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

Supervisory Lapses: RRs' Excessive Trading, FinOp's Criminal Conviction

November 15, 2010

In separate cases, FINRA fined and sanctioned both the firms and the Registered Principals through which they acted. 

    Case 1.  Aura Financial Services + Reg'd Principal (AL).   Firm was suspended until it paid $42K plus interest in restitution to customers;  Reg'd Principal was barred as a principal, suspended 8 months in any capacity, and ordered to pay $42K plus interest in restitution.  Firm, acting through Principal Gautney, failed to reasonably supervise RRs and failed to respond to red flags indicating apparent excessive trading by the RRs.  Further, a previous Offer of Settlement has not been paid-in-full (50%);  the settlement, which Gautney signed on the firm’s behalf, required each to pay $100K in restitution to customers.  (FINRA Case #2008011565203)

    Case 2.  Biremis, Corp. + Reg'd Principal (MA).   Firm fined $50K;  Reg'd Principal fined $10K, suspended as principal 6 weeks.   Firm had in its employ an individual - controller for firm and for several affiliated companies - who was arrested and charged with numerous criminal violations.  The individual informed Principal Beck about the criminal charges ("fudging" the nature of charges), but Beck didn't follow up or otherwise investigate the criminal allegations - nor did he instruct others to do same.  Firm's WSP's, which were Beck’s responsibility, didn't require any such follow-up. 

When the individual was convicted - which made him statutorily disqualified - Firm, acting through Beck, failed to file a written application (Membership Continuance Form-400 (MC-400)) for relief from the statutory disqualification so the individual could continue to associate with the firm - which is what he did, as firm’s FinOp.  Other supervisory deficiencies pertained to these personnel matters:  (i) investigating prospective employees’ backgrounds;  (ii) following up on red flags;  and, (iii) achieving compliance with its registration and Form U4 reporting obligations.   (FINRA Case #2008014753602)