Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

CFPB Reduces Civil Penalty in Settled Remittance Enforcement Action

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Beineng Zhang on May 22, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Retail-Contactless-Payment-Blog-Image-660x283

On May 15, the CFPB issued an amended consent order against an international remittance provider, reducing its civil penalty from $2.025 million to $44,955. The order alleges violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), its implementing Regulation E, and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).

The amended order replaces the January 2025 consent order (previously discussed here) and significantly reduces the civil money penalty to $44,955, while maintaining approximately $450,000 in required consumer redress. The revised enforcement terms also require the company to overhaul its compliance program, including disclosure practices, refund timing, and error resolution procedures.

Key allegations in the consent order include:

  • Inaccurate Fee Representations. The company advertised ATM fees that were not applicable to U.S. consumers.
  • Deficient Disclosures. Required information regarding fees, exchange rates, and contact details was incomplete or inaccurate.
  • Improper Refund and Error Resolution Practices. The company failed to provide timely refunds and did not properly investigate reported transfer errors.

The amended order imposes a five-year compliance period and mandates the development of a new compliance management system, board oversight, and annual reporting. It also requires enhanced consumer-facing disclosures and timely redress procedures. Respondent must report its progress to the CFPB and remain subject to recordkeeping, audit, and monitoring provisions.

Putting It Into Practice: The amended order reflects the CFPB’s recent shift toward less aggressive enforcement (previously discussed here and here). Nonetheless, the Bureau will continue to prioritize matters involving tangible consumer harm, particularly in areas of mortgage servicing, data furnishing under the FCRA, and debt collection under the FDCPA as outlined in its April 16 internal memo (previously discussed here). 

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Beineng Zhang Beineng Zhang

Beineng Zhang is an associate in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Beineng ZhangEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo