--- title: "CFPB 將從 CashCall 獲得 1.34 億美元，長達 12 年的法律糾紛終於結束" type: "News" locale: "zh-HK" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/277688542.md" description: "CashCall 必須向因其非法貸款行為受到傷害的消費者支付 1.34 億美元的賠償金，這一決定得到了地區法院的確認。該公司利用部落貸款人繞過州利率上限，導致借款人揹負高利貸。最高法院拒絕審理 CashCall 的上訴，結束了始於 2013 年的法律鬥爭。在代理主任拉塞爾·沃特的領導下，消費者金融保護局（CFPB）收回賠償金的能力仍然不確定，尤其考慮到該機構近期在對金融機構提起訴訟和達成和解方面的歷史" datetime: "2026-03-03T22:31:45.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/277688542.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/277688542.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/277688542.md) --- # CFPB 將從 CashCall 獲得 1.34 億美元，長達 12 年的法律糾紛終於結束 - **Key insight:** CashCall is officially on the hook for a $134 million restitution payout to compensate consumers who were harmed by the company's illegal loan tactics. - **What's at stake:** A district court confirmed that CashCall used a 'tribal lender' as a front to bypass state interest rate caps and trap borrowers in high-interest debt. - **Forward look:** It remains unclear whether the CFPB under acting Director Russell Vought will collect the money. The subprime lender CashCall has reached the end of its legal dispute with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and must pay $134 million in restitution for initiating high-interest loans through a tribal lender to evade state usury laws. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined to accept CashCall's appeal, ending a legal dispute that began in 2013. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year affirmed a district court's judgment ordering CashCall to pay $134 million in legal restitution to the CFPB. That award now stands. Every Hail Mary made by CashCall—from challenging the CFPB's constitutionality to demanding a jury trial—was rejected by the courts, marking the end of the line for the lender. But it remains unclear whether the CFPB under acting Director Russell Vought will collect any money given the agency's view of litigation and past settlements. The CFPB sued CashCall in 2013 alleging the company violated the Consumer Financial Protection Act by collecting interest on loans that were void. The CFPB claimed CashCall, based in Orange, Calif., had engaged in "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices," by collecting interest and fees on consumer loans that were legally void under state law because the company used an affiliate of a tribal lender to evade state usury laws. The company could not be reached for comment. CashCall's founder CEO is John Paul Reddam, a California race horse owner, and CashCall largely ceased originating high-interest consumer installment loans in 2018. In the past year, under the Trump administration, the CFPB's leadership has dropped more than half of all lawsuits and dismissed several big settlements against financial institutions. For example, last July, the CFPB terminated a $95 million settlement with Navy Federal Credit Union for allegedly illegally charging service members overdraft fees. The case against CashCall has taken many twists and turns, including one 2016 ruling that found in favor of the lender and a ruling that cut the award amount to roughly $10 million. The CFPB originally sued CashCall, Reddam, WS Funding LLC and Delbert Services Corp., alleging the lender had partnered with now-defunct Western Sky Financial, to originate small-dollar loans to avoid state usury laws. The CFPB alleged that CashCall sought to bypass state usury laws by partnering with Western Sky, a lender incorporated under the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. The CFPB argued that the loans were invalid under state laws, and thus unenforceable. After a prior appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed CashCall's liability but remanded the case to determine the appropriate restitution. On remand, the district court calculated the $134 million award based on "legal restitution." CashCall's primary argument on appeal was that the district court's order of legal restitution had preserved the company's right to a jury trial. But the Ninth Circuit concluded that CashCall had previously waived its right to a jury trial and the company had participated in a bench trial without objection. CashCall had also challenged the $134 million amount, claiming the court should have deducted $93 million that was lent to consumers but was never repaid. But the district court held that legal restitution means the full amount lost to consumers and that any losses sustained by the company did not entitle CashCall to keep "unjust gains," that included charges of illegal interest and fees. Before appealing to the Supreme Court, CashCall had requested a rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit, which was denied. ### 相關股票 - [CASH.US](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/quote/CASH.US.md) ## 相關資訊與研究 - [幣海趨勢：週末行情震盪 抓住支撐阻力 高空低多完美收割](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/282439336.md) - [索羅門羣島政局動盪 法院下令親中總理面對不信任案](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/282684620.md) - [中國據報已要求馬士基、MSC 停止運營巴拿馬港口](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/282797380.md) - [美國財長預計川普關稅到 7 月或恢復之前水準 稱聯準會錯判通膨](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/282839950.md) - [英媒：陸要求馬士基及地中海航運 停止巴拿馬運河港口營運](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/282812647.md)