, but suspends the majority of the judgment based on certain conditions, including cooperation in the ongoing lawsuit against his former company.
The DOJ, OFAC and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), as part of an effort to stop an international network of mass mailing fraud schemes that target elderly and vulnerable victims, conducted a joint enforcement action against an international payments processor and money services business based in Canada. The agencies alleged that the payment processor engaged in money laundering and mail fraud by knowingly processing payments on behalf of the perpetrators of more than 100 different mail fraud campaigns, collectively involving tens of millions of dollars. OFAC designated the payments processor as a significant transnational criminal organization (TCO) pursuant to Executive Order 13581. OFAC also designated as TCOs a global network of 12 individuals and 24 entities across 18 countries based on their association with the payment processor. As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the designated persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in transactions with them. Additionally, USPIS obtained a warrant through the Eastern District of New York to seize the funds in a U.S. bank account that was allegedly used to process payments received through fraudulent mailings. According to OFAC, the payment processor “has a nearly 20-year history of knowingly processing payments relating to these fraudulent solicitation schemes, which result in the loss of millions of dollars to U.S. consumers.”
In conjunction with the SEC’s recent settlement with a U.K.-based pharmaceutical company, the company announced on August 30 that the DOJ has closed its parallel foreign bribery investigation. As detailed here, the SEC settled charges against the company for allegedly improper payments made by its wholly owned subsidiaries in China and Russia. Under the SEC settlement, the company agreed to disgorge $4.325 million and pay a $375,000 civil penalty with $822,000 in prejudgment interest.
On September 8, a California-based software company disclosed in its annual statement that following an investigation into its operations in Russia and certain of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the DOJ and SEC have both declined to bring enforcement actions under the FCPA. An announcement of possible violations was first disclosed in the December 2013 blog post by Roxane Marenberg, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel in the company’s Global Compliance Enablement division. In the post, Marenberg stated that the company was conducting an investigation into alleged FCPA violations at the request of the SEC and DOJ in response to a communication those agencies had received concerning the company’s operations and discounting practices. The company’s disclosures did not provide any further detail about the nature of the business activities being investigated.
On September 13, the DOJ announced a $52.4 million settlement with a top 20 bank to resolve allegations that it violated the False Claims Act by knowingly originating and accepting FHA-insured mortgage loans that did not comply with HUD origination, underwriting, and quality control requirements. It is the smallest settlement of a False Claims Act FHA-insured mortgage loans case against a bank to date as part of the government’s recent enforcement initiative in this area. According to the Statement of Facts issued as part of the settlement agreement, from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2011 (relevant time period), the bank, while acting as a direct endorsement lender (DEL) in the FHA program, (i) certified certain mortgage loans for FHA insurance that failed to meet HUD underwriting requirements regarding borrower creditworthiness; (ii) failed to adhere to various HUD quality control requirements; and (iii) failed to adhere to HUD’s self-reporting requirements. The DOJ noted that the “claims asserted against [the bank] are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.” BuckleySandler represented the bank in this matter.