The Fed and FDIC procedures for lawyers and consultants are particularly difficult to implement at a time when lawyers and advisors play a much greater role in complying with legislation than when the rules were adopted before the financial crisis. The ability of consultants and lawyers to check materials off-site is not standardized, as the rules allow for a case-by-case location analysis and vary according to the regulatory staff assigned to each institution (12 CFR No. 261.20 (e)). Despite their differing approaches to consultants, each of the Fed, FDIC and OCC regulations highlights the seriousness with which each agency envisions the proper protection of EXPERTS. Any “regulated financial institution” that legally holds confidential supervisory information may disclose this information to its directors, executives and employees, as well as its parent holding company and directors, senior executives and employees. Despite the CFPB`s attempt to expand its ability to disclose CSI`s information, regulatory authorities remain serious about protecting ISCs from unauthorized disclosure. This is clear from the case of Joseph Jiampietro, a Goldman Sachs employee, who allegedly used stolen ISCs to generate profits (Proposal 58311). In August 2016, the Fed ordered Goldman Sachs Group to pay $36.3 million for the unauthorized use and disclosure of CSI for abusing its employees at the time. The mandate also required Goldman to “implement an extensive program to ensure the proper use of confidential surveillance information.” The Fed also blocked the former Goldman Sachs banking employee. It should also be noted that, under the rules proposed by the GFPB, a new positive requirement is made to “any person holding confidential information”, including financial institutions, to notify the GFPB in the event of an illegal disclosure of CSI “in the event of discovery of a disclosure” (Proposition 12 C.F.R. Under the current rule, there is no specific reporting requirement or requirement for those who are simply held by CSI. In the years following the release of the circular, regulators continued to be concerned about CSI. In response to these concerns, the Fed, occ and FDIC issued inter-institutional advice on the confidentiality of the supervisory board and other non-public surveillance information in February 2005.

Addressing the language of the circular, the Interagency Advisory stated: “The law prohibits financial institutions from transmitting their CAMELS or RFI ratings and other non-public supervisory information to unrelated third parties without the written permission of the Bundesbank`s competent authority.” You will find on the website of the Institute`s Regulatory Authority enforcement actions against the above institutions and entities and against the entities and individuals mentioned above for violations of the law, rules or regulations, uncertain or unfair practices, breaches of the loyalty obligation and violations of final orders.

You may also like