Category: Internet payday loans

  • Minnesota D.A. goes after unlicensed Internet lenders

    Minnesota allows payday lending. They have a goofy fee structure:

    $5.50: $0-$50; 10%+$5: $51-$100; 7% (min. $10) + $5: $101-$250; 6% (min. $17.50) + $5: $251-$350 (After default: 2.75% per month)

    In 2009, they required Internet lenders to be licensed in the state. The DA is going after the following lenders: East Side Lenders of Delaware, Global Payday Loan of Utah and Jelly Roll Financial of Virginia b/c they’re not licensed and they’re charging more than the state allows.

    We see these Internet lending law suites popping up more and more. Recently, we had an article titled “To get licensed or not to get licensed? That is the question.” I get this question a lot from people trying to get into the business.

    Now, I know that every lender has their own defense like, “We’re not doing loans in XXXX.  We’re doing loans in Delaware.”  That’s not really the point.  My opinion is that no amount of money is worth the aggravation of criminal charges.  Also, how do you sell an illegal operation?

  • “To get licensed or not to get licensed? That is the question.”

    This is an update to an Internet lending class action settlement.  We reported back in July that the state of Wisconsin had settled a case w/ an online lender for $180k and forgave $432k in debt.  The lender, Arrowhead Investments LLC, was not licensed to give loans in the state of Wisconsin.

    This is official now, and the lender can not lend in Wisconsin for the next 5 years.

    This was reported in the AP News.

  • Will Indian tribes get immunity on Internet payday loans?

    In Colorado, the state Supreme Court soon will take up a case where two online payday lending companies say they are immune to prosecution and state regulations because they are incorporated by sovereign Indian nations.

    This is not new. We all know about Indian casinos. The casinos work b/c people enter the Indian reservation and gamble. Can these Indian reservations do business on the Internet? The gray area is this: the borrower applies for a loan on a computer outside the reservation. Is this considered the state, the reservation or neither?

    There is a very long article in the Havre Daily News. You can read the full article titled “Online Payday Loans Lending practices spark nationwide concerns.”

  • More on West Virginia prosecution of Internet lenders

    Yesterday we had a post about the Attorney General going after some Internet lenders. There’s more:

    The second suit filed by McGraw’s office asks the court to order four collection agencies, Capital Collections, LLC, Claims Investigators of America, Crime Monitoring Center, and Premier Recovery Group, to comply with his investigative subpoenas and to stop collecting Internet payday loans in West Virginia.

    It looks like they’re using these collection’s companies to get to the lenders.

    For the record, West Virginia has made 97 settlement agreements since 2005. I was a little surprised by that number.

  • West Virginia playing hardball w/ internet payday lenders

    Four Internet lenders are playing chicken w/ the West Virginia district attorney.

    “The suit claims the companies, which do business under such names as “Cash Supply,” “Web Payday,” “Payday Services,” “Payday Yes” and “Paper Check Payday,” have ignored an investigative subpoena from the Attorney General’s Office going back to 2007.”

    You can read the full article titled “Attorney general goes after four Internet payday lenders” in the Charleston Gazzette.

  • A big warning if you offer internet payday loans in New York

    “The two companies–County Bank Of Rehoboth Beach, Del., and TC Services
    Corp., a Pennsylvania payday business that does business as Telecash–agreed to pay
    refunds to New York consumers and another $300,000 in penalties and costs. In
    addition, the two companies are prohibited from collecting on any outstanding
    payday loans to New Yorkers.

    According to the complaint, Telecash and CRA Services Inc., another
    Pennsylvania payday business that operates as Cashnet, made thousands of illegal payday
    loans to New York consumers under a fraudulent “rent-a-bank scheme” with County
    Bank. Cashnet is now defunct and didn’t contribute to the settlement.”

    The total settlement will be for $5.2M. You can read the full article in the Morningstar titled, “New York to Distribute $5.2 Million Payday Loan Settlement

    New York is not alone. In Wisconsin, there was a class action lawsuit settled for $432k earlier this year. In Wisconsin, payday loans are perfectly legal, but the payday business was not licensed.

  • Payday loans are easy to understand

    If you think that bank overdraft fees are a necessary evil, you should be able to understand the need for payday loans.

    Both products carry similar APRs, but different stigmas. Overdraft fees have no disclosure and the bank customer has absolutely no say. Payday loans, on the other hand, are a very straight forward and easy to understand product. With a payday loan, rollovers can extend the loan to about 8 weeks, if it’s not paid in full.

    If you give a choice to borrowers between overdraft protection and a payday loan. I bet most people choose a payday loan. If anyone can think of a reason, not to, let me know.
    [wpfp-link]

  • Arkansas still chasing payday lenders

    Arkansas ran the last of its payday lenders out this past year. Now they’re setting their eyes on Internet lenders. Their district attorney has sent out over 30 warning letters to Internet lenders.

    It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I’m sure many of these lenders are off shore companies or Indian reservations. These lenders thought they were immune to local laws, but recentl, a British Internet lender paid $1M in fines to the FTC and state of Nevada.

    Today, they’re just telling Arkanasas borrowers to close their bank accounts and sending a letter to the lender to cancel the loan.

    The big question is what can they do about it? Are offshore Internet lenders immune from state law enforcement? I guess we’ll see.

    Here’s what the Deputy Attorney General of Arkansas had to say: “Sometimes you try to trace them and they end up being in the Philippines or Botswana or somewhere like that, to the extent that you can even figure out where they are,”

    It looks like payday lending is going the way of Internet gambling. Internet gambling’s major blow was a federal law named the “Safe Port Act“. This made it illegal for financial instiutions to transfer funds to an Internet lending site.

    You can read the story in full here.

  • Internet lender pay a cool million to stay in business

    We discussed this story back in February. The FTC and state of Nevada were all over a few internet lenders titled “Nevada Internet Lenders Under Fire“. A few days ago, they settled for a cool $1 million. The split was around $30k to the state of Nevada and $970k to the FTC. I guess the FTC is ordering sushi this week.

    The Internet payday lenders were accused of violating multiple TILA (Truty in Lending Act) rules, in addition to Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

    The lenders are: “Cash Today, Ltd., and The Heathmill Village, Ltd. (both registered in the United Kingdom); The Harris Holdings, Ltd. (registered in Guernsey, an island between England and France); Leads Global, Inc., Waterfront Investments, Inc., ACH Cash, Inc., HBS Services, Inc., Rovinge International, Inc.; and Lotus Leads, Inc., and First4Leads, Inc. (both now dissolved); each doing business as Cash Today, Route 66 Funding, Global Financial Services International, Ltd., Interim Cash, Ltd., and Big-Int, Ltd. The settling individual defendants are Aaron Gershfield and Ivor Gershfield. A separate settlement has been reached with Jim Harris, who managed the Nevada side of the operation.”

    Here’s what the Internet lenders need to start doing, in addition to “cough, cough” pony up a $1M.

    “The order bars the defendants from violating the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z in extending closed-end credit by requiring defendants to make the TILA disclosures mandated by law, and by failing in any other manner to comply with TILA and Regulation Z. The order also requires the defendants to disclose clearly, in writing, in a form consumers can keep and before a transaction is made, the interest rate and other key terms of their loans; a repayment schedule showing dates when consumers’ bank accounts will be debited for the loans; payments and fees for late or non-payment of the loans; and a statement that payday loans may be limited or prohibited in some states. The defendants must obtain consumers’ written confirmation that consumers have received the required disclosures before making a transaction and, when collecting debts, the defendants must provide consumers, upon request, a written statement of amounts and fees paid and due.

    In addition, the order prohibits the defendants from violating Nevada state consumer protection law when conducting business from the State of Nevada or when selling goods or services to Nevada residents, including failing to be properly licensed, failing to provide notice and disclosure of all material facts as state law requires, and failing to comply with any state or federal law in selling goods or services. The order also contains recordkeeping and reporting provisions to allow the FTC to monitor compliance.”

    So what does this all mean? Being off shore is no longer a safe alternative.

    You can read this article in its entirety at Mesquite Local News.
    [wpfp-link]

  • Payday Pundit shines light on payday alternatives

    The Payday Pundit shines a light on payday alternative loans. The blog is titled, “$120 for a $100 Loan.

    Note to legislators: It costs money to do business. The people that pay, pay for the people that don’t pay.

    I don’t see payday lenders getting government bailout money. Payday lenders know the true cost of sub prime credit. That’s why they charge the fees they do.