On September 23, the CFPB issued a Final Rule that defines which nonbank covered persons are designated “larger participants” for purposes of the international money transfer market. In particular, this rule, which finalizes a January 2014 proposed rule, defines an entity as a larger participant if it has at least one million aggregate annual international money transfers. The final rule will be effective December 1, 2014. In addition, the Final Rule defines an international money transfer market to cover certain electronic transfers of funds sent by nonbanks that are international money transfer providers. These transfers must be requested by a sender in a State to be sent to a designated recipient in a foreign country. While the Final Rule’s definitions are modeled in part on the definitions of “remittance transfer” and related terms in the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and its implementing regulation, Regulation E, there are some substantive differences. For example, transfers of $15 or less can be ‘‘international money transfers’’ but not “remittance transfers.” The CFPB provides a procedure for a person to dispute whether it qualifies as a larger participant in the international money transfer market and also asserts that there are only approximately 10 potential larger participants that qualify as small businesses.
On October 8, the Treasury released a statement regarding its continued efforts to support the legitimate use of money transmitters by fostering financial inclusion and financial transparency, while simultaneously addressing its vulnerabilities of money laundering and terrorist financing. Highlighting its progress in the last 15 years, the statement notes that “record volumes of remittances are being transmitted through legitimate and transparent channels.” Looking forward, the treasury will improve upon its efforts to increase banking access for money transmitters by (i) making its expectations for banks clearer; (ii) improving AML/CFT controls and compliance; (iii) heightening AMC/CFT oversight; and (iv) reaching out to financial institutions and their customers. Finally, the Treasury is working with federal banking agencies to ensure that not all money transmitters are treated as high risk by banking institutions. Ensuring that these efforts are both domestic and international, the Treasury is working with the United Kingdom, the World Bank, and G-20.
FinCEN Rules Regulations on Money Services Businesses Do Not Apply to ISOs and Exempt Payment Processors
On August 27, FinCEN issued FIN-2014-R009, an administrative ruling clarifying that Independent Sales Organizations (“ISOs”) and exempt payment processors are not money transmitters subject to Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) regulations applicable to Money Services Businesses (“MSBs”). Under BSA MSB regulations, the term “money transmitter” applies to any person that provides money transmission services or otherwise engages in the transfer of funds. The term “money transmission services” includes the acceptance of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency from one person and the transmission of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency to another location or person by any means. Applying these standards, FinCEN determined that BSA MSB regulations do not apply to an ISO, so long as it: (i) merely solicits merchants to offer them the credit and debit card processing services of two counterparties; and (ii) does not take possession or control of merchant funds at any point. However, FinCEN concluded that BSA MSB regulations will apply to a payment processor unless the payment processor qualifies for the payment processor exemption established by 31 CFR § 1010.100(ff)(5)(ii)(B) and clarified by FIN-2013-R002. Under this exemption, BSA MSB regulations do not apply to a payment processor, so long as it: (i) facilitates the purchase of goods or services, or the payment of bills for goods or services (other than money transmission itself); (ii) operates through clearance and settlement systems that admit only BSA-regulated financial institutions; (iii) provides its services pursuant to a formal agreement; and (iv) the agreement itself is at a minimum with the seller or creditor that provides the goods or services and receives the funds. For a copy of the ruling, please see: Application of Money Services Business Regulations to a Company Acting as an Independent Sales Organization and Payment Processor.
On June 6, the Kansas Office of State Bank Commissioner (OSBC) issued guidance on the regulatory treatment of virtual currencies under the Kansas Money Transmitter Act (KMTA). The guidance focuses on money transmission activities involving decentralized cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin. The guidance states that cryptocurrencies in their current form are not covered by the KMTA because they do not fall within the definition of “money”—no cryptocurrency is currently authorized or adopted by any governmental entity as part of its currency—or “monetary value”—there is no recognized standard of value or set value for a single unit of a cryptocurrency. The guidance explains that since the KMTA does not apply to transmission of decentralized cryptocurrencies, an entity engaged solely in the transmission of such currency is not required to obtain a money transmitter license. The guidance adds that, if transmission of virtual currency includes the involvement of sovereign currency in a transaction, it may be considered money transmission depending on how the transaction is organized. The guidance provides several examples of common types of transactions involving cryptocurrency and whether the KMTA applies to each, and outlines for cryptocurrency businesses that conduct money transmission, and entities engaged in money transmission, actions necessary to comply with state law, including licensing.
On May 6, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote three financial services bills: (i) H.R. 2672, which would require the CFPB to allow individuals and businesses to apply to have an area designated as “rural” for purposes of exemptions to the CFPB mortgage rules; (ii) H.R. 3329, which would require the Federal Reserve Board to allow bank holding companies and savings and loan holding companies with assets of less than $1 billion to incur higher amounts of debt when acquiring other banks than are allowed for larger holding companies—the current asset ceiling for that special allowance is $500 million and applies only to bank holding companies; and (iii) H.R. 4386, which would permit FinCEN, in fulfilling its responsibility to supervise registered money services businesses (MSBs), to rely on state agency examinations of MSBs that provide international remittance transfer services and other non-bank financial institutions such as gaming establishments and jewel merchants.
On May 5, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed HB 723, which requires state licensed money transmitters to (i) provide on transmittal forms a clear, concise, and conspicuous fraud warning that includes a toll-free telephone number for individuals to call to report fraud or suspected fraud; (ii) provide annual training to agents related to financial abuse and financial exploitation of elders; and (iii) allow an individual to voluntarily be disqualified from sending or receiving money transmissions in the state for a specified period of time. The changes, which take effect October 1, 2014, do not apply to a licensee or an agent that engages (i) in selling or issuing stored value devices, traveler’s checks, or money orders, or providing bill payer services, as long as the licensee or agent does not engage in any other business regulated under the money transmission law; or (ii) in the business of money transmission solely through the Internet.
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.” FinCEN determined that the escrow services at issue in FIN-2014-R004 and the transaction management services at issue in FIN-2014-R005 fit within that exemption because the acceptance and transmission of funds in these cases is not a separate and discrete service in addition to the underlying service, but instead is a necessary and integral part of the service itself. Therefore, these companies are not considered to be money transmitters subject to registration. FinCEN determined in FIN-2014-R007 that a company that rents computer systems used to mine virtual currencies is not a money transmitter. Finally, in FIN-2014-R008, FinCEN determined that although the company, which uses armored cars to facilitate the exchange of coins and cash, does not qualify for the “armored car” exemption in the money transmitter definition, it is still not considered a money transmitter. FinCEN stated that the transportation of currency and/or coin of certain denominations from the company’s vault to the customer’s location and the return transportation of currency and/or coin in the exact amount of the change provided to the company’s own vault does not constitute the acceptance of value from one person and the transportation of such value to another person or location.
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.
On April 15, the CFPB issued a proposed rule and request for comment to extend a temporary exception to Regulation E’s requirement that remittance transfer providers disclose certain fees and exchange rates to consumers. Pursuant to Regulation E, as amended to implement section 1073 of the Dodd-Frank Act, insured depository institutions are permitted to estimate certain third-party fees and exchange rates in connection with a remittance transfer until July 21, 2015, provided the transfer is sent from the sender’s account with the institution, and the institution is unable to determine the exact amount of the fees and rates due to circumstances outside of the institution’s control. The CFPB is proposing to exercise its statutory authority to extend this exception for an additional five years, until July 21, 2020. The agency explained that, based on its outreach to insured institutions and consumer groups, allowing the initial temporary exception to lapse would negatively affect the ability of insured institutions to send remittance transfers. Comments on the proposed rule are due within 30 days of its publication in the Federal Register. Read more…
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.
On March 26, the California Department of Business Oversight issued a request for comments on proposed changes to regulations impacting money transmitters. The Department is required to amend outdated regulations that correspond to the repealed Payment Instruments Law, and establish new regulations to implement the Money Transmission Act. Specifically, the regulations under consideration include amendments to definitions, exemptions from the Money Transmission Act, license application requirements, administrative standards and procedures relating to an application for a license, tangible shareholders’ equity, consumer disclosures, and eligible securities. Comments on the proposal are due by April 26, 2014.
Recently, the state of Washington enacted SB 6134, which amends numerous provisions related to the supervision of non-depository institutions. The bill clarifies the statute of limitations applicable to certain violations by non-depository institutions by providing that enforcement actions for violations of the Escrow Act, the Mortgage Broker Practices Act, the Uniform Money Services Act (UMSA), the Consumer Loan Act, and the Check Cashers and Check Sellers Act (CCSA) are subject to a five-year statute of limitations. In addition, the bill provides that licensees under the CCSA and the UMSA that conduct business in multiple states and register through the NMLS must submit call reports to the Department of Financial Institutions. The changes take effect June 12, 2014.
FinCEN Releases Additional Guidance Related To Virtual Currency Mining, Software, And Investment Activity
On January 30, FinCEN issued two rulings related to virtual currency mining and virtual currency software development and investment activity. The guidance clarifies FinCEN’s previous convertible virtual currency guidance. In FIN-2014-R001, FinCEN explains that miners of Bitcoins, whether individuals or corporations, who are engaging in mining solely for the miner’s own personal purpose are “users” of virtual currency and not MSBs under FinCEN’s previous guidance. FinCEN found this to be the case even if the miner from time to time must convert the mined Bitcoins into real currency or another convertible virtual currency so long as the conversion is solely for the miner’s own purposes and not as a business service performed for the benefit of another. In FIN-2014-R002, FinCEN states that a company that develops its own software to purchase virtual currency for its own account and to resell the virtual currency at the company’s own discretion and based on the company’s own investment decisions also is not an MSB under FinCEN’s prior guidance.
This week, New York State Department of Financial Services (NY DFS) Superintendent Benjamin Lawsky presided over a two-day hearing regarding emerging virtual currencies and the appropriate role of regulation. The hearing was the next step in an inquiry announced last August, and was held as the NY DFS considers developing a state license specific to virtual currency that would subject operators to state oversight. The panels featured the views of private investors, virtual currency firms, regulatory experts, and law enforcement officials. From our view inside the room, the most prominent, theme to emerge is that regulators will need to strike a balance between protecting the public interest—both from a consumer protection standpoint and with regard to the potential for criminal activity—while allowing emerging virtual currency technologies to develop, evolve, and thrive. Read more…
On January 23, the CFPB proposed a rule that would allow the agency to supervise nonbank “larger participants” in the international money transfer market. The proposed rule defines “larger participant” to include any entity that provides one million or more international money transfers annually, which the CFPB estimates will extend oversight to roughly 25 of the largest providers in the market. Providers that do not meet the million-transfer threshold may still be subject to the CFPB’s supervisory authority if the Bureau has reasonable cause to determine they pose risk to consumers. Although the CFPB proposes to use aggregate annual international money transfers as the criterion for establishing which entities are “larger participants” of the international money transfer market, the CFPB also considered and has requested comment on use of annual receipts from international money transfers and annual transmitted dollar volume as potential alternatives.
The CFPB suggests that examinations of such providers will focus on compliance with the Remittance Rule—particularly with respect to new requirements addressing disclosures, cancellation options, and error corrections—and that the agency will “coordinate [examinations] with appropriate State regulatory authorities.” The CFPB released examination procedures for use in assessing compliance with the remittance transfer requirements last year.
Dodd-Frank granted the CFPB authority to supervise “larger participants” in the consumer financial space, as defined by rule. The agency has already finalized similar rules covering “larger participants” in student loan servicing, debt collection, and consumer reporting markets. The proposal, if finalized, would be the fourth larger-participant rule adopted by the CFPB.
A CFPB factsheet on the proposal is available here. The CFPB will accept comments for 60 days from publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register.