Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

A bill seeking to provide for four nominees by a bank account holder was introduced in the <keyword id="19895394" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Lok-Sabha" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Lok Sabha" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Lok Sabha">Lok Sabha</keyword> on Friday to ensure better protection of depositors and enhance customer convenience. Introduced by Minister of State for Finance Pankaj Chaudhary in the Lower House, the Banking Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has a provision for simultaneous and successive nominations to bank accounts, lockers, etc. As per the provision of the bill, a bank account holder can nominate up to four persons. The bill also seeks to transfer of unclaimed dividends, shares, and interest or redemption of bonds to the Investor Education and Protection Fund (IEPF), allowing individuals to claim transfers or refunds from the fund, and thus safeguarding investors' interests. As the banking sector has evolved over the years, and with a view to improving bank governance and investor protection, it has become necessary to make certain amendments to five Acts, according to Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill. The Bill, which was approved by the <keyword id="19916620" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Union-Cabinet" source="keywords" meta.keywordsubtype="org" meta.entityname="Union Cabinet" meta.hostid="153" meta.entityid="Union Cabinet">Union Cabinet</keyword> last week, proposes to amend the <keyword id="20824389" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Reserve-Bank-of-India-Act" source="keywords">Reserve Bank of India Act</keyword>, 1934, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the State Bank of India Act, 1955, the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, and the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980. The proposed bill seeks to improve governance standards, provide consistency in reporting by banks to the Reserve Bank of India, ensure better protection for depositors and investors, improve audit quality in public sector banks, bring customer convenience in respect of nominations, and to provide for increase in the tenure of the directors in co-operative banks. Another proposed change relates to redefining 'substantial interest' for directorships, which could increase to Rs 2 crore instead of the current limit of Rs 5 lakh, which was fixed almost six decades ago. Congress member Manish Tewari opposed the introduction of the bill, saying the power to legislate with regard to cooperatives vests with state governments. RSP member N K Premachandran opposed amending five legislations through one bill, while TMC member Saugata Roy termed the bill "superfluous", saying the the amendments proposed in the bill could have been done through administrative decisions. Responding to opposition's remarks, <keyword id="19956758" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Finance-Minister" source="keywords">Finance Minister</keyword> Nirmala Sitharaman said the various amendments done in Banking Regulations Act with respect to <keyword id="20814377" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="cooperative-banks" source="keywords">cooperative banks</keyword> are not just one or two but several. "Simple understanding is we are not touching any aspect of the cooperatives other than that which claims under the name of banking...the sections which have been brought in for amendments, as also the court verdicts, have repeatedly reinforced the point that Banking Regulation Act and the Cooperative Banks do have this relationship and therefore it has to be taken through this route," she said. Otherwise, there is no attempt to undermine the cooperatives, particularly cooperatives dealing with everything other than banks, she said defending the Bill. The bill proposes to increase the tenure of directors (excluding the chairman and whole-time director) in cooperative banks from 8 years to 10 years, so as to align with the Constitution (Ninety-Seventh Amendment) Act, 2011. Once passed, the bill would allow a director of a Central Cooperative Bank to serve on the board of a State Cooperative Bank. The bill also seeks to give greater freedom to banks in deciding the remuneration to be paid to statutory auditors. It also seeks to redefine the reporting dates for banks for regulatory compliance to the 15th and last day of every month, instead of the second and fourth Fridays. "What's the rationale behind it? The current reporting Friday system has several limitations that impact the accuracy and effectiveness of the reporting of data. "These limitations are incomplete coverage of monthly data, seasonal fluctuations in banking activity which lead to inconsistent reporting, and the need for adjustment every 11th year which introduces complications and inconsistencies. That is why, in order to address the issue, it is proposed to amend the legislation," she said. The announcement about amendments to the Banking Regulation Act was made by the Finance Minister in the 2023-24 Budget speech. "To improve bank governance and enhance <keyword id="22728161" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="investors-protection" source="keywords">investors' protection</keyword>, certain amendments to the Banking Regulation Act, the Banking Companies Act and the Reserve Bank of India Act are proposed," she had said.

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

The <keyword id="19899810" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reserve-bank-of-india" source="keywords">Reserve Bank of India</keyword> (<keyword id="19899808" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rbi" source="keywords">RBI</keyword>) has approved <keyword id="19895995" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="hdfc-bank" source="keywords">HDFC Bank</keyword>'s proposal to acquire an up to 9.5% stake in <keyword id="19901053" type="General" weightage="100" keywordseo="indusind-bank" source="keywords">IndusInd Bank</keyword>. "Pursuant to Regulation 30 of the <keyword id="35210" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="SEBI" source="Orion">SEBI</keyword> Listing Regulations, we would like to inform you that the Reserve Bank of India vide its letter dated February 5, 2024 has accorded its approval to HDFC Bank Limited ("applicant") for acquiring "aggregate holding" of up to 9.50% of the paid-up share capital or voting rights in IndusInd Bank Limited. The aforesaid RBI approval has been granted with reference to the application made by the applicant to the RBI," IndusInd Bank said in a stock exchange filing. The approval also stipulates that if the "aggregate holding" of HDFC Bank falls below 5%, prior approval of the RBI will be required to increase it to 5% or more of the paid-up share capital or voting rights. The RBI approval is subject to compliance with the <keyword id="19976511" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="banking-regulation-act" source="keywords">Banking Regulation Act</keyword>, 1949, RBI's Master Direction and Guidelines on Acquisition and Holding of Shares or Voting Rights in Banking Companies dated January 16, 2023 (as amended), provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regulations by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), and other applicable statutes, regulations, and guidelines, the filing noted. --IANS sps/dpb

HDFC gets RBI nod to acquire 9.5% stake in IndusInd Bank

Reserve Bank has accorded approval to HDFC Mutual Fund to raise its stakes in Federal Bank as well as in Equitas Small Finance Bank to up to 9.5 per cent. The clearance has been granted with reference to the application made by <keyword id="174045" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="hdfc-amc" source="Orion">HDFC AMC</keyword> to RBI, according to a regulatory filing on Thursday. "...the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vide its letter dated September 20, 2023, has accorded its approval to HDFC Asset Management Company Ltd (HDFC AMC) for acquiring aggregate holding of up to 9.5 per cent of the paid-up share capital or voting rights of Federal Bank," the bank said in the filing. In a separate filing, Equitas Small Finance Bank said HDFC AMC got RBI's approval on September 20 to raise 'aggregate holding' of up to 9.5 per cent of the paid-up equity capital or voting rights in the small finance bank. HDFC AMC holds a 4.49 per cent stake in Kerala-based Federal Bank, and a 4.68 per cent stake in Equitas Small Finance Bank as of June 30, 2023. The approval granted by the <keyword id="6358156" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="central-bank" source="Orion">central bank</keyword> is subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of the <keyword id="6354778" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="banking" source="Orion">Banking</keyword> Regulation Act, 1949, RBI's Master Direction and Guidelines on Acquisition and Holding of Shares or Voting Rights in Banking Companies dated January 16, 2023 (as amended from time to time), provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, regulations issued by Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi), and any other guidelines, regulations and statutes as applicable, the filing said. As per the RBI intimation, it said HDFC AMC must ensure that the aggregate holding in the bank does not exceed 9.5 per cent of the paid-up share capital or voting rights of the bank at all times. Further, it said, if the aggregate holding falls below 5 per cent, prior approval of RBI will be required to increase it to 5 per cent or more of the paid-up share capital or voting rights of the bank.

HDFC MF gets Reserve Bank nod for raising stake in Federal Bank, Equitas SFB to 9.5%

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Trump's fraud-trial verdict targets his cash, NY business address, and Trump Organization control.</li><li>The verdict notes that Trump continued to commit fraud even while under investigation.</li></ul><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-civil-fraud-verdict-whats-in-judge-engorons-decision-2024-2#:~:text=Trump%2C%20his%20eldest%20sons%2C%20and,conscience%2C%22%20the%20judge%20wrote.">Donald Trump's fraud verdict</a> targets three things he values dearly: his cash, his New York business address, and the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-ny-fraud-verdict-could-kill-the-trump-organization-2023-12">Trump Organization</a> steering wheel.It'll take many months of appeals to get there. But if Friday's verdict is upheld, Trump must relinquish $355 million in ill-gotten gains, plus yet-tallied interest that could approach $100 million.He'll be barred for three years from running a New York business, borrowing from a New York-registered bank, and buying commercial property anywhere in the state.And a now-strengthened court-appointed monitor who, so far, no appeal effort has managed to dislodge, will continue to oversee Trump's finances.These penalties — his punishment for a decade of fraud-filled financial statements he sent to banks and insurers — did not sneak up on the GOP frontrunner.For the past five years, Trump has known he was going to be first probed, then sued, then put on trial for his financial frauds.He's known he's been watched since March 2019, when New York Attorney General <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-trumps-expert-witnesses-helping-case-2023-12">Letitia James</a> sent her first blizzard of subpoenas snowing down on his banks, accountants, and assessors.Yet Trump has spent these five years frauding like nobody's watching.He <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-trumps-expert-witnesses-helping-case-2023-12">d</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">odged his subpoenas</a>. He continued inflating his worth in financial statements by as much as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-net-worth-math-even-fuzzier-than-ny-last-alleged-2023-9">$3.6 billion a year</a>.And even while a court-installed independent monitor watched these past 14 months, he still hid a transfer of $40 million, state Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron noted in Friday's verdict.The verdict ratchets back many penalties James sought. Trump's properties won't be <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">plac</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-ruling-corporate-death-penalty-for-his-empire-experts-2023-9">ed under receivership and sold</a>, and he'll lose his Trump Organization steering wheel for three years rather than permanently.But Trump's persisting penchant for fraud, even under an investigatory microscope for five years — means he'll be watched far more closely now.Trump's monitor, the retired federal judge Barbara Jones — still in place despite his prior appeals — has for 14 months reviewed all of his company's financial disclosures to third parties after they were sent out.Now, as the verdict orders, "the Trump Organization shall be required to obtain prior approval — not, as things are now, subsequent review — from Judge Jones before submitting any financial disclosure to a third party, so that such disclosure may be reviewed beforehand for material misrepresentations."That means for at least the next three years, Jones will be checking the Trump Organization's math in advance.This includes every financial disclosure to a bank, insurer, or potential buyer of his properties. That's the paperwork for his many branding deals, licensing deals, and corporate tax returns.Jones will send any fuzzy math back for corrections. Meanwhile, Trump must continue, under the verdict, to give Jones 30 days' notice of any restructuring, refinancing, or selling of assets.Otherwise, as Engoron noted in his verdict, Trump, his company, and his sons, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-donald-trump-jr-penalties-fraud-trial-verdict-2024-2">Donald Trum</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-ruling-corporate-death-penalty-for-his-empire-experts-2023-9">p </a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-must-write-check-to-ny-ag-letitia-james-2022-5">Jr. and Eric Trump</a>, "are likely to continue their fraudulent ways."<h2>Knew he was being watched</h2>The AG's office believes Trump knew he was under investigation in March 2019. That's when the AG served her first fraud-probe subpoena, demanding records from Trump's favorite lender, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-victim-deutsche-bank-shuns-f-word-2023-11">Deutsche Bank</a>.Two months later, Trump's outside accountants, Mazars USA, got a subpoena. Cushman-Wakefield, Trump's go-to assessor, got one a month later. Trump Organization lawyers met with the AG's office regarding these subpoenas throughout summer 2019.Yet the following Halloween, the AG's office said, Trump still issued an intentionally inflated 2019 net-worth statement, claiming he was worth $6.1 billion, well over twice his actual worth. <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-donald-trump-jr-penalties-fraud-trial-verdict-2024-2">Donald T</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-victim-deutsche-bank-shuns-f-word-2023-11">rump Jr.</a> and the then-Trump Org CFO <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-weisselberg-perjury-hardly-surprising-ny-says-2024-2">Allen Weisselberg certified the statement's accuracy</a>.Trump was still president in 2019 and otherwise occupied. But the judge found that Trump continued frauding over the next four years as a civilian, inflating his net worth in official banking documents even as the AG's investigation pressed forward.In 2020, more AG subpoenas snowed down. The Trump Organization got one. So did the company's leadership, from Trump on down to Patrick Birney, an assistant finance guy, trial evidence showed.Some fun 2020 deposition facts: responding to his subpoena, Birney memorably swore that Weisselberg, the Trump Org CFO, told him, "<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-organization-executives-make-him-look-richer-each-year-2023-10">Donald likes to see it go up.</a>" And Weisselberg and Eric Trump invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 500 times each in their subpoena-ordered depositions.Still, even as the AG's microscope focused ever tighter, the 2020 financial statement issued at year's end again more than doubled Trump's net worth, saying it was $4.7 billion rather than $2.2 billion, as officials say it was.In 2021, Trump kept at it, the AG argued, even as <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-fraud-trial-weisselberg-perjury-hardly-surprising-ny-says-2024-2">Mazars publicly dropped Tr</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trumps-accountants-quit-while-preparing-his-and-melanias-taxes-2022-2">ump</a> as a client and Weisselberg and the Trump Organization were indicted on <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-org-tax-fraud-profits-well-exceed-16m-sentence-friday-2023-1#:~:text=Donald%20Trump's%20real%2Destate%20and,conviction%20on%20payroll%2Dtax%20fraud.">payroll-tax fraud</a> charges that a jury would convict on a year later."While the investigation was ongoing, defendants continued their efforts to actively conceal their fraud," state lawyers said <a target="_blank" href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24429125-nyag-v-trump-ag-proposed-statements-of-fact-202401">in a filing last month</a>.That includes Trump "failing to turn over more than one million pages of documents" in defiance of an AG subpoena and "refusing to sit for testimony absent court order."On October 29, 2021 — AG microscope be damned — Trump claimed that he was worth $4.5 billion, nearly $2 billion higher than his actual worth. And <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-weisselberg-invoked-5th-amendment-rights-500-times-2022-1">Eric Trump </a>certified the claim as accurate."Defendants were aware of our investigation since the middle of March 2019," Andrew Amer, a lawyer for James, said in closings.But over the next three years, "they issued three more statements of financial condition with the fraud continuing, while they knew they were under investigation for this activity."<h2>Not his first fraud rodeo</h2>The AG's lawyers noted that it wasn't even Trump's first fraud rodeo.In previous years, Trump has settled allegations of fraud involving the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">Trump Foundation</a>, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">T</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">rump University,</a> and the <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">2017 Inau</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-to-pay-750k-penalty-for-2017-inaugural-funds-corruption-2022-5">gural Committee</a>, Amer pointed out in closings.None of these legal exposures — nor the AG's fraud lawsuit — slowed him down.The same day James concluded her initial investigation and filed her massive <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-foundation-lawsuit-2-million-settlement-2019-11">Trump fraud</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ny-ag-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-trump-family-business-2022-4"> l</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-reached-a-settlement-in-a-trump-university-case-2016-11">awsuit</a>, on September 21, 2022, Trump incorporated "Trump Organization II" in what her office worried was an attempt to shift and protect assets.<a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-trump-fraud-case-judge-arthur-engoron-bio-2023-10">Engoron,</a> at this point, had already been presiding over the AG's fraud investigation for two years, repeatedly ordering Trump defendants to stop defying her subpoenas for their testimony and documents.The judge quickly agreed with the AG's request for <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/who-is-trump-fraud-case-judge-arthur-engoron-bio-2023-10">an in</a><a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-organization-judge-orders-watchdog-ny-attorney-general-case-2022-11">dependent monitor</a> to oversee the Trump Organization, citing Trump's "demonstrated propensity to engage in persistent fraud."<h2>Violations all over the place</h2>Since her appointment just over a year ago, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trumps-fraud-trial-judge-saves-him-just-this-once-from-himself-2023-11">Jones has repeatedly criticized</a> the Trump Organization's transparency and its sometimes-suspect money transfers.Last August, she cited the company's "incomplete" data to lenders, accusing it of hiding in its reporting such liabilities as "refundable golf-club membership deposits."In November — mid-trial — Jones dinged the company for failing to immediately disclose $40 million in cash transfers, money she said Trump used to pay $29 million in taxes and a $5 million civil judgment in the first E. Jean Carroll defamation case."It shows an inability to follow the law," Kevin Wallace, a lawyer for the New York AG's office, said during last month's closings.And in January, Jones suggested that Trump hid an internal Trump Organization money transfer that amounts to a $48 million <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-48-million-loan-tax-evasion-special-monitor-report-2024-1">tax-free loan</a>."Even after the Independent Monitor was in place, defendants were still incapable of complying with Court orders," the AG's lawyers wrote last month."In short," they added, Trump and Trump Organization leadership "have proven themselves incapable, time and again, of following the law."<h2>But no outright fraud</h2>Trump's lawyers have said in his defense that any discrepancies or requests for additional data have been promptly cleared up and that Jones never made any allegations of outright fraud."The monitor has issued five reports so far," Christopher Kise, Trump's attorney, said in the fraud trial's closing arguments last month."The word fraud does not appear in any one of those reports," Kise said.But Jones is not authorized to accuse Trump of fraud, as she points out in her reports to the judge. She's just there to alert the court to anything suspicious. And there's been plenty of that.Trump "submitted disclosures to third parties that fail to include significant liabilities," the verdict said, referring to Jones' findings.Not only that, but "the internal accounting structure of the Trump Organization continues to be plagued by math and/or reporting errors," the verdict noted."There are no adequate internal controls over financial reporting in place at the Trump Organization to ensure that there will not continue to be misstatements and errors going forward."Until now.If Trump continues to fraud like nobody's watching, Jones and a yet-designated "Independent Director of Compliance" who will report to her can propose even more drastic oversight and punishment — whatever it takes "to keep defendants honest."That includes, under the verdict, "the restructuring and potential dissolution" of Trump's properties.And all this monitoring? That team of skeptical accountants with their noses in his books for at least the next three years? Trump will pay their salaries, on top of his $355 million verdict, plus interest.

Fraud like nobody's watching: Trump was probed for 5 years, and still wouldn't clean up his act

<ul class="summary-list"><li>Sen. Sherrod Brown urged Americans to be wary of <keyword id="11898487" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="fintech" source="Orion">fintech</keyword> <keyword id="11903585" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="banking" source="Orion">banking</keyword> apps. </li><li>He says that consumers are vulnerable to losing access to their money through the services. </li></ul>Americans should beware of using banking services offered by fintech companies, US Senator Sherrod Brown told Insider. Brown, who is the chairman of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, warned that fintech companies that provide online banking services — sometimes called "neo-banks" — are potentially dangerous, and make users vulnerable to losing their money. "Fintech companies that want to act like banks – but without the consumer protections and safeguards that actual banks must adhere to – put people's hard earned money at risk," he said. "Consumers shouldn't be getting locked out of their accounts, leaving them with no way to access their money to buy groceries, pay their bills, or make rent." Brown's warning comes on the heels of a recent <a href="https://www.click2houston.com/news/investigates/2022/04/13/kprc-2-investigates-what-customers-should-know-about-neo-banks-such-as-chime/">investigation</a> by Click2Houston.com's Amy Davis, which found that some users lost thousands of dollars through <keyword id="13626242" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="chime" source="Orion">Chime</keyword>, the <a href="https://www.insiderintelligence.com/insights/neobanks-explained-list/">most popular</a> neobanking app in the US by far. Users lost their money through suspensions due to deposits marked as "unusual activity" that locked them out of the app, as well as a refusal to reimburse some people for hacking. Click2Houston also reported that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has received more than 2,267 complaints about Chime since 2020, with many users complaining about frozen accounts and fraudulent transactions that Chime refused to reverse. "Given the important role we play in helping our members manage their money, we take our responsibility in the areas of regulation and compliance very seriously," a Chime spokesperson told Insider in a statement. "Chime products are designed and delivered in close partnership with our partner banks, The Bancorp Bank and Stride Bank. Thus, unlike some fintechs, Chime member deposits are held in FDIC insured accounts at our partner institutions, which are subject to oversight by the FDIC and the OCC. Chime is also subject to the jurisdiction of CFPB, the FTC and the DOJ." Brown also said that privacy breaches, fraud, and hidden fees are also threats to be wary of when using these services. <h2>Neobanks are growing in popularity, but operate under limited regulations</h2>Although neo-banks offer checking and savings accounts, they aren't necessarily chartered like traditional banks. Chartered banks are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which provide a guarantee to depositors that they won't lose their money if their bank fails. Neo-banks have surged in popularity during the pandemic. Bankrate.com <a href="https://www.bankrate.com/banking/what-is-a-neobank/#:~:text=Neobanks%2C%20sometimes%20called%20challenger%20banks,and%20do%20not%20have%20branches.">estimates</a> that there are about 23 million neobank customers, a number that is expected to more than double, to 50 million, by 2025. The appeal of neo-banks is that they offer low or no fee structures, early deposit access to consumers no matter how much cash they have, and complete digital access. Brown's statement this week isn't the first time that he's urged caution about fintech banking. Last July, he wrote a <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21016570-letter-to-cfpb-re-chime_final?responsive=1&amp;title=1">letter</a> to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on behalf of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, asking them to investigate the neo-banking companies, which they <a href="https://www.regulatoryoversight.com/2021/11/lawmakers-and-regulators-scrutinize-the-nascent-neobank-industry/">did</a>. Several state regulators have been investigating neo-banking services in the last few years as well. In 2019, for instance, the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation began investigating Chime, and concluded that the company was violating state law by describing itself as a bank. Chime later <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/05/chime-has-agreed-to-stop-using-the-word-bank-after-a-california-regulator-pushed-back/">agreed</a> to stop using the word to describe its services.

Senator Sherrod Brown warns Americans to be careful about putting their money in 'fintechs that want to act like banks'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Federal Trade Commission Act created the Federal Trade Commission (<keyword id="11897594" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ftc" source="Orion">FTC</keyword>), the US agency that protects consumers and promotes competition.</li><li>The law empowers the FTC to stop businesses from unfair practices like false advertising.</li><li>The <keyword id="12369452" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="ftc-act" source="Orion">FTC Act</keyword> also empowers the agency to stop illegal monopolies from stifling startups.</li></ul>The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is a government agency that protects consumers against unfair business practices such as false advertising. It also promotes competition in business.When you buy a product, are you confident that you're actually getting what a business claims to be selling? For example, if you buy a T-shirt that claims to be 100% cotton, are you absolutely sure that's the case? Or do you think there's a good chance the shirt is made of other materials? Most US consumers probably don't consider these sorts of issues, thanks in large part to the FTC.The FTC helps protect consumers from businesses doing "anything that would be unfair, misleading, deceptive, or anti-competitive," says Shawn Collins, a shareholder at the law firm <a href="https://www.stradlinglaw.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Stradling Yocca Carlson &amp; Rauth</a>, who has represented companies before the FTC. <h2>What is the Federal Trade Commission Act? </h2>The Federal Trade Commission Act, signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914, created the FTC and helped define the agency's powers. It came about as part of the government's antitrust efforts, where they wanted to crack down on businesses unfairly monopolizing industries and engaging in anticompetitive behavior. <h3>Key provisions in the FTC Act</h3>Here's a breakdown of the key parts of this law:<ul><li>Section 1: This establishes the FTC, specifying that the agency should consist of five commissioners appointed by the president. It limits the number of commissioners of the same political party to three.</li><li>Section 5: As amended, this part <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/statutes/federal-trade-commission-act/ftc_act_incorporatingus_safe_web_act.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">states</a>: "Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful." This section "is intentionally very vague" to give the FTC its mandate to protect consumers, explains Collins.</li><li>Sections 6, 9, and 20: These give the FTC investigative powers, such as to subpoena evidence related to unfair competition. </li></ul>The FTC Act has helped US commerce and business practices in many ways, including:<ul><li>Protecting consumers from false advertising: This can help both businesses and individuals. "From a macroeconomic perspective, you want to encourage consumers to go out and make purchases. In order for that to happen, they have to have confidence that the things that are being advertised to them or represented to them are, in fact, what they represent to be," says Collins.</li><li>Preventing illegal monopolies: It's not necessarily illegal to have so much business success that a company becomes dominant within an industry. But the FTC can go after companies that illegally monopolize industries, such as trying to purposefully block competitors from having a fair shot.</li><li>Preventing price fixing: In contrast with monopolies, sometimes companies cooperate too much. That can happen with price fixing, where companies coordinate to set prices at a certain level, rather than competing fairly on their own.</li></ul>Quick tip: The FTC Act of 1914 created the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces fair business practices, as defined in the FTC Act.<h3>Enforcement</h3>In one respect, the FTC enforces the FTC Act, considering that the agency gets its power from the law to take action against business practices that harm consumers and competition. The FTC can get businesses to stop unfair acts by taking action like sending out a cease-and-desist notice. It also might go through the judicial system to try to get the offending company to pay a fine, for example. But the Supreme Court curbed the agency's enforcement power in 2021. In AMG Capital Management LLC v. FTC, the High Court found that the agency wasn't properly following the FTC Act by going directly to the courts instead of first following an administrative process when seeking fines from offending companies "At a certain point in time, the FTC started going directly to federal district courts. And so that recent Supreme Court decision said they don't have the authority to do that, because Congress only gave them the authority to seek relief through their administrative legal proceedings," explains Collins. These proceedings can be less efficient than district courts, he adds.So, in this sense, the judicial system, including the Supreme Court, can play a role in ensuring that the FTC Act is properly enforced.<h3>Amendments</h3>The FTC Act has been amended many times through the years. Some of the more prominent examples include:<ul><li>Wheeler-Lea Act (1938): This enabled the FTC to protect consumers from "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" rather than just unfair competition</li><li>Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act (1973): This expanded the FTC's power to take enforcement directly to courts, though the FTC's use of this amendment to quickly obtain fines was challenged by the AMG Capital Management case.</li><li>US SAFE WEB Act (2006): This expanded the FTC's abilities to enforce consumer protection, <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/us-safe-web-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">particularly those</a> with an international component.</li></ul>Quick tip: The FTC also has powers stemming from amendments to laws other than just the FTC Act. For example, based on the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, which amended the Clayton Act (another antitrust law), the FTC also enforces against price discrimination.<h2>A history of the Federal Trade Commission Act </h2>The FTC Act has been around for over a century, and the way businesses operate and consumers engage in the economy has changed dramatically over that time. Still, the FTC Act has held up as an important law that can be used to help ensure business fairness.Here are some of the key developments in its history: <ul><li>Agency independence: A 1935 Supreme Court case stemming from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's firing of a commissioner helped establish the independence of government agencies like the FTC. The ruling confirmed that, based on the FTC Act, only Congress could remove FTC commissioners.</li></ul><ul><li>Divesting assets: The FTC Act helps ensure that corporate mergers and acquisitions don't result in anticompetitive behavior. That doesn't just mean blocking M&amp;A. It can also mean making sure deals go through in a fair way. So, in 1999, the FTC filed a complaint regarding a proposed merger between Exxon and Mobil, which the agency said would reduce competition in several areas. That led to Exxon/Mobil agreeing to divest more than 2,000 gas stations, among other assets.</li></ul><ul><li>Looking into consumer privacy: In 2020, the FTC issued orders to nine social media and video streaming platforms to share more about their use of consumers' personal information, among other data. This order stems from the FTC Act enabling the agency "to conduct wide-ranging studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose," <a href="https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2020/12/ftc-issues-orders-nine-social-media-video-streaming-services" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the FTC notes</a>.</li></ul><h2>The financial takeaway</h2>The FTC Act has had a meaningful impact on business and commerce over the years, helping to protect consumers from unfair practices and promote fair competition. And the fact that the law was a central part of a 2021 Supreme Court case underscores how relevant it still is. Ultimately, the FTC Act helps support the economy. Without confidence that companies are being fair and truthful, you might be reluctant to spend money. That also hurts competition, as new companies, for example, might struggle to gain consumer trust if other businesses previously made it seem like everyone's lying. The FTC is "an entity that was born out of the notion that consumers need to have confidence in the marketplace, confidence in the goods and services that they're buying and consuming," says Collins. So, next time you make a purchase, remember that there's a good chance the FTC helped enable you to trust that you're getting what you think you're buying.<a data-type="6100398609e0357154205dea">What is the Securities and Exchange Commission?</a><a data-type="60e75ecd2311693ddc791744">What is the FDIC?</a><a data-type="60f1b416e278c6743d6f5a03">FINRA: The organization that regulates broker-dealers and protects investors</a><a data-type="5f652c5319bb5e3cdd4aad53">The main causes of the Great Depression, and how the road to recovery transformed the US economy</a>

The Federal Trade Commission Act sets the guidelines underpinning the FTC's consumer-protection enforcement

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="11917122" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="president-joe-biden" source="Orion">President Joe Biden</keyword> is set to nominate Cornell University law professor <keyword id="12160792" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="saule-omarova" source="Orion">Saule Omarova</keyword> to head the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-22/biden-to-tap-crypto-big-bank-critic-to-run-wall-street-watchdog?sref=GUP2BhaG">according to a Bloomberg report.</a></li><li>The banking law professor has been a critic of cryptocurrencies and envisions a larger role for the government in overseeing banks. </li><li>Omarova needs Senate confirmation to serve a five-year term.</li></ul>President Joe Biden is preparing to nominate a Cornell University law professor who has been critical of cryptocurrencies and envisions a larger role for the government in overseeing banks to run the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-22/biden-to-tap-crypto-big-bank-critic-to-run-wall-street-watchdog?sref=GUP2BhaG">according to a Bloomberg report.</a>Biden as soon as this week will name Saule Omarova as his choice to head the <keyword id="12075567" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="occ" source="Orion">OCC</keyword>, Bloomberg reported late Wednesday, citing three unnamed sources familiar with the nomination process. The OCC is a key regulator overseeing consumer banking and supervises large lenders such as Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase.Omarova, a banking law professor, is expected to push for tougher oversight and rules in the industry. A native of Kazakhstan, Omarova <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3715735">in an October 2020 academic paper</a> wrote about a blueprint for a "People's Ledger," or a comprehensive restructuring of the central bank balance sheet to democratize money and finance the world's largest economy. By separating the lending function from their monetary function, a proposed reform for banks would "effectively 'end banking,' as we know it," with Omarova making a direct play on the title of the 2014 book, "The End of Banking: Money, Credit, and the Digital Revolution". Biden's aides were vetting Omarova in August, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/05/business/occ-comptroller-Saule-Omarova.html">according to The New York Times</a>, noting that Omarova has said <keyword id="11892695" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="cryptocurrency" source="Orion">cryptocurrency</keyword> operations could allow banks to conduct more trading activity out of oversight of the Federal Reserve and other regulators. Bloomberg reported that Omarova contends that digital tokens threaten to destabilize the economy and are vulnerable to abuse by private firms at the expense of public safeguards. Omarova served in President George W. Bush's administration as a special adviser for regulatory policy in the Treasury Department. She's practiced law at Davis Polk &amp; Wardwell, specializing in corporate transactions and advisory work in financial regulation.If confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term, Omarova would take over from Michael Hsu, a former Fed official who has been running the OCC on an acting basis since May. Hsu this week told a blockchain panel that <a href="https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/crypto-regulation-financial-crisis-michael-hsu-occ-brian-brooks-basel-2021-09">crypto and decentralized finance look similar to</a> the financial instruments that sparked the 2008 global financial crisis.

Biden reportedly is set to nominate a law professor critical of crypto and big banks to run the OCC

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Clayton <keyword id="11956286" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="antitrust" source="Orion">Antitrust</keyword> Act is one of several laws prohibiting anti-competitive business behavior in the US.</li><li>The Clayton Antitrust Act is meant to prevent conflicts of interest, price discrimination, and guarantees the right to sue for certain unethical business practices.</li><li>The Clayton Antitrust Act amended the Sherman Antitrust Act, which was passed in 1890.</li></ul>The Clayton Antitrust Act is one of several <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/antitrust-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">antitrust laws</a> passed in the US. Its goal is to prevent anticompetitive behavior by businesses and protect consumers from monopolies - as well as the inflated prices monopolies can lead to. "Without the Clayton Act, businesses could engage in mergers until there was only a single monopolist left providing particular goods or services," says Marc Schildkraut, a partner and antitrust attorney at <a href="https://www.bakerlaw.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">BakerHostetler</a>. <h2>Understanding the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 </h2>Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914 in an attempt to strengthen the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/sherman-antitrust-act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a>, which was established in 1890. According to House documents, the original bill failed to effectively regulate corporations, leading to unfair competition. "The Sherman Antitrust Act was the first rule of its kind, so it was a little broad," says Christy Matzen, director of financial planning at <a href="https://zoefin.com/">Zoe Financial</a>. "As companies have searched for loopholes to get around it, a few more rules have come into play like the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The spirit of these rules are all the same - to promote business rivalry and keep markets competitive, but they just approach the topic from different angles."The Clayton Act does a few things, including banning price discrimination and anticompetitive mergers, which we'll go into more below. Labor unions, boycotts, and strikes are exempt under the law. Quick tip: The Library of Congress has the full text of all antitrust laws and bills. To view any of these, simply visit <a href="http://loc.gov" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LOC.gov</a>, and enter "antitrust" into the search bar. You can filter by legislation, year, and other details to zero in on the exact act you'd like to read.<h3>Provisions of the Clayton Antitrust Act</h3>There are several provisions - or sections - of the Clayton Antitrust Act. We'll go into the bigger ones in detail below. <ul><li>Price discrimination: The first provision is the Act's ban on price discrimination. This prevents businesses from charging different customers different prices for the exact same product or service. This was later amended by the Robinson-Patman Act in 1936.</li><li>Monopolies: Under Section 3, the Act bans companies from working together to fix prices, reduce competition, or create a monopoly around a certain good or service. </li><li>The right to sue: The Act also establishes the right to take legal action against companies that take part in anticompetitive business practices. Here's how it reads: "... any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue … and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee."</li><li>Exemption for labor unions, agricultural organizations, and horticultural organizations: Labor unions and agricultural and horticultural organizations are not considered "a commodity or article of commerce" and are therefore exempt from antitrust laws, including the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act.</li><li>Mergers and acquisitions: One of the more detailed provisions prohibits companies from acquiring or merging with other similar businesses if it would significantly lessen competition in the marketplace.</li><li>Conflicts of interest: Under this provision, individuals cannot be directors, officers, or employees of more than one bank, banking association, or trust company with more than $5 million in assets.</li><li>Fraudulent activity: This provision says that company presidents, directors, officers, or managers of businesses engaged in commerce can be charged a felony for embezzling, stealing, abstracting, or willfully misapplying company funds.</li><li>Enforcement: Section 11 gives the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Federal Trade Commission the power to enforce various provisions of the act. It also establishes the process by which violations are investigated and penalized.</li></ul>Quick tip: If you believe you've been a victim of anticompetitive activity that violates the Clayton Antitrust Act, you can report the company to the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice" target="_blank" rel="noopener">US Department of Justice</a> or the FTC at <a href="http://reportfraud.ftc.gov" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ReportFraud.FTC.gov</a>.<h3>Amendments made to the Clayton Antitrust Act</h3>The Clayton Act has been amended a few times since its passage in 1918. The big amendments include the Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger Act of 1950, and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976.Here's what each of those did:<ul><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/robinson-patman-act">Robinson-Patman Act</a>: This amendment strengthened the original act's ban on price discrimination. It specifically aimed to protect small businesses from unfair pricing competition from larger retailers.</li><li>Celler-Kefauver Anti-merger Act: This act closed a loophole that allowed companies to acquire assets from other businesses in an effort to reduce market competition. It also broadened the law to include acquisitions that aren't direct competitors. </li><li>Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act: Under this act, companies must notify the FTC and the U.S. Justice Department in advance of any major mergers or acquisitions.</li></ul>A new bill, dubbed the Competition and Antitrust Law Enforcement Reform Act of 2021, also aims to amend the Clayton Act. According to the current text, it would modify the standards by which acquisitions are deemed anticompetitive and enhance enforcement abilities, among other efforts. It was introduced by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in February and has since been referred to the judiciary committee. <h2>The financial takeaway</h2>At the end of the day, Matzen says, the Clayton Act - and all other antitrust legislation - exists to "protect customers from businesses gaining too much power and using it against them." If you think a business may be violating the Clayton Antitrust Act or participating in anticompetitive behavior, report it to the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission immediately. The government will begin an investigation if warranted.<a data-type="61731124adb1a62a3d136b51">The Federal Trade Commission Act sets the guidelines underpinning the FTC's consumer-protection enforcement</a><a data-type="617049e864d7297c4107f879">Understanding fiscal policy: The use of government spending and taxation to manage the economy</a><a data-type="615e1ce04db97a72e9528be4">Monetary Policy: How the Federal Reserve attempts to control the US economy</a><a data-type="60e75ecd2311693ddc791744">What is the FDIC?</a>

The Clayton Antitrust Act: One of many laws that protects consumers from unfair business practices

<ul class="summary-list"><li>The Sherman Act was the first <keyword id="11956286" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="antitrust" source="Orion">antitrust</keyword> law, signed by President Harrison in 1890 and was meant to preserve competition in the market and avoid monopolization.</li><li>Antitrust laws preserve market competition and protect consumers from unfairly high prices.</li><li>The Sherman Act was deemed too vague and later amended by the Clayton Act.</li></ul>The US economy is based on a free enterprise system where the <keyword id="11893875" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="markets" source="Orion">markets</keyword>, not the government, determine prices. For this system to function properly, there must be competition."The fundamental purpose of our antitrust laws is to preserve competition and prevent markets from being monopolized," says <a href="https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/faculty-research/faculty-directory/george-a-hay/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">George A. Hay</a>, Charles Frank Reavis Sr. Professor of Law and professor of economics at the Cornell Law School. "If we had widespread monopoly our economy would be much worse off."The first of those antitrust laws is the Sherman Antitrust Act, enacted in 1890. <h2>What is the Sherman Antitrust Act? </h2>The Sherman Antitrust Act was intended to "<a href="https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/antitrust-laws" target="_blank" rel="noopener">preserve free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade</a>" for the benefit of consumers. It made monopolization and other contracts that unreasonably restrain trade illegal. It is one of three core federal antitrust laws, along with the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act.The Sherman Act was named for Sen. John Sherman of Ohio, who was considered an expert on regulating commerce. It was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison on July 2, 1890.Some states had already passed similar laws, but their scope was limited to intrastate business, whereas the Sherman Antitrust Act was applied across the nation.There are three main parts of the Sherman Act: <ul><li>The first defines and bans various forms of anticompetitive conduct. It makes forming a trust or contract that restrains trade or conspiring to restrain trade among US states and with foreign nations illegal.</li><li>The second makes monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or conspiring to monopolize trade or commerce a felony.</li><li>The third extends these provisions to include the District of Columbia and all US territories.</li></ul>"The most important application of section one is to make price-fixing agreements between or among competing sellers unlawful," Hay says. "While price fixing does not create monopoly - literally a single seller - it results in prices that a monopolist would charge, prices much higher than would prevail under competition."The second section makes it unlawful to monopolize a part of commerce. "Basically it covers situations where large firms try to drive smaller competitors out of the market by various anticompetitive tactics, such as pricing below cost," Hay says.There are other practices some people may think are innocent that actually violate the Sherman Act, says Mark Grady, a UCLA law professor. These include, "protests against low wages by people who are ineligible for union membership."The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the Sherman Act and other antitrust laws. It monitors businesses and challenges them when they're suspected of antitrust activities. The FTC reviews all major mergers and agreements, analyzing their potential effects on consumers and competition.While great in theory, the Sherman Act proved too vague in practice. For instance, it didn't clearly define key terms such as "monopoly" and "trust," and left up for interpretation what constitutes "unreasonable" restraint of trade. This left loopholes through which corporations could argue their defense. As a result, Congress passed the Clayton Antitrust Act in 1914 to amend the Sherman Act.Quick tip: The FTC often relies on information from consumers to know when to investigate a company. You can submit a confidential antitrust complaint to the FTC via email, mail or phone.<h2>The Sherman Antitrust Act vs. Clayton Antitrust Act </h2>The Clayton Act strengthens the Sherman Act by clarifying key points in and prohibiting other harmful practices that the Sherman Act does not address, such as mergers and interlocking directorates when one person makes business decisions for competing companies. Hay says the most significant provision that supplements the Sherman Act deals with mergers, primarily between competitors. "The Act says a merger is unlawful if the effect may be substantially to lessen competition," he says. "It is mostly forward-looking in that it allows the government to block a merger that has not happened yet if the predicted effect is that competition may be harmed."The Clayton Act also created new ways of suing under the Sherman Act, UCLA's Grady notes. It allowed private parties to sue for triple damages if they have been harmed by conduct in violation of either the Clayton Act or the Sherman Act.Later, amendments further strengthened the Clayton Act, such as the Robinson-Patman Act amendment of 1936, making it illegal for merchants to use certain discriminatory pricing in their dealings with each other. In 1950, the Celler-Kefauver Act extended the breadth of antitrust laws to include all forms of mergers that substantially reduced competition through monopolization. It also prevented one firm from gaining stock or physical assets in another firm if doing so would inhibit competition. Then in 1976, the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements amendment required companies to notify the government before engaging in a large mergers or acquisitions.<table style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 100%; height: 253px;" border="1"><tbody><tr style="height: 22px;"><td style="width: 50%; height: 22px;">Sherman Antitrust Act</td><td style="width: 50%; height: 22px;">Clayton Antitrust Act</td></tr><tr style="height: 231px;"><td style="width: 50%; height: 231px;"><ul><li>Defines and bans various forms of anticompetitive conduct</li><li>Makes monopolizing, attempting to monopolize, or conspiring to monopolize trade or commerce is a felony</li><li>Used vague language that left loopholes for defendants</li><li>Amended by Clayton Antitrust Act</li></ul></td><td style="width: 50%; height: 231px;"><ul><li>Strengthens Sherman Act by expanding definition of anticompetitive conduct</li><li>Gives private parties the right to sue for triple damages</li><li>Amended by Robinson-Patman Act of 1936, the Celler-Kefauver of 1950, and the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976</li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>Quick Tip: Individual consumers who are harmed by actions that violate the antitrust laws can sue for triple damages.<h2>Understanding antitrust laws </h2>These US antitrust laws are designed to preserve competition in the marketplace. Consumers benefit from competition as it keeps prices low and leads to more and higher-quality options. Without the antitrust laws, businesses could form monopolies allowing them to have outsized control over market prices and the availability of goods."Our system of enforcing the antitrust laws is complex," Hay says. "There are two federal agencies charged with maintaining competition: the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. But in addition, each of the 50 states has laws resembling the federal laws. And on top of that, individuals or companies injured as the result of other entities violating the laws can bring a private action to recover damages."Quick tip: The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed during the height of the gilded age, when entrepreneurs including J.D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and J.P. Morgan - collectively known as "robber barons" - were becoming rich by forming monopolies in the steel, petroleum, and transportation industries.<h2>Key events in the Sherman Antitrust Act's history </h2><ul><li>April 8 and June 20, 1890: The Sherman Antitrust Act passes the Senate with a vote of 51-1 (April 8) and unanimously in the House (June 20).</li><li>July 2, 1890: President Benjamin Harrison signs the Sherman Antitrust Act into law.</li><li>Jan. 21, 1895: The Supreme Court limits the government's power to pursue antitrust actions under the Sherman Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company when it ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company had not violated the law despite having controlled about 98% of all sugar refining in the US.</li><li>1901-1913: Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft continue to use the Sherman Act against major corporations, such as the Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company.</li><li>Oct. 20, 2020: The US Department of Justice files a lawsuit against Google, saying it engaged in anticompetitive conduct to preserve monopolies in search and search advertising. Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen compared the complaint to past uses of the Sherman Act to stop monopolistic practices by corporations.</li></ul><h2>The financial takeaway</h2>The Sherman Act was the first antitrust law passed by Congress in an attempt to preserve competition in the open market. It was later deemed too vague and amended by the Clayton Act, which gives individuals the right to sue for triple damages if they have been harmed by actions that violate either the Sherman Act or Clayton Act."The most significant takeaway for the average consumer is that the antitrust laws serve to maintain prices at competitive levels," says Hay. "Not only are consumers better off, but since consumers buy more when prices are lower, workers and suppliers of inputs also benefit."<a data-type="615e1ce04db97a72e9528be4">Monetary Policy: How the Federal Reserve attempts to control the US economy</a><a data-type="615b322f440ead1e716e8e27">What is Modern Monetary Theory? Understanding the alternative economic theory that's becoming more mainstream</a><a data-type="6101981a09e03525eb0b9dcb">What to know about the Consumer Price Index - a key economic indicator that measures inflation</a><a data-type="6143817b5b926a5dd93d7aa5">Purchase power is a measure of what your money can buy - here's how it can impact your finances</a>

The Sherman Antitrust Act is the first in a line of federal laws protecting consumers from unfair prices

New Delhi, Feb 5 () In order to protect interest of depositors, the Union Cabinet on Wednesday approved amendment to Banking Regulation Act to strengthen cooperative banks and avoid PMC Bank like crisis.There are 1,540 cooperative banks with depositor base of 8.60 crore having total savings of about Rs 5 lakh crore.The proposed law seeks to enforce banking regulation guidelines of the RBI in cooperative banks, while administrative issues will still be guided by Registrar of Cooperative, Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar said while briefing media about the Cabinet decisions.Observing that the changes will help strengthen financial stability, he said qualifications would be set for appointing CEO of cooperative banks and the RBI permission would be sought before appointment as followed in case of commercial banks.Audit would be as per the RBI guidelines and the central bank can also supersede the board if any cooperative bank is under stress, he said.Cooperative bank will be given time to comply with the RBI guidelines in phased manner, he added.The cabinet approval is in line with the Budget announcement made by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Saturday."To strengthen the Cooperative Banks, amendments to the Banking Regulation Act are proposed for increasing professionalism, enabling access to capital and improving governance and oversight for sound banking through the RBI," she had said in the Budget 2020-21.The decision assumes significance in the wake of a scam in the Punjab and Maharashtra Cooperative (PMC) Bank affecting lakhs of customers who are facing difficulties in withdrawing their money due to restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India.Javadekar further said this is the second important measure taken by the government to protect the interest of depositors within a week.Sitharaman proposed in the Budget to raise the insurance cover on saving deposits five times to Rs 5 lakh."I wish to inform this august House that robust mechanism is in place to monitor the health of all Scheduled Commercial Banks and that depositors' money is safe."Further, the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) has been permitted to increase Deposit Insurance Coverage for a depositor, which is now Rs 1 lakh to Rs 5 lakh per depositor," she said in Budget 2020-21.At present, bank depositors get an insurance cover of Rs 1 lakh on their amount by the Deposit Insurance and credit Guarantee Corporation if a bank fails. However, deposits maintained with different banks are not clubbed. DP BAL

Cabinet clears amendment to banking laws to strengthen cooperative banks

<ul class="summary-list"><li>U.S. Bank has been fined $35.7 million for preventing some customers from accessing unemployment funds during the pandemic.</li><li>The CFPB said it froze tens of thousands of accounts and made it hard for customers to regain access.</li></ul>U.S. Bank has been fined $35.7 million by two different federal regulators for freezing some customers' access to unemployment benefits during the pandemic.U.S. Bank had contracts with at least 19 states and the District of Columbia to deliver unemployment benefits to millions of Americans through its ReliaCard prepaid card, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) <a target="_blank" href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-orders-us-bank-to-pay-21-million-for-illegal-conduct-during-covid-19-pandemic/">said</a>.But the bank "froze tens of thousands of accounts" after it expanded anti-fraud controls and didn't provide a reliable and quick way for customers to prove their identities and regain access to their unemployment funds, the CFPB said. For freezes U.S. Bank imposed between August and November 2020, it took on average a month or longer for consumers to unfreeze their ReliaCard accounts, the regulator <a target="_blank" href="https://www.consumerfinance.gov/enforcement/actions/us-bank-national-association-prepaid-cards-2023/">noted</a>."Many out-of-work Americans throughout the country had little choice but to rely on U.S. Bank for their unemployment benefits," CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. "U.S. Bank blocked access to accounts and demanded burdensome paperwork in order for consumers to regain access to their frozen benefits."Meanwhile, thousands of other customers found that U.S. Bank failed to provide provisional account credits after they reported unauthorized transfers, the CFPB said.Banks have to provide provisional account credits if their investigations take more than 10 days, but U.S. Bank failed to do so "in thousands of cases" because it improperly required customers to first provide additional written confirmation about the suspected unauthorized transfers, the CFPB said.U.S. Bank violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the CFPB said. The CFPB ordered U.S. Bank to pay $5.7 million to affected consumers whose ReliaCard accounts were frozen, as well as a $15 million penalty.The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency also <a target="_blank" href="https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2023/nr-occ-2023-141.html">ordered</a> U.S. Bank to pay a $15 million civil money penalty, which it said would be paid to the US Treasury and was coordinated with but separate from the CFPB's order.The bank did not <a target="_blank" href="https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_us-bank-stipulation_2023-12.pdf">admit or deny</a> any wrongdoing, the CFPB said.Business Insider has contacted U.S. Bank for comment. A spokesperson for the bank told <a target="_blank" href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/us-bank-fined-36-million-for-frozen-unemployment-benefits.html">CNBC</a> that a small portion of cardholders were affected due to extended holds, but that it had prevented more than $375 million of fraud and also returned hundreds of millions sent to questionable accounts to the states. The bank has also since improved its ReliaCard program, the spokesperson said.The CFPB said that U.S. Bank, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the US' fifth largest commercial bank. Last year, <a target="_blank" href="https://www.businessinsider.com/us-bank-fined-375-million-for-illegally-using-customer-data-2022-7">the CFPB fined U.S. Bank</a> $37.5 million for allegedly pressuring employees to meet sales goals by opening fraudulent checking and savings accounts, credit cards, and lines of credit without customers' permission.

U.S. Bank has been fined nearly $36 million for freezing some customers' access to unemployment benefits during the pandemic

The <keyword id="6354335" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="reserve-bank-of-india" source="Orion">Reserve Bank of India</keyword> (<keyword id="30067" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="rbi" source="Orion">RBI</keyword>) has imposed a monetary penalty of Rs 26 lakh on <keyword id="16226693" type="General" weightage="20" keywordseo="Nutan-Nagarik-Sahakari-Bank" source="Orion">Nutan Nagarik Sahakari Bank</keyword>, Ahmedabad for non-compliance with certain directions of the central bank. This penalty has been imposed in exercise of the powers vested in RBI conferred under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, the central bank said. This action of the central bank is based on a deficiency in regulatory compliance and is not intended to pronounce upon the validity of any transaction or agreement entered into by the bank with its customers. The statutory inspection of the bank conducted by RBI with reference to its financial position as on March 31, 2020, and examination of the risk assessment report and all related correspondence pertaining to the same revealed that the bank failed to pay interest at the rate applicable to saving deposits on certain overdue recurring and fixed deposit accounts at the time of their repayment and had issued ATM-cum-debit cards to certain cash credit account holders, according to a statement released on Monday evening. In furtherance to the same, a notice was issued to the bank advising it to show cause as to why the penalty should not be imposed for non-compliance with the RBI directions. After considering the bank's reply to the notice, additional submissions made by the bank and the oral submissionsmade during the personal hearing, the central bank said it came to the conclusion that the charge of non-compliance with the aforesaid RBI directions were substantiated and warranted imposition of monetary penalty, to the extent of non-compliance with such directions. SEE ALSO: <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/axis-bank-q3-net-profit-grows-62-yoy-to-5853-crore-beats-expectations-even-as-provisions-and-slippages-rise/articleshow/97254942.cms">Axis Bank Q3 net profit grows 62% YoY to ₹5,853 crore, beats expectations even as provisions and slippages rise</a> <a target="_blank" class="c-link c-message_attachment__title_link" href="https://www.businessinsider.in/business/corporates/news/amazon-launches-dedicated-air-cargo-service-for-faster-deliveries-in-india/articleshow/97246478.cms">Amazon launches dedicated air cargo service for faster deliveries in India</a>

You Searched For "banking regulation amendment act 2020" and got 12 results

Bill to provide up to four nominees to a bank account introduced in Lok Sabha

PTI

HDFC gets RBI nod to acquire 9.5% stake in IndusInd Bank

IANS

HDFC MF gets Reserve Bank nod for raising stake in Federal Bank, Equitas SFB to 9.5%

PTI

Fraud like nobody's watching: Trump was probed for 5 years, and still wouldn't clean up his act

Laura Italiano

Senator Sherrod Brown warns Americans to be careful about putting their money in 'fintechs that want to act like banks'

Jason Lalljee

The Federal Trade Commission Act sets the guidelines underpinning the FTC's consumer-protection enforcement

Jake Safane

Biden reportedly is set to nominate a law professor critical of crypto and big banks to run the OCC

Carla Mozée

The Clayton Antitrust Act: One of many laws that protects consumers from unfair business practices

Aly J. Yale

The Sherman Antitrust Act is the first in a line of federal laws protecting consumers from unfair prices

Coryanne Hicks

Cabinet clears amendment to banking laws to strengthen cooperative banks

PTI

U.S. Bank has been fined nearly $36 million for freezing some customers' access to unemployment benefits during the pandemic

Grace Dean

RBI slaps ₹26 lakh penalty on Nutan Nagarik Sahakari Bank

ANI

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides