MoneyGram sued by US, New York over remittance transfers

By: Elina S.

MoneyGram International was sued Thursday by two regulators for repeatedly violating a federal rule designed to make it easier for people to send money to friends and family outside the United States.

The complaint against MoneyGram, one of the largest US providers of remittance transfers, was filed in Manhattan federal court by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Remittance transfers let people in the United States send money electronically to people in other countries, and exceed $100 billion annually.

MoneyGram was accused of having repeatedly “stranded” recipients waiting for their money, given senders inaccurate information about when transfers would be completed, and failed to address customer complaints in accordance with the 2013 rule.

The regulators said problems persist despite a series of software and technology updates in response to CFPB examinations, and that some transactions are still getting “stuck” in MoneyGram’s systems.

“MoneyGram spent years failing its customers and failing to follow the law, ignoring customer complaints and government warnings in the process,” CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said in a statement. “MoneyGram’s long pattern of misconduct must be halted.”

In a statement, Dallas-based MoneyGram said it plans to defend against the “frivolous” lawsuit, and that its compliance program was effective and consumers suffered no harm.

“The CFPB and its director entered into discussions with closed minds and unfortunately chose to make increasingly unjustifiable and unprecedented demands,” the company said. “Ultimately, MoneyGram refused to be strong-armed into an unfair settlement.”

MoneyGram agreed in February to be acquired by private equity firm Madison Dearborn Partners in a $1.8 billion transaction.

In afternoon trading, MoneyGram shares were down 55 cents, or 5.1%, at $10.10, after earlier falling to $9.76.

Thursday’s lawsuit, which is the CFPB’s fifth remittance-related charge since 2019, seeks unspecified refunds, restitution and civil damages, among other remedies.

“When incidents of non-compliance are not mere mistakes, we understand that penalties and redress alone may not be adequate,” Chopra said to reporters on Thursday.

“We will be looking to seek a broader set of remedies to halt repeated law breaking and disregard for the rule of law,” he added.

“While most of the companies under our jurisdiction make good faith efforts to comply with federal consumer protection laws, I am committed to stamping out misconduct by firms that break the law over and over again.