| Date: | 01/03/2022 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | Division of Banks |
WHEREAS,ChadBaker(“Respondent”)isengagedintheactivityofamortgage loan originator and assigned an NMLS identifier number of 329451.
WHEREAS, the States, Commonwealths, and/or Territories of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California-DFPI, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho,Illinois,Indiana-DFI,Iowa,Kentucky,Maine,Maryland,Massachusetts,Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina-BFI, South Dakota, Texas-SML, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming (individually, a “Participating State,” and collectively, the “Participating States”) have each agreed, through its respective state mortgage regulatory agency, to negotiate and enter into this Settlement Agreement and Consent Order (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement” or “Order”).
WHEREAS, the state mortgage regulators of the Participating States (hereinafter referred to individually as a “State Mortgage Regulator,” and collectively as the “State Mortgage Regulators”) are respective members of the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (“CSBS”)and theAmerican AssociationofResidential MortgageRegulators (“AARMR”) and have agreed to address enforcement concerns with Respondent in a collective and coordinated manner, pursuant to their respective statutory authorities, and in accordance with the protocols established by the CSBS/AARMR Nationwide Cooperative Protocol for Mortgage Supervision as well as the Nationwide Cooperative Agreement for Mortgage Supervision (collectively, the “CSBS/AARMR Protocol and Agreement”).The State Mortgage Regulators and Respondent are collectively referredto herein as the (“Parties”).
WHEREAS, Respondent is licensed as a mortgage loan originator under the respective laws of each Participating State, or, where applicable, has obtained an endorsement from a Participating State to engage in loan origination activity as part of Respondent’s pre-existing authority to engage in regulated activity under a different licensing regime (“MLO Activity Endorsement”).
WHEREAS, the State Regulatory Registry LLC (“SRR”), a wholly owned subsidiary of CSBS, owns and operates the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System & Registry (“NMLS”).SRR administers pre-licensure (“PE”) and continuing education (“CE”)andUniformStateTestprotocols.TitleVofPublicLaw110-289,theSecureand Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008 (the “SAFE Act”), requires that state-licensed mortgage loan originators (“MLOs”) complete PE prior to initial licensure andannualCEthereafter.InordertomeetPErequirementscontemplatedundertheSAFE Act,state-licensedMLOsmustcomplete20hoursofNMLS–approvededucation.Inorder to meet CE requirements contemplated under the SAFE Act, state-licensed MLOs must complete eight hours of NMLS approved education.
WHEREAS, the Mortgage Testing and Education Board (“MTEB”), which was created by SRR, has approved “Administrative Action Procedures for S.A.F.E. Testing and Education Requirements” and NMLS-Approved course providers (“AAP”), which extends administrative authority to the MTEB to investigate alleged violations of the NMLS Rules of Conduct (“ROC”).The AAP also extends administrative authority tothe MTEB/SRR to investigate alleged violations of the NMLS Standards of Conduct (“SOC”), which apply to all NMLS-Approved course providers.
WHEREAS, in late 2020, MTEB obtained information concerning suspicious activity and that information identified a possible MLO education cheating scheme coordinated by and implemented through Danny Yen, d/b/a Real Estate Educational Services,anNMLS-ApprovedcourseproviderthatisassignedanNMLS-Approvedcourse provideridentifiernumberof1405046(“REES”).Basedonthatinformation,andpursuant totheAAP,theInvestigativeReviewCommittee(“IRC”)approvedopeningandpursuing an investigation into this matter.
WHEREAS,SRR’sIRCissuedamemorandumreportonitsinvestigationintothe REEScoordinatedMLOeducationfraudscheme.TheIRCfoundthatREESfraudulently providedcoursecredittoMLOswhohadneverattendedandcompletedREES’seight-hour in-personCEcourseinWestminster,California(the“In-personEducationScheme”).The IRC also found that REES helped MLOs cheat on online PE and/or CE courses by taking those courses on behalf of those MLOs (the “Online Education Scheme”).In each of the schemesorchestratedbyREES,theMLOsacceptedcreditforSAFE-Act-required education courses that they had either not taken or completed on their own behalf in violation of the ROC, and state and federal law (collectively, the “MLO Education Schemes”).
WHEREAS,basedontheinitialfindingsoftheIRC,pursuanttothe CSBS/AARMRProtocolandAgreementthismatterwasreferredfromtheIRCforfurther investigation and possible enforcement action, and to which the CSBS Non-DepositorySupervisory Committee authorized the creation of a regulator taskforce to coordinate the multi-stateinvestigationandenforcementactivityinthismatter(“REESRegulatory Taskforce”).Specifically, the REES Regulatory Taskforce adopted the work of the IRC investigation and engaged in additional investigatory work that included a demand from Respondentforastatementinwritingunderoathastoallthefactsandcircumstances concerningtheMLOEducationSchemescoordinatedbyandimplementedthroughREES. WHEREAS,asaresultoftheREESRegulatoryTaskforceinvestigationasit pertainstoRespondent,thefollowingrelevantfactsanddeterminationsweremade, including,butnotlimitedto:
1)That Respondent admitted being a knowing and active participant in the MLO Education Schemes coordinated by and implemented through REES;
2)That Respondent in fact had PE and/or CE requirements completed by REES onRespondent’sbehalfinviolationoffederaland statelaw.Specifically,that Respondenthad49PEand/orCEcompletedbyREESonRespondent’sbehalf under the In-person Education Scheme and 21 PE and/or CE completed by REES on Respondent’s behalf under the Online Education Scheme;
3)That by participating in the MLO Education Scheme coordinated by and implemented through REES, Respondent had in fact violated the ROC; and
4)That by participating in the MLO Education Scheme coordinated by and implemented through REES, Respondent violated state and federal laws concerning competing certain PE and/or CE requirements as a mandatory qualification for licensure.
WHEREAS, Respondent enters into this Agreement solely for the purpose of resolving disputes with the State Mortgage Regulators, including concerning the conduct describedinthisAgreement,anddoesnotadmittoordenyanywrongdoing,allegations orimplications of fact and does not admit to or deny any violations of applicable laws, regulations and/or rules governing the conduct described herein.Respondent acknowledges that the State Mortgage Regulators have and maintain jurisdiction over the underlyingdispute,includingallmattersreferredtointheserecitals,andthereforehavethe authority to fully resolve the matter.
WHEREAS, Respondent represents to the State Mortgage Regulators that Respondent will comply with Respondent’s obligations under this Agreement, and that Respondentwillhereaftercontinuetocomplywithallregulatoryrequirementsimposedby each State Mortgage Regulator.
WHEREAS, Respondent acknowledges that the State Mortgage Regulators are relying,inpart,uponRespondent’srepresentationsandwarrantiesstatedhereininmaking theirdeterminationsinthismatter.RespondentfurtheracknowledgesthatthisAgreement may be revoked and the State Mortgage Regulators may pursue any and all remedies availableunderthelawagainstRespondentiftheStateMortgageRegulatorslaterfindthat Respondent knowingly or willfully withheld information from the State Mortgage Regulators.
WHEREAS, the State Mortgage Regulators have legal authority to initiate administrativeactionsbasedontheconductidentifiedbytheREESRegulatoryTaskforce investigation as described in herein.
WHEREAS, the intention of the State Mortgage Regulators in effecting this settlementistofullyresolvetheviolationsand misconductdescribedhereinpertaining to Respondent’s participation in the MLO Education Scheme coordinated by and implemented through REES. The State Mortgage Regulators reserve all of their rights, duties, and authority to enforce all statutes, rules, and regulations under their respective jurisdictions against Respondent regarding any mortgage loan origination activities outside the scope of this Agreement. Additionally, a State Mortgage Regulator may considerthisAgreementandthefactssetforthhereininconnectionwith,andindeciding, any action, or proceeding under the jurisdiction of that State Mortgage Regulator, if the basis of such action, or proceeding is not a direct result of the specific activity identified herein;andthatthisAgreementmay,ifrelevanttosuchactionorproceeding,beadmitted into evidence in any matter before a State Mortgage Regulator.
WHEREAS, Respondent hereby knowingly, willingly, voluntarily, and irrevocably consents to the entry of this Order, which is being entered pursuant to the authorityvestedineachStateMortgageRegulatorandagreesthatRespondentunderstands all of the terms and conditions contained herein.Respondent acknowledges that RespondenthasfullknowledgeofRespondent’srightstonoticeandahearingpursuantto thelawsoftherespectiveParticipatingStates.ByvoluntarilyenteringintothisAgreement, Respondentwaivesanyrighttonoticeandahearing,andreviewofsuchhearing,andalso herein waives all rights to any other judicial appeal concerning the terms, conditions, and related obligations set forth in this Agreement.Respondent further acknowledges that Respondenthashadanopportunitytoconsultwithindependentlegalcounselinconnection with Respondent’s waiver of rights and with the negotiation and execution of this Agreement, and that Respondent has either consulted with independent legal counsel or has knowingly elected not to do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, this Agreement having been negotiated by the Parties in ordertoresolvetheissuesidentifiedherein,withoutincurringthecosts,inconvenienceand delaysassociatedwithprotractedadministrativeandjudicialproceedings,itisbytheState Mortgage Regulators listed below hereby ORDERED: