by Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Book Substack
SOUTH BRONX/SDNY, Jan 26 – Amid the FDIC's bid to eliminate public notice of and public comment on branch applications, the OCC is entertaining an application by a Enova, the parent of high cost lender CashNetUSA, to acquire Grasshopper Bank, already deeply engaged in AI banking.
On January 26 Fair Finance Watch filed:
"opposition to the applications of Enova, parent of the high-cost payday lender CashNetUSA, to become a national by seeking to acquire Grasshopper Bank. To allow a payday lender already fined by the CFPB to become a bank would be a new low. "Enova used bank account information it had purchased from online lead generators, overwriting the bank account information that borrowers had authorized Enova to use... Enova cancelled loan extensions it had granted to certain consumers and in most instances debited such consumers’ bank accounts for the full loan payment instead of only a smaller loan extension fee" etc
Now they want (to become) a national bank? Public hearings are necessary. Combine this with Grasshopper's use of artificial intelligence in banking - a topic not yet scrutinize enough by the regulators, see for example Fifth Third and Brex, with Brex now being acquired by Capital One - and the need for public hearings on this CashNetUSA/Enova - Grasshopper (AI) proposal is all the more clear.
Meanwhile money laundering settler Bunq is applying to the OCC for a bank, along with a higher profile application by WLTC also protested by FFW.
While Inner City Press simultaneously challenged Bunq and WLTC, by 7 pm on January 14 the OCC had only acknowledged FFW's comment on Bunq - nothing on WLTC - even now on January 26, while the comment period is running, set to expire on February 9 after a January 6 filing.
This as the OCC says its reviews are apolitical.
Or perhaps it is just incompetence: on January 26, the OCC sent a FOIA response: "Good morning Mr. Lee, Your request 2026-00059-F is a duplicate of your previous request 2026-00045-F, which we have already received and are processing. As a result, we will administratively close the duplicate request and continue processing the original request."
But the requests are entirely different: they are about entirely different digital bank applications. And still the comment periods run...
See, e.g., Sept 10, 2025: https://www.americanbanker.com/opinion/the-fdic-is-undercutting-a-key-element-of-the-cra
But now the Federal regulator(s) blithely propose(s) to eliminate public notice and public comment on banks' proposals to expand. The above-quoted reasoning is that few comments are filed. So, that is now changing.
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.
Feedback: Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
