Friday, August 26, 2011

Violating Confidentiality Provisions

On May 27th, I wrote about Visions FCU publishing in its newsletter the names of members, who caused Visions a financial loss, that the credit union was going to expel at a special meeting.

I've obtained a copy of a NCUA letter (see below), not from the person that filed the complaint, that states this practice by Visions does not appear to comply with Part 716 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the disclosure of this information in its newsletter appears to represent a violation of the confidentiality provision of the FCU Bylaws.

NCUA stated in its letter that "this is a regulatory compliance violation that will be addressed and corrected in the upcoming 2011 examination."

It seems to me that since this practice has been going on for some time (I wrote about this practice in a 2005 ABA Bankers News column), NCUA should hit Visions with a cease and desist order, which is published on NCUA's website, and a civil money penalty.

Click on images to enlarge.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, a cease and desist. Yes a big fine. It is a big deal, and yes, you told us all about this since 2005.

    It is news almost on the order of this week’s discovery that since 2005 JP Morgan Bank was breaking US law by sending money via transaction intermediation with enemy or sanctioned nations, reported as contravening the US Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Sanctions, doing it over the last six years while America is fully involved in multiple foreign wars, and in a manner the US Treasury officials called “egregious”.

    Hundreds of millions may have been involved, yet JPM was fined a small, de minimis amount, somewhere on the order of 0.004% of assets. But wait, there was a minimum base fine for breaking these critical provisions of US law, and JPM got a fat 24% discount from the federal regulator. 24% off a non-material money penalty? A bunch off almost-nothing-to-JPM?

    It could be argued the federal regulator broke the law by levying a money penalty less than what is actually required by United States rule or statute.

    Those bank and credit union regulators must all be alike -- exercising judgment and flexibility. Let’s file lawsuits against them all. Yes.



The content is provided for educational purposes only, with the understanding that neither the authors, contributors, nor the publishers of this site are engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other expert or professional services. If legal or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Comments appearing in response to articles appearing on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of the ABA. ABA makes no representations regarding the truth or accuracy of commentary or opinions that may be posted in response to the articles that appear on this website.

The inclusion herein of any link to a website, either in the text of an article or in a comment, does not denote any approval, sponsorship, or endorsement by the ABA, and ABA is not responsible for the content or opinions expressed on those linked websites or related commentary. This content is not licensed to third parties sites and is not affiliated with any third party site. Any reference to the author or this content on any third party site on the Internet is not authorized by the ABA.

It is the policy of the American Bankers Association to comply fully with all antitrust laws. Certain discussions should be considered off-limits, including those that contain competitively sensitive data such as price and cost information, or statements that could be construed as reflecting an attempt or desire to control or influence a particular market or markets. Future pricing or other prospective competitive information should never be shared.