Categories
Compliance Dealership Training

Your Next Biggest Threat: Synthetic Fraud

Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
EFG Companies

Those of us who are active on social media likely have created an “avatar” – an image designed to represent ourselves digitally. Defined specifically in computing language, an avatar is the graphical representation of the user or the user’s alter ego or character. The avatar image says, “This is the image I want to project,” but it might be less than accurate.

Even the person actually walking into your dealership might not be who they say they are – even if they have legitimate data, like a valid social security number tied to a legitimate address, to support their claim.

Synthetic fraud is the fastest growing form of identity theft in the U.S., comprising 80% of all new account fraud. The fraudulent tactic uses a combination of real and fake personally identifiable information (PII) to create new credit profiles and pump up credit scores, allowing the criminal to access goods and services.

The most common method of synthetic fraud is professional criminals using a variety of methods to make money exploiting the systemic weaknesses of the U.S. credit system.  It may involve theft of a child’s real identity and applying for an employer identification number (EIN). Then, the criminal builds a synthetic credit profile with the victim’s real name, social security number, and date of birth (DOB), with a different address or phone number. Next, the professional criminal applies for credit through mortgage refinancing or a car loan, which pulls the report from all three major U.S. credit bureaus (Experian, Equifax and TransUnion).  While the application may be denied, the process of reviewing the application creates a new credit profile at all three bureaus (also known as “tri-merging”) with the synthetic information. A few more steps and the fraudulent profile is complete, including lines of credit, employment history, mail received, etc. And now that criminal looks legitimate on paper.  

With synthetic fraud, everything may seem legitimate at first blush. For the dealer, they move a car off the lot. For the lender, they have a loan in good standing. Unfortunately, the person who was originally assigned the particular social security number has no knowledge of the loan, and may never find out until the loan defaults or fraud is uncovered.

Categories
Compliance

We’ve Been Down This Path

Steve Roennau Vice President Compliance EFG Companies
Contributing Author:
Steve Roennau
Vice President
Compliance
EFG Companies

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been in the news a lot lately.

From Acting Director Mick Mulvany’s decommissioning of the Advisory Committee, to a federal district judge ruling its structure is unconstitutional, some might think that the CFPB’s days are numbered.

But history has a lesson to offer, compliments of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC was created on September 26, 1914, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Trade Commission Act into law. The regulatory agency opened its doors in 1915, with a mission to protect consumers and promote competition. The FTC building was finished in 1938, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt stating, “May this permanent home of the Federal Trade Commission stand for all time as a symbol of the purpose of the government to insist on a greater application of the golden rule to conduct the corporation and business enterprises in their relationship to the body politic.”

Currently, the FTC houses three bureaus:

  1. the Bureau of Consumer Protection
  2. the Bureau of Competition
  3. the Bureau of Economics

Each bureau has a set of mandates to guide its work. In the early 1970s, the agency became more aggressive in its prosecutions and sanctions. The business community and Congress criticized the FTC’s activism, claiming it had become too powerful, was insensitive to the needs of the public and business, and operated with little oversight from Congress or the president. During President Ronald Reagan’s first term, control of the FTC was moved under the president. Its direction was modified to become more cooperative with business interests, while continuing its consumer protective functions.

A Matter of Checks and Balances

Categories
Compliance

Say Goodbye to Disparate Impact Theory

Author: Dave Gibbs
Contributing Author:
Dave Gibbs
Training Manager
EFG Companies

On Monday, President Donald J. Trump signed into law the Congressional S.J. 57 resolution repealing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) guidance on dealer markup. Originally issued in March, 2013, the auto lending guidance quickly received negative feedback. In fact, the ruling caused several finance sources to either switch to a flat-fee compensation model or enforce lower caps on dealer markups. The ruling also prompted the CFPB to impose consent orders with several institutions resulting in millions of dollars in fines.

The retail automotive industry is cheering this move, which began five months ago when the Government Accountability Office said Congress had the power under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the CFPB guidance. But, before you start thinking the good old days are back, consider what started the industry on this path.

The CFPB’s original guidance was designed to inform lenders that it would begin enforcing the fair lending requirements of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) using a theory on disparate impact. This theory refers to practices that adversely affect protected classes of individuals, even though employer rules and practices are meant to be neutral. The CFPB used this theory to make the argument that dealer markup practices could result in unintentional discrimination during the credit process, and must therefore be reined in.

While the CFPB can no longer use disparate impact theory to force lenders to reduce dealer markup, the ECOA and its fair lending requirements remain in full effect. Other federal, state and local compliance regulations also remain, which prompts me to remind our clients that remaining in compliance is still in the dealership’s best interest. And, it’s highly unlikely that lenders who invested millions of dollars into comprehensive compliance platforms will suddenly reverse all those process changes.