Remove Operations Remove Regulation Remove South Dakota Remove Technology
article thumbnail

Young Consumers Love to “Buy Now, Pay Later” – Here’s What to Know About the Explosive Fintech Trend

Perficient

Since Square purchased Afterpay, customers can get an Afterpay card to use with participating retailers that operate with Square, which lets customers use Afterpay for in-store purchases. Pay in 4 is not currently available for residents of Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, or any US Territories.

Fintech 474
article thumbnail

OCC targets BSA/AML compliance by Anchorage Digital Bank – only 15 months after granting bank charter to the crypto custodian

CFPB Monitor

As we will discuss, the timing of the Consent Order indicates that even when regulators permit crypto activities by financial institutions, they remain cautious, particularly as to BSA/AML compliance. The January 2021 Operating Agreement . The Consent Order.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Wells Fargo’s Q2 Disappoints After Scandals

PYMNTS

Second-quarter net income was impacted by a $481 million one-time expense resulting from a key Supreme Court decision related to online sales, South Dakota v. The bank has been in recovery mode in recent months, as federal regulators launched a series of investigations into consumer and commercial practices at the lender. .

article thumbnail

Ballard Spahr Submits Comment Letter to OCC in Support of Proposed True Lender Rule

CFPB Monitor

93a, the OCC is generally “authorized to prescribe rules and regulations to carry out the responsibilities of the office.” Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., The OCC clearly has the authority to adopt the Proposed Rule. Under 12 U.S.C. § 12 U.S.C. § 1 (emphasis added). As the Supreme Court instructed in Smiley v.

FDIC 78
article thumbnail

Deep Dive: Wayfair’s Complex, Ongoing And Unexpected Effects On Retailers

PYMNTS

The 2018 South Dakota v. States’ definitions vary, so companies could formerly reduce their exposures by basing their operations in locations with minimal tax rates and avoiding activities in other states that would trigger those jurisdictions’ particular definitions of what counts as a “physical presence.”