By: Kyle Davis, CRCM, CAMS

On September 7, 2018, FinCEN finalized permanent exceptive relief from the beneficial ownership requirements for certain rollover products and services.  The ruling is in response to industry feedback to question 12 found in the April 3, 2018 frequently asked questions.  See the FAQs here. 

Question 12 defined the term “account” consistent with previously issued CIP guidance which states that each loan renewal or CD rollover establishes another formal banking relationship. Per this definition, question 12 directed institutions to collect beneficial ownership upon the first renewal or rollover after May 11, 2018.  Additionally, question 12 allowed institutions to rely upon customer certification that the bank would be notified of any changes in beneficial ownership information. 

​After the FAQs were published, financial institutions responded that it is industry practice not to treat such rollovers and renewals as the opening of a new account.  In response, on May 16, 2018, FinCEN issued a 90-day temporary and limited exceptive relief, retroactive to May 11, 2018, and which FinCEN extended an additional 30 days.  Based upon discussions with stakeholders and industry personnel during the 120 days, FinCEN is providing permanent exceptive relief for these products.
​
The relief from the requirements of the beneficial ownership rule applies only when a legal entity customer opens a new account under the following scenarios:

• A rollover of a certificate of deposit (CD);
• A renewal, modification, or extension of a loan (e.g., setting a later payoff date) that does not require underwriting review and approval; 
• A renewal, modification, or extension of a commercial line of credit or credit card account (e.g., a later payoff date is set) that does not require underwriting review and approval; and
• A renewal of a safe deposit box rental.

​The exception affects the accounts described in this ruling in two ways: by removing the obligation to collect beneficial ownership information when an account opened before May 11, 2018 rolls over or renews after May 11, 2018, as if it were a new account, and by removing that same obligation for rollovers, modifications, extensions, and renewals of such accounts opened after May 11, 2018.
 
There are a few important details to highlight from the ruling.  FinCEN notes that current industry practice for renewing or extending these types of account relationships is generally automated and does not require an affirmative action from the customer.  This narrow definition appears to eliminate the relief for instances where a business customer deposits funds to a CD during a grace period.  It appears that the ruling views a deposit during a grace period as an interaction with a legal entity customer and an opportunity to obtain or re-certify the beneficial ownership information.

The ruling with regards to credit products also presents additional questions.   The guidance does not define the terms underwriting and approval.  These definitions are left to institution’s specific loan policies and processes. Typically, underwriting and/or approval is required for most loan renewals. Further, there are limited credit products with automatic renewal features that require no action from the customer. 

However, FinCEN does provide an example of relief in the ruling with respect to credit card accounts, “the financial institution may change certain terms of a commercial line of credit or of a credit card, such as the credit limit, without requiring the affirmative assent of the customer.”  Institutions may also determine that, depending on bank policy, other short-term loan extensions do not require underwriting and approval.  It is recommended that institutions review their internal underwriting and approval policy and processes to determine instances, if any, where this relief would be applicable.

The final ruling can be found here.

 By: Brad Washburn, CRCM, CAMS

On May 24, 2018, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (the Act) was enacted into law. Section 104(a) of the Act amends section 304(i) of the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) by adding partial exemptions from HMDA's requirements for certain insured depository institutions and insured credit unions. Specifically, a covered institution does not need to collect or report certain data with respect to closed-end mortgage loans if it originated fewer than 500 closed-end mortgage loans in each of the two preceding calendar years.  Similarly, the Act provides that a covered institution does not need to collect or report certain data with respect to open-end lines of credit if it originated fewer than 500 open-end lines of credit in each of the two preceding calendar years. 

Financial institutions have raised questions about the new partial HMDA exemptions and how the exemptions affect collection and reporting of data for transactions with final action taken in 2018 or subsequent years. On August 31, 2018, the Bureau issued an interpretive and procedural rule that implements and clarifies section 104(a) of the Act and effectuates the purposes of the Act and HMDA. 

Primarily, the rule:

1. Clarifies that insured depository institutions and insured credit unions covered by a partial exemption have the option of reporting exempt data fields as long as they report all data fields within any exempt data point for which they report data;
2. Clarifies that only loans and lines of credit that are otherwise HMDA reportable count toward the thresholds for the partial exemptions;
3. Clarifies which of the data points in Regulation C are covered by the partial exemptions;
4. Designates a non-universal loan identifier for partially exempt transactions for institutions that choose not to report a universal loan identifier; and
5. Clarifies the exception to the partial exemptions for negative Community Reinvestment Act examination history.

This rule is effective as of September 7, 2018.  The new rule can be reviewed in its entirety here.

In addition, an executive summary of the rule which includes some helpful tables can be viewed here. 

The Bureau has indicated it intends to initiate a notice-and-comment rulemaking to incorporate these interpretations and procedures into Regulation C and further implement the Act.  Stay tuned for additional details about these changes as they come available. 
​

 By: Kyle Davis, CRCM, CAMS

The CFPB issued its final rule amending Regulation P to align with its authorizing statute, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA). On December 4, 2015, Congress amended the GLBA as part of a transportation bill known as the FAST Act. This amendment added a new GLBA section 503(f) which provides an exception under which financial institutions meeting certain conditions are not required to provide annual privacy notices to customers. 

To qualify for the annual notice exception the following two conditions must be met: (1) the institution only discloses consumer information under certain circumstances which do not trigger consumer opt-out rights (cannot share with unaffiliated third parties) and (2) the institution has not changed its policies and practices concerning disclosing consumer information since its most recent notice sent to consumers.   The CFPB is clear that the annual notice exemption has been available to institutions since passage in December 2015.

Most notably, the final rule amends Regulation P by implementing timing requirements for delivery of annual privacy notices in the event that a financial institution that previously qualified for the annual notice exception later changes its policies or practices in such a way that it no longer qualifies for the exception.  The CFPB proposed these re-disclosure amendments to Regulation P in July 2016 and is largely adopting the rule as proposed. 
​
We highly recommend reviewing the regulation if changes are made to privacy sharing as the requirements may vary based on the change, but the new rules provide essentially two options: the institution must  issue an annual privacy notice either: (1) before implementing the changes in the policy or practice which trigger the obligation to send a revised privacy notice or (2) within 100 days after adopting a policy or practice that eliminates the financial institution's notice exception but the changes did not trigger the obligation to send a revised privacy notice.
It is important to note that the regulation defines the phrase, “policy and practice” as those items disclosed under sections 1016.6(a)(2), 1016.6(a)(3), 1016.6(a)(4), 1016.6(a)(5), and 1016.6(a)(9).  T

​This means that the only privacy notice changes that will not trigger an annual disclosure requirement are relative to information collection as defined under 1016.6(a)(1) and confidentiality and security as defined under 1016.6(a)(8).

The CFPB is further removing the Regulation P provision that allows for use of the alternative delivery method for annual privacy notices.  The alternative delivery method was implemented in 2014 and allowed for delivery via the institution’s website. The CFPB believes the alternative delivery method will no longer be used in light of the annual notice exception. However, the final rule is clear to state that continuing alternative delivery methods such as notifying customers of the availability of the notice on the website is permitted. 

Again, the annual notice exemption has been available to institutions since passage of the FAST ACT in December 2015. The final rule implementing the re-disclosure requirements and removal of the alternative delivery method was published in the Federal Register on April 17, 2018 and will be effective September 18, 2018. 

The complete final rule may be found here. 

By Brad Washburn CRCM, CAMS​

The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 (PTFA), which expired on Dec. 31, 2014, contained protections intended to ensure that tenants facing eviction from a foreclosed property would have adequate time to find alternative housing.  The financial regulatory reform bill titled the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act (S. 2155) which was enacted May 24, 2018, in part, restores the PTFA.  Specifically, Section 304 of the Act repeals the previous sunset provision which effectively changes the PTFA into a permanent law. 
​
The restoration of the PTFA was effective on June 23, 2018.  As such, a Bank should take steps to ensure it has policies and procedures in place to comply with the provisions PTFA.  In addition, the Bank should monitor communications from its primary federal regulator for guidance and updates in examination materials regarding the PTFA to ensure future compliance.    

By: James Moore, CRCM
​
​As a reminder, the Regulation CC rule changes are effective July 1, 2018.  The bulk of the changes are to Subpart C and are a much-needed update by the Federal Reserve to acknowledge that the check collection process is virtually electronic.  There are no changes to the regulation’s availability schedules or disclosure requirements as the rule does not affect Subpart B. 

The rule extends coverage of Subpart C to electronic items and contains a new incentive for banks to process returned items electronically. The Federal Reserve believes this new expeditious return rule will incentivize depository banks to receive electronic returns to preserve their ability to make claims that certain checks were not returned expeditiously.  The rule amends the two-day test time frame to expire at 2:00 p.m. of the second business day (previously 4:00 p.m.) and increases the threshold for notice of nonpayment to $5,000 (previously $2,500).
​
The rule provides much needed clarity for instances where a check is deposited in both paper and electronic form.  A depository institution should pay close attention to the new rule even when it does not have a mobile or remote deposit capture service for its customers as there is potential liability for accepting a check that has already been deposited at another institution through a mobile deposit.  A depositary bank that receives a paper check is indemnified against loss if the check was previously paid through a remote deposit capture service or mobile deposit platform unless there is a restrictive endorsement, such as “for mobile deposit only.”  

Tellers and front-line staff should be aware of the restrictive endorsement requirement to ensure paper items deposited do not include the restrictive language.  Each check received for deposit should be reviewed to ensure the “for mobile deposit only” box is not checked.  A financial institution will lose its protection if it takes an item for deposit with the restrictive endorsement.  It is recommended that periodic internal audits are conducted of deposited checks at the teller line on an ongoing basis to ensure checks were not deposited with the restrictive endorsement. 
​
In addition, institutions offering mobile deposit or remote deposit capture should ensure agreements have been updated to include the restrictive endorsement at the time of deposit.  Internal audits of deposit activity from mobile deposit and remote deposit capture customers should be conducted on a regular basis to ensure the restrictive endorsement is made as required.  Some institutions will be conducting these internal audits at random or at a specific dollar threshold.         

By: Brian Taylor

As interest rates slowly climb back to pre-2008 levels, financial institutions are encouraged to evaluate the effects of a rising rate environment on deposit compliance. Specifically, banks should assess how rising interest rates impact their Regulation E error resolution procedures.

When a customer disputes a fraudulent transaction, the bank provisionally credits the customer’s account for the amount the customer claims is fraudulent. Following regulatory guidelines, the bank has 10 business days from the date the customer notifies the bank of the allegedly fraudulent transaction to either provisionally credit the customer’s account or issue final credit. Now, let’s suppose the account in question is an interest-bearing account. According to Section 1005.11(c)(2)(i), the provisional or final credit amount should include interest that would have been accrued. In recent years, the low rate environment has rendered any interest earned too small to calculate, even for institutions that wait the full 10 business days to provide credit.
​
However, as interest rates trend upward, institutions need to pay attention to interest calculations for error disputes, especially for large dollar disputes. The intent of the regulation is to make the customer whole after the fraudulent activity has occurred. For customers with interest-bearing accounts, banks must return not only the amount disputed but interest that would have been earned as well.

By: Kyle Davis CRCM CAMS

FinCEN has issued a ruling to provide a 90-day limited exceptive relief to covered financial institutions from the obligations of the Beneficial Ownership Requirements.  This relief applies only to financial products and services that automatically rollover or renew (i.e., certificate of deposit (CD) or loan accounts) and were established before  May 11, 2018. This exception begins, retroactively, on May 11, 2018, and will expire on August 9, 2018. During this time, FinCEN states they will determine whether and to what extent additional exceptive relief may be appropriate for such financial products and services that were established before May 11, 2018, but are expected to rollover or renew after such date.

To see the ruling in full, click here. 

By: Steve Shepherd CRCM

On April 26, 2018, the CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) issued a final rule to provide clarification on when a revised Closing Disclosure can be used to reset TRID applicable tolerances when a changed circumstance or other triggering event has occurred.  Similar to the proposed rule issued in July 2017, the final rule attempts to correct the “black hole” issue by addressing when mortgage lenders with a valid justification may pass on increased closing costs to consumers and disclose them on a Closing Disclosure.  In addition to addressing this issue, the final rule also includes some additional technical clarifications.  The final rule is effective on June 1, 2018.

Under the existing rule, a creditor may only use a Closing Disclosure to reset tolerances if there are fewer than four business days between the time the creditor is required to provide the Closing Disclosure reflecting the revised estimate and consummation. The final rule removes the four-business day limit on a creditor’s ability to reset tolerances with a Closing Disclosure. Therefore, if a changed circumstance or another triggering event has occurred, the 2018 final rule permits a creditor to reset tolerances with either an initial or corrected Closing Disclosure regardless of the number of days between consummation and the date the Closing Disclosure reflecting the revised estimate is required to be provided to the consumer. In any case, the creditor must provide the consumer with the Closing Disclosure reflecting the revised estimate at or before consummation and within three business days of receiving information sufficient to establish that the changed circumstance or other triggering event has occurred. Additionally, the consumer must still receive an initial Closing Disclosure at least three business days prior to consummation. Consistent with the existing rules, a new three-day waiting period is only required for a corrected Closing Disclosure if the APR becomes inaccurate, a prepayment penalty is added, or the loan product changes from the loan product previously disclosed. 

To view the rule in its entirety, please click on the following link:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/rulemaking/final-rules/federal-mortgage-disclosure-requirements-under-truth-lending-act-regulation-z/

To view the executive summary of the rule and other implementation resources, please click on the following link:
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/policy-compliance/guidance/implementation-guidance/tila-respa-disclosure-rule/  

By: Kyle Davis CRCM, CAMS

FinCEN finally issued the long-awaited FAQs concerning the upcoming Beneficial Ownership and customer due diligence rule. The FAQs address multiple implementation questions posed by the industry following the release of the final rule and first set of FAQs.  Important highlights include clarification on requirements when a business is identified as a beneficial owner (FAQ 3),  using previously gathered CIP information for verifying beneficial owners (FAQ 7), and what is required when a CD rolls over or a loan is renewed (FAQ 12).   It is highly recommended that institutions review the FAQs as soon as possible as implementation and training changes will be required prior to the May 11, 2018 required compliance date.  The FAQs can be found here.  ​