|
Joint Statement of Secretary Geithner and Indian Finance Minister Chidambaram at the 2012 U.S.-India Economic and Financial Partnership
U.S. Department of the Treasury / www.treasury.gov
10/09/12
DELHI, INDIA - We, Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, met today in New Delhi for the third annual meeting of the India-U.S. Economic and Financial Partnership. We recognize the progress made in the last two meetings of the Partnership in advancing the financial and economic relationship between our two nations since its launch in 2010 in New Delhi. The Partnership meetings have served as the forum for the highest level of engagement between India and the United States. Governor Subbarao and Chairman Bernanke and other senior officials participated in our meeting. We are committed to continue to build on our past discussions and explore new areas to deepen and broaden our economic and financial engagements.
The rapidly expanding financial and economic relationship between our two countries is at the core of our multi-faceted relationship and is based on shared values and an increasing convergence of interests. Both countries recognize the great potential benefit from working together to meet the challenges of a shared future to generate jobs, sustain growth, and help ensure macroeconomic stability. The growing trade and investment between our two countries across a wide range of products, services, and technology is a sign of our commitment to build our relationship on a solid foundation that utilizes our mutual strengths.
In our meeting, we discussed recent economic and financial developments in our two economies and in the world at large. We have improved our understanding of the challenges that both of our economies face, and our approach towards meeting these challenges in the near- and medium-term. We agreed to deepen our cooperation bilaterally and in multilateral fora, including the G-20 to contribute towards steering the global economy out of uncertainties and achieve strong, sustainable, and balanced growth going forward.
We discussed ways we can further lower barriers to trade and investment to facilitate stronger growth and job creation. We realize that continued investment in our infrastructure, in our people, and in our institutions is critical to driving innovation, and increasing job creation and growth in our economies. We are committed to make these investments to enhance competitiveness of our economies and to prepare our people and industry to compete in today’s globalized world that is ever changing in the way products and services are delivered. For example, India’s Twelfth Five Year Plan aims at an investment of US$ one trillion in the infrastructure sector. Infrastructure Debt Funds and other recent capital market reforms offer huge investment opportuni ties for U.S. businesses and investors.
In our dialogue, we agreed to expand cooperation to deepen capital markets and strengthen financial regulation. We will also strengthen cooperation to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. Our work continues on infrastructure financing.
We are encouraged by the recent success of our engagement over the last two years under the aegis of this Partnership. We will continue to strengthen our economic and financial ties in order to realize the full potential of the U.S.-India partnership to achieve maximum benefits for the American and Indian people.
CSI: Container Security Initiative
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
CSI is a program intended to help increase security for maritime containerized cargo shipped to the United States from around the world. CSI addresses the threat to border security and global trade posed by the potential for terrorist use of a maritime container to deliver a weapon.
If you have information concerning possible terrorist use of shipping containers to smuggle weapons or other items, you may be entitled to a reward for the information provided. Please email us with your information at containersecurity@dhs.gov.
Read More
C-TPAT: Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/cargo_security/ctpat/
Interest Rates
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www. cbp.gov
Interest rates for additional duty payments are updated quarterly per published IRS interest rate.
When a reconciliation results in additional monies owed Customs, the payment must be made with interest. Instructions for calculating interest were given via ABI Administrative message #99-0777 on September 14, 1999. These instructions are also available at Customs Reconciliation.
Refund interest is calculated by customs. Interest on additional payments is calculated by the reconciliation filer, using the rates below for the time periods indicated.
FROM TO RATE
10/01/2008 12/31/2008 6 percent
07/01/2008 09/30/2008 5 percent
04/01/2008 06/30/2008 6 percent
01/01/2008 03/31/2008 7 percent
10/01/2007 12/31/2007 8 percent
07/01/2007 09/30/2007 8 percent
04/01/2007 03/31/2007 8 percent
01/01/2007 03/31/2007 8 percent
10/01/2006 12/31/2006 8 percent
07/01/2006 09/30/2006 8 percent
04/01/2006 06/30/2006 7 percent
01/01/2006 03/31/2006 7 percent
10/01/2005 12/31/2005 7 percent
07/01/2005 09/30/2005 6 percent
04/01/2005 06/30/2005 6 percent
01/01/2005 03/30/2005 5 percent
10/01/2004 12/31/2004 5 percent
These rates are also published quarterly in the Federal Register.
Commerce Finds Dumping of Steel Wire Garment Hangers from Taiwan
U.S. International Trade Administration / www.trade.gov
FACT SH EET
Boston-Bound Man Arrested at LAX for Transporting Hazardous Materials
Suspect’s luggage contained smoke grenade, knives, gas masks, body bags and bio hazard suits
U.S. Customs & Border Protection / www.cbp.gov
Los Angeles– A body-armor-clad Boston man who arrived at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on a flight from Japan Friday is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court Tuesday afternoon on a charge of transporting hazardous materials after a search of his checked luggage turned up a smoke grenade, along with a hatchet, knives, other weapons, a gas mask, biohazard suits and body bags.
Yongda Huang Harris, 28, a naturalized U.S. citizen of Chinese descent, was referred for secondary inspection Friday afternoon by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at LAX after CBP officers observed he was wearing a bulletproof vest and flame retardant pants underneath his trench coat.< /span>
CBP officers alerted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) special agents, who responded and opened a formal investigation after CBP’s subsequent search of Harris’ checked luggage resulted in the discovery of numerous suspicious items. According to the HSI case affidavit, those items included a pyrotechnic smoke grenade, three leather -coated billy clubs, a collapsible baton, a full-face respirator, various knives, a hatchet, body bags, a biohazard suit, handcuffs, leg irons and a device to repel dogs.
The case affidavit states that when a member of the Los Angeles Police Department’s bomb squad conducted an x-ray examination of the smoke grenade, it showed the device fell under the United Nations’ explosives shipping classification, meaning it is prohibited on board passenger aircraft. Depending on the conditions when it is ignited, the smoke grenade, made by Commando Manufacturers, could potentially fill the cabin of a commercial airplane with smoke or cause a fire.
HSI’s probe into Friday’s incident is ongoing and investigators are coordinating closely with HSI’s attaché office in Tokyo. Officials say Harris, who makes his permanent home in Boston, has been living and working recently in Japan.
Harris is charged in a criminal complaint with one count of transporting hazardous materials. The charge carries a maximum penalty of up to five years in prison. The case is being prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.
In addition to the Los Angeles Police Department, HSI received assistance with the case from the FBI.
Qantas Fined for Failing to Disclose Baggage Fees
U.S. Department of Transportation / www.dot.gov
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) today assessed a civil penalty of $100,000 against Qantas, an Australian air carrier, for violating the Department’s new rule requiring carriers and ticket agents to inform consumers that they may have to pay baggage fees, and directed Qantas to cease and desist from further violations.
“Airline passengers deserve to have complete and accurate information about how much their flight will cost, including baggage fees, when they first search for flights,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. “DOT will continue to take enforcement action against carriers and ticket agents when they fail to comply with our aviation consumer rules.”
Under DOT’s new rule, carriers must clearly and prominently disclose on the first screen that offers a fare for a consumer’s specific itinerary that additional fees for baggage may apply, as well as show consumers where they can view the baggage fees. The rule applies to all airlines selling air transportation in the United States, including foreign carriers.
For a period of time after Jan. 24, 2012, the date the new requirement took effect, a search of flights on Qantas’ website found that the airline failed to disclose on the first webpage in which it offered fare quotations for specific itineraries that additional fees for baggage may apply and where consumers could see those fees.
FTC Cracks Down on Phony Mortgage Relief Schemes
Victimizing Thousands of Consumers, Marketers Allegedly Falsely Claimed They Could Help, But Instead Drove Distressed Homeowners Deeper into Debt
Federal Trade Commission / http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2012/10/phonymortgage.shtm
The Federal Trade Commission has filed three separate suits in federal court to halt the allegedly deceptive tactics of three operations that preyed on distressed homeowners by falsely claiming they could save their homes from foreclosure, and then charging them thousands of dollars up-front, while delivering little or no help and often driving them deeper into debt.
“With many homeowners still struggling to hold onto their homes, the FTC takes a hard line against con artists who are seeking their next victim,” said Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission.
Leibowitz appeared with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Associate Deputy Director Kevin Perkins, and HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, and announced the FTC cases as part of the Distressed Homeowner Initiative, a federal effort to stop predatory foreclosure rescue, mortgage modification, short sales, and bankruptcy schemes that target distressed homeowners.
Since 2008, the FTC has brought more than 40 cases against companies peddling fraudulent mortgage relief schemes, that caused hundreds of millions of dollars in consumer injury. These law enforcement actions have helped tens of thousands of consumers who were victims of these scams, and have prevented tens of thousands more from becoming victims.
In November 2010, the FTC issued the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule, which provided new protections and banned mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they deem acceptable.
In all three cases announced today, the FTC took action against defendants who allegedly peddled bogus mortgage relief services, in violation of the FTC Act and the MARS Rule. The agency also charged that two of the operations violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule.
Prime Legal Plans/Reaching U Network. The FTC alleged that from at least mid-2010, the defendants behind this scheme marketed mortgage relief services in English and Spanish, including under the names “Reaching U Network,” and “American Legal Plans.” They allegedly told consumers who were in debt that attorneys would review their mortgage loan documents to see if their lenders complied with state and federal mortgage laws, and would use the resulting “forensic audit” information to help save their homes and negotiate more favorable mortgage terms. The defendants told consumers that “80 percent of mortgages contain some fraud,” and “Our network attorneys have helped hundreds of Americans stay in their homes,” according to the FTC complaint.
But instead of helping consumers, the defendants charged them up to $750 a month, while little or nothing was done to save their homes from foreclosure, and running an operation that a court found was “permeated with illegal practices” , according to the FTC.
The FTC alleged that on company websites, the defendants would falsely claim to be a “private charity working for struggling consumers that can’t afford legal representation.” When responding to consumers who called the toll-free number on the websites, and when cold-calling consumers, including those listed on the Do Not Call registry, the defendants routinely failed to provide the disclosures required by the MARS Rule, collected up-front fees, and misrepresented the results that consumers could expect, according to the complaint. The FTC charged that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the FTC Act, and the MARS Rule by: calling consumers whose numbers were listed on the Do Not Call Registry; not paying the required annual fee to access the Registry; misrepresenting that they would get mor tgage modifications to make consumers’ payments significantly more affordable and help prevent foreclosure, and that they would use so-called forensic audits to do this; misrepresenting the amount of time it would take to get results; failing to provide required disclosures about mortgage modification relief; and collecting advance fees.
A federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order and ordered a freeze of the defendants’ assets and the appointment of a receiver. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for October 11, 2012.
American Mortgage Consulting Group. The FTC alleged that since early 2011, the defendants claimed a phony affiliation with the U.S. government, pretended to be attorneys, and promised to substantially lower monthly mortgage payments in exchange for an up-front fee ranging from $1,495 to $4,495. Along with two companies he controls – American Mortgage Consulting Group, LLC and Home Guardian Management Solutions, LLC – defendant Mark Nagy Atalla allegedly violated “nearly every provision of the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services Rule.”
The defendants telemarketed mortgage relief services to consumers nationwide, often stating that they were paid by the federal government to assist homeowners and obtain so-called “Home Saver” grants from the government to reduce consumers’ up-front fees, according to the FTC’s complaint. They also allegedly proclaimed themselves to be “a California Professional Legal Team,” sent documents to consumers from their so-called “Legal Department,” and referred to their operation in e-mails as a “law office.”
The defendants claimed they were virtually certain they could obtain loan modifications for their clients, and that the clients would receive a full refund if that did not happen, even though they did little or nothing to help consumers and they failed to provide refunds, according to the FTC.
Also, in violation of the MARS Rule, the defendants allegedly told consumers to stop communicating with their lenders, and failed to disclose that:
- consumers would only have to pay the defendants if they accepted the terms of the mortgage assistance the defendants obtained from their lenders;
- the defendants are not associated with the government and their services are not approved by the government or the consumer’s lender; and
- even if a consumer used the defendants’ services, the lender may not agree to change the terms of the consumer’s loan.
By their actions, the defendants diverted consumers in danger of losing their homes from pursuing authentic, government-affiliated programs, and duped them into paying thousands of dollars based on false promises and misrepresentations, according to the complaint.
A federal judge granted the FTC’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, froze the defendants’ assets, and appointed a receiver.
Expense Management America. Presenting themselves as the solution to all the consumer’s financial problems, the defendants have cold-called thousands of U.S. consumers from their call center in Montreal since at least mid-2010, including those whose numbers were registered on the Do Not Call Registry, according to the FTC complaint.
Whether the consumer was struggling with a mortgage, credit card debt, student loans, car payments, or a poor credit score, the defendants charged an up-front fee of $2,200 to $10,000 that they claimed was being used to pay off debts, according to the complaint. The defendants allegedly claimed that their relationships with lenders and their ability to negotiate on behalf of large groups of consumers made it possible to substantially reduce their payments. But according to the FTC, the defendants failed to produce any of the promised results.
The defendants – Expense Management America, six affiliated companies, and five individuals, who operated in Canada and the United States – also used a series of websites that lured consumers to call them, according to the complaint. After pitching consumers by phone, the defendants allegedly would send brochures and financial documents to consumers via e-mail, and obtain their authorization to withdraw funds from their checking accounts. One brochure, the Expense Management Guide, explicitly told consumers they must follow the “Golden Rule,” which was to cease communicating with their creditors and let the defendants do the talking:
“Sometimes [creditors will] go to extremes in an attempt to force you into an agreement by saying things such as ‘We’ve never heard of E.M.A.’ Or ‘We don't deal with them.’ ... Sometimes [creditors] even break the law. Don't be fooled by them. Let E.M.A. do the talking!” The FTC charged that the defendants violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, the FTC Act, and the MARS Rule by: falsely claiming they could secure more affordable payments and reduce the principal on consumers’ loans; making deceptive claims about the price and material aspects of debt relief and other goods and services; charging advance fees for debt relief; calling consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the Do Not Call Registry; telling consumers not to communicate with their lenders; and failing to make the discl osures required by the MARS Rule.
For consumer information about avoiding mortgage and foreclosure rescue scams, see Your Home at the FTC website Money Matters.
The Prime Legal Plans/Reaching U Network complaint names as defendants: Prime Legal Plans, LLC; Consumer Legal Plans LLC (Nevada); Consumer Legal Plans, LLC (Wyoming); Frontier Legal Plans LLC, 123 Save A Home, Inc.; American Hardship LLC; Back Office Support Systems LLC; Consumer Acquisition Network, LLC; Legal Servicing and Billing Partners LLC; Lazaro Dinh; Kim Landolfi; Derek Radzikowski; Andrew Primavera; Christopher Edwards; and Jason Desmond. The complaint also names The 2007 San Lazaro Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust and its trustee, Maria Soltura, as relief defendants.
The Expense Management America complaint names as defendants: E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., also doing business as EMA and Expense Management America; New Life Financial Solutions, Inc., also d/b/a New Life Financial, and New Life Financial Services; 1UC Inc., also d/b/a 1st United Consultants, and First United Consultants; 7242701 Canada Inc.; 7242697 Canada Inc.; 7246293 Canada Inc., 7246421 Canada Inc.; James Benhaim, a/k/a Jimmy Benhaim; Daniel Michaels, a/k/a Dan Michaels, a/k/a Dan Michles; Phillip Hee Min Kwon, a/k/a Phillip H. Kwon; Joseph Shamolian; and Nissim N. Ohayon.
The FTC would like to thank the California Bar Association for its valuable assistance in bringing the action announced today against American Mortgage Consulting Group.
The FTC would like to acknowledge the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Centre of Operations Linked to Telemarketing Fraud (Project COLT) for their valuable assistance in bringing the action announced today against Expense Management America. Launched in 1998, Project COLT combats telemarketing-related crime, and includes members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Sureté du Québec, Service de Police de la Ville de Montréal, Canada Border Services Agency, Competition Bureau of Canada, Canada Post, U.S. Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Secret Service), the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since its inception, Project COLT has recovered $22 million for victims of telemarketing fraud.< /p>
The Commission votes authorizing the staff to file the complaints and seek temporary restraining orders against defendants in the Prime Legal Plans/Reaching U Network, Expense Management America, and Home Guardian Solutions cases were all 5-0. The FTC filed the Prime Legal Plans/Reaching U Network complaint and request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and the court entered the documents on September 24, 2012. The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for October 11, 2012. The agency filed the American Mortgage Consulting complaint and request for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, and they were entered by the court on September 18, 2012. The agency fil ed the American Mortgage Consulting complaint and request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, on September 18, 2012. The TRO was entered by the court the same day, and the preliminary injunction was entered on October 1. The FTC filed Expense Management America complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 25, 2012.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The cases will be decided by the court.
|