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: B/D President/Owner Too Loose in Supervision of Compliance Officers

October 18, 2010

The president and owner of a Florida-based broker-dealer was fined, suspended and subjected to other discipline because, according to FINRA, he knew, or should have known, that the firm’s CCOs and AMLCOs were not fulfilling their compliance functions while the firm operated in violation of FINRA rules and regs. 

    Disciplinary Actions.   To settle the FINRA charges, Guy Steven Amico of Newbridge Securities agreed to a $100,000 fine and a 4-month suspension in any principal capacity - which began 9/20/10.  He also is required to complete 8 hours of AML training, which he is to attend within six months of issuance of the AWC and provide FINRA with evidence of completion. 

    Alleged Violations.   As his member firm’s president, Mr. Amico allegedly failed to adequately supervise the firm’s chief compliance officers (CCOs) and AML compliance officers (AMLCOs).  He knew, or should have known, of substantive violations of FINRA rules and the potential inadequacy of firm compliance personnel through FINRA exit conference reports  - which disclosed that the firm failed to properly report customer complaints and other reportable matters, failed to amend Forms U4 or Forms U5 for disclosable events, or was late in amending these forms.  Mr. Amico received the FINRA exit conference reports re: violations of the BSA and FINRA AML rules, and he had received SEC written findings identifying suspicious penny stock transactions, AML program issues and reporting deficiencies.

Mr. Amico apparently had been informed that the firm was not in compliance with BSA requirements and NASD Rule 3011, was not making necessary filings under NASD Rule 3070 and Article V, Sections 2 and 3 of FINRA’s By-Laws through the regulators, and through the CCOs and AMLCOs.  He further knew, or should have known, that one of the CCOs/AMLCOs had a disciplinary history - but he failed to take affirmative steps to ensure that they were performing the AML and reporting functions delegated to them - i.e., through heightened supervision.   [FINRA Disciplinary Action for October, Case #2007007151705]