Tag:Department of Justice

Trump has opportunity to restore balance in fair lending cases
CFPB Revises Supervisory Appeals Process
FinCEN Acknowledges the Problem, But a Solution Will Require More

Trump has opportunity to restore balance in fair lending cases

From the February 7, 2017 article in American Banker

By Paul F. Hancock

With good cause, anxiety has been expressed regarding the direction of the Department of Justice’s civil rights division under the Trump administration.

Unfortunately, the past 16 years have seen the pendulum fly first to lax civil rights enforcement and improper politicization of the division under the Bush administration, and then to overreaching under the Obama administration. Trump administration officials would be wise to seek a balance. To get there, guidance is available from the division’s longer-range history — including during years that might not seem obvious, like under the Reagan administration. Balance would benefit both the nation and the future of the division.

To read the full article, click here.


CFPB Revises Supervisory Appeals Process

The CFPB recently revised its policy on Appeals of Supervisory Matters.  Supervisory appeals are an avenue for supervised entities to obtain a second opinion from CFPB headquarters about examiners’ findings.  However, the Bureau’s policy excludes the most significant matters — specifically, all aspects of enforcement — from this process.

In 1994, Congress required the federal prudential regulators to establish “an independent intra-agency appellate process” that is “available to review material supervisory determinations,” with “appropriate safeguards … for protecting the appellant from retaliation by agency examiners.”

Although the Bureau is not expressly subject to this congressional mandate, it established a similar appeals process in 2012.  The Bureau’s policy allows entities to appeal less-than-satisfactory compliance ratings (a 3, 4, or 5) and adverse findings in a supervisory letter or examination report, but not the supervisory letter or examination report itself.

None of the regulators allow a supervised entity to use the appeals process to contest the decision to pursue an enforcement action.  But in the case of the OCC, “[w]hile banks may not appeal a decision by [examiners] to pursue a formal enforcement-related action, banks may appeal conclusions in” an exam report that underlies a potential enforcement action.

Read More

FinCEN Acknowledges the Problem, But a Solution Will Require More

By: David L. Beam

Money services businesses (“MSBs”) have been losing access to banking services. Increased scrutiny by bank regulators of MSB relationships have led banks to conclude that providing services to MSBs carries increased compliance and reputational risk. Even if these risks can be managed in theory through appropriate due diligence and controls, many banks have decided that costs and risks of offering banking services to MSBs outweigh the revenue that they generate. Read More

Copyright © 2023, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.