U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 41— CONSUMER CREDIT PROTECTION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CONSUMER CREDIT COST DISCLOSURE › Part Part A— General Provisions

15 U.S.C. § 1611

Criminal liability for willful and knowing violation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
Whoever willfully and knowingly(1) gives false or inaccurate information or fails to provide information which he is required to disclose under the provisions of this subchapter or any regulation issued thereunder,(2) uses any chart or table authorized by the Bureau under section 1606 of this title in such a manner as to consistently understate the annual percentage rate determined under section 1606(a)(1)(A) of this title, or(3) otherwise fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this subchapter,shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.(Pub. L. 90–321, title I, § 112, May 29, 1968, 82 Stat. 151; Pub. L. 111–203, title X, § 1100A(2), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 2107.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2010—Par. (2). Pub. L. 111–203 substituted “Bureau” for “Board”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2010 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–203 effective on the designated transfer date, see section 1100H of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 552a of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1971–2026 · leading case: Mourning v. Fam. Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356 (1973).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mourning v. Fam. Publications Serv., Inc., 411 U.S. 356 (1973). · cites it 4× “[12] § 112, 15 U. S. C. § 1611 . [13] 15 U. S. C. § 1604 .”
United States v. Moseley, 980 F.3d 9 (2d Cir. 2020). · cites it 2× “§§ 1028A(a)(1), 1028A(b), and 2; and (6) making false disclosures under TILA, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1611 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 . 10 choice-of-law provisions when fashioning the jury instructions; (B) the prosecution violated Moseley’s due process right to fair warning by…”
Beepot v. J.P. Morgan Chase Nat'l Corp. Servs., Inc., 57 F. Supp. 3d 1358 (M.D. Fla. 2014). · cites it 2× “§§ 371 (conspiracy), 372 (conspiracy), and 15 U.S.C. § 1611 (willful violations of TILA).”
Denise Otto v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 693 F. App'x 161 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “In count five, Otto contends that Wells Fargo and Phelan Halli-nan, LLP violated a criminal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1611 , by pursuing the foreclosure and seeking a- sheriff’s sale on a loan that they knew had been validly rescinded.”
Jacqueline Turner, on Behalf of Herself & All Others Similarly Situated v. Beneficial Corp., Beneficial Nat'l Bank, U.S.A., 242 F.3d 1023 (11th Cir. 2001). “15 U.S.C. § 1611 . Finally, TILA creates a private cause of action for statutory damages, which may be assessed in addition to any actual damages awarded.”
Brian Timm v. Wells Fargo Bank NA, 701 F. App'x 171 (3rd Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “Timm also sought penalties under 15 U.S.C. § 1611 , which imposes criminal liability for certain TILA violations.”
McKenna v. First Horizon Home Loan Corp., 475 F.3d 418 (1st Cir. 2007). “The TILA provides further protection to consumers by guaranteeing them a three-day cooling-off period within which they may, for any reason or for no reason, rescind certain types of credit transactions (including residential refinancings).”
Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 849 F. Supp. 2d 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1607 (c), and imposing criminal liability on persons who wilfully and knowingly violate the statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1611 , TILA creates a private cause of action for actual and statutory damages for certain disclosure violations, 15 U.”
Belini v. Washington Mut. Bank, FA, 412 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2005). “If the creditor fails to do so, it can be held liable for criminal penalties, see 15 U.S.C. § 1611 , and a debtor can sue for damages (including a statutory penalty of twice the finance charge), see 15 U.”
Rosal v. First Fed. Bank of California, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “Instead, on June 15, 2009, two days before the hearing on these motions, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging fourteen causes of action: (1) violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1611 et seq. (“TILA”); (2) violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures…”
United States v. Butler, 822 F.2d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “These five defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate the Truth in Lending Act, see 15 U.S.C. § 1611 (1982); 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1982), and with various charges of violating, conspiring to violate, or aiding and abetting violations of the Travel Act, see 18 U.”
Denis J. Murphy, Tr. v. Household Fin. Corp., 560 F.2d 206 (6th Cir. 1977). “Since the civil penalty prescribed is modest and the prohibited conduct clearly set out in the regulation, we need not construe this section as narrowly as a criminal statute providing graver penalties, such as prison terms. The recovery provided in § 130 runs in favor of the…”
Show all 70 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.