Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

 

 

 

 

BROWSE BY TOPIC

ABOUT FINANCIALISH

We seek to provide information, insights and direction that may enable the Financial Community to effectively and efficiently operate in a regulatory risk-free environment by curating content from all over the web.

 

Stay Informed with the latest fanancialish news.

 

SUBSCRIBE FOR
NEWSLETTERS & ALERTS

FOLLOW US

Archive

FINRA AWCs for September - Individuals

September 16, 2010

In September, FINRA reported fines and sanctions against 66 individuals - 20 (30% - too high!) are registered principals or supervisers.  Today's stories ...

  1. Principal Forged Clients' Signatures on Policies, With Their Approval.
  2. BOM Operated Beyond his Office's 4 Walls.
  3. RR's Lazy Efforts Cost Customer $26K in VA Exchange Fees.
  4. Principal Oblivous to Red Flags While Marketing Unregistered Hedge Fund.
  5.   [ September Disciplinary Actions ]

    1. Principal Forged Clients' Signatures on Policies, With Their Approval.   Principal, based in Woodstock, NY, was barred from industry, settling charges he falsified a client’s insurance policy application and related documents without the client’s knowledge, submitted the documents to his member firm’s insurance company affiliate and subsequently denied to his firm that he had falsified signatures or submitted falsely signed documents.  While clients later stated they approved of his actions, Principal violated his firm’s insurance affiliate policy, which prohibited insurance agents from signing another person’s name, even if clients authorized them. 

He falsely endorsed, deposited into his personal bank account a $1,000 check made payable to an insurance agent contracted to him;  falsely claimed the agent authorized him to use the check to repay expenses.  He also took a required online computer exam on his office manager’s behalf, then falsely denied to firm he did not do so. (FINRA Case #2008013450201) 

    2. BOM Operated Beyond his Office's 4 Walls.   Registered Superviser, based in Fayetteville, NC, was fined $10K, suspended 3 months, settling charges that, while associated with a member firm, he engaged in outside business activity, received compensation totaling at least $13K, and failed to disclose his O/S business activity to the firm.  As a BOM (branch office manager), he falsely attested on the firm’s branch office compliance questionnaires that he had disclosed all O/S business activities of branch office personnel.   (FINRA Case #2008014596901)  

    3. RR's Lazy Efforts Cost Customer $26K in VA Exchange Fees.   An RR, based in Tierra Verde, FL, was suspended 1 month (and not fined because of financial difficulties), settling charges she failed to determine the surrender fees related to VA exchanges she recommended to a customer - customer agreed to the exchanges based on his understanding there would be no penalty associated with the exchanges.  In fact,  customer incurred over $26K in surrender fees.  RR either was negligent or inexperienced;  had she conduct adequate analysis, she would have determined that customer could avoid all such fees by holding the variable annuities for an additional 2 months.  RR also failed to ensure that the imposed surrender fees were accurately disclosed on her member firm’s VA switch form. (FINRA Case #2008014756401) 

    4. Principal Oblivous to Red Flags While Marketing Unregistered Hedge Fund.   Principal, based in Roswell, GA, was fined $25K, suspended 4 months, settling charges that, acting with others, he participated in a fraudulent scheme to solicit investments in an unregistered hedge fund ("HF") and its general partner.  Principal knew or was reckless in not knowing, that the HF was engaging in a highly speculative trading strategy involving futures contracts and that information the HF manager supplied - which Principal used - contained materially false and misleading statements and omissions, including a pending CFTC fraud action against the HF manager, the fund’s theoretical and unproven performance figures, the highly speculative nature of the HF's trading strategy, and the significant risks associated with an investment in the HF and its general partner.  In short, Principal ignored/disregarded many “red flags,” including those in the hedge fund’s PPM. (FINRA Case #2005001398602)