SENATE BILL: Transactions Fairness Act (At Final Vote)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Transactions Fairness Act

to protect consumers from common banking and credit abuse

Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section I

1. A financial institution, also known as a banking institution, is defined as a corporation, company or other business entity that provides services as an intermediary of financial markets.

2. A consumer is defined as a person or organization that uses an economic service.

Section II

1. No financial institution shall charge a fee for the following services.

   a. Usage of an Automated Teller Machine, or ATM.

   b. Opening an account.

   c. Closing an account.

   d. Not interacting with the account.

   e. Replacing a lost or stolen credit or debit card.

   f. Stop payment on a check.

   g. Issuing paper statements.

   h. Paying an amount owed through cash, credit or debit.

2. No financial institution shall conduct the following practices.

     a. "Reordering Transactions." This is defined as processing of transactions from a consumer's account in an order that may be different from the order in which the transactions were made.

     b. "Dual Tracking." This is defined as the process in which a mortgage lender may request documents and begin processing a loan modification while simultaneously engaging in the foreclosure process.

3. All financial institutions engaging in credit card services must allocate a minimum five day grace period prior to issuing a late fee for balance payments.

4. In the case of an overdraft or overdrawn account, no fee shall be charged to the consumer until the amount exceeds $50 US. Once the $50 US cap is breached, a fee may be charged to the consumer ten business days following a mailed or electronic notice.

5. Owed funds to a financial institution cannot be collected through the garnishing of Social Security payments.

6. Financial institutions cannot sell or foreclose on real estate without signed authorization from the homeowner.

7. All financial institutions must have a customer service phone line printed clearly on its website home page.

8. Utilities may not charge a fee for the processing of credit or debit cards.

Section III

1. The penalty for failure to abide by the any of the above guidelines shall be no less than:

  a. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income under $10 Billion: 20% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

  b. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income over $10 Billion: 40% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

Section IV

1. This act takes effect on October 1st, 2019 contingent upon signing by the president.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Citizen Sponsored by Tack50
Senate Sponsor:
Senate Designation: SB 18:05

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We are going to need a Senate sponsor to handle amendment feedback and such, any takers?

[ON Progressive]

I will sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I will sponsor.

You can go ahead and take the next step and motion for 24 hours for objections to such motions, even when I am not missing lol. We have discussed this many times.

That goes for any outstanding motion you come across that I haven't come to yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Jeeze, Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Without objection, Ontario Progressive is now sponsor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I was spinning around a dead dial
just another lost number in file
Bouncing down a hark hole
Just Searching for a World Soul
This is a radio nowhere,
Is there anybody alive out there?

[Pyro]

I am gladdened to see that this bill has been taken up in the Atlasian Senate.
As the author of the text, feel free to direct any questioning toward myself.

From its introduction as regional legislation in the Lincoln Council, here are my opening words:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This legislation, in essence, is a collection of fair-minded regulations intended to neuter the ability of unaccountable corporate financial entities to rip-off consumers and defraud their customers. These are companies that unjustly collect funds from everyday, working Atlasians through underhanded and sinister practices, as highlighted most clearly through "Dual Tracking", when a bank pretends to follow through with a loan while, at the same time, pushing foreclosure.

It is past time we take the reigns away from these fraudsters and give Lincolnites a small sense of peace of mind. Accessing your own funds should never result in a fee. Closing an account or wishing to receive paper statement should never result in a fee. Our people deserve these common sense liberties when it comes to how they are treated by the banking industry.

Mind you, this is the first stepping stone on the road to a just society, and although the measures taken in this bill shall relieve only a minor burden from the backs of working people, they are absolutely essential. For those present in this Council whom are not beholden to the pleas of billion dollar financial institutions and instead wish to return power to the hands of consumers, I urge your support.

[Pyro]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

[Pyro]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

That disproportionately large penalty would likely violate the no excessive fines clause of the Bill of rights. I mean, if I charge a $5 ATM fee once in violation of the law is the proposal really a fine of millions upon millions of dollars? That's very Constitutionally suspect.

[Pyro]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

That disproportionately large penalty would likely violate the no excessive fines clause of the Bill of rights. I mean, if I charge a $5 ATM fee once in violation of the law is the proposal really a fine of millions upon millions of dollars? That's very Constitutionally suspect.

These financial institutions do not charge a $5 fee once. That isn't how it works. These various fees are charged and recurred routinely to account holders, with lower-income consumers particularly susceptible. Once these fees add up, they go beyond the billion mark. The penalties are fair with this aspect in mind.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

That disproportionately large penalty would likely violate the no excessive fines clause of the Bill of rights. I mean, if I charge a $5 ATM fee once in violation of the law is the proposal really a fine of millions upon millions of dollars? That's very Constitutionally suspect.

These financial institutions do not charge a $5 fee once. That isn't how it works. These various fees are charged and recurred routinely to account holders, with lower-income consumers particularly susceptible. Once these fees add up, they go beyond the billion mark. The penalties are fair with this aspect in mind.

I mean in that case even if the fine was just $100 per violation plus disgorgement of the fees the cost in legal defense alone would be enough to stop the practice. Multi million dollar fines per violation is clearly excessive. If they do it 5 x are you really saying 100% of gross profits of the entire bank be stolen? If they do it 6 x what then?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am very much concerned about expanding asset forfeiture. If anything we should be getting rid of that across the board. The situation with the guy that lost his hummer ($42,000) over a few hundred in drugs, comes to mind. It was the Timbs Case or something like that.

[Pyro]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

That disproportionately large penalty would likely violate the no excessive fines clause of the Bill of rights. I mean, if I charge a $5 ATM fee once in violation of the law is the proposal really a fine of millions upon millions of dollars? That's very Constitutionally suspect.

These financial institutions do not charge a $5 fee once. That isn't how it works. These various fees are charged and recurred routinely to account holders, with lower-income consumers particularly susceptible. Once these fees add up, they go beyond the billion mark. The penalties are fair with this aspect in mind.

I mean in that case even if the fine was just $100 per violation plus disgorgement of the fees the cost in legal defense alone would be enough to stop the practice. Multi million dollar fines per violation is clearly excessive. If they do it 5 x are you really saying 100% of gross profits of the entire bank be stolen? If they do it 6 x what then?

No, that is not how Sec. III would function. The penalty is not compounded for further violations.
Once more, this is meant to be an intimidating deterrent.
I have my doubts that anything less would be effective for corporate entities of this size.

I am very much concerned about expanding asset forfeiture. If anything we should be getting rid of that across the board. The situation with the guy that lost his hummer ($42,000) over a few hundred in drugs, comes to mind. It was the Timbs Case or something like that.

The penalty does not deal with individuals, it deals with corporations.
Asset forfeiture is a suitable punishment for blatant disregard of consumer protection law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I am certainly not against restricting some of the fee charging that occurs, but I am concerned that there maybe a reduction in financial services offered in some cases if all such are eliminated in one swoop. Is there any risk of that being the case with this bill?

I do not think that would be the case, no. Financial institutions have cultivated expansive profit margins long before pushing microtransaction-like fees onto the consumer. Many of the fees listed in the bill have only come about in the past decade, to my knowledge, and exist for no legitimate cause.

Furthermore, I believe that the multi-national corporate entities most affected by the Transactions Fairness Act are extremely unlikely to allow their slice of the Atlasian economy to shrink as a result of it. The lion's share of profit in this industry is not built through ATM fees or Dual Tracking, after all.

Under the penalties section it says, "seizure of assets"? What assets? All of them, some of them? What guidelines dictate the seizure of assets as a penalty. What is the point of taking a percentage of gross income and then all of that assets if that is the case?

It's my understanding that asset forfeiture as a penalty would be handed down through a federal court, with the amount to be forfeited determined by the court itself. This penalty, as well as the 20/40% of Gross Income, is meant to deter financial entities from ignoring the guidelines set in this bill. If the consequence was merely, for example, a minor fine, I would wager that the liable parties would continue business as usual.

That disproportionately large penalty would likely violate the no excessive fines clause of the Bill of rights. I mean, if I charge a $5 ATM fee once in violation of the law is the proposal really a fine of millions upon millions of dollars? That's very Constitutionally suspect.

These financial institutions do not charge a $5 fee once. That isn't how it works. These various fees are charged and recurred routinely to account holders, with lower-income consumers particularly susceptible. Once these fees add up, they go beyond the billion mark. The penalties are fair with this aspect in mind.

I mean in that case even if the fine was just $100 per violation plus disgorgement of the fees the cost in legal defense alone would be enough to stop the practice. Multi million dollar fines per violation is clearly excessive. If they do it 5 x are you really saying 100% of gross profits of the entire bank be stolen? If they do it 6 x what then?

No, that is not how Sec. III would function. The penalty is not compounded for further violations.
Once more, this is meant to be an intimidating deterrent.
I have my doubts that anything less would be effective for corporate entities of this size.

I am very much concerned about expanding asset forfeiture. If anything we should be getting rid of that across the board. The situation with the guy that lost his hummer ($42,000) over a few hundred in drugs, comes to mind. It was the Timbs Case or something like that.

The penalty does not deal with individuals, it deals with corporations.
Asset forfeiture is a suitable punishment for blatant disregard of consumer protection law.

I am fine with financial penalties in this case because it holds people responsible for their actions, but I am not fine with the gov't seizing ownership of assets, which without any limiting principles or criteria here I think this is far too vague a setup and irresponsible way to achieve the result.

I have long preferred that financial institutions pay their own way for their mistakes, for instance I have long supported having a kind of super fund paid for by investment banks as insurance against systemic risk, but if it has to be used the executives lose their compensation and have to pay back their compensation regardless of form. That way you can guard against systemic risk, and avoid moral hazard while still having a structured winding down of a "too big to fail bank".

However, no where in that formula is there a seizure of assets. For one thing when you seize assets from a financial institution, it could easily set off a panic where people sell off, divest and withdraw their money for fear the institution will be destabilized. And in case you are wondering this is the exact scenario in which you end up with thousands of middle class people, unionized workers and others losing their pensions. This scenario happens enough as it is, I don't think we should create a scenario where it is induced to just go one step further with the penalties, when there are other ways that wouldn't pose as great a risk in this regards.

Obviously a company slapped with fines is going to take hit to their stock values, that is unavoidable, the purpose of the penalties should be a deterrent. When you seize assets, you double down on the penalizing of the company, which as you say doesn't deal with individuals. In fact that is part of the problem, for we live in an environment where people are monetizing assets and shirking off the liabilities onto others, this applies here as well. The people who make the bad decisions are the ones who cause these violations in the first place, meanwhile they can scapegoat the company as a whole, shield themselves on an individual level and thus use the company as a red herring to distract while they bail out with a golden parachute leaving everyone else behind to get hosed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Transactions Fairness Act

to protect consumers from common banking and credit abuse

Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section I

1. A financial institution, also known as a banking institution, is defined as a corporation, company or other business entity that provides services as an intermediary of financial markets.

2. A consumer is defined as a person or organization that uses an economic service.

Section II

1. No financial institution shall charge a fee for the following services.

   a. Usage of an Automated Teller Machine, or ATM.

   b. Opening an account.

   c. Closing an account.

   d. Not interacting with the account.

   e. Replacing a lost or stolen credit or debit card.

   f. Stop payment on a check.

   g. Issuing paper statements.

   h. Paying an amount owed through cash, credit or debit.

2. No financial institution shall conduct the following practices.

     a. "Reordering Transactions." This is defined as processing of transactions from a consumer's account in an order that may be different from the order in which the transactions were made.

     b. "Dual Tracking." This is defined as the process in which a mortgage lender may request documents and begin processing a loan modification while simultaneously engaging in the foreclosure process.

3. All financial institutions engaging in credit card services must allocate a minimum five day grace period prior to issuing a late fee for balance payments.

4. In the case of an overdraft or overdrawn account, no fee shall be charged to the consumer until the amount exceeds $50 US. Once the $50 US cap is breached, a fee may be charged to the consumer ten business days following a mailed or electronic notice.

5. Owed funds to a financial institution cannot be collected through the garnishing of Social Security payments.

6. Financial institutions cannot sell or foreclose on real estate without signed authorization from the homeowner.

7. All financial institutions must have a customer service phone line printed clearly on its website home page.

8. Utilities may not charge a fee for the processing of credit or debit cards.

Section III

1. The penalty for failure to abide by the any of the above guidelines shall be no less than:

  a. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income under $10 Billion: 20% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

  b. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income over $10 Billion: 40% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

Section IV

1. This act takes effect on October 1st, 2019 contingent upon signing by the president.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Transactions Fairness Act

to protect consumers from common banking and credit abuse

Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section I

1. A financial institution, also known as a banking institution, is defined as a corporation, company or other business entity that provides services as an intermediary of financial markets.

2. A consumer is defined as a person or organization that uses an economic service.

Section II

1. No financial institution shall charge a fee for the following services.

   a. Usage of an Automated Teller Machine, or ATM.

   b. Opening an account.

   c. Closing an account.

   d. Not interacting with the account.

   e. Replacing a lost or stolen credit or debit card.

   f. Stop payment on a check.

   g. Issuing paper statements.

   h. Paying an amount owed through cash, credit or debit.

2. No financial institution shall conduct the following practices.

     a. "Reordering Transactions." This is defined as processing of transactions from a consumer's account in an order that may be different from the order in which the transactions were made.

     b. "Dual Tracking." This is defined as the process in which a mortgage lender may request documents and begin processing a loan modification while simultaneously engaging in the foreclosure process.

3. All financial institutions engaging in credit card services must allocate a minimum five day grace period prior to issuing a late fee for balance payments.

4. In the case of an overdraft or overdrawn account, no fee shall be charged to the consumer until the amount exceeds $50 US. Once the $50 US cap is breached, a fee may be charged to the consumer ten business days following a mailed or electronic notice.

5. Owed funds to a financial institution cannot be collected through the garnishing of Social Security payments.

6. Financial institutions cannot sell or foreclose on real estate without signed authorization from the homeowner.

7. All financial institutions must have a customer service phone line printed clearly on its website home page.

8. Utilities may not charge a fee for the processing of credit or debit cards.

Section III

1. The penalty for failure to abide by the any of the above guidelines shall be no less than:

  a. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income under $10 Billion: 20% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

  b. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income over $10 Billion: 40% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

Section IV

1. This act takes effect on October 1st, 2019 contingent upon signing by the president.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor Feedback: None Given
Status: Needs Feedback.

[Pyro]

Of anything, you've made the point that the language should be changed to reprimand/seize assets of  the executives of these banking institutions directly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Sponsor?

Of anything, you've made the point that the language should be changed to reprimand/seize assets of  the executives of these banking institutions directly.

Again, seizing assets is problematic for a variety of reasons I stated above. I made a case for penalizing them directly or otherwise holding them responsible for their actions while CEO, there is a difference.

[ON Progressive]

The amendment is friendly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Transactions Fairness Act

to protect consumers from common banking and credit abuse

Be it enacted in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Section I

1. A financial institution, also known as a banking institution, is defined as a corporation, company or other business entity that provides services as an intermediary of financial markets.

2. A consumer is defined as a person or organization that uses an economic service.

Section II

1. No financial institution shall charge a fee for the following services.

   a. Usage of an Automated Teller Machine, or ATM.

   b. Opening an account.

   c. Closing an account.

   d. Not interacting with the account.

   e. Replacing a lost or stolen credit or debit card.

   f. Stop payment on a check.

   g. Issuing paper statements.

   h. Paying an amount owed through cash, credit or debit.

2. No financial institution shall conduct the following practices.

     a. "Reordering Transactions." This is defined as processing of transactions from a consumer's account in an order that may be different from the order in which the transactions were made.

     b. "Dual Tracking." This is defined as the process in which a mortgage lender may request documents and begin processing a loan modification while simultaneously engaging in the foreclosure process.

3. All financial institutions engaging in credit card services must allocate a minimum five day grace period prior to issuing a late fee for balance payments.

4. In the case of an overdraft or overdrawn account, no fee shall be charged to the consumer until the amount exceeds $50 US. Once the $50 US cap is breached, a fee may be charged to the consumer ten business days following a mailed or electronic notice.

5. Owed funds to a financial institution cannot be collected through the garnishing of Social Security payments.

6. Financial institutions cannot sell or foreclose on real estate without signed authorization from the homeowner.

7. All financial institutions must have a customer service phone line printed clearly on its website home page.

8. Utilities may not charge a fee for the processing of credit or debit cards.

Section III

1. The penalty for failure to abide by the any of the above guidelines shall be no less than:

  a. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income under $10 Billion: 20% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

  b. If a Corporation, Limited Liability Company or Partnership with Gross Income over $10 Billion: 40% of the Business Gross Income and Seizure of Assets.

Section IV

1. This act takes effect on October 1st, 2019 contingent upon signing by the president.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment has been adopted.