“$500/month for a 3 bedroom, 3 bath townhome in the heart of Washington, D.C.—all utilities, cable and internet included!”

“$50/night for beachfront 2 bedroom house near Ocean City, Maryland – with pool and beach access”

If you find rental listings like the ones above and feel like it’s too good to be true, trust your instinct because it’s probably a scam! Fraudsters are increasingly using fake listings to steal money and financial information from people who are on the hunt for great deals on long-term leases and short-term vacation rentals. Protect yourself from these scams by learning how they work and how to spot them.

How a Rental Scam Works
Scammers primarily rely on two types of rental scams:

• Hijacked listings: A hijacked listing copies a legitimate advertisement—photos, location, description—and posts it on another website with different contact information. This type of scam seems legitimate because it mimics a real property, but the person you are communicating with is a scammer, not the owner.
• Phantom rentals: A phantom rental is a listing that uses photos of a property that is not located at the advertised address. This scam attempts to steal your money or information before you find out the property does not exist.

Both types of these scams lure renters with extremely low rental prices and lavish amenities. Once they have your attention, they request money (such as an application fee) or financial information for the property they cannot deliver. Victims sometimes don’t even realize they have been cheated until they show up to the property and find that it does not exist or is not for rent.

Tips to Avoid Rental Scams
Good deals on rentals do exist, but make sure you do your research to make an informed decision. Here are some tips to avoid being scammed:

• Beware of a deal that seems too good to be true. Make sure that the listing is comparable to other properties in the area.
• Research the property. If you are signing a long-term lease, you should always view the property in advance of sending money or signing a contract. To avoid hijacked listings, use an online search engine to search some of the listing’s key words to see if the property pops up on another site with different contact information; if it does, it’s probably a scam.
• Avoid properties where the landlord will not reveal the address. Do not send money or share financial information if the landlord is unwilling to give you an address that you can research. This is a warning sign of a phantom rental.
• Don’t rush into a decision. It is a red flag if a landlord insists that you must act immediately to take advantage of a property. The scammer may be hoping to rush payment before you have time to research the listing.
• Never wire money or pay with prepaid card. If you use these forms of payment and are scammed, it is difficult to get your money back.

How to Report a Scam
If you are a victim of a rental scam, contact OAG’s Office of Consumer Protection at (202) 442-9828 or consumer.protection@dc.gov, or submit a complaint online using Consumer Complaint Form.

Attorney General Karl A. Racine issued an advisory clarifying and reaffirming the rights of the District’s public-sector employees and their employers’ obligations in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling on union dues. The Court’s recent Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 ruling overturned decades of law allowing public-sector unions to require non-union employees to pay a fee that helps defray the costs of the benefits non-member employees receive from the unions.

Request for Qualification OAG FY18 H 0007 - Training and Community Outreach Services

Plantiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Plantiffs' Opposition to Motion to Dismiss of Defendant in his Individual Capacity

Below is a list of contracts awarded by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) over $100,000.  

List of OAG Contract Awards over $100,000

State AGs Must Fill The CFPB Void, But That's Not Enough

By Attorney General Karl A. Racine, originally appearing in Law360.

Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau successfully sued a group of companies that had flagrantly violated usury laws in several states. Lawyers for the agency alleged that NDG Financial Corp. and associated businesses had run “a cross-border online payday lending scheme” that not only charged interest rates well above state legal limits but used “unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices to collect on the loans and profit from the revenues.” A federal court entered a default judgment against several of the uncooperative defendants, and the rest of the suit was pending.

But then Mick Mulvaney, President Donald Trump’s interim CFPB head, not only dropped the lawsuit, but announced in a report to Congress that he is dropping sanctions against the parties that the court had already judged at fault.

That’s just one example of Mulvaney letting alleged law violators in the industry get away scot-free. In March, Reuters reported that, under Mulvaney, the CFPB did an abrupt about-face in its pursuit of another payday lender, National Credit Adjusters, and was considering backing off on three other suits that had been approved under the previous CFPB director, Richard Cordray. Those cases alleged abusive business practices and sought $60 million in restitution for consumers.

Perhaps this is what we should expect from a CFPB run by Mulvaney — who in his previous life as a Republican congressman from South Carolina received more than $60,000 in donations from the payday lending industry and who recently told a group of bankers (according to the Washington Post) that when he was in Congress, he only listened to lobbyists who had given him money. But where does that leave the consumers the CFPB is intended to protect?

Payday loans are taken out by consumers who need fast cash to make ends meet. They are usually due in two weeks, and are tied to the borrower’s paycheck cycle. Industry leaders claim that the loans are designed to help consumers cover unexpected or emergency expenses — but the reality is that these loans, especially when loosely regulated, often drag people into ongoing debt when they can least afford it. And the industry has a perverse incentive to keep it that way.

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, payday borrowers are disproportionately low-income and living on the edge: The average annual income of a payday borrower is about $30,000, and 58 percent have trouble meeting their monthly expenses. Indeed, seven in 10 payday borrowers use the loans to cover basic expenses like rent and utilities, not extraordinary expenses. And doing so buries them in revolving debt: The average payday loan borrower is in debt for five months of the year and spends an average of $520 in fees to borrow an average of $375. 

With $9 billion in interest and other fees on the line, according to Pew research, it’s obvious why the industry wants to keep milking lower-income people of as much cash as possible.

While Cordray was at the CFPB, the agency proposed a new regulation that would better protect consumers from the industry’s worst practices. The rule would have required payday lenders to ensure that a consumer could actually afford a payday loan before issuing it. The rule would also have limited the number of times a lender could “roll over” payday loans — thereby making it more difficult for the lower-income consumers who make up the vast majority of payday borrowers to get caught in endless cycles of revolving debt.

After taking over the agency, Mulvaney put that rulemaking on hold, while the Senate considers killing it altogether. Meanwhile, payday lenders are circling the courts, armed with lawsuits seeking to block the rule. 

Without a national rule, consumers would be left to the mercies of state legislatures and regulators. That might be fine for the residents of the District of Columbia, where we cap effective interest rates at 24 percent (largely outlawing payday lenders). But in the 36 states with no effective anti-usury laws, payday loans are available at unconscionable average annual interest rates (per the Pew Charitable Trusts) of 391 percent. Moreover, payday lending on the internet is increasingly common, meaning that the District of Columbia and states with strong usury laws must often go to great lengths to pursue out-of-state lenders who have unlawfully taken advantage of our residents.

This is why we need a strong national voice for protecting all consumers. The original vision of the CFPB was to be that advocate in the financial services industry, instituting nationwide regulations and bringing enforcement powers to bear against payday lenders and other companies that abuse consumers.

When the CFPB plays this role, I and other attorneys general have a partner with which we can more effectively confront abusive business practices within our borders and win relief. For example, the CFPB filed suit against an online payday lender — CashCall — that unlawfully operated in the district and other states that outlaw payday lending. My office also filed a suit against CashCall alleging that the lender had violated district laws by charging consumers interest rates that ranged from 80 to 169 percent.

The CFPB won a ruling in 2016 that CashCall was guilty of deceptive and abusive business practices, and our office recently settled our lawsuit against CashCall, gaining nearly $3 million in restitution and debt forgiveness for consumers in the district.

Payday lending is far from being the only area where the CFPB’s national leadership has proved invaluable. Since the agency began operations in 2011, it has handled more than a million consumer complaints and returned nearly $12 billion to the pockets of more than 29 million consumers wronged by financial institutions — five times more than the agency itself costs taxpayers to fund. The CFPB has reached multiple settlements with banks, debt collectors and other predatory lenders that harmed consumers.

It also took the strategic lead on regulating other key industries that preyed on vulnerable consumers. For example, partnering with several state attorneys general, the CFPB took action against a number of predatory for-profit colleges, forcing them to pay restitution to consumers the schools lured in with unrealistic promises of a degree and gainful employment.

Now, with Mulvaney gutting the CFPB and giving more leeway to financial miscreants in the name of Mulvaney’s new “strategic priorities” to “recognize free markets and consumer choice,” the burden of standing up to giant, deep-pocketed financial institutions falls more heavily on state attorneys general with the resources and willingness to stand up for the consumers they serve.

One way attorneys general are stepping up is in joining amicus briefs opposing Mulvaney’s appointment as interim director and seeking to preserve the CFPB’s independence in the wake of Mulvaney’s support for turning the agency into yet another political pawn for Congress and the White House. We will be stepping up our efforts to safeguard consumers in other ways as well by bringing individual and multistate suits against financial services companies that harm consumers.

But, in the end, such efforts are by nature piecemeal and can’t replace the power the CFPB has to protect consumers across all states equally. Our end goal must be to be to pull the CFPB back to its original mission and away from subservience to the financial services industry and its army of well-heeled lobbyists. We cannot in good conscience abide businesses operating on a model of keeping consumers trapped in a web of indebtedness while an agency that has “consumer financial protection” in its name decides its strategic priority is to no longer financially protect consumers.

In keeping with the District of Columbia’s commitment to transparency in contracting and increased competition, the Office of Attorney General now provides a Notice of Intent to Award Sole Source Contracts. All notices are posted for ten (10) days prior to the award of a sole source contract. If you believe that an intended sole source award noted below is not justified, please provide your response to the email address for the point of contact for that proposed award by the response due date. 

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

POSITION VACANCY ANNOUNCEMENT

This position is in the collective bargaining unit represented by AFGE Local 1403 and you may be required to pay an agency service fee through direct payroll deduction.

DESCRIPTION OF DUTIES:   The Land Use and Public Works Section provides legal assistance to District agencies with respect to land use planning, zoning, historic preservation, and the use of public space. 

The successful candidate will be responsible for attending, and providing legal guidance at, meetings and hearings of the Zoning Commission (ZC) (all held in the evening) and the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). He or she will work closely with the Director of the Office of Zoning and the Secretaries to the ZC and BZA in identifying potential legal issues arising before both bodies and will respond by providing memoranda of legal advice. The attorney will review complex orders filed in rulemakings and contested cases for legal sufficiency and draft such orders. In addition, the attorney will review covenants required in order to transfer development credits, effectuate planned unit developments, or close a public street or alley. 

QUALIFICATIONS:  Candidates must have at least five (5) years’ experience, preferably in land use law.  Candidates must also possess strong legal writing, analytical, and negotiation skills, possess knowledge of land use principles, and demonstrate familiarity with administrative procedures applicable to rulemakings and contested cases. Additionally, past experience analyzing and drafting statutes and rules, the ability to understand complex land use transactions, commitment to providing the highest level of customer service, and ability to work with agency staff are important. 

ELIGIBILITY:  The successful candidate must have a law degree and be an active member in good standing of the bar of any jurisdiction with the ability to be sworn into the District of Columbia Bar within 360 days of his/her initial appointment. 

OTHER INFORMATION:  The selected candidate will be subject to a background investigation including reference checks.

Please see below attachment for details.

Emoluments: Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant in his Individual Capacity

Kids have a better shot at a successful future when they are in the classroom learning. Policies that focus on preventing truancy support the most marginalized youth and increase public safety. This is why OAG is combatting truancy in three ways: a program encouraging students to attend school; a program offering social supports to students who are truant; and a program for parents that helps them address attendance barriers for their children.

“I Belong Here” Program

The “I Belong Here” program is an effort to reduce truancy and encourage student attendance at an early age through a year-long attendance competition between classrooms. OAG staff serve as ambassadors for sixth-grade and seventh-grade homerooms, leading lesson plans on topics such as responsibility and empathy. Currently piloted at Sousa Middle School, the program is designed to disrupt the negative behaviors associated with truancy rates and positively reinforce the idea that students belong in school. Sousa Middle School was recently recognized as one of the schools with the most improved attendance rates in the District.

Social Supports for Truant Students

OAG is the agency responsible for prosecuting delinquent youth—but OAG believes that for truancy, prosecution and involvement in the juvenile justice system should be the last resort, reserved for only the most chronically truant students after other social supports and school efforts have failed. To help support students, OAG partnered with the Department of Human Services (DHS) to implement a truancy reduction diversion program called the TRIAGE (Truancy Reduction Initiative and Gateway to Empowerment) Diversion Program. The TRIAGE program employs a functional family therapist who is co-located at OAG to help review all cases that are eligible for diversion; the therapist also links families with services. These behavioral health and community support services help youth and their families address root causes of truancy, while minimizing the likelihood of reoffending.   

Helping Parents Address Attendance Barriers

Working closely with the D.C. Superior Court and other stakeholders, OAG launched a diversion program to better serve the needs of parents who are subject to prosecution for failing to send their children to school—ATTEND (Abating Truancy Through Engagement and Negotiated Dialogue) Mediation Program. The Court’s Multi-Door Dispute Resolution program mediates cases between parents and the school in a neutral environment and links the parents through the Mayor’s Services Liaison Office (MSLO) to appropriate community-based services in lieu of prosecution. The goal of the program is to help children and their families address the underlying issues causing the chronic absenteeism while minimizing the likelihood of repeat referrals and giving parents the opportunity to avoid a criminal record.