BUSINESS
Updated August 7, 2013, 10:27 p.m. ET
Probe Turns Up Heat on Banks
Prosecutors Target Firms That Process Payments for Online Payday Lenders, Others
By ALAN ZIBELand BRENT KENDALL
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is targeting banks that service a broad range of what it considers questionable financial ventures, including online payday lenders.
The government has issued subpoenas to banks and other companies that handle payments for an array of financial offerings, ramping up an investigation that has been under way for several months, according to Justice Department officials and other people familiar with the matter.
It's a shift in strategy: Rather than just targeting individual firms, the government is now going after the infrastructure that enables companies to withdraw money from people's bank accounts.
The volume of online payday lending—a term for smaller, short-term loans at high interest rates—grew to $18.6 billion in 2012, up 10% from the previous year, accounting for nearly 40% of industrywide payday-loan volume, according to investment bank Stephens Inc.
Regulators are also trying tamp down phone and online offers in which marketers try to get people to pay for services that they don't intend to deliver. These can include offerings to erase debt or offerings of work-from-home programs that don't lead to jobs, officials say.
Several government agencies have publicly expressed concern about suspicious activities, including fraudulent transactions and money laundering. Banks and payment processors generally collect a fee for each transaction.
The industry-run group overseeing electronic transactions, NACHA, says it has made clear that banks are responsible for ensuring the validity of all transactions on the system. "We welcome combined efforts to identify and address the worst abusers" of electronic payments and will cooperate with law enforcement and regulators, a spokeswoman said.
Thirty-five states allow payday lending, while 15 others and the District of Columbia effectively ban such loans, mainly through interest-rate caps. But numerous Indian tribes have begun making loans over the Internet and argue they are sovereign states not subject to state-level regulation. Other lenders assert they don't have to comply with state laws if they set up shop offshore or in states with favorable regulations such as Delaware and Utah.
Earlier this week, Benjamin Lawsky, superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, sent 35 online and tribal lenders cease-and-desist orders telling them to stop offering "illegal payday loans that trap families in destructive cycles of debt." He also urged more than 100 banks to "choke off" access to payday loans.
Justice Department officials said they are examining payment processors and banks of various sizes and are working closely with the Federal Trade Commission, which has been targeting alleged scammers and online lenders that engage in deception.
Banks say they are taking steps to curb abuses. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co reports unauthorized electronic transactions to NACHA, a spokeswoman said, and the bank earlier this year decided to charge one fee a month instead of multiple charges if a company such as a payday lender makes repeated attempts to deduct funds from a customer's account with insufficient funds.
The bank is circulating a proposed rule change for the electronic-payments network that would fine banks with an excessive number of returned payments. A high volume of returned payments can be a sign that a company is engaged in fraudulent activity or other illicit behavior, payment-industry experts say.
The Justice Department's move is an outgrowth of a financial-fraud task force established by President Barack Obama in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.
In a preview of the type of case the government may bring, the Justice Department last November filed civil charges against First Bank of Delaware, alleging it knowingly processed fraudulent financial transactions. The bank, which dissolved last year after being stripped of its state charter, agreed to settle the case, denying liability and paying a $15 million penalty and another $500,000 in restitution for consumers.
A key focus, officials said, is whether the banks or processors violated a 1989 law—passed in the wake of the U.S. savings-and-loan crisis—that allows the U.S. to recover civil penalties for fraud and other violations.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario