Latest news with #CreditContractsandConsumerFinanceAct
Scoop
12-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ComCom Prosecutes Unregistered Lender Who Targeted Vulnerable Consumers
Press Release – Commerce Commission The Commission has prioritised enforcement action against lenders who have not met their obligations under the CCCFA. The Commission is particularly focussed on lenders who provide credit to vulnerable consumers in New Zealand. The Commerce Commission has filed criminal charges in the Auckland District Court against an unregistered and uncertified lender, Ilaisaane Malupo, trading as Nane Easy Loan Finance Services NZ (Nane Loans). The Commission alleges Ms Malupo provided personal loans illegally to members of the Tongan community in South Auckland from March 2024. Associate Commissioner Joseph Liava'a says when lenders are identified operating outside of the law, the Commission will act swiftly to shutdown these operations to ensure that consumers are protected when borrowing money or buying goods on credit. Under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), all lenders must be registered and certified in order to provide consumer credit. 'Often these kinds of lenders are a last resort for people who are struggling to borrow from reputable lenders. Many people who borrowed from Ms Malupo were already under financial pressure and on low incomes, so irresponsible lending could have had a big impact on borrowers and their families,' Mr Liava'a says. 'Some of the borrowers indicated they needed to borrow money to buy food or pay off other loans,' Mr Liava'a says. Alongside the lack of certification, the Commission alleges Ms Malupo's terms included high interest rates of up to 15 per cent charged on a weekly basis, which would double if borrowers failed to repay the loans within 28 days; and late payment fees of up to $10 per day. 'In order to keep up with payments some borrowers resorted to selling their sentimental possessions or missing rent payments,' Mr Liava'a says. Ms Malupo operated her business on social media and in some cases threatened that borrowers who failed to repay their debt would be 'named and shamed' on Facebook or other Tongan media sites until repayment was made. 'Public shaming is never ok and could put borrowers in a vulnerable position to avoid being called out for their friends and family to see,' Mr Liava'a says. The Commission has prioritised enforcement action against lenders who have not met their obligations under the CCCFA. The Commission is particularly focussed on lenders who provide credit to vulnerable consumers in New Zealand. Background The Commission launched an investigation into Ilaisaane Malupo after receiving enquiries, including from a financial mentor about Ms Malupo's lending practices which were causing harm to borrowers. Whilst the Commission is continuing its investigation into further breaches of the CCCFA which are likely to have occurred, the Commission's immediate priority was to stop Ms Malupo from entering new loans or enforcing any existing loans. Ms Malupo has been charged (4 June 2025) with: Criminal charges under section 11 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 for providing a financial service without being registered, the penalty of which is 12 months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $100,000; and Criminal charges under section 103(2) of the Commerce Act 1986 for attempting to deceive or knowingly mislead the Commission on any matter before it, the penalty of which is a fine not exceeding $100,000. All lenders must be certified under Part 5A of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 by the Commerce Commission. To gain certification, lenders must satisfy the Commission that those operating the business are financially sound, honest, reputable, reliable and competent to do the job.
Scoop
12-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ComCom Prosecutes Unregistered Lender Who Targeted Vulnerable Consumers
Press Release – Commerce Commission The Commission has prioritised enforcement action against lenders who have not met their obligations under the CCCFA. The Commission is particularly focussed on lenders who provide credit to vulnerable consumers in New Zealand. The Commerce Commission has filed criminal charges in the Auckland District Court against an unregistered and uncertified lender, Ilaisaane Malupo, trading as Nane Easy Loan Finance Services NZ (Nane Loans). The Commission alleges Ms Malupo provided personal loans illegally to members of the Tongan community in South Auckland from March 2024. Associate Commissioner Joseph Liava'a says when lenders are identified operating outside of the law, the Commission will act swiftly to shutdown these operations to ensure that consumers are protected when borrowing money or buying goods on credit. Under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), all lenders must be registered and certified in order to provide consumer credit. 'Often these kinds of lenders are a last resort for people who are struggling to borrow from reputable lenders. Many people who borrowed from Ms Malupo were already under financial pressure and on low incomes, so irresponsible lending could have had a big impact on borrowers and their families,' Mr Liava'a says. 'Some of the borrowers indicated they needed to borrow money to buy food or pay off other loans,' Mr Liava'a says. Alongside the lack of certification, the Commission alleges Ms Malupo's terms included high interest rates of up to 15 per cent charged on a weekly basis, which would double if borrowers failed to repay the loans within 28 days; and late payment fees of up to $10 per day. 'In order to keep up with payments some borrowers resorted to selling their sentimental possessions or missing rent payments,' Mr Liava'a says. Ms Malupo operated her business on social media and in some cases threatened that borrowers who failed to repay their debt would be 'named and shamed' on Facebook or other Tongan media sites until repayment was made. 'Public shaming is never ok and could put borrowers in a vulnerable position to avoid being called out for their friends and family to see,' Mr Liava'a says. The Commission has prioritised enforcement action against lenders who have not met their obligations under the CCCFA. The Commission is particularly focussed on lenders who provide credit to vulnerable consumers in New Zealand. Background The Commission launched an investigation into Ilaisaane Malupo after receiving enquiries, including from a financial mentor about Ms Malupo's lending practices which were causing harm to borrowers. Whilst the Commission is continuing its investigation into further breaches of the CCCFA which are likely to have occurred, the Commission's immediate priority was to stop Ms Malupo from entering new loans or enforcing any existing loans. Ms Malupo has been charged (4 June 2025) with: Criminal charges under section 11 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 for providing a financial service without being registered, the penalty of which is 12 months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $100,000; and Criminal charges under section 103(2) of the Commerce Act 1986 for attempting to deceive or knowingly mislead the Commission on any matter before it, the penalty of which is a fine not exceeding $100,000. All lenders must be certified under Part 5A of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 by the Commerce Commission. To gain certification, lenders must satisfy the Commission that those operating the business are financially sound, honest, reputable, reliable and competent to do the job.
Scoop
12-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ComCom Prosecutes Unregistered Lender Who Targeted Vulnerable Consumers
The Commerce Commission has filed criminal charges in the Auckland District Court against an unregistered and uncertified lender, Ilaisaane Malupo, trading as Nane Easy Loan Finance Services NZ (Nane Loans). The Commission alleges Ms Malupo provided personal loans illegally to members of the Tongan community in South Auckland from March 2024. Associate Commissioner Joseph Liava'a says when lenders are identified operating outside of the law, the Commission will act swiftly to shutdown these operations to ensure that consumers are protected when borrowing money or buying goods on credit. Under the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA), all lenders must be registered and certified in order to provide consumer credit. 'Often these kinds of lenders are a last resort for people who are struggling to borrow from reputable lenders. Many people who borrowed from Ms Malupo were already under financial pressure and on low incomes, so irresponsible lending could have had a big impact on borrowers and their families,' Mr Liava'a says. 'Some of the borrowers indicated they needed to borrow money to buy food or pay off other loans,' Mr Liava'a says. Alongside the lack of certification, the Commission alleges Ms Malupo's terms included high interest rates of up to 15 per cent charged on a weekly basis, which would double if borrowers failed to repay the loans within 28 days; and late payment fees of up to $10 per day. 'In order to keep up with payments some borrowers resorted to selling their sentimental possessions or missing rent payments,' Mr Liava'a says. Ms Malupo operated her business on social media and in some cases threatened that borrowers who failed to repay their debt would be 'named and shamed' on Facebook or other Tongan media sites until repayment was made. 'Public shaming is never ok and could put borrowers in a vulnerable position to avoid being called out for their friends and family to see,' Mr Liava'a says. The Commission has prioritised enforcement action against lenders who have not met their obligations under the CCCFA. The Commission is particularly focussed on lenders who provide credit to vulnerable consumers in New Zealand. Background The Commission launched an investigation into Ilaisaane Malupo after receiving enquiries, including from a financial mentor about Ms Malupo's lending practices which were causing harm to borrowers. Whilst the Commission is continuing its investigation into further breaches of the CCCFA which are likely to have occurred, the Commission's immediate priority was to stop Ms Malupo from entering new loans or enforcing any existing loans. Ms Malupo has been charged (4 June 2025) with: Criminal charges under section 11 of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act 2008 for providing a financial service without being registered, the penalty of which is 12 months' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding $100,000; and Criminal charges under section 103(2) of the Commerce Act 1986 for attempting to deceive or knowingly mislead the Commission on any matter before it, the penalty of which is a fine not exceeding $100,000. All lenders must be certified under Part 5A of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 by the Commerce Commission. To gain certification, lenders must satisfy the Commission that those operating the business are financially sound, honest, reputable, reliable and competent to do the job. An up-to-date database of certified lenders can be found here: The Commission has released a 'quick guide to borrowing money' to assist borrowers on what to expect from a lender here:
NZ Herald
10-06-2025
- Business
- NZ Herald
Law & Society: Retroactive laws, real-time consequences
David Harvey: "Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations." Photo / Getty Images The courts and judges have come in for criticism of late. Roger Partridge of the New Zealand Initiative was critical late last year of recent decisions of the Supreme Court in a lengthy paper entitled 'Who makes the law?' – the obvious answer being Parliament. New Zealand First MP Shane Jones, likewise was personally critical of a High Court judge last year and 'had words' with the Attorney-General Judith Collins about his comments. Last month at a Law Association lunch, Jones criticised what he called the 'Americanisation' of the judiciary and of judicial activism, arguing it is Parliament that is sovereign. But what happens when Parliament itself travels outside its lane? What remedies are there for legislative overreach when Parliament is sovereign? An amendment to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act has been introduced. The act prescribes a number of circumstances where financiers have a duty of disclosure to customers. If disclosure rules are breached, the lender forfeits interest rates and fees on the transaction. Two banks, ANZ and ASB, failed to make proper disclosure and are subject to claims on behalf of 173,000 customers – a sizable cohort. Court proceedings are well under way. The amendment is retrospective in that it is designed to minimise the liability of the banks for actions that were unlawful at the time. So Parliament retrospectively cures their unlawful acts and the 173,000 potential claimants lose out. Parliament can do anything it likes, according to Jones. The only problem is there are rules about retrospective legislation. Section 12 of the Legislation Act 2019 states very simply: 'Legislation does not have retrospective effect.' The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also makes it clear there should be no retroactive penalties, though that rule is more applicable to criminal cases. The issue of whether laws have provided retroactive penalties have troubled judges, academics and law students in examinations for some years. One of the core principles of the rule of law is that individuals must be able to know in advance what conduct is legal or illegal. Retrospective laws can punish people for actions that were legal when committed, which violates this predictability. In the case of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance's Act, the retrospective law deprives 173,000 people of a remedy they would have had. Similarly, the retrospective changes to the pay equity process have halted 33 pay equity claims affecting many thousands of workers. Citizens lose confidence in the fairness and integrity of the legal system when laws can be changed after the fact to alter rights and obligations. This can foster fear and uncertainty. Some argue retrospective laws violate fundamental human rights and democratic principles, as they remove the ability of individuals to make informed choices based on existing laws. Although retrospective laws are generally discouraged, there are rare cases where they are justified – such as when correcting legal loopholes or addressing past injustices. However, they remain controversial and should be used with extreme caution. Is there a remedy for this overreach? No, other than by way of the ballot box. We have no overriding constitution. We have no court that can say Parliament is in breach of the rules and challenging a fundamental premise of the rule of law and that changes such as those to the credit act and pay equity regime are 'unconstitutional'. But perhaps the problem is deeper. Perhaps we rely on Parliament too much to solve our problems. When a problem comes up it seems the government is the first port of call. Perhaps if there was less reliance on Parliament 'fixing' things, the risk of retrospective laws would be much smaller.
1News
29-05-2025
- Business
- 1News
National accused of putting needs of banks before everyday Kiwis
The National Party is being accused of putting the needs of banks before everyday Kiwis after introducing legislation that could mean two big Australian-owned lenders avoid paying millions of dollars in refunds. One customer said the amendment to lending laws would allow the banks to get off "scot-free" while the minister in charge said it simply allowed the courts to have more discretion in settling disputes. The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act (CCCFA) passed its first reading in Parliament last week and included a retrospective amendment relating to consequences for historical disclosure breaches by lenders. An investigation by the Commerce Commission had found two banks did not disclose the necessary information regarding customer loans. It meant the banks were potentially liable to refund millions of dollars in fees and interest. 'We should just be able to trust our bank' ADVERTISEMENT Lawyer Scott Russell, acting on behalf of those taking the class action, said the omission regarded "core business" for the banks. 'It's simple stuff. It's disclosure rules that allow ordinary New Zealanders to understand their financial position,' Russell said. Anthony Simons, a small business owner, was among the 170,000 customers who' took legal action against ANZ and ASB banks. 'We're just a hardworking Kiwi family trying to pay off our mortgage, struggling sometimes, and we should just be able to trust our bank that they're going to do the right thing in disclosing the right information,' Simons said. But, after four years battling through the courts, the Government last week passed the first reading of the legislation which changed the rules — retrospectively. Banks entitled to 'judicial fairness' – Minister The Minister for Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Scott Simpson, said the bill before Parliament did not affect the class action. ADVERTISEMENT 'What it does is it gives the courts the ability to use their discretion about what will be a fair and equitable outcome to the case,' he said. 'Banks, no matter what you may or may not think of them, are surely entitled to the same judicial fairness as any other entity or person.' A Cabinet paper by the minister released last month highlighted the class action against the banks, adding that "addressing these concerns through retrospective legislation is likely to attract criticism". 'Well, there will be criticism because it is retrospective and retrospective legislation is unusual but not completely unknown in our political system,' Simpson said. Russell claimed it was unfair. 'We've taken it right through to the Supreme Court and, right where we're getting to crunch time, the banks have contacted their mates in the National Party who have agreed to potentially wipe these refunds. It's hundreds of millions of dollars,' he said. Possible changes 'don't take any rights away from consumers' – banks ADVERTISEMENT ANZ and ASB Bank said the proposed amendments to the bill would not halt the current class action – or future cases. In a statement to 1News, ANZ said the proposed amendments "will not stop the current class action progressing, nor will it prevent potential future cases". "They will simply confirm that when considering these cases, the court has discretion to decide what a fair outcome should be. This change does not remove the rights and protections of consumers.' ASB Bank, meanwhile, told 1News that the potential changes "don't take any rights away from consumers, and will not prevent the current court case, or any future cases, from proceeding". "They simply clarify a confusing piece of legislation and confirm that the court has jurisdiction to decide on an outcome that is fair and reasonable.' Simpson added that, currently, for cases that occurred between 2015 and 2019, the courts could only hand down one penalty. 'And that is a full refund of all interest and all fees, no matter how small or minor the error or omission was,' he said. ADVERTISEMENT But Russell said penalties "are clear under the legislation". "All of a sudden, those penalties are being wiped out and replaced with something that's not clear which is what is a reasonable penalty.' While all three coalition parties supported the bill at its first reading, NZ First had concerns about the retrospective aspect and wanted to hear more official advice and public feedback before deciding if it would back the bill entirely. The issue would now be considered by a Parliamentary select committee.
