type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b'NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report\n to the Congress\n October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nA Message from the Inspector General ....................................................................................... i\n\nThe NCUA and Office of Inspector General Missions ...............................................................1\n\nIntroduction ....................................................................................................................................2\n\nNCUA Highlights ...........................................................................................................................5\n\nFederally Insured Credit Union Highlights.................................................................................8\n\nLegislative Highlights ....................................................................................................................9\n\nOffice of inspector General .........................................................................................................11\n\nAudit Activity ...............................................................................................................................12\n\nInvestigative Activity ...................................................................................................................22\n\nLegislative and Regulatory Reviews...........................................................................................26\n\nTable I: Issued Reports with Questioned Costs .......................................................................28\n\nTable II: Issued Reports with Recommendations that Funds Be Put to Better Use.............29\n\nTable III: Summary of OIG Activity October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 ..................30\n\nIndex of reporting requirements ................................................................................................31\n\nAppendix A: System review report (Peer Review of NCUA OIG) ..........................................32\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nA MESSAGE FROM THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nOn behalf of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the National Credit Union Administration\n(NCUA), I am pleased to present our Semiannual Report to the NCUA Board and the Congress\nhighlighting our accomplishments and ongoing work for the six-month period ending March 31,\n2014. Our work reflects the legislative mandate of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as\namended, to promote the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of NCUA programs and\noperations, and protect against fraud, waste, and abuse. The audits and investigations\nhighlighted in this report demonstrate our commitment to that cause as well as our goal of\nenhancing public confidence in the regulatory process.\n\nOn the audit side, we continued to work on Material Loss Reviews (MLRs) and issued three\nMLR reports: Chetco Federal Credit Union; G.I.C. Federal Credit Union; and Taupa Lithuanian\nCredit Union. We discuss each report in more detail in the body of this report. We anticipate\nthat in 2015, we will see a reduction in MLRs and reduce this particular workload to our lowest\nlevel since the start of the financial crisis in late 2007. We also focused on mission critical areas\nsuch as the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (NCUSIF) and conducted a review of\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s process for documenting NCUSIF losses and credit union failures. We made\nsubstantive recommendations that will help the agency formalize procedures to better track loss\nestimates and failure data.\n\nDuring this reporting period we also issued a comprehensive report on the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s information\nsecurity program in accordance with the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002\n(FISMA). FISMA provides a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of\ninformation security controls over information resources that support federal operations and\nassets. Consistent with FISMA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements, we performed an annual independent evaluation\nof the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s information security program and practices. In the FISMA report, we\nhighlighted steps that the agency could take to improve the security of its information resources.\n\nOn the investigative side, the Office of Investigations (OI) saw increased activity. OI opened\nfour cases during the reporting period, the majority stemming from complaints alleging non-\ncriminal employee/manager misconduct. The OI also conducted an investigative review and\nprepared a Management Implication Report (MIR) for another OIG based on a complaint\nalleging inappropriate personnel practices. The OI closed three cases during the reporting\nperiod: one case that was opened in the previous reporting period and two that were opened in\nthe present reporting period. In total, the OI issued two Reports of Investigation (ROI) and one\nMIR.\n\nFinally, I would like to thank Chairman Matz and Board Members Fryzel and Metsger for their\nsustained support of the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s work. More than ever, the OIG is dedicated to accomplishing its\nmission of conducting independent audits, investigations, and reviews to help the NCUA accomplish\nits mission; improve its effectiveness; and prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse. As in the past,\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | i\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nthe NCUA Board and management have been responsive in attempting to implement all OIG\nrecommendations. I appreciate management\xe2\x80\x99s support and I look forwarding to working with them\nin our ongoing efforts to promote economy and efficiency in agency programs.\n\n\n\n\n James W. Hagen\n Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | ii\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nTHE NCUA MISSION\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s charge is to provide, through regulation and supervision, a safe and sound credit union\nsystem which promotes confidence in the national system of cooperative credit.\n\n\n\n\nTHE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL MISSION\n\nThe OIG promotes the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of NCUA programs and\noperations, and detects and deters fraud, waste, and abuse, thereby supporting the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\nmission of monitoring and promoting safe and sound federally insured credit unions.\nWe accomplish our mission by conducting independent audits, investigations, and other\nactivities, and by keeping the NCUA Board and the Congress fully and currently informed of our\nwork.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 1\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nThe NCUA was established as an independent, federal regulatory agency on March 10, 1970.\nThe agency is responsible for chartering, examining, supervising, and insuring federal credit\nunions. It also insures state-chartered credit unions that have applied for insurance and have met\nNational Credit Union Share Insurance requirements. The NCUA is funded by the credit unions\nit supervises and insures. As of December 31, 2013, the NCUA was supervising and insuring\n4,105 federal credit unions and insuring 2,449 state-chartered credit unions, a total of 6,554\ninstitutions. This represents a decline of 167 federal and 98 state-chartered institutions since\nDecember 31, 2012, for a total decline of 265 credit unions nationwide, primarily as a result of\nmergers and liquidations.\n\n\n\n Federally Insured Credit Unions\n\n\n 8000\n\n 7000\n\n 6000 2840 2750\n 2647\n 2547\n 2449\n 5000\n\n 4000 FISCUs\n FCUs\n 3000\n 4714 4589 4447\n 2000 4272 4105\n\n\n 1000\n\n 0\n 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013\n\n\n\n\nThe NCUA operates under the direction of a Board composed of three members. Board\nmembers are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They serve six-year\nterms. Terms are staggered, so that one term expires every two years. The Board is responsible\nfor the management of the NCUA, including the NCUA Operating Fund, the Share Insurance\nFund, the Central Liquidity Facility, the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund, and\nthe Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 2\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nThe NCUA executes its program through its central office in Alexandria, Virginia and regional\noffices in Albany, New York; Alexandria, Virginia; Atlanta, Georgia; Austin, Texas; and Tempe,\nArizona. The NCUA also operates the Asset Management and Assistance Center (AMAC) in\nAustin, Texas. Please refer to the NCUA organizational chart below.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 3\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nThe NCUA Board adopted its 2014 budget of $268,290,296 on November 21, 2013. The Full-\nTime Equivalent (FTE) staffing authorization for 2014 is 1,262.50 representing an increase of\none FTE from 2013.\n\n\n NCUA Budget Dollars\n 300\n\n 250\n\n 200\n Millions\n\n\n\n\n 150\n\n 100\n\n 50\n\n 0\n 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014\n\n\n\n\n NCUA Authorized Staff\n 1300\n\n 1250\n Employees (FTE)\n\n\n\n\n 1200\n\n 1150\n\n 1100\n\n 1050\n\n 1000\n 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 4\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nNCUA HIGHLIGHTS\n\nNCUA to Receive More Than $1.4 Billion in JPMorgan Chase Settlement\n\nOn November 19, 2013, NCUA announced that, along with the U.S. Department of Justice and\nother governmental plaintiffs, it was part of a $13.0 billion settlement with JPMorgan Chase and\naffiliated companies. The settlement resolves four suits NCUA filed against JPMorgan Chase,\nBear Stearns and Washington Mutual for corporate credit union losses resulting from the sale of\nfaulty residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Under the settlement, NCUA will\nreceive $1.417 billion. As part of the agreement, JPMorgan Chase acknowledged it made\nserious misrepresentations to the public about numerous RMBS transactions.\n\nWith this settlement, NCUA has recovered more than $1.75 billion in settlements, including\nmore than $335 million in claims settled with Citigroup, Deutsche Bank Securities, HSBC and\nBank of America. NCUA uses the net settlement proceeds to reduce Temporary Corporate\nCredit Union Stabilization Fund (Stabilization Fund) assessments it charges to federally insured\ncredit unions to pay for the losses caused by the failure of five corporate credit unions.\n\nOn February 12, 2014, NCUA announced that as a result of strong asset management and\nsignificant recoveries from the various settlements, there will likely be no need for future\nassessments.\n\nNCUA Financial Statements Earn Clean Audit Opinions for 2013\n\nOn February 18, 2014, the NCUA released its 2013 audited financial report for the agency\xe2\x80\x99s four\npermanent funds: the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (Share Insurance Fund); the\nCentral Liquidity Facility; the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund; and the\nOperating Fund. All four funds received unmodified or \xe2\x80\x9cclean\xe2\x80\x9d audit opinions, including the\nShare Insurance Fund which protects deposits up to $250,000 for nearly 96 million consumers at\n6,550 federally insured credit unions. KPMG LLP was the independent auditor for all four\nfunds.\n\nKPMG LLP also issued an unmodified opinion on the Stabilization Fund 2013 financial\nstatements on March 17, 2014. This marks the fifth consecutive clean audit opinion for the\nStabilization Fund. Since releasing the 2010 Stabilization Fund audit, NCUA has continued to\nstrengthen the systems needed to handle the Stabilization Fund\xe2\x80\x99s many complex transactions,\nincluding those related to the NCUA Guaranteed Notes.\n\nThe Stabilization Fund was established in May 2009 to accrue the losses of the corporate credit\nunions crisis and to recover such losses over time. It allows the NCUA Board to mitigate a\nonetime assessment burden on insured credit unions for corporate credit union stabilization\nactions by spreading the costs over multiple years. At its discretion, the Board determines if and\nwhen to assess premiums over the life of the Stabilization Fund. From its inception through\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 5\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n2013, NCUA collected $4.8 billion in special premium assessments from federally insured credit\nunions.\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Statement Audit reports for 2013 are available here on the NCUA OIG\nwebsite.\n\nNCUA National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund Continues Positive Trends\n\nThe Share Insurance Fund ended 2013 in a stronger position due to continued improvement in\nthe performance of federally insured credit unions and a decline in insurance and guarantee\nprogram liabilities. The Share Insurance Fund had a 1.30 percent equity ratio, calculated on an\ninsured share base of $866.3 billion at the end of 2013. This represented a 3.2 percent growth\nover the 2012 insured base of $839.4 billion. The net position of the Share Insurance Fund\nremained steady at $11.3 billion at the end of 2013.\n\nNCUA Board Chairman Matz stated: \xe2\x80\x9cProtecting the Share Insurance Fund is NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s top\npriority, and the 2013 year-end results reflect the agency\xe2\x80\x99s prudent management and effective\napproach to regulation.\xe2\x80\x9d NCUA Board Chairman Matz also stated: \xe2\x80\x9cThe metrics continue\ntrending in the right direction. The number of federal credit unions with CAMEL codes 3, 4 and\n5 continued to decline, as did the exposure level of potential losses.\xe2\x80\x9d Specifically, NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\nChief Financial Officer reported:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The total number of CAMEL code 3, 4 and 5 credit unions dropped 7.9 percent from\n 1,940 at the end of 2012 to 1,787 at the end of 2013.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Assets of CAMEL code 3 credit unions decreased from $119.3 billion as of December\n 31, 2012 to $108.6 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, a 9.0 percent decline.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Assets of CAMEL code 4 and 5 credit unions fell to $13.8 billion at the end of 2013, a\n 27.4 percent decrease from $19 billion at the end of 2012.\n\nOverall, the amount of assets in CAMEL code 3, 4 and 5 credit unions decreased 40.5 percent\nfrom its high in September 2010. These continuing positive trends and other factors contributed\nto a $191.8 million (46.5 percent) net decrease in the Share Insurance Fund\xe2\x80\x99s reserve for\ninsurance losses during 2013.\n\nAlso during 2013, there were 17 credit union liquidations and assisted mergers, compared to 22\nin 2012, and total losses associated with failures decreased 68 percent from $210.5 million in\n2012 to $66.8 million in 2013.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 6\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nUpper End of Projected Loss Range for Failed Corporates Continues Decline\n\nTotal projected assessments associated with the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization\nFund declined $2.2 billion at the upper end between July and December 2013. The sharp drop\nwas due largely to the JPMorgan Chase settlement in November 2013.\n\nThe current projected range for total future remaining assessments is now between negative $2\nbillion and negative $600 million. At the end of the second quarter of 2013, the total range was\nnegative $200 million to $1.6 billion. The overall rate of change in the assessment range is\nconsistent with recent trends, and the continued improvement in the performance of the legacy\nassets underlying the NCUA Guaranteed Note program.\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Board announced at its November 2013 meeting there would be no planned\nStabilization Fund assessment in 2014. As long as both ends of the projected range of net\nremaining assessments remain negative, there will likely be no need for future assessments.\n\nPresident Obama Nominates J. Mark McWatters to NCUA Board\n\nPresident Obama announced the nomination of Texas tax attorney and former Troubled Asset\nRelief Program (TARP) panel member J. Mark McWatters to the NCUA Board in December\n2013.\n\nMcWatters served as counsel for Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) in 2009. He was a member of\nthe TARP panel in Washington from December 2009 to April 2011. McWatters currently is\nassistant dean for graduate programs at Southern Methodist University\'s School of Law in\nDallas.\n\nAt his confirmation hearing in March 2014 McWatters previewed his overall approach to\nregulation in his opening statement, saying his focus as a regulator "will remain straightforward:\nDon\'t neglect the fundamentals of capital, liquidity, and transparency, and always remember that\nthe greatest threat to a financial system may reside where you least expect it--hidden within plain\nview." McWatters stated that he pledged to "work diligently to ensure the continued integrity\nand safety and soundness of our nation\'s credit union system in an ever-evolving marketplace...I\nwill aim to balance competing viewpoints while maintaining the safety and soundness of the\ncredit union system, safeguarding the Share Insurance Fund, enforcing consumer protection\nrules, and protecting taxpayers and credit union members from losses."\n\nIf confirmed, McWatters would fill Republican Michael Fryzel\xe2\x80\x99s spot on the three-person board.\nFryzel has been serving since July 2008 and his term has expired.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 7\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nFEDERALLY INSURED CREDIT UNION HIGHLIGHTS\n\nCredit unions submit quarterly call reports (financial and operational data) to the NCUA. An\nNCUA staff assessment of the December 31, 2013, quarterly call reports submitted by all\nfederally insured credit unions found that key financial indicators are positive.\n\nKey Financial Indicators Favorable\n\nLooking at the December 31, 2013 quarterly statistics for major balance sheet items and key\nratios shows the following for the nation\xe2\x80\x99s 6,554 federally insured credit unions: assets grew 3.93\npercent; net worth to assets ratio increased from 10.43 to 10.78 percent; the loan to share ratio\nincreased from 68.06 percent to 70.90 percent. The delinquency ratio decreased from 1.16 to\n1.01 percent however, credit union return on average assets decreased from .85 to .78 percent.\n\nSavings Shifting to Regular Shares\n\nTotal share accounts increased 3.67 percent. Regular shares increased 8.06 percent. Regular\nshares comprise 32.67 percent of total share accounts; share certificates comprise 21.05 percent;\nmoney market shares comprise 23.36 percent; share draft accounts comprise 13.07 percent; and\nall other share accounts comprise 9.86 percent.\n\nLoan Volume Increasing\n\nLoans increased 7.98 percent resulting in an increase in total loans by $47.7 billion. Total net\nloans of $645 billion comprise 60.76 percent of credit union assets. First mortgage real estate\nloans are the largest single asset category with $268 billion accounting for 41.50 percent of all\nloans. Other real estate loans of $71 billion account for 11.01 percent of all loans. Used car\nloans of $127 billion were 19.73 percent of all loans, while new car loans amounted to $71\nbillion or 11.07 percent of total loans. Credit card loans totaled $43 billion or 6.60 percent of\ntotal loans and other loans totaled $65 billion for 10.08 percent of total loans.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 8\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nLEGISLATIVE HIGHLIGHTS\n\nNCUA Joins Federal Financial Regulators to Propose Standards for Assessing Diversity\n\nIn a joint release issued on October 23, 2013, NCUA joined five other federal financial\nregulators in proposing standards for assessing the diversity policies and practices of the\ninstitutions they regulate, as required by Section 342 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and\nConsumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). The proposed standards are intended to promote\ntransparency and awareness of diversity policies and practices within the institutions. The\nproposed assessment standards would address four key areas:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Organizational commitment to diversity and inclusion;\n \xef\x82\xb7 Workforce profile and employment practices;\n \xef\x82\xb7 Procurement and business practices and supplier diversity; and\n \xef\x82\xb7 Practices to promote transparency of organizational diversity and inclusion.\n\nNCUA Chairman Debbie Matz noted that the diversity assessments would not be part of\ntraditional examinations or supervisory activities. Rather, credit unions meeting the Equal\nEmployment Opportunity Commission filing criteria threshold with at least 100 employees\nwould report their self-assessments to NCUA. NCUA would then report the aggregate results to\nCongress annually. Currently, about 600 federally insured credit unions have more than 100\nemployees. All credit unions are encouraged to adopt the self-assessment standards voluntarily.\n\nThe Dodd-Frank Act required NCUA and other regulators to each create an Office of Minority\nand Women Inclusion (OMWI), which is responsible for developing standards for assessing\ndiversity policies and practices of regulated entities. The proposed standards are aimed at\ncreating uniformity across the regulating agencies.\n\nFederal Regulators Provide Guidance on Qualified Mortgage Fair Lending Risks\n\nOn October 22, 2013, five federal financial regulators, including NCUA, issued a statement to\naddress industry questions about fair lending risks associated with offering Qualified Mortgages\n(QMs). The statement was in response to creditors\xe2\x80\x99 requests for clarity regarding whether the\ndisparate treatment doctrine of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) and its implementing\nregulation, Regulation B, allows them to originate only QMs. For the reasons set forth in the\njoint statement, the five agencies do not anticipate that a creditor\xe2\x80\x99s decision to offer only QMs\nwould, absent other factors, elevate a supervised institution\xe2\x80\x99s fair lending risk.\n\nThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau\xe2\x80\x99s Ability-to-Repay Rule implements provisions of\nthe Dodd-Frank Act that require creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination that a\nconsumer has the ability to repay a mortgage loan before extending credit to the consumer.\nLenders are presumed to have complied with the Ability-to-Repay Rule if they issue QMs, which\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 9\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nmust satisfy requirements that prohibit or limit risky features that harmed consumers in the\nrecent crisis.\n\nThe ECOA makes it illegal for a creditor to discriminate in any aspect of a credit-based\ntransaction based on characteristics including race, religion, marital status, color, national origin,\nsex, and age.\n\nIn January 2014, NCUA issued a Supervisory Letter to all field staff providing information about\nthe new Ability-to-Pay and Qualified Mortgage Rule (ATR/QM) issued by CFPB. The Letter\nadvised that, in addition to the requirement that lenders consider a consumer\xe2\x80\x99s ability to repay a\nhome loan before extending credit to them, the rule established standards for QMs that meet the\nability-to-repay requirements. Further, the rule provides a safe harbor for lenders that originate\nQMs. The rule applies to new mortgage loans made on or after January 10, 2014.\n\nThe letter, which applies to the supervision of all federally insured credit unions, also established\nsupervisory expectations with respect to credit unions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with the new rule, including\nensuring that credit unions meet certain risk-management expectations with regard to QM and\nnon-QM loans.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 10\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nOFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\nThe Office of the Inspector General was established at the NCUA in 1989 under the authority of\nthe Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. The staff consists of the Inspector General,\nDeputy Inspector General, Counsel to the Inspector General/Assistant Inspector General for\nInvestigations, Director of Investigations, three Senior Auditors, Senior Information Technology\nAuditor, and Office Manager.\n\nThe Inspector General reports to, and is under the general supervision of, the NCUA Board. The\nInspector General is responsible for:\n\n 1. Conducting, supervising, and coordinating audits and investigations of all NCUA\n programs and operations;\n\n 2. Reviewing policies and procedures to ensure efficient and economic operations as well as\n preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse;\n\n 3. Reviewing existing and proposed legislation and regulations to evaluate their impact on\n the economic and efficient administration of agency programs; and\n\n 4. Keeping the NCUA Board and the Congress apprised of significant findings and\n recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 11\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nAUDIT ACTIVITY\n\nAudit Reports Issued\n\nOIG-13-10 \xe2\x80\x93 October12, 2013\nMaterial Loss Review of Chetco Federal Credit Union\n\nThe OIG contracted with Crowe Horwath LLP to conduct a Material Loss Review (MLR) of\nChetco Federal Credit Union. We reviewed Chetco to: (1) determine the cause of the failure and\nresulting loss to the NCUSIF; (2) assess NCUA\'s supervision of the credit union; and (3) make\nappropriate recommendations to prevent future losses.\n\nOur review determined Chetco failed due to inadequate management and board oversight. The\nBoard of Directors and management exposed the credit union to excessive amounts of credit and\nliquidity risk due to its failure to set appropriate limits and maintain the appropriate risk\nmanagement infrastructure to support the growth in the Member Business Loan (MBL) portfolio.\nIn addition, we determined examiners missed the opportunity to reduce the loss to the Share\nInsurance Fund. We believe that red flags were present, which may have indicated the existence\nof governance issues affecting the management of MBL credit risk. Although we cannot\nconclude that further analysis by examiners would have prevented the credit unions liquidation,\nwe can reason that these observations might have served as a red flag prompting examiners to\nexpand the scope of the review of the MBL portfolio sooner.\n\nOIG-13-11 \xe2\x80\x93 October 29, 2013\nReview of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Process for Documenting Share Insurance Fund Losses and Credit Union\nFailures\n\nThe OIG conducted a self-initiated review of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s process for documenting credit union\nfailures and their associated share insurance fund losses. Our objective for this review was to\ndetermine NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s methodology for identifying and tracking credit union failures and losses to\nthe Share Insurance Fund.\n\nThe results of our review disclosed NCUA management could strengthen its documenting of\nShare Insurance Fund estimated losses for specific credit union failures. Specifically, we\ndetermined the Office of Examination and Insurance, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer,\nand the Asset Management and Assistance Center documented different estimated Share\nInsurance Fund loss amounts throughout the year. However, we determined these differences\nwere mostly attributable to timing differences and new information that is continually received,\nwhich causes the estimated Share Insurance Fund loss amounts to change frequently. In\naddition, we determined that each of these offices may not document Share Insurance Fund loss\nactivity in a timely manner, and regional and central offices document losses into independent,\nnonintegrated systems. However, despite these offices having differing estimated loss amounts\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 12\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nthroughout the year due to timing, we also determined that they ensure the estimated Share\nInsurance Fund loss amounts agree at year-end for financial statement reporting.\n\nIn addition, we determined NCUA management could strengthen its ability to capture basic\ncredit union failure data. Specifically, we identified discrepancies between NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s regional\nand central offices when reporting the dates and types of credit union failures. This occurred\nbecause each office defines the timing of a failure in a different manner and uses independent,\nnonintegrated systems. The report made three recommendations to NCUA management related\nto revising internal procedures, conducting a feasibility study, and developing an agency-wide\ndefinition for credit union failure, all of which we believe will help correct the deficiencies\ndiscussed in this report. NCUA management agreed with all three recommendations.\n\nOIG-13-12 \xe2\x80\x93 November 22, 2013\nIndependent Evaluation of the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Compliance with the Federal Information Security\nManagement Act (FISMA) 2013\n\nThe OIG engaged Mitchell & Titus, LLP to independently evaluate its information systems and\nsecurity program and controls for compliance with the Federal Information Security\nManagement Act (FISMA), Title III of the E-Government Act of 2002.\n\nNCUA has worked to significantly strengthen its information security and privacy programs\nduring Fiscal Year (FY) 2013. We believe that many of the improvements within the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\ninformation security program are the result of the acquisition of additional dedicated resources\nwithin the Office of the Chief Information Officer to address information security issues.\nHowever, while NCUA continues to make improvements in the following areas, we identified\nremaining issues in these areas from last year\xe2\x80\x99s FISMA review that NCUA officials need to\naddress:\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Finalizing its Continuous Monitoring Policies, Procedures, and Strategy;\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Finalizing its Risk Management Policies and Procedures;\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Improving its Configuration Management Program;\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Improving its New Hire Security Awareness Training Program; and\n\n\xef\x82\xb7 Improving Oversight and Management of its Contractor Systems.\n\nIn addition, we identified a new finding pertaining to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s remote access program. We\nmade nine recommendations in these areas, which will help NCUA continue to improve its\ninformation security program.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 13\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nOIG-13-13 \xe2\x80\x93December 2, 2013\nMaterial Loss Review of G.I.C Federal Credit Union\n\nThe OIG contracted with Moss Adams LLP to conduct a Material Loss Review (MLR) of G.I.C.\nFederal Credit Union (G.I.C. or the Credit Union), a federally insured credit union. Although the\nanticipated loss to the Share Insurance Fund for G.I.C. did not meet the statutory loss threshold\nto require an MLR, we identified the circumstances surrounding the failure of G.I.C. as unusual\nin nature and therefore determined an MLR should be performed. We reviewed G.I.C. to: (1)\ndetermine the cause of the failure and resulting loss to the NCUSIF; (2) assess NCUA\'s\nsupervision of the credit union; and (3) make appropriate recommendations to prevent future\nlosses.\n\nWe determined G.I.C. failed due to overstatement of $8.1 million in assets, primarily\ninvestments in certificates of deposit and cash, allegedly due to fraud. According to the FPR\nfiled just prior to the discovery of the alleged fraud, the Credit Union reported total assets of\napproximately $15 million, and total liabilities of $13 million, which Credit Union management\nreported were comprised entirely of member shares. Region III officials determined the Credit\nUnion to be insolvent and on December 13, 2012, NCUA liquidated G.I.C. The factors that\ncreated an environment in which such overstatement could go undetected were: (1) questionable\nmanagement integrity and performance; (2) weak supervisory committee oversight; and (3) weak\nboard of directors oversight.\n\nAs a result of our review, we made two observations and four recommendations to NCUA\nmanagement related to increasing compliance with audit report filing requirements and\nenhancing examination procedures related to evidence of account balances. Management agreed\nwith the recommendations.\n\nOIG-14-01/02/03/04 \xe2\x80\x93 February 18, 2014\nNCUA Financial Statements Audit 2013: Community Development Revolving Loan Fund,\nCentral Liquidity Facility, Operating Fund, Share Insurance Fund\n\nOur contracting audit firm, KPMG LLP, issued opinions on the 2013 financial statements of the\nNational Credit Union Administration Community Development Revolving Loan Fund,\nOperating Fund, Central Liquidity Facility, and the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.\nThe auditors found that the financial statements presented fairly the financial position of the\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s funds as of December 31, 2013.\n\nThe Community Development Revolving Loan Fund\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG-14-01) purpose is to stimulate\neconomic activities in the communities served by low-income credit unions. This in turn will\nresult in increased income, ownership and employment opportunities for low-wealth residents\nand other economic growth. The auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the Fund\xe2\x80\x99s financial\nstatements. The Community Development Revolving Loan Fund\xe2\x80\x99s total assets for 2013 were\n$16.9 million, unchanged from 2012.\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 14\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nThe Central Liquidity Facility (OIG-14-02) was established as a mixed ownership government\ncorporation managed by the NCUA Board to improve general financial stability by meeting the\nliquidity needs of credit unions. The auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the Central\nLiquidity Facility\xe2\x80\x99s (CLF) financial statements. The CLF\xe2\x80\x99s total assets for 2013 were $139\nmillion, down from $112 million in 2012.\n\nThe NCUA Operating Fund (OIG-14-03) was established as a revolving fund managed by the\nNCUA Board for the purpose of providing administration and service to the federal credit union\nsystem. The auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the Operating Fund\xe2\x80\x99s financial\nstatements. The fund\xe2\x80\x99s total assets for 2013 were $77.3 million, down from $77.4 million in\n2012.\n\nThe National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund (OIG-14-04) was established as a revolving\nfund managed by the NCUA Board to insure member share deposits in all Federal credit unions\nand qualifying state credit unions. The auditors issued an unmodified opinion on the Share\nInsurance Fund\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements. The Fund\xe2\x80\x99s total assets for 2013 were 11.6 billion, down\nfrom $11.9 billion in 2012.\n\nOIG-14-05 \xe2\x80\x93March 17, 2014\n2013 NCUA Financial Statement Audit of the Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization\nFund\n\nOur contracting audit firm, KPMG LLP, issued its opinion on the 2013 financial statements of\nthe National Credit Union Administration Temporary Corporate Credit Union Stabilization Fund\n(TCCUSF). The auditors found that the financial statements presented fairly the financial\nposition of the agency fund as of December 31, 2013 and issued an unmodified opinion on the\nTCCUSF\xe2\x80\x99s financial statements.\n\nThe TCCUSF was created by Public Law 111-22, \xe2\x80\x9cHelping Families Save Their Homes Act of\n2009,\xe2\x80\x9d enacted May 20, 2009. The fund was established as a revolving fund in the Treasury of\nthe United States under the management of the Board of Directors of the NCUA. The purposes\nof the TCCUSF are to accrue the losses of the corporate credit union system, and over time, to\nassess the credit union system for the recovery of such losses. The TCCUSF\xe2\x80\x99s net position was a\n$142 million deficit for the period ending December 31, 2013.\n\nOIG-14-06 \xe2\x80\x93 March 26, 2014\nMaterial Loss Review of Taupa Lithuanian Credit Union\n\nThe OIG contracted with Moss Adams LLP to conduct a Material Loss Review (MLR) of Taupa\nLithuanian Credit Union (Taupa). The objectives of the MLR were to: (1) determine the cause\nof the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s failure and resulting loss to the Share Insurance Fund; (2) assess NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\nsupervision of the credit union; and (3) provide appropriate suggestions and/or recommendations\nto prevent future losses.\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 15\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nWe determined Taupa failed because its management fraudulently overstated assets, specifically\ncash on deposit, and understated shares. We also determined NCUA could have mitigated the\nloss to the Share Insurance Fund had examiners adequately identified the Transaction Risks and\naddressed the red flags that were present at Taupa by performing additional procedures related to\nthose risks.\n\nThis report reaffirms three recommendations made in recent OIG reports to NCUA management\nrelated to fraud training, independent account confirmations, and direct communication with\nexternal auditors. The report also makes two observations related to examiner\xe2\x80\x99s use of Red Flag\nQuestionnaires and metric analysis.\n\nAudits in Progress\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Credit Union Success Stories\n\nThe OIG is conducting a review of NCUA credit union success stories to help NCUA in its\nsupervisory oversight of the credit union industry moving forward. Specifically, we are identifying\nlessons learned from past NCUA successful cases where specific corrective actions helped revive\nfailing credit unions. This is a discretionary audit from our 2013 Annual Audit Plan.\n\nMobile Security Devices\n\nNCUA provides iPhones and iPads for use by select users. In addition, NCUA allows NCUA users\nto connect their personally-owned mobile devices such as the Apple iPhone, iPad, Android, and\nWindows Mobil to the NCUA Exchange server to receive corporate email, calendar, and contacts.\n\nMobile handheld devices can be used not only for voice calls, simple text messages, and Personal\nInformation Management but also for many functions done at a desktop computer. While handheld\ndevices provide many productivity benefits, they also pose new risks to an organization\xe2\x80\x99s security.\nIn this review we will determine whether NCUA has adequate mobile device security controls to\nadequately protect NCUA information and information systems assets.\n\nTravel and Purchase Card Review\n\nThe OIG is currently conducting a review of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s purchase and travel cards in compliance\nwith the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act of 2012 to: (1) assess, identify, and\nanalyze risks of illegal, improper, or erroneous purchases and payments made through NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\npurchase and travel card programs; and (2) determine whether the results of our risk assessments\njustify performing an audit in compliance with Government Auditing Standards.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 16\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nHouse of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Request\n\nOn March 24, 2014, our office received a bipartisan request from the United States House of\nRepresentatives Committee on Financial Services to review NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cinternal operations to\ndetermine whether any personnel practices have created a discriminatory workplace or otherwise\nsystematically disadvantaged minorities from obtaining senior management positions.\xe2\x80\x9d We have\nstarted a review of this area.\n\nSignificant Audit Recommendations on Which Corrective Action Has Not Been Completed\n\nAs of March 31, 2014, below is a list of OIG reports with unimplemented recommendations where\nmanagement has agreed to implement corrective action but has yet not completed those actions.\nThis information is based on (1) information supplied by NCUA Office of Examination and\nInsurance and (2) the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s report recommendation tracking system.\n\nReport Number, Title, and Date\n\nOIG-10-20 OIG Capping Report on Material Loss Reviews, November 23, 2010\n\nSignificant Recommendations Open and Brief Summary\n\nOn November 23, 2010, the OIG issued report #OIG-10-20 titled OIG Capping Report on Material\nLoss Reviews. There is 1 open recommendation related to the regulatory guidance to establish\nlimits or other controls for concentrations that pose an unacceptable safety and soundness risk and\ndetermine an appropriate range of examiner response to high-risk concentrations.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 17\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nReport on Credit Union Losses under Materiality Level of $25 Million\n\nDodd Frank requires the NCUA OIG to perform a limited review where the Share Insurance\nFund incurred a loss below the $25 million threshold with respect to an insured credit union.\nThe OIG must report to the NCUA Board and the Congress every 6 months on the results of the\nlimited reviews and the timeframe for performing any subsequent in-depth reviews we determine\nare necessary.\n\nThis report on losses below the $25 million threshold covers the six-month period from October\n1, 2013, to March 31, 2014. For all losses to the Share Insurance Fund under the MLR\nthreshold, we determined: (1) why NCUA initiated assistance; and (2) whether any unusual\ncircumstances existed that might warrant an in-depth review of the loss.\n\nFor each limited review, we performed procedures that included, but were not limited to: (1)\nobtaining and analyzing the regulator\xe2\x80\x99s supervisory memoranda and other pertinent documents;\n(2) preparing a schedule of CAMEL ratings assigned to the institution through full scope or other\nexaminations during the five years preceding the failure; (3) conducting interviews as needed;\n(4) inquiring about any investigative actions that were taken, planned, or considered involving\ncredit union officials or others; and (5) analyzing supervisory history and other review methods.\n\nWe conducted limited reviews of eight failed credit unions that incurred losses to the Share\nInsurance Fund under $25 million between October 1, 2013, and March 31, 2014. Based on\nthose limited reviews, we determined that none of the losses warranted conducting additional\nwork because no unusual circumstances presented themselves in our review; or we had already\naddressed the reasons identified for failure in recommendations to the agency in previous MLR\nreports.\n\nThe chart below provides details on the eight credit union losses to the Share Insurance Fund\nbelow the $25 million threshold. It provides details on the credit union, such as the date of\nfailure, the estimated loss to the Share Insurance Fund, and grounds for conservatorship, merger,\nor other factors. The chart also provides our decision whether to terminate or proceed with a\nfull-scope MLR of the credit union.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 18\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n DECISIONS REGARDING LOSSES LESS THAN $25 MILLION\n Est. Loss\n Date of Grounds for the NCUA\nDecision** Credit Union Region to\n Failure Appointment\n NCUSIF\n Critically undercapitalized with\n no prospect of recovery due to\n weak management, poor\n internal controls, excessive\n Southside Credit\nTerminate IV 11/30/2013 $50K operating expenses, poor\n Union\n underwriting for both consumer\n and member business loans and\n high Provision for Loan Loss\n expense.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n recovery due to weak\n management, which allowed the\n SJH Employees\xe2\x80\x99\nTerminate IV 12/01/2013 $378K credit union to become critically\n Credit Union\n undercapitalized due to poor\n loan quality and weak\n recordkeeping.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n St. Francis recovery due to fraud\nTerminate Campus Credit IV 2/14/2014 $12.9M committed by the manager\n Union through the manipulation of\n members\' accounts.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n recovery due to fraud\n committed by the manager and\n Jayhawk Federal\nTerminate IV 2/28/2014 $450K assistant manager through the\n Credit Union\n posting of fraudulent entries to\n the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s ACH and\n money order clearing accounts.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n recovery due to management\xe2\x80\x99s\n inability to correct identified\n Union Settlement\n weaknesses, resulting in\nTerminate Federal Credit I 3/14/2014 $150K\n continued operating losses and\n Union\n declining net worth, as well as\n poor asset quality exhibited by\n continued elevated delinquency.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n recovery due to fraud committed\n Parsons Pittsburg\nTerminate IV 3/21/2014 $9.4M by the manager through\n Credit Union\n unrecorded nonmember\n deposits.\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 19\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nDECISIONS REGARDING LOSSES LESS THAN $25 MILLION (continued)\n Est. Loss\n Date of Grounds for the NCUA\nDecision** Credit Union Region to\n Failure Appointment\n NCUSIF\n Critically undercapitalized with\n no prospect of recovery due to\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s inability to\n comply with goals outlined in a\n Oldham Family Net Worth Restoration Plan and\nTerminate Alliance Federal II 3/31/2014 $150K correct repeat Document of\n Credit Union Resolution issues such as poor\n recordkeeping, failure to charge\n off non-performing loans, poor\n marketing, and high operating\n expenses.\n Insolvent with no prospect of\n recovery due to fraud, which\n Mayfair Federal\nTerminate II 3/31/2014 $1.57M included fictitious nonmember\n Credit Union\n deposits, manipulated financial\n records, and missing cash.\n\n**Criteria for each decision included: (1) dollar value and/or percentage of loss; (2) the institution\xe2\x80\x99s\nbackground, such as charter type and history, geographic location, affiliations, business strategy;\n(3) uncommon cause of failure based on prior MLR findings; (4) unusual supervisory history, including\nthe nature and timing of supervisory action taken, noncompliance with statutory examination\nrequirements, and/or indications of rating disagreements between the state regulator and NCUA; and (5)\nother, such as apparent fraud, request by NCUA Board or management, Congressional interest, or IG\nrequest.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 20\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPeer Reviews - October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014\n\nGovernment Auditing Standards require audit organizations that perform audits and attestation\nengagements of federal government programs and operations undergo an external peer review\nevery three years. The objectives of an external peer review include a review of an audit\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s system of quality control to determine not only the suitability of the design, but\nalso whether the audit organization is in compliance with its quality control system so as to\nprovide reasonable assurance the audit organization conforms to applicable professional\nstandards.\n\nExternal Peer Review of NCUA OIG Office of Audit\n\nThe Peace Corps OIG completed our most recent peer review on February 4, 2013 for the three-\nyear period ended December 31, 2012. The Peace Corps OIG issued its report entitled System\nReview Report and rendered the opinion that the system of quality control for the NCUA OIG,\nOffice of Audit, was suitably designed and complied with, thus providing reasonable assurance\nthe system of controls conformed with applicable professional standards in all material respects.\nAs a result, we received a peer rating of pass. In addition, we have no outstanding\nrecommendations from this external peer review. A copy of this report is included herein as\nAppendix A.\n\nExternal Peer Review of National Labor Relations Board OIG Office of Audit\n\nThe NCUA OIG completed a peer review of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) OIG.\nOn October 31, 2011, we issued an external peer review report for the audit function of the\nNLRB OIG for the three year period ended September 30, 2011. The NLRB received a rating of\npass and has no outstanding recommendations related to the peer review report.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 21\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nINVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY\n\nIn accordance with professional standards and guidelines established by the United States\nDepartment of Justice, the NCUA OIG Office of Investigations (OI) conducts investigations of\ncriminal, civil, and administrative wrongdoing involving the agency\xe2\x80\x99s programs, operations, and\npersonnel. Our investigative program focuses on activities designed to promote both efficiency\nand economy within the NCUA and its programs and operations, and to fight fraud, waste, and\nabuse. In this regard, we investigate referrals and allegations of misconduct on the part of\nNCUA employees, former employees, and contractors. Investigations may involve possible\nviolations of regulations involving Federal employee responsibilities and conduct, agency\npolicies, Federal criminal law, and other statutes and regulations. Finally, we have a robust\ntraining program within the agency that encompasses integrity awareness briefings and\norientation presentations regarding the role of the OIG within the agency and how to report\nwrongdoing to the OI.\n\nAdditionally, we routinely receive complaints from credit union officials and their members,\nwhich involve NCUA employee program responsibilities. We examine these complaints and\ndetermine if there is any indication of misconduct or wrongdoing by an NCUA employee. If not,\nwe refer the complaint to the NCUA Office of Consumer Protection (OCP) or appropriate\nregional office for response, or close the matter if contact with the OCP or the regional office\nindicates that the matter has already been appropriately handled.\n\nThe instructional guidance the OI provides to new NCUA employees and newly appointed\nsupervisors about the respective roles and responsibilities of the OIG and NCUA employees\nfacilitates more open communication between both. The final product is a stronger agency.\n\nOIG Hotline Contacts\n\nThe OIG has and maintains a 24-hour toll free hotline to enable employees and citizens to call in\nand provide information about suspected fraud, waste, and abuse or mismanagement involving\nagency programs or operations. Additionally, the OIG receives complaints from an off-site post\noffice box, electronic mail, and facsimile messages. The OI has also developed an electronic\nversion of a hotline complaint form, located on the NCUA intranet. The electronic form offers\nan additional venue for confidential employee and contractor communication with the OIG. All\ninformation received from any of these sources is referred to as a hotline contact. Our Office\nManager, under the direction of the Director of Investigations, administers the OIG hotline\nprogram.\n\nThe majority of hotline contacts received is from consumers seeking assistance with problems\nencountered within their respective credit unions. As discussed above, these contacts are\ngenerally referred to the OCP and regional offices for action.\n\nIn recent years, however, the OIG Hotline has also become a valuable repository for reports of\npotential cases of fraud in credit unions. While the OIG does not, in most cases, have\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 22\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\njurisdiction to investigate fraudulent activity that takes place in credit unions, it analyzes the\ninformation obtained through the Hotline and refers potential cases of fraud to the appropriate\nregional office, the Office of Examination and Insurance, and the Office of General Counsel for\nimmediate review and action. Moreover, the OIG relays general information from these referrals\nat new employee and supervisor training sessions to alert NCUA employees about the need for\nheightened fraud awareness.\n\n\n Hotline Complaints\n\n\n\n\n Phone Call/Voicemail\n Email\n Letter/Facsimile\n\n\n\n\nPhone Call/Voicemail 73\nEmail 88\nLetter/Facsimile 22\nTotal: 183\n\n\nINVESTIGATIONS\n\nEmployee Misconduct /Alleged Harassment\n\nDuring the previous reporting period, the OIG received information alleging harassment of a\nfederal credit union employee by two NCUA examiners during an examination. The\ninvestigation found that one of the examiners may have used interviewing techniques that were\nunduly \xe2\x80\x9cheavy-handed\xe2\x80\x9d and inappropriate. Allegations concerning the other examiner were not\nsubstantiated. The OIG issued a Report of Investigation and closed this case during this\nreporting period.\n\nEmployee Misconduct /Alleged Harassment\n\nDuring the reporting period, the OIG received allegations that an NCUA supervisor, on several\noccasions, received vaguely threatening messages on his NCUA-issued iPhone voicemail. The\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 23\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nsupervisor alleged that one of his subordinates was the suspected caller, because he had recently\nplaced the employee on a performance improvement plan. This investigation is ongoing.\n\nEmployee Misconduct/Inappropriate Conduct\n\nThe OIG received a complaint that an NCUA examiner, in the course of conducting an\nexamination at a credit union, made intimidating comments to one of the credit union\xe2\x80\x99s vendors,\npotentially threatening the vendor\xe2\x80\x99s business standing in the credit union community. This\ninvestigation is ongoing.\n\nEmployee Misconduct/Gross Mismanagement/Abuse of Authority\n\nDuring this reporting period, the OIG received allegations from employees concerning gross\nmismanagement and abuse of authority on the part of two NCUA managers. This investigation\nis ongoing.\n\nInvestigation for Farm Credit Administration OIG/Inappropriate Personnel Practices\n\nBecause of an internal conflict of interest, the NCUA OIG provided investigative assistance to\nthe Farm Credit Administration (FCA) OIG in a matter involving allegations of inappropriate\npersonnel practices. The OIG conducted an investigation and subsequently issued a\nManagement Implication Report that found no violations of federal regulations or FCA policy,\nbut noted concerns with FCA internal operations. This investigation is closed.\n\nEmployee Misconduct/Unauthorized Use of Government Computer\n\nDuring the previous reporting period, the OIG received allegations that an employee had used his\nagency-issued laptop computer to upload/download pornographic materials from the internet.\nAn investigative search of the employee\xe2\x80\x99s computer hard drive failed to retrieve evidence that\nthe employee had accessed pornographic materials. However, the investigation found that the\nemployee had inappropriately downloaded a third-party software program (Internet Eraser) onto\nhis laptop. The OIG issued a final report and closed this case during the reporting period.\n\nAgency Ethics Screening Process for New Board Member\n\nDuring the reporting period the OIG analyzed the ethics screening of then-incoming Board\nMember Rick Metsger, conducted by the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Agency Ethics Officers (AEOs). The OIG\nfound the ethics screening process was thorough and the AEOs\xe2\x80\x99 determination that Board\nMember Metsger was in full compliance with all conflict of interest laws and regulations was\nsound. We also found that the AEOs properly analyzed the ethics issues related to the Board\nMember\xe2\x80\x99s attendance at a post-swearing in reception and appropriately interpreted ethics rules\nand regulations in determining that his attendance at the event was permissible. Finally, we\nfound that Board Member Metsger complied fully with the AEOs\xe2\x80\x99 recommendations regarding\nthe terms of his attendance.\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 24\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nPeer Reviews - October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014\n\nSection 6(e)(7) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, requires those OIGs that have\nbeen granted statutory law enforcement authority pursuant to the Act, to be periodically reviewed\nby another OIG or a committee of OIGs (Peer Review). The purpose of the peer review is to\nascertain whether adequate internal safeguards and management procedures exist to ensure that\nthe law enforcement powers conferred by the 2002 amendments to the Act are properly\nexercised. The NCUA OIG does not have statutory law enforcement authority. Consequently,\nour investigative organization is not required to have a peer review and to date, has neither\nundergone a peer review nor conducted a peer review of another OIG.\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 25\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nLEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REVIEWS\n\nSection 4(a) of the Inspector General Act requires the Inspector General to review existing and\nproposed legislation and regulations relating to the programs and operations of the NCUA and to\nmake recommendations concerning their impact. Moreover, we routinely review agency\nprogram and policy guidance, in order to make recommendations concerning economy and\nefficiency in the administration of NCUA programs and operations and the prevention and\ndetection of fraud, waste and abuse.\n\nDuring the reporting period, the OIG reviewed 30 items, including proposed legislation,\nproposed and final regulations, and NCUA Letters to Credit Unions (LCU). The OIG also\nresponded to five (5) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.\n\n SUMMARY OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS REVIEWED\n Legislation Title\n\n H.R. 1163 The Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2013\n The Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research,\n H.R. 1468__ Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2013\n Regulations/Rulings Title\n\n 12 CFR Parts 703, 715, and 741 Final Action: Derivatives\n 12 CFR Parts 700, 701, and 704 Final Action: Technical Amendments\n 12 CFR Part 721 Final Action: Charitable Donation Accounts\n Final Action: Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage\n 12 CFR Parts 34, 226, and 1026 Loans; Supplemental Final Rule\n 12 CFR Parts 712 and 741 Final Action: Credit Union Service Organizations\n 12 CFR Parts 741 and 748 Final Action: Filing Financial and Other Reports\n 12 CFR Parts 741 Final Action: Liquidity and Contingency Funding Plans\n Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management\n (P.L. 101-203, sec. 1124) Companies\n 12 CFR Part 710 Proposed Rule: Voluntary Liquidation\n 12 CFR Parts 700, 701, 702, 703, Proposed Rule: Prompt Corrective Action; Risk-Based\n 713 and 747 Capital\n Proposed Rule: Requirements for Contacts with Federal\n 12 CFR Part 701 Credit Unions\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 26\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nRegulations/Rulings (continued) Title\n Proposed Interagency Policy Statement Establishing Joint\n Standards for Assessing the Diversity Policies and Practices\n of Entities Regulated by the Agencies and Request for\n P.L. 101-203 sec. 342(b)(2)(C) Comment\n 12 CFR Part 702 Proposed Rule: Capital Planning and Stress Testing\n Proposed Rule: Loans in Areas Having Special Flood\n 12 CFR Part 760 Hazards\n\n Letters to Credit Unions Title\n\n NCUA LCU 14-CU-05 Liquidity Requirements Take Effect March 31\n NCUA LCU 14-CU-04 Derivatives Applications Open March 3\n Civil Money Penalties to be Assessed for Late Call Report and\n NCUA LCU 14-CU-03 Profile Submissions in 2014\n NCUA LCU 14-CU-02 Supervisory Focus for 2014\n Supervisory Guidance on Qualified and non-Qualified\n NCUA LCU 14-CU-01 Mortgages\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-15 Private Student Loans\n Projected 2014 Stabilization Fund Assessment and Share\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-14 Insurance Fund Premium Range\n Changes to NCUA Regulations Related to Credit Union Service\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-13 Organizations\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-12 Supervisory Guidance on Enterprise Risk Management\n Electronic Filing of Call Reports and Extended Filing Dates for\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-11 2014\n Guidance on How to Comply with NCUA Regulation \xc2\xa7741.12\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-10 Liquidity and Contingency Funding Plans\n NCUA LCU 13-CU-09 Examination Report Modernization\n NCUA LCU 14-FCU-02 Permissible Interest Rate Ceiling Extended\n NCUA LCU 14-FCU-01 Operating Fee Scale Reduced for 2014\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 27\n\x0c NCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n TABLE I: ISSUED REPORTS WITH QUESTIONED COSTS\n\n Number of Questioned Unsupported\n Reports Costs Costs\n\n For which no management decision\n A. had been made by the start of the\n reporting period. 0 $0 $0\n\n B. Which were issued during the\n reporting period. 0 0 0\n\n\n Subtotals (A + B) 0 0 0\n\n C. For which management decision was\n made during the reporting period. 0 0 0\n\n\n (i) Dollar value of disallowed costs 0 0 0\n\n (ii) Dollar value of costs not allowed\n 0 0 0\n For which no management decision\n D. has been made by the end of the\n reporting period. 0 0 0\n Reports for which no management\n E. decision was made within six months\n of issuance. 0 0 0\n\nQuestioned costs are those costs the OIG has questioned because of alleged violations of laws,\nregulations, contracts, or other agreements; findings which at the time of the audit are not supported by\nadequate documentation; or the expenditure for the intended purpose is unnecessary or unreasonable.\n\nUnsupported costs (included in "Questioned Costs") are those costs the OIG has questioned because of\nthe lack of adequate documentation at the time of the audit.\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 28\n\x0c NCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n TABLE II: ISSUED REPORTS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS THAT\n FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE\n Number of Dollar\n Reports Value\n\n\n For which no management decision had been made\n A.\n by the start of the reporting period. 0 $0\n\n\n B. Which were issued during the reporting period. 0 0\n\n\n\n Subtotals (A + B) 0 0\n\n\n For which management decision was made during\n C.\n the reporting period. 0 0\n\n\n (i) Dollar value of recommendations agreed to by\n management. N/A N/A\n\n\n (ii) Dollar value of recommendations not agreed to\n by management. N/A N/A\n\n\n For which no management decision was made by the\n D.\n end of the reporting period. 0 0\n\n\n For which no management decision was made within\n E.\n six months of issuance. 0 0\n\nRecommendations that "Funds to be Put to Better Use" are those OIG recommendations that funds could\nbe used more efficiently if management took actions to reduce outlays, de-obligate funds from\nprograms/operations, avoid unnecessary expenditures noted in pre-award reviews of contracts, or any\nother specifically identified savings.\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 29\n\x0c NCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n TABLE III: SUMMARY OF OIG ACTIVITY\n October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014\n Part I \xe2\x80\x93 Audit Reports Issued\n\n Report Date\n Number Title Issued\n\nOIG-13-10 Material Loss Review of Chetco Federal Credit Union 10/12/2013\n Review of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Process for Documenting Share Insurance Fund Losses and\nOIG-13-11 Credit Union Failures 10/29/2013\n Independent Evaluation of the NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Compliance with the Federal\nOIG-13-12 Information Security Management Act (FISMA) 2013 11/22/2013\n\nOIG-13-13 Material Loss Review of G.I.C Federal Credit Union 12/2/2013\n NCUA Financial Statements Audit 2013: Community Development\n OIG-14- Revolving Loan Fund, Central Liquidity Facility, Operating Fund, Share\n01/02/03/04 Insurance Fund 2/18/2014\n 2013 NCUA Financial Statement Audit of the Temporary Corporate Credit Union\nOIG-14-05 Stabilization Fund 3/17/2014\n\nOIG-14-06 Material Loss Review of Taupa Lithuanian Credit Union 3/26/2014\n Part II \xe2\x80\x93 Audits in Progress (as of March 31, 2014)\n\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Credit Union Success Stories\n\nMobile Security Devices\n\nTravel and Purchase Card Review\n\nHouse of Representatives Committee on Financial Services Request\n\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 30\n\x0c NCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n INDEX OF REPORTING REQUIREMENTS\n\n Page\nSection Data Required\n Ref\n\n4(a)(2) Review of legislation and regulations 26\n Significant problems, abuses, or deficiencies relating to the administration of\n5(a)(1) programs and operations disclosed during the reporting period. 12\n Recommendations with respect to significant problems, abuses or\n5(a)(3) deficiencies xx\n Significant recommendations described in previous semiannual reports on\n5(a)(3) which corrective action has not been completed. 17\n Summary of matters referred to prosecution authorities and prosecutions\n5(a)(4) which have resulted. None\n Summary of each report to the Board detailing cases where access to all\n5(a)(5) records was not provided or where information was refused. None\n\n5(a)(6) List of audit reports issued during the reporting period. 30\n\n5(a)(7) Summary of particularly significant reports. 12\n\n5(a)(8) Statistical tables on audit reports with questioned costs. 28\n Statistical tables on audit reports with recommendations that funds be put to\n5(a)(9) better use. 29\n Summary of each audit report issued before the start of the reporting period\n for which no management decision has been made by the end of the reporting\n5(a)(10) period. None\n Description and explanation of reasons for any significant revised\n5(a)(11) management decision made during the reporting period. None\n Information concerning significant management decisions with which the\n5(a)(12) Inspector General is in disagreement. None\n An appendix containing the results of any peer review conducted by another\n OIG during the reporting period or, if no peer review was conducted within\n that reporting period, a statement identifying the date of the last peer review\n5(a)(14) conducted by another OIG. 32\n List of outstanding recommendations from any peer review conducted by\n5(a)(15) another OIG that have not been fully implemented. None\n A list of any peer reviews conducted by the IG of another OIG during the\n reporting period, including a list of any outstanding recommendations made\n5(a)(16) that remain outstanding or have not been fully implemented. 21\n\n\n\n Semiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 31\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\nAppendix A: System Review Report (Peer Review of NCUA OIG)\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 32\n\x0cNCUA Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nSemiannual Report to the Congress, October 1, 2013 \xe2\x80\x93 March 31, 2014 Page | 33\n\x0c'


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
8.9.2012
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 C 273/20
 Sag anlagt den 12. juli 2012 — Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals mod Rådet
 (Sag T-310/12)
 2012/C 273/34
 Processprog: engelsk
 Parter
 Sagsøger: Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals (Yuan Ping City, Xin Zhou, Kina) (ved advokat V. Akritidis)
 Sagsøgt: Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
 Sagsøgerens påstande
 —
 Rådets gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 325/2012 af 12. april 2012 om indførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold og endelig opkrævning af den midlertidige told på importen af oxalsyre med oprindelse i Indien og Folkerepublikken Kina (EUT 2012 L 106, s. 1), annulleres.
 —
 Rådet for Den Europæiske Union tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger.
 Søgsmålsgrunde og væsentligste argumenter
 Til støtte for søgsmålet har sagsøgeren fremsat fire anbringender.
 1)
 Det første anbringende vedrører en tilsidesættelse af artikel 3 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 af 30. november 2009 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab (EUT 2009 L 343, s. 51) (»grundforordningen«), hvorefter skade henviser til skade for »EU-erhvervsgrenen«; og tilsidesættelse af grundforordningens artikel 4, stk. 1, om definitionen på EU-erhvervsgrenen, idet sagsøgte har defineret EU-erhvervsgrenen forkert ved at medtage to ikke-samarbejdsvillige producenter, hvoraf den ene var ophørt med produktion flere år før undersøgelsesperioden.
 2)
 Det andet anbringende vedrører en tilsidesættelse af grundforordningens artikel 3, stk. 2 og artikel 3, stk. 5, som kræver, at vurderingen af skaden for EU-erhvervsgrenen skal være begrundet i positive beviselementer på baggrund af en objektiv vurdering af alle de relevante faktorer, idet sagsøgte har anlagt et åbenbart urigtigt skøn ved at vurdere skadesfaktorerne ud fra to adskilte og modstridende sæt data (mikro- og makroøkonomiske faktorer) på en selektiv måde.
 3)
 Det tredje anbringende vedrører en tilsidesættelse af grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 4, som kræver, at der kun indføres told, såfremt den er nødvendig for at afhjælpe virkningerne af den skadevoldende dumping; grundforordningens artikel 14, stk. 1, som kræver, at told opkræves uafhængigt af told, skat og andre afgifter; og grundforordningens artikel 20, stk. 1, og 2, som kræver fremlæggelse af de væsentligste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, der lå til grund for beslutningen om at indføre antidumpingtold, idet sagsøgte begik en række åbenbart urigtige fejl ved beregningen af skademarginen, ligesom den heller ikke forelagde en begrundelse.
 4)
 Det fjerde anbringende vedrører en tilsidesættelse af grundforordningens artikel 20, stk. 5, en minimumsfrist på ti dage til at fremsætte bemærkninger om endelige oplysninger samt af de almindelige principper om forbud mod forskelsbehandling og princippet om god forvaltningsskik, idet sagsøgte gav sagsøgeren en kortere frist til at reagere på undersøgelsens endelige oplysninger end den frist, som blev givet alle øvrige parter i sagen.


text:
Vzor výpovede zo strany zamestnávateμa z dôvodu zru1enia zamestnávateμa (§ 63 ods. 1 písm. a) Zákonníka práce) | ©kola efektívne
 Vzor výpovede zo strany zamestnávateμa z dôvodu zru1enia zamestnávateμa (§ 63 ods. 1 písm. a) Zákonníka práce)
 5.10.2.5 Vzor výpovede zo strany zamestnávateμa z dôvodu zru1enia zamestnávateμa (§ 63 ods. 1 písm. a) Zákonníka práce)
 (Oznaèenie Zamestnávateμa, Názov a sídlo spoloènosti, IÈO.)
 VÝPOVEÏ ZAMESTNÁVATE¥A
 podμa § 63 ods. 1 písm. a) bod 1 Zákonníka práce
 V ................................ dòa ................
 VEC: VÝPOVEÏ ZAMESTNÁVATE¥A POD¥A § 63 ODS. 1 PÍSM. A) BOD 1 ZÁKONNÍKA PRÁCE
 Na základe písomnej pracovnej zmluvy uzatvorenej dòa ..........., s dohodnutým dòom nástupu do práce dòa .............. vykonávate u zamestnávateμa prácu ........................
 Podμa § 63 ods. 1 písm. a) bod 1 Zákonníka práce zamestnávateμ mô3⁄4e da» zamestnancovi výpoveï..., ak ... sa zamestnávateμ alebo jeho èas» zru1uje ...
 Na základe písomného rozhodnutia zamestnávateμa zo dòa .............. sa zru1uje zamestnávateμ a zamestnávateμ prestáva vykonáva» èinnos», a to ku dòu ................2019.
 Vzhμadom na to, 3⁄4e dochádza k zru1eniu zamestnávateμa, zamestnávateμ Vás naïalej nemá mo3⁄4nos» zamestnáva» podμa pracovnej zmluvy.
 Vzhμadom na to, 3⁄4e sa ru1í zamestnávateμ, nemô3⁄4e Vám by» ponúknutá iná vhodná práca v súlade s § 63 ods. 2 Zákonníka práce.
 Na základe vy11ie uvedených dôvodov Vám dávam výpoveï z pracovného pomeru podμa § 63 ods. 1 písm. a) bod 1 Zákonníka práce.
 Vá1 pracovný pomer sa skonèí uplynutím výpovednej doby. Výpovedná doba trvá dva mesiace/...., zaène plynú» dòa ..............2019 a uplynie dòa ....................2019.
 Vzhμadom na to, 3⁄4e sa Vá1 pracovný pomer konèí na základe výpovede zamestnávateμa podμa § 63 ods. 1 písm. a) bod 1 Zákonníka práce a u zamestnávateμa bude trva» ......, podμa § 76 ods. 1 Zákonníka práce Vám patrí odstupné vo vý1ke ....... . Odstupné Vám bude v súlade s § 76...


text:
Címlap > 4/2013. számú BJE határozat
 4/2013. BJE. szám
 A Legfelsőbb Bíróságnak az élet és testi épség büntetőjogi védelméről szóló 15. számú Irányelvének III. részének helyébe az alábbi jogegységi határozat lép.
 A Kúria Büntető Kollégiumának vezetője a 2011. évi CLXI. törvény (Bszi.) 33. §-a (1) bekezdésének a) pontjában írt jogkörével élve a Bszi. 32. §-a (1) bekezdésének a) pontja alapján a joggyakorlat továbbfejlesztése érdekében jogegységi eljárás lefolytatását és jogegységi határozat meghozatalát indítványozta. Álláspontja szerint ugyanis a Legfelsőbb Bíróság 15. számú, az élet és testi épség büntetőjogi védelméről szóló Irányelvének a jogos védelem kérdéseit tárgyaló III. része – alapvetően a Büntető Törvénykönyvről szóló 2012. évi C. törvény 2013. év július hó 1. napján történt hatályba lépésére tekintettel – újjáalkotásra szorul.
 A legfőbb ügyész maga is szükségesnek tartotta, hogy a Kúria a 15. számú Irányelv III. részének helyébe lépő jogegységi határozatot hozzon.
 Az élet és a testi épség védelméről szóló 15. számú Irányelv irányelvkénti fenntartását a Kúria Büntető Kollégiuma a 3/2013. BJE számú jogegységi határozatával megszüntette.
 A Bszi. 195. §-ának (3) bekezdésére figyelemmel, a Bszi. 34. §-a (4) bekezdésének b) pontja alapján a Kúria büntető jogegységi tanácsaként eljáró Büntető Kollégium egyetértett az indítvánnyal abban, hogy a jogos védelem feltételeinek egységes értelmezése és alkalmazása érdekében jogegységi eljárás lefolytatása és - a 15. számú Irányelv irányelvkénti fenntartásának megszüntetését követően - jogegységi határozat hozatala szükséges.
 A Legfelsőbb Bíróság 15. számú – az élet és testi épség büntetőjogi védelméről szóló, l981. november 23-án meghozott és az élet védelmét fokozottabban biztosító 4. számú Irányelvet felváltó – Irányelve több évtizeden keresztül hasznosan szolgálta az ítélkezési gyakorlat egységének kialakítását. Az időközben bekövetkezett jogszabályi változások – főként a Büntető Törvénykönyvről szóló 2012. évi C. törvény hatályba lépése - azonban indokolttá tették az irányelv alábbiakban részletezett korszerűsítését.
 Magyarország Alaptörvényének V. Cikke kimondja, hogy „Mindenkinek joga van törvényben meghatározottak szerint a személye, illetve a tulajdona ellen intézett, vagy az ezeket közvetlenül fenyegető jogtalan támadás elhárításához.” A jogtalan támadással szembeni védekezés alkotmányos alapjogként történő deklarálása a Büntető törvénykönyv Általános Részében szabályozott jogintézményt, mint különösen védett értéket emelte ki, olyan felhatalmazást adva az ország polgárainak, amely a jogtalansággal szembeni ellenállást többé nem kivételes lehetőségnek, hanem mindenkit megillető természetes alapjognak ismeri el. E nagy jelentőségű jogalkotási megoldásnak következménye a 2012. évi C. törvény jogos védelmet szabályozó §-ainak (21-22. §), a jogos védelmet minden eddiginél szélesebb körben megengedő kodifikálása. A 15. sz. Irányelv III. részének megalkotása óta eltelt több mint három évtized törvényi változásai, a bírói gyakorlat ehhez igazodó alakulása, és elsősorban a jogos védelem említett rang- és felfogásbeli megváltozása szükségessé teszi a jogos védelem tárgyában folytatott létező ítélkezési gyakorlat továbbfejlesztését. Ez azt jelenti, hogy a 2012. évi C. törvény 2013. július 1-jén történő hatálybalépésétől kezdve a kódex 21. és 22. §-ainak alkalmazása során az ítélkezés alapozhat mindarra a korábbi évtizedekben kimunkált, és továbbra is fenntartható, elvi-dogmatikai alapokon nyugvó, a valóság szülte élethelyzetek elbírálásának tapasztalatai által megérlelt gyakorlatra, amely az új Btk. szabályozásában is felhasználható. Ugyanakkor a 2012. évi C. törvény, Alaptörvényből levezethető, megváltozott jogalkotói felfogásának következtében a törvény szövegébe épített új rendelkezések más tartalma indokolja, hogy a bírói gyakorlat a jogértelmezés és alkalmazás során szem előtt tartsa a következőket:
 Btk. 22. § (1) bekezdés
 A védekezést támadás előzi meg. Az elhárítás válasz a támadásra. A védekezés azért jogos, mert a támadás jogtalan. A jogosan védekező a jogot védi a jogtalansággal szemben. Korábbi – ám máig igaz – magyarázat szerint erőt alkalmaz az erőszak ellen. A támadás olyan tevékenység, amely megvalósítja valamely bűncselekmény (szabálysértés) törvényi tényállásának ismérveit. A támadás objektív ismérve annak jogtalansága. A jogtalan támadás elhárításának kockázatát, következményeit a támadónak kell viselnie.
 Amennyiben az aktív magatartással megvalósuló támadás jogellenes állapotot eredményez, annak fenntartása érdekében a támadó által tanúsított passzív magatartás is jogtalan támadásnak minősül (BH 1997.512.).
 A támadásnak „intézettnek”, vagy „közvetlenül fenyegetőnek” kell lennie. Intézett a támadás akkor, ha az elkövető valamely, a Különös Részben büntetni rendelt bűncselekmény (szabálysértés) törvényi tényállásának megvalósítását megkezdte. Közvetlenül fenyegető a támadás akkor, ha a támadás megkezdésétől azonnal vagy igen rövid időn belül reálisan tartani lehet.
 A jogos védelmi helyzet mindaddig fennáll, ameddig a megtámadott okkal tarthat a támadás megkezdésétől vagy annak folytatásától.
 A 22. § (1) bekezdése szerinti jogtalan támadás irányulhat személy ellen, javak ellen, a közérdek ellen.
 A jogtalan támadás általában erőszakos, az elhárító cselekmény pedig mindig kényszerű.
 Amennyiben a jogtalan támadás ténye megállapítható, úgy az elhárítás szükségessége nem vitatható. Az elhárítás szükségességének a mértéke azonban - a 22. § (3) bekezdése szerint - túlléphető.
 Ha van jogtalan támadás, akkor annak az elhárítása szükséges. Az elhárító cselekmény is tevékenység, aktív szembeszegülés a támadással. A szükségesség azt jelenti, hogy a védekezőnek a jogtalan támadás elhárításához enyhébb védekezési mód nem állt rendelkezésére, mint amelyet alkalmazott. Ha volt más – enyhébb – mód az elhárításra, de annak megválasztásában a támadás okozta ijedtség vagy menthető felindulás a védekezőt meggátolta, akkor a cselekmény büntetendő, de a védekező nem büntethető a túllépés miatt. A védekező cselekmény jogszerűségének egyetlen kritériuma a szükségesség.
 A 15. Irányelv III. részének 4. pontjában az arányossággal kapcsolatban kifejtettek a továbbiakban nem alkalmazhatók. Meghaladottá vált ugyanis annak vizsgálata, hogy „az elhárító magatartás nem idézett-e elő aránytalanul nagyobb sérelmet, mint amelyet a jogtalan támadás okozott volna”. Ennek az elvárásnak törvényi alapja korábban is hiányzott, a hatályos szabályozás pedig tudatosan mellőzte az arányosság fogalmának megjelenítését. Az előzőekben kifejtettekből következik, hogy a meg nem jelenített fogalom a szükségesség kritériumából vezethető le, s csak azon belül bír jelentőséggel.
 A jogos védelem túllépéséért [2012. évi C. törvény 22. § (3) bek.] a védekező csak akkor felel, ha a jogtalan támadás belőle ijedtséget vagy indulatot nem váltott ki, s az enyhébb – ám célravezető – elhárítási módot tudatosan tette félre, amikor a súlyosabb kimenetelűt választotta, mert ezáltal a jogos védelmet a megtorlás eszközeként alkalmazta, amelyre ez a jogintézmény nem ad felhatalmazást.
 Mindazonáltal a támadó és védekező cselekményének lehetséges eredményét egymáshoz viszonyítottan továbbra is vizsgálni kell, mert csak ezáltal érvényesülhet a 22. § (3) bekezdés tartalma, amely az elhárítás szükséges mértékének túllépésével továbbra is számol, s ha az ijedtségből vagy menthető felindulásból történik, úgy a büntethetőséget kizárja.
 Az új törvény a jogos védelmet, a büntethetőséget kizáró vagy korlátozó okok között objektív büntethetőségi akadályként kezeli, amikor a jogos védelem során megvalósított cselekményt „nem büntetendőnek” tekinti. Tehát az a cselekmény, amelyet a védekező a jogtalan támadás elhárítása érdekében kifejt, - s az megvalósíthatja a Különös Rész valamely törvényi tényállását – nélkülözi a társadalomra veszélyességet, s ezáltal bűncselekményt nem valósít meg.
 A bűncselekmény hiánya olyan büntetőeljárási akadály, amelynek hivatalból történő észlelése nemcsak a már megindított büntetőeljárás megszüntetését, vagy bírósági szakban, felmentő ítélet hozatalát kell eredményezze, de elejét veheti annak is, hogy a jogosan védekező egyáltalán büntetőeljárás hatálya alá kerüljön.
 A 22. § (1) bekezdése szerinti jogos védelem korlátai:
 verbális cselekményekkel szemben nem vehető igénybe,
 megtorlásként nem alkalmazható,
 kölcsönös kihívás elfogadása mindkét fél számára a jogtalanság állapotát hozza létre,
 támadás kiprovokálása megfosztja a védekezőt az elhárítás jogszerűségétől,
 javak elleni, közvetlen erőszakkal nem járó cselekmény elhárítása a támadó életének kioltását általában nem eredményezheti. A 22. § (3) bekezdése szerinti túllépés azonban nem zárható ki.
 A jogtalan támadás vagy azzal való fenyegetés értékelése a jogalkalmazón (ügyész, bíró) múlik, és ennek eredményeképpen juthat arra a megállapításra, hogy az intézett vagy fenyegető magatartás – akár a támadó személyének vétőképtelenségére, akár a magatartás súlytalanságára figyelemmel – nem indokolta az elhárító cselekményt, mert az nem volt szükséges, tehát a szükségesség hiányzott.
 Ebben az esetben a jogalkalmazói értékítélet végkövetkeztetése a jogos védelem hiányát állapíthatja meg (pld.: kerekesszékbe kényszerült, súlyosan mozgáskorlátozott egyén ütést szándékoló, ám azt végrehajtani komolyan nem képes mozdulata; hároméves gyermek általi tettlegesség).
 A 2012. évi C. törvény korábbi kódexben előzménnyel nem rendelkező szabályozása az ún. szituációs jogos védelmi helyzet bevezetése, tartalmilag új, és a taxatíve felsorolt eseteihez megdönthetetlen vélelmet társított. A 22. § (2) bekezdésében felsorolt esetekben ugyanis a jogtalan támadást úgy kell tekinteni, mintha az a védekező életének kioltására is irányult volna. Ez kétségtelenül azt jelenti, hogy a második bekezdés a)–c) pontjaiban megkívánt feltételek megvalósulása esetén további mérlegelés szükségtelen, és a védekező cselekménye már megvalósulásakor nem büntetendő, mert nélkülözi a társadalomra veszélyességet, éppúgy, mint a 22. § (1) bekezdése alapján az elhárító cselekmény kifejtője esetében.
 Éppen a 22. § (1) bekezdésének rendelkezésével azonos szóhasználatból következik, hogy a jogos védelemnek e kiemelt és megdönthetetlen vélelemmel összekapcsolt esetei is kivétel nélkül feltételezik a jogtalan támadás megvalósulását. E fogalommal kapcsolatban mindazt vizsgálni kell, amely a 22. § (1) bekezdése során sem mellőzhető. A jogtalan támadás rendszerinti erőszakossága és az elhárítás kényszerűsége ezekben az esetekben is előfeltétele a védekezés jogszerűségének. A törvény azonban ezekben az esetekben a jogtalan támadást - azok számbavehetetlen sokfélesége közül – leszűkíti a személy elleni támadásra, lakásba történő jogtalan behatolásra, illetve lakáshoz tartozó bekerített helyre fegyveresen történő jogtalan behatolásra, ha ezek az esetek alpontokban megjelölt időszakban vagy módon valósulnak meg.
 Az e törvényi feltételek mellett megvalósuló – mindig aktív magatartással elkövetett – jogtalan támadások esetén a támadó konkrét szándékának további vizsgálata szükségtelen.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdésében modellezett esetekben a jogalkotó az erőszakos bűncselekmények elleni hatékonyabb fellépés biztosítására a jogos védelmi helyzetet kiszélesítette, és a támadás irányultságára, idejére, módjára, körülményeire tekintettel törvényi vélelmet állított fel arra, miszerint az a)-c) pontokban megkívánt feltételek mellett a támadást a védekező élete ellen irányultnak is kell tekinteni. A jogalkotó a jogellenes cselekmények sértettjeinek helyzetét figyelembe véve értékelte azt, hogy a jogtalanul megtámadottak a támadóhoz képest többszörös hátrányban vannak, mert a támadó dönti el a támadás célját, helyét, idejét, módját. A védekezőt mindez felkészületlenül éri, és ezért az esetek többségében kiszolgáltatott helyzetben van. Ellenszegülésének sikere is kétséges, sőt olykor kimenetele csupán a véletlenen, szerencsén múlik. Különösen igaz ez azokban az esetekben, amikor a jogtalan támadás éjjel, felfegyverkezve, fegyveresen vagy létszámfölényben levő támadók által történik.
 A személy elleni jogsértő magatartásokkal szemben a védekezés korlátlansága is ebből a megfontolásból lett törvény által elismerve, olyan elkövetési mód vagy napszak mellett, ahol a jogtalan támadás elhárítása, az annak érdekében kifejthető aktív ellenszegülés eleve esélytelenebb, kockázatosabb.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdésében említett elkövetési idő alatti vagy elkövetési módok megvalósításával kifejtett jogtalan személy elleni támadást – arra való tekintet nélkül, hogy az ténylegesen milyen sérelem okozására irányult – úgy kell tekinteni, hogy az a megtámadott élete ellen is irányult, tehát a védekező a jogtalan támadó életét védelmi cselekményével kiolthatja. A jogalkotó az élet kioltására irányuló támadás törvényi vélelmével a védett jogtárgyak egyenértékűségét hozta be, és a bírói gyakorlat által kimunkált azt az elvet emelte törvényi rangra, mely szerint az élet ellen irányuló támadás elhárításakor a védekezés – eredményre tekintet nélkül – korlátlan.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdésének a) és b) pontjaiban szabályozott esetei a hozzájuk tartozó alpontokkal konjunktívak, vagyis az a), illetve b) pont a hozzátartozó valamelyik alponttal együtt külön-külön alkot együttes feltételt.
 Ezek bármelyikének megvalósulása megalapozza a védekezés teljes szabadságát, amely azt jelenti, hogy ha a támadás jogtalansága megállapítható, úgy az elhárítás szükséges, a túllépés fogalmilag kizárt, ezért nem is vizsgálható.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdésének c) pontja pedig a lakáshoz tartozó bekerített helyre fegyveresen történő jogtalan behatolás esetével egészíti ki az előző két esetkört, s a c) pontban megkívántak megvalósulása önállóan alapozza meg a törvényi vélelmet.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdés b) pontja szerinti lakásba történő jogtalan behatolás, maga a jogtalan támadás, mely azonban kizárólag aktív magatartással valósítható meg. Nem alapozza meg ezt a jogos védelmi helyzetet, ha a lakásba jogszerűen bejutó személy utóbb a lakást felszólítás ellenére nem hajlandó elhagyni. A fegyveresen, illetve felfegyverkezve történő elkövetés értelmező rendelkezéseit a 2012. évi C. törvény 459. § (1) bekezdésének 5. és 6. pontjai tartalmazzák, amelyek megegyeznek az 1978. évi IV. tv. 137. §-ának 4. a), b) pontjaiban adott meghatározásokkal, ezért alkalmazásuk nem okozhat gondot, mert folytatható a létező ítélkezési gyakorlat.
 Az éjjel fogalmára sem az új, sem a korábbi Btk. nem ad meghatározást, azonban a magánlaksértés ítélkezési gyakorlata ennek a napszaknak az értelmezését kialakította, országosan egységesen kezeli, és nincs olyan ok, amely miatt attól eltérni kellene, tehát az a jogos védelem új rendelkezéseinél is változatlanul irányadó.
 A lakás, illetve a lakáshoz tartozó bekerített hely fogalmára ugyanez a megállapítás vonatkozik.
 A 22. § (2) bekezdésének b) és c) pontjaiban szabályozott esetek nem személy elleni támadásról szólnak, hanem a lakásba történő jogtalan behatolást, vagy a lakáshoz tartozó bekerített helyre fegyveresen történő jogtalan behatolást minősítik jogtalan támadásnak, a b) ponthoz kapcsolt alpontok valamelyikének együttes megvalósulásakor, illetőleg a c) pontban megkívántak teljesülésekor. Nyilvánvaló azonban, hogy a jogellenes magatartások e bármelyikének csak úgy van – a szóban levő törvényhely alkalmazhatósága szempontjából – értelme, ha a külön nevesített és jogtalan támadásnak minősített magatartások bármelyikének hatókörében olyan vétlen személy tartózkodik, aki védekezni kényszerül, és a támadást el kell hárítania. A 22. § (2) bekezdése ugyanis félreérthetetlenül védekezőről rendelkezik.
 A b) és c) pontokban modellezett helyzetek tehát logikailag kapcsolódnak az a) ponthoz, mert a lakásba, illetőleg a lakáshoz tartozó bekerített helyre jogtalan behatolás közvetlen veszélyt jelent az elhárító cselekmény kifejtőjére. Ez igaz akkor is, ha az elhárító cselekmény nem önvédelem, hanem más javainak az oltalma érdekében valósul meg.
 A 2012. évi C. törvény általános indokolásából megismerhető jogalkotói akarat világos célkitűzése „a súlyos, erőszakos bűncselekmények elleni hatékonyabb fellépés biztosítására, a jogos védelmi helyzet kiszélesítése”. A jogalkotó tehát a jogos védelmet tágítani, nem pedig szűkíteni kívánta. A 22. § (2) bekezdésének törvényi vélelemmel megerősített esetei ezért nem rontják le a korábbi ítélkezési gyakorlat által kimunkált és követett azon elvet, mely szerint – a védett jogtárgyak egyenrangúságára figyelemmel – az élet elleni támadással szemben a védekezés szükséges mértéke nem léphető túl. Ennek hangsúlyozása azért fontos, mert a 22. § (2) bekezdésében megkívántak nélkül is a 22. § (1) bekezdése szerinti szabályozás alapján megállapított jogos védelem sem zárja ki annak lehetőségét, hogy az élet elleni támadást a védekező a támadó életének kioltásával hárítsa el.
 A 2012. évi C. törvény 21. §-a szerinti jogos védelem:
 Az ún. megelőző jogos védelem kodifikálása a 2009. évi LXXX. tv. 5. §-a által történt meg, és 2009. augusztus 9-től hatályos. Az új Kódex tartalmilag az 1978. IV. tv. 29/A. §-a szerinti szabályozást vette át, nem lényeges szövegeltéréssel. A 22. § rendelkezéseihez képest az érdemel kiemelést, hogy a közérdek védelmében nem vehető igénybe, és jövőbeni ki nem számítható támadás elhárítása érdekében alkalmazható. Túllépése fogalmilag azért kizárt, mert ha a testi épség sérelménél súlyosabb (élet kioltásával járó) következménnyel jár, úgy a védekező emberölés miatt lesz felelősségre vonható, s őt a 21. § szerinti jogos védelem nem fogja megilletni.
 A megelőző jogos védelemnek nincs kialakult ítélkezési gyakorlata. A jogos védelem büntető ítélkezésbeni tapasztalataira, és az annak gyakorlatából felhasználható jogértelmezésekre figyelemmel megjegyzést érdemel, hogy ha a „telepített” védelmi eszköz – a bekövetkező jogtalan támadást érzékelve - akkor lép működésbe, amikor a védelmi eszköz telepítője maga is jelen van, akkor az aktualizálódott elhárító cselekményt nem a 21. §, hanem a 22. § (1) vagy (2) bekezdése szerint indokolt megítélni.
 A jogos védelem körében kifejtett cselekmény értékelése megelőzi az erős felindulásban elkövetett emberölés [2012. évi C. törvény 161. §] miatti felelősség megállapítását. Ha a jogos védelmi helyzetben cselekvő a jogos védelmi helyzet megszűnése után, de a jogtalan támadás miatt kialakult menthető felindulásában követi el a cselekményt, vagyis időbelileg lépi túl a jogos védelem körét, a cselekmény a 161. § szerint minősülhet.
 Az időbeli túllépés lehetősége a 22. § (2) bekezdése szerinti szituációs jogos védelem eseteivel kapcsolatban sem zárható ki.
 Ha az elkövető a valóságos helyzet téves felismerése folytán abban a tudatban cselekszik, hogy ellene jogtalan támadást intéztek, vagy ilyennel közvetlenül fenyegették (vélt jogos védelem), a tévedésre vonatkozó rendelkezéseket [2012. C. tv. 20. §] kell alkalmazni.
 E jogegységi határozat a Legfelsőbb Bíróság 15.számú Irányelve III. részének helyébe lép.
 A Bszi. 37. §-a (1) bekezdése szerinti ülésen a Kúria által meghozott e jogegységi határozatot a jogegységi tanács a Bszi. 42. §-ának (1) bekezdésére figyelemmel a Magyar Közlönyben, a központi honlapon és a Kúria honlapján közzéteszi azzal, hogy az a Legfelsőbb Bíróság 15. számú Irányelve III. részének helyébe lép.
 Dr. Molnár Gábor Miklós s.k. előadó bíró,