Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Alexandria P. Bovee, also known as Alexandria Montgomery, was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony. FINRA's investigation concerned whether she violated FINRA rules or federal securities laws in connect...

Read More

According to FINRA, Alexandria P. Bovee, also known as Alexandria Montgomery, was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony. FINRA's investigation concerned whether she violated FINRA rules or federal securities laws in connection with the offer or sale of securities.

The offer or sale of securities is heavily regulated to protect investors from fraud, misrepresentation, and unsuitable investments. FINRA's investigation sought to determine whether Bovee complied with these important investor protections. Her refusal to testify prevented FINRA from examining her conduct and determining whether investors were harmed.

Cooperation with regulatory investigations is not optional for securities industry professionals. It is a fundamental obligation that ensures regulators can effectively oversee the industry and protect investors. When representatives refuse to cooperate, they demonstrate a disregard for investor protection and regulatory oversight.

The bar means Bovee is permanently prohibited from working in any capacity with any FINRA member firm. Investors who worked with Bovee should carefully review their transactions to ensure they were appropriate and compliant with securities laws. This case illustrates that refusing to cooperate with regulators will result in removal from the industry, protecting investors from individuals who are unwilling to be held accountable for their conduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Eric Vance Kubiak was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned his potential involvement with undisclosed outside business activities, including those potentia...

Read More

According to FINRA, Eric Vance Kubiak was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned his potential involvement with undisclosed outside business activities, including those potentially related to crypto assets.

Initially, Kubiak provided a partial but incomplete response to FINRA that did not substantially comply with the request. The information and documents he failed to provide were material to the investigation. Ultimately, Kubiak refused to produce the outstanding information based on an assertion of confidentiality.

The crypto asset space has been rife with fraud, manipulation, and investor losses. When registered representatives engage in crypto-related activities without disclosure and oversight, investors face heightened risks. FINRA's investigation sought to determine whether Kubiak's activities were properly disclosed and supervised, protecting investors from potential conflicts of interest or fraudulent schemes.

Kubiak's assertion of confidentiality does not excuse his obligation to cooperate with FINRA's investigation. Registered representatives must provide all requested information, even if they believe it is confidential. The bar ensures that Kubiak cannot continue working with investors while refusing to be transparent with regulators. Investors should be particularly cautious about representatives who promote crypto investments, ensuring these activities are properly disclosed and supervised by their firms.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Anthony Joseph Cantone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony. FINRA's investigation concerned his customers' purchases of low-priced securities and possible conflicts of interest between his outside ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Anthony Joseph Cantone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony. FINRA's investigation concerned his customers' purchases of low-priced securities and possible conflicts of interest between his outside business activities and his customers.

Low-priced securities, often called penny stocks, are frequently associated with fraud, manipulation, and unsuitable recommendations. These securities are typically highly speculative, illiquid, and subject to price manipulation. FINRA's investigation sought to examine whether Cantone's recommendations were appropriate for his customers and whether conflicts of interest influenced his recommendations.

Outside business activities can create serious conflicts when representatives recommend investments that benefit their outside ventures. For example, if a representative has a financial interest in promoting certain low-priced securities, that conflict must be disclosed to customers so they can evaluate the recommendation with full information.

Cantone's refusal to testify prevented FINRA from examining these important investor protection concerns. The bar removes him from the industry, protecting investors from a representative unwilling to answer questions about his conduct. Investors who purchased low-priced securities through Cantone should carefully review whether these investments were suitable and whether Cantone disclosed all relevant conflicts of interest. This case reinforces the high-risk nature of penny stocks and the importance of understanding your representative's motivations.

Show Less

According to FINRA, John Petrone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation related to his trading in an elderly customer's accounts and potential misappropriation from that customer.

...

Read More

According to FINRA, John Petrone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation related to his trading in an elderly customer's accounts and potential misappropriation from that customer.

Elder financial abuse is a serious and growing problem. Financial professionals are in a position of trust with elderly clients and can exploit that trust to engage in excessive trading, unauthorized transactions, or outright theft. FINRA's investigation sought to determine whether Petrone engaged in such misconduct and whether the elderly customer was harmed.

Misappropriation—taking customer funds or securities without authorization—is one of the most serious violations in the securities industry. It is a form of theft that directly harms investors and violates the fundamental trust clients place in their financial advisors. FINRA takes these allegations very seriously and investigates them thoroughly.

Petrone's refusal to provide information prevented FINRA from examining his trading activity and determining whether misappropriation occurred. This lack of cooperation is itself a serious violation that resulted in a bar from the industry. Elderly investors and their families should be vigilant about monitoring account activity and should immediately report any suspicious trading or unexplained losses. This case underscores the vulnerability of elderly investors and the importance of regulatory oversight.

Show Less

According to FINRA, the SEC issued an opinion regarding Robert Russel Tweed finding him barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities. However, the SEC sustained some violations and set aside others, remanding the proceeding to FINRA for redetermination of sanctions. The SEC agreed...

Read More

According to FINRA, the SEC issued an opinion regarding Robert Russel Tweed finding him barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities. However, the SEC sustained some violations and set aside others, remanding the proceeding to FINRA for redetermination of sanctions. The SEC agreed with FINRA that Tweed negligently violated Securities Act Section 17(a)(2) by failing to disclose fees associated with his fund's investment in a master fund, failing to disclose a change in master funds and continued use of an outdated private placement memorandum, and failing to disclose a consulting agreement.

These disclosure failures deprived investors of material information necessary to make informed investment decisions. When fund managers fail to disclose fees, investors cannot accurately assess the total costs of their investments or compare them to alternatives. Outdated offering documents can mislead investors about current fund operations and risks.

However, the SEC set aside FINRA's findings regarding Tweed's failure to disclose a five percent management fee, finding that this failure was not negligent. Because FINRA had imposed a single sanction for all violations, the SEC set aside the bar and remanded the case for FINRA to reconsider appropriate sanctions for the sustained violations.

This case illustrates the importance of complete and accurate disclosure in private fund offerings. Even negligent failures to disclose material information can violate securities laws and result in significant sanctions. Investors in private funds should carefully review all offering documents and ask detailed questions about fees, fund operations, and any recent changes. The remand ensures that sanctions are appropriately calibrated to the specific violations proven.

Show Less

According to FINRA, William Marc Rankin was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned details provided in a Form U5 submitted by his member firm disclosing that a customer alleged ...

Read More

According to FINRA, William Marc Rankin was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned details provided in a Form U5 submitted by his member firm disclosing that a customer alleged he recommended the liquidation of an Individual Retirement Account without notifying her of the tax ramifications.

IRA liquidations typically trigger significant tax consequences, including ordinary income tax on the distribution and potential early withdrawal penalties for investors under age 59½. Failing to explain these tax ramifications to a customer before recommending a liquidation is a serious breach of a representative's duty to provide complete information.

When representatives recommend IRA distributions or liquidations, they must ensure customers understand all tax consequences and consider alternatives that might minimize tax impact. The customer's allegation suggests Rankin may have recommended a transaction that resulted in unexpected tax liability, causing financial harm.

Rankin's refusal to provide information prevented FINRA from investigating this allegation and determining whether the recommendation was suitable and properly explained. The bar protects investors from a representative who was unwilling to answer questions about potentially harmful advice. Investors should always consult with tax professionals before making IRA distribution decisions and should expect their financial advisors to thoroughly explain all tax consequences of recommended transactions.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Todd Ray Anderson was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned circumstances surrounding an amended Form U5 filed by his former member firm disclosing that the...

Read More

According to FINRA, Todd Ray Anderson was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned circumstances surrounding an amended Form U5 filed by his former member firm disclosing that the firm initiated an internal review after a client disputed a signature on a fixed annuity application.

Disputed signatures on financial documents are extremely serious red flags that may indicate forgery, unauthorized transactions, or other misconduct. When a customer claims their signature was forged or unauthorized, it suggests the representative may have completed the application without proper authorization, potentially engaging in fraud.

Fixed annuities are long-term contracts that can be difficult and expensive to exit. If a representative submitted an annuity application without proper customer authorization, the customer could be locked into an unsuitable investment based on fraudulent documentation. FINRA's investigation sought to determine what actually occurred and whether the customer was harmed.

Anderson's refusal to provide information prevented FINRA from examining the disputed signature and determining the truth. This lack of cooperation resulted in a bar from the industry. Investors should always carefully review all documents before signing and should keep copies of everything they sign. Any discrepancies between what you signed and what appears in your records should be immediately reported. This case highlights the importance of document integrity in protecting investor rights.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Louis Peter Goff was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation originated from FINRA's review of a filing by another regulator, though the specific nature of the underlyi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Louis Peter Goff was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA. The investigation originated from FINRA's review of a filing by another regulator, though the specific nature of the underlying conduct is not detailed in the public record.

When other regulators identify potential misconduct and share information with FINRA, it triggers FINRA's responsibility to investigate whether FINRA rules were violated and whether investors were harmed. Multi-regulator investigations often indicate serious concerns that have come to the attention of multiple oversight bodies.

Cooperation with regulatory investigations is a non-negotiable obligation for all registered representatives. Even when an investigation originates from another regulator's filing, representatives must fully cooperate with FINRA's requests for information and documents. This cooperation ensures that regulators can piece together the full picture of potential misconduct.

Goff's refusal to provide information prevented FINRA from completing its investigation and determining appropriate action. The automatic bar that results from non-cooperation protects investors by removing from the industry individuals who refuse to be held accountable. Investors should check BrokerCheck regularly to see if their representatives have any disciplinary history or disclosures from multiple regulators, as this may indicate more serious problems.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Cladius Olaniran Tokunboh was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony about his outside business activities. The matter originated from a Form U5 amendment filed by his previous member firm disclosing he w...

Read More

According to FINRA, Cladius Olaniran Tokunboh was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony about his outside business activities. The matter originated from a Form U5 amendment filed by his previous member firm disclosing he was discharged for failing to disclose or provide material features about outside business and investment-related activities in which he was engaged and/or promoting.

Being terminated for undisclosed outside activities is a serious matter that suggests the representative was engaged in business ventures without his firm's knowledge or approval. When these activities are investment-related, the risks to investors are particularly acute, as the representative may be promoting investments that lack proper oversight or may involve conflicts of interest.

Firms require disclosure of outside business activities so they can evaluate potential conflicts, ensure representatives have adequate time to serve their clients, and supervise any investment-related activities. When representatives hide their outside ventures, it prevents firms from protecting investors through appropriate supervision and oversight.

Tokunboh's refusal to testify about these activities compounded the seriousness of his conduct. The bar ensures he cannot return to the industry while refusing to answer questions about his undisclosed activities. Investors should always ask their representatives about any outside business interests and verify through BrokerCheck that all required disclosures have been made. Hidden outside activities are a major red flag that should prompt investors to reconsider the relationship.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Ronald Luther Bucher was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned allegations made by his member firm in a Form U5 filing, including that he communicated with ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Ronald Luther Bucher was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA. The investigation concerned allegations made by his member firm in a Form U5 filing, including that he communicated with customers via text messages and personal email in violation of firm policy.

Communicating with customers through personal email and text messages that aren't captured by firm systems is a serious compliance violation. These communications often involve important discussions about investments, recommendations, and account activity. When they occur outside firm systems, the firm cannot supervise them, and there is no record if disputes arise about what was said or recommended.

The requirement that firms capture and retain all business-related communications exists to protect investors. These records can prove what representations were made, what risks were disclosed, and whether recommendations were suitable. When representatives deliberately use personal communication channels, they may be trying to hide inappropriate conduct from firm supervision.

Although Bucher produced some information in response to FINRA's request, he failed to produce the requested customer communications—the most critical evidence for evaluating his conduct. This selective compliance suggests an unwillingness to be fully transparent about his communications with customers. The bar protects investors from representatives who refuse to be held accountable for their customer communications.

Show Less