Christian Genitrini, while serving as a New York City-based RR with MML Investors Services, posted the folowing advertisement on Craigslist:

"20% GUARANTEED RETURN TO INVESTORS. We are looking for investors that are interested in an ANNUAL GUARANTEED RETURN OF 20% on the invested capital. The minimum investment amount is $10,000."

The Craigslist posting linked to a website belonging to a company that Genitrini wholly-owned - AmeriGen Capital Corporation - and had formed in Nevada about 3 years earlier.  Genitrini claimed on the website, among other things, that AmeriGen Capital is a "full service investment firm created with the intent of forming a true partnership with entrepreneurs and business people."   He further claimed on the site, among other things, "Investing in growing businesses through principal transactions (from first
stage funding to public listing)," "providing high-yield investment opportunities to private investors," and "seeking and evaluating new high-yield investments."

Genitrini further disclosed on AmeriGen Capital's web site that the company "invest[s] nationwide in the United States up to a maximum of $ 10 million per single transaction (we do make exceptions based on the opportunity).  [AmeriGen Capital] invests both as lead investor or as a group investor, so we consider co-investment opportunities presented by other venture capital/private equity firms."  He added that AmeriGen Capital "offers several investment opportunities for individuals with available cash or good credit. We also actively seek new high-yield investment opportunities." Genitrini did not disclose the nature of the investment product in AmeriGen Capital or the risks of the investment." 

On AmeriGen Capital's website, Genitrini "guaranteed" annual returns of 16, 18, and 20 percent per year based, respectively, on investment amounts of between $50,000 and $200,000, between $200,000 and $500,000, and above $500,000.

In contrast to Genitrini's "guarantees" of 20 percent returns on investment, AmeriGen Capital's contemplated private placement documents said, for example, that, "There can be no assurance that by following its current investment strategy [AmeriGen Capital] will prove to be successful or profitable in the foreseeable future."  And, an "investment in [AmeriGen Capital is] highly speculative and involves] a high degree of risk of loss of [the investor's] entire investment.1' The Subscription Agreement also stated that the investments carried by AmeriGen Capital "may be volatile and present operational risks."

Communications With The Public.   FINRA found that Genitrini’s Internet ads constituted communications with the public and were deficient because they:  (i) were not based on principles of fair dealing and good faith;  (ii) were not fair and balanced;  (iii) did not disclose risks associated with the investment;  (iv) guaranteed promising returns that were exaggerated, unwarranted or misleading;  and, (v) the predictions of performance were also exaggerated or unwarranted.

Private Offering of Securities.  These involved promissory notes his company issued according to the private placement memorandum, but were not made pursuant to an effective registration statement filed with the SEC.  The offering was intended to be a Regulation D offering, pursuant to a Rule 506 exemption.  However, that Regulation prohibits offers or sales of securities by any form of general solicitation or general advertising. 

Use of Internet and Company's Web Site.   Genitrini’s use of the Internet and his company’s website violated Section 5 of the '33 Act;  guaranteeing returns in the offer of securities over the Internet violated Section 17(a)(1) of the same Act. 

False Representations to Firm.   Genitrini also falsely described his work with his company on his member firm’s outside business activity disclosure form, and failed to disclose that he maintained a website for the company.  Genitrini told his firm, in writing, that his business and website were for tax-planning services.

He received a $15,000 fine, a 2-year suspension, and was required to requalify by exam for Series 7 and Series 63.  This is FINRA Case #2010022859701.   [Disciplinary Actions for May 2011]

For further details, go to:  [FINRA AWC Letter No. 2010022859701, Accepted 3/15/11]