 |
USA Edition | Today Is Thursday, June 20, 2013 |
|---|
Newsroom Magazine
Principal Focus Areas
|
|---|
|
|
Beginning January 1, 2012 Newsroom Magazine redefined its journalistic mission to include both original and official government content. Our goal is to shed light on those areas or fields of endeavor that best equip our readers to more fully understand both the positive and negative implications of governance, politics, economics and public policy.
Journalism, news gathering, reporting, ethics and standards.
Media influence upon and dominance of American cultural and political values.
Finance, banking and monetary policy broadly including Federal Reserve actions, regulatory agency rule-making and enforcement, global markets, corporate governance and labor policy-making.
Economic theory and policy-making.
Science and technology broadly defined to include National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, research activities, pharmacology, astronomy, medicine, physics, digital systems, and cyber risks inherent in communications systems.
Definition of words or terms used in Newsroom Magazine whose meanings may be unclear, shifting in denotation and/or connotation, or whose specific meanings are plural in nature.
Logic concepts and definitions upon which Newsroom Magazine content is presented, argued or attributed.
The human condition congruent with American life, culture, civil connectedness and family relations.
Governance in apolitical terms to better underpin both our narrative and ‘of record’ information content.
Law whose development or application frames, alters or distorts American values, beliefs, or thought. Applies to legislation, process, regulatory extensions, courts, litigation and obtaining opinion.
News publishing to the degree it impacts American interests, values, civil connectedness, knowledge and ability to self-govern.
International news, events, and actions that impact upon American interests at home and abroad.
Decision making theory and practice in government, commerce, finance and family life.
| U.S. To Provide Additional $12.2 Million In Humanitarian Aid To Syrian People | Browse All Content | CFTC Charges Royal Bank Of Canada With Willful Concealment And False Statements Relating To Wash Sales | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous In Section | Browse Federal Trade Commission Section |
Next In Section |
the FTC filed a complaint in U.S. district court charging that a web of defendants, including AMG Services, Inc., three other Internet-based lending companies, seven related companies, and six individuals, violated federal law by deceiving consumers when providing and collecting on payday loans. One of the defendants who allegedly controlled the lending companies is automobile racer Scott Tucker. According to documents filed with the court, Tucker and his co-defendant and brother, Blaine Tucker, allegedly transferred more than $40 million dollars collected from consumers by the payday lending companies to another company Scott Tucker controls, Level 5 Motor Sports, for “sponsorship” fees that benefit Scott Tucker’s automobile racing.
Washington
FTC Charges Payday Lending Scheme With Piling Inflated Fees On Borrowers And Making Unlawful Threats When Collecting
Defendants Charged Many Consumers More than Three Times the Amount Borrowed
April 2, 2012
The Federal Trade Commission has taken action against a payday lending operation that allegedly piled on undisclosed and inflated fees, and collected on loans illegally by threatening borrowers with arrest and lawsuits. The FTC has asked a federal court to stop the allegedly illegal business tactics while the agency pursues its case against the defendants.
Like other payday lenders in recent years, this operation has claimed in state legal proceedings that it is affiliated with Native American tribes, and therefore immune from legal action. However, the FTC alleges that the defendants’ claims of tribal affiliation do not exempt them from complying with federal law.
This is the second time in seven months that the FTC has brought suit against a payday lender that has used a tribal affiliation defense against actions by state authorities. The FTC recently expanded its first such adding charges that the operation illegally sued debt-burdened consumers in a South Dakota tribal court that did not have jurisdiction over their cases.
In this case, as part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the FTC filed a complaint in U.S. district court charging that a web of defendants, including AMG Services, Inc., three other Internet-based lending companies, seven related companies, and six individuals, violated federal law by deceiving consumers when providing and collecting on payday loans. One of the defendants who allegedly controlled the lending companies is automobile racer Scott Tucker. According to documents filed with the court, Tucker and his co-defendant and brother, Blaine Tucker, allegedly transferred more than $40 million dollars collected from consumers by the payday lending companies to another company Scott Tucker controls, Level 5 Motor Sports, for “sponsorship” fees that benefit Scott Tucker’s automobile racing.
The Tuckers and the other defendants claimed they would charge borrowers the amount borrowed plus a one-time finance fee. Instead, the FTC alleges, the defendants made multiple withdrawals from borrowers’ bank accounts and assessed a new finance fee each time, without disclosing the true costs of the loan. The defendants also falsely threatened that consumers could be arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned for failing to pay and that the defendants would sue them if they did not pay, according to the FTC.
According to documents filed by the FTC, over the last five years, the defendants’ deceptive and illegal tactics have generated more than 7,500 complaints to law enforcement authorities. In many cases, the defendants’ inflated fees left borrowers with supposed debts of more than triple the amount they had borrowed. In one typical example, the defendants allegedly told consumer Eric Barboza that a $500 loan would cost him $650 to repay. But the defendants attempted to charge him $1,925 to pay off the $500 loan, and threatened him with arrest when he balked at paying that amount.
The FTC’s complaint alleges that defendants’ misrepresentations and false threats violated the Federal Trade Commission Act. According to the FTC, the defendants also violated the Truth in Lending Act by failing to accurately disclose the annual percentage rate and other loan terms; and violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act by illegally requiring consumers to preauthorize electronic fund transfers from their accounts.
Consumers are urged to consider the alternatives to payday loans. For more information, see, Fraudulent Online Payday Lenders: Tapping Your Bank Account Again and Again.
