Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Cash App Investing LLC was censured and fined $375,000 for failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer information.

The violations stemmed from a significant data security lapse involving a trade reconciliation database. A f...

Read More

According to FINRA, Cash App Investing LLC was censured and fined $375,000 for failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to safeguard customer information.

The violations stemmed from a significant data security lapse involving a trade reconciliation database. A firm representative had designed and built this database, and when he departed the company, the firm failed to terminate his access credentials. While the firm properly disabled his access to other systems, the trade reconciliation database was overlooked because it existed outside the firm's standard security infrastructure.

The consequences were severe. Beginning in October 2021, as the firm was transitioning the database into its proper data security infrastructure, the former representative accessed the system and downloaded reports containing the names and account numbers of approximately 8.2 million customers. For roughly 3.4 million of these customers, the downloaded data also included account values and holdings information.

The firm did not detect this unauthorized access for approximately three months. Once discovered, Cash App Investing took immediate remedial action: terminating the representative's access, following its cybersecurity incident response policy, promptly notifying affected customers and regulators including FINRA, and implementing enhanced cybersecurity controls and procedures. FINRA ultimately barred the responsible representative in February 2023.

This case serves as a critical reminder about the importance of comprehensive data security protocols. In today's digital age, customer data is an invaluable asset that requires constant protection. Firms must ensure that access controls extend to all systems containing sensitive information, not just primary databases.

For investors, this case underscores the importance of monitoring your accounts for any suspicious activity and promptly reporting concerns to your brokerage firm. While firms have regulatory obligations to protect your information, remaining vigilant about your own financial data is essential. If you receive a data breach notification from a financial institution, take it seriously and consider implementing additional security measures such as credit monitoring.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Hoopoe Capital Markets, LLC was censured and fined $20,000 for failing to file required private placement documents with FINRA.

The violation involved five private placement offerings sold by the firm's registered representatives. For each of these offerings, the firm failed t...

Read More

According to FINRA, Hoopoe Capital Markets, LLC was censured and fined $20,000 for failing to file required private placement documents with FINRA.

The violation involved five private placement offerings sold by the firm's registered representatives. For each of these offerings, the firm failed to file with FINRA the private placement memorandum or any other offering document used in connection with the sales.

FINRA Rule 5123 requires member firms to file with FINRA copies of any private placement memorandum, term sheet, or other offering document used in connection with private placements. This filing requirement exists to help FINRA monitor the private placement market and protect investors from potentially fraudulent or misleading offering materials.

Private placements are securities offerings that are exempt from the full registration requirements of the Securities Act of 1933. Because these offerings do not undergo the same level of regulatory scrutiny as registered public offerings, the filing requirement helps ensure that FINRA can review offering documents for potential red flags or compliance issues.

When firms fail to file these documents, regulators lose visibility into the private placement activities occurring in the market. This can make it more difficult to detect problematic offerings before investors are harmed.

For investors considering private placement investments, this case serves as a reminder of the importance of conducting thorough due diligence. Private placements carry significant risks, including limited liquidity, reduced regulatory oversight, and the potential for fraud. Before investing, you should carefully review all offering documents, understand the risks involved, and consider consulting with a financial professional or attorney.

You can verify whether a firm has properly filed required documents by checking FINRA's BrokerCheck system or contacting FINRA directly. Firms that fail to meet their filing obligations may have other compliance deficiencies that could affect investor protection.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Synovus Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $315,000 for failing to establish, maintain, and enforce a reasonably designed supervisory system concerning forgery and falsification of electronic signatures.

The firm's compliance failures were extensive. Synovus permitted per...

Read More

According to FINRA, Synovus Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $315,000 for failing to establish, maintain, and enforce a reasonably designed supervisory system concerning forgery and falsification of electronic signatures.

The firm's compliance failures were extensive. Synovus permitted personnel to electronically sign documents on behalf of registered representatives in certain limited circumstances without requiring any indication that someone else had signed on their behalf. This practice resulted in at least 500 documents being signed in this manner.

More critically, the firm had no system for reviewing certificates of completion for electronic signatures and maintained no other controls concerning non-genuine electronic signatures. The firm's written supervisory procedures were completely silent on the topic of electronic signatures, creating a regulatory blind spot.

This lack of oversight allowed associated persons at one branch to collectively forge or falsify more than 100 customers' signatures on more than 150 documents. These forgeries resulted in the firm maintaining hundreds of inaccurate books and records, a serious violation of securities regulations.

The misconduct was eventually discovered by firm operations personnel while processing paperwork from the branch. Once discovered, Synovus attempted to contact all affected customers, verified that the underlying transactions were authorized, and in many instances obtained properly re-executed documents. No customers filed complaints.

Following this incident, the firm implemented a weekly review of certificates of completion for red flags indicating potential forgery or falsification and memorialized these procedures in its written supervisory procedures.

This case highlights the growing importance of electronic signature controls in modern brokerage operations. While electronic signatures provide convenience, they also create new opportunities for misconduct if not properly supervised.

For investors, this case reinforces the importance of carefully reviewing all documents before signing and maintaining personal records of authorized transactions. If you ever receive confirmation of a transaction you did not authorize, contact your firm and FINRA immediately.

Show Less

According to FINRA, National Bank of Canada Financial Inc. was censured and fined $70,000 for reporting transactions to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) without required indicators.

The firm's violation involved transactions that were executed without a mark-up, mark-down, or com...

Read More

According to FINRA, National Bank of Canada Financial Inc. was censured and fined $70,000 for reporting transactions to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) without required indicators.

The firm's violation involved transactions that were executed without a mark-up, mark-down, or commission. Under FINRA rules, when a firm reports such transactions to TRACE, it must include a "No Remuneration" (NR) indicator to accurately reflect that the firm did not receive compensation on the trade.

The firm was executing off-setting transactions with a firm customer and a firm non-member affiliate at the same price. While the firm did not receive remuneration on the non-member affiliate trades, it incorrectly determined that the NR indicator was not applicable. As a result, these transactions were reported to TRACE without the required NR indicator.

TRACE is FINRA's system for collecting and disseminating information on fixed-income securities transactions. Accurate trade reporting is essential for market transparency and helps regulators monitor for potential market manipulation or other misconduct. When firms fail to include required indicators, it compromises the integrity of this important market data.

After FINRA brought this issue to the firm's attention, National Bank of Canada Financial remediated the problem and began correctly including the NR indicator in its TRACE reports for applicable transactions.

This case illustrates the technical complexity of trade reporting requirements and the importance of firms properly understanding and implementing all applicable reporting rules. Even seemingly minor reporting errors can result in significant regulatory consequences.

For investors, accurate trade reporting helps ensure market transparency and fair pricing. While individual investors may not interact directly with TRACE data, the system plays an important role in maintaining orderly fixed-income markets. Firms that fail to meet their reporting obligations may face fines and increased regulatory scrutiny, which can ultimately affect their customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Ally Invest Securities LLC was censured and fined $850,000 for failing to preserve business-related electronic communications with customers and for supervisory failures.

The firm's violations were significant in scope. Ally Invest failed to preserve customer communications ab...

Read More

According to FINRA, Ally Invest Securities LLC was censured and fined $850,000 for failing to preserve business-related electronic communications with customers and for supervisory failures.

The firm's violations were significant in scope. Ally Invest failed to preserve customer communications about trade executions, fund transfers, and other account activity, along with an unknown quantity of internal and external communications from group mailboxes. These preservation failures occurred due to separate coding errors and other technical failures in three different systems, causing communications to be permanently lost.

As a result of these technical failures, the firm was unable to fully respond to regulatory inquiries from both FINRA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The inability to produce requested records can severely hamper regulators' ability to investigate potential misconduct and protect investors.

The firm also failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to review business-related electronic communications. Specifically, approximately 120 group mailboxes and a software platform used for customer service communications were not connected to the firm's system for selecting communications for compliance review. The firm's procedures did not require these connections and provided no guidance on verifying that mailboxes and user accounts were properly integrated into the review system.

This supervisory failure resulted in the firm failing to timely review at least 521,000 communications. Notably, FINRA had previously warned the firm about a prior failure to review business-related electronic communications, making this a repeat violation.

This case underscores the critical importance of robust electronic communication preservation and review systems in modern brokerage operations. Record retention requirements exist to protect both investors and the integrity of the securities markets.

For investors, this case serves as a reminder that communications with your broker are supposed to be preserved and may be reviewed by compliance personnel. If you have concerns about a transaction or communication, document it independently and consider following up in writing.

Show Less

According to FINRA, EFG Capital International Corp. was censured and fined $650,000 for failing to establish and implement adequate anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures.

The scale of the firm's AML oversight responsibility was substantial. The firm's customers, some of whom were de...

Read More

According to FINRA, EFG Capital International Corp. was censured and fined $650,000 for failing to establish and implement adequate anti-money laundering (AML) policies and procedures.

The scale of the firm's AML oversight responsibility was substantial. The firm's customers, some of whom were designated as high-risk based on their geographic location or other factors, sent and received approximately $5.5 billion in wire transfers. These transfers included transactions involving jurisdictions that the firm itself had designated as having a high risk of money laundering.

While the firm's AML policies and procedures required monitoring of wire transfers for potentially suspicious activity, including activity involving high-risk geographic locations and transfers that were unexplained, unusually large, or showed unusual patterns, the firm failed to actually establish and implement procedures that could reasonably be expected to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious wire transfers.

This gap between written policy and actual implementation represents a serious compliance failure. Anti-money laundering requirements are designed to prevent the financial system from being used to launder proceeds of criminal activity, finance terrorism, or facilitate other illegal conduct. When firms fail to properly monitor for suspicious transactions, they may inadvertently facilitate serious crimes.

Broker-dealers are required under the Bank Secrecy Act and FINRA rules to establish and implement AML programs reasonably designed to detect and report suspicious activity. This includes filing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) when warranted.

For investors, this case highlights the importance of choosing a brokerage firm with robust compliance programs. While AML violations may not directly harm individual investors, they can indicate broader compliance weaknesses at a firm. Investors should be aware that legitimate financial institutions will ask questions about large or unusual transactions as part of their AML obligations. Such inquiries are a sign that the firm takes its compliance responsibilities seriously.

Show Less

According to FINRA, NexPoint Securities, Inc. was censured, fined $50,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for conducting a securities business while failing to maintain required net capital.

The firm's net capital deficiencies ranged from $8,511 to $1,486,435 during the relevant...

Read More

According to FINRA, NexPoint Securities, Inc. was censured, fined $50,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for conducting a securities business while failing to maintain required net capital.

The firm's net capital deficiencies ranged from $8,511 to $1,486,435 during the relevant period. These deficiencies occurred because of accounting misclassifications: the firm incorrectly treated deferred tax assets and federal tax prepayments as liabilities rather than as non-allowable assets, and misclassified commissions receivable from affiliate mutual fund sales as allowable assets rather than non-allowable assets.

These misclassifications caused the firm to overstate its net capital, masking the fact that it was operating below required minimums. Net capital requirements exist to ensure that broker-dealers maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet their obligations to customers and creditors.

The firm also failed to maintain accurate books and records and filed 14 inaccurate FOCUS (Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single) reports with FINRA. These reports are critical regulatory filings that allow FINRA to monitor the financial health of member firms.

Additionally, the firm failed to file required notices of its net capital declines with FINRA and the SEC. These notification requirements exist to alert regulators when firms may be experiencing financial difficulties.

The firm's supervisory failures were also cited. Its supervisory system and written supervisory procedures did not include guidance on how net capital computations should be performed, despite the firm's historical net capital deficiencies.

For investors, this case illustrates the importance of a firm's financial stability. Broker-dealers that operate below required net capital levels may not have sufficient resources to meet their obligations. Investors can check a firm's financial condition through FINRA's BrokerCheck system and should be cautious about firms with a history of financial or compliance issues.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Aegis Capital Corp. was censured, fined $275,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for maintaining inaccurate books and records and supervisory failures.

The firm paid several million dollars to its corporate parent and recorded those payments as expenses rathe...

Read More

According to FINRA, Aegis Capital Corp. was censured, fined $275,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for maintaining inaccurate books and records and supervisory failures.

The firm paid several million dollars to its corporate parent and recorded those payments as expenses rather than properly accounting for them as distributions in net capital computations and FOCUS filings. While the firm had a written agreement with its corporate parent, the agreement did not adequately specify the management services to be provided. Under securities regulations, such payments must be accounted for as capital withdrawals.

This mischaracterization affected more than a dozen net capital computations and FOCUS filings, although FINRA noted there was no actual change to the firm's net capital position.

The firm's supervisory failures were significant. Aegis had no system or procedures for determining whether payments to its corporate parent should be characterized as distributions rather than expenses, and no system for determining how such payments affected its net capital computations and FOCUS filings. The firm's written procedures for supervising the preparation of its general ledger, net capital computations, and FOCUS filings were not reasonably designed.

Perhaps most concerning, the firm allowed an unregistered person to have a supervisory role in its accounting department. This individual had authority to sign checks and withdraw funds from the firm's bank accounts and supervised and approved most entries in the firm's general ledger, yet she was not registered as an Operations Professional as required.

This case highlights the importance of proper financial reporting and appropriate registration of personnel with supervisory responsibilities. Accurate books and records are fundamental to regulatory oversight and investor protection.

For investors, understanding that firms are required to maintain accurate financial records and register appropriate personnel provides context for the regulatory framework designed to protect them.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Alexander Investment Services Co. was censured, fined $25,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for failing to establish adequate policies and procedures for Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) compliance.

Regulation Best Interest, which took effect in June 2020,...

Read More

According to FINRA, Alexander Investment Services Co. was censured, fined $25,000, and required to comply with certain undertakings for failing to establish adequate policies and procedures for Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) compliance.

Regulation Best Interest, which took effect in June 2020, requires broker-dealers and their associated persons to act in the best interest of retail customers when making securities recommendations. It represents one of the most significant investor protection rules in recent years.

Alexander Investment Services' written policies and procedures contained no provisions specifically relating to the obligations set forth in Reg BI. While the firm eventually updated its policies and procedures, these updates discussed Reg BI only in general terms without addressing conflicts of interest or the regulation's specific requirements for acting in the best interest of retail customers.

The firm's written supervisory procedures also failed to designate the principal responsible for Reg BI compliance, detail the supervisory steps and reviews that should be undertaken by that principal, specify the frequency of those reviews, or describe how such reviews should be conducted or evidenced.

This failure to implement meaningful Reg BI compliance procedures meant that the firm lacked a framework for ensuring its registered representatives were meeting their obligations to retail customers.

For investors, this case underscores the importance of understanding Reg BI and the protections it provides. Under this regulation, broker-dealers must consider reasonably available alternatives, cannot place their interests ahead of customers' interests, and must disclose material facts about conflicts of interest. Investors should not hesitate to ask their broker how they are compensated and whether there are any conflicts of interest related to their recommendations.

If you believe a broker has not acted in your best interest, you can file a complaint with FINRA.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Barclays Capital Inc. was censured and fined $150,000 for serving as an underwriter for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in which it had a conflict of interest without ensuring proper qualified independent underwriter participation.

FINRA Rule 5121 establishes requirements for...

Read More

According to FINRA, Barclays Capital Inc. was censured and fined $150,000 for serving as an underwriter for an Initial Public Offering (IPO) in which it had a conflict of interest without ensuring proper qualified independent underwriter participation.

FINRA Rule 5121 establishes requirements for public offerings where a member firm has a conflict of interest. When such conflicts exist, the rule generally requires that a qualified independent underwriter participate in the preparation of the registration statement and prospectus and exercise the usual standards of due diligence.

In this case, Barclays served as an underwriter for an IPO where it had a conflict of interest. The lead underwriter for the offering also had a conflict. Critically, the securities offered were not investment grade rated and did not have a bona fide public market at the time of the offering. Under these circumstances, FINRA Rule 5121(a)(1) requires qualified independent underwriter participation, but this requirement was not satisfied.

The qualified independent underwriter requirement exists to protect investors by ensuring that someone without a financial stake in the offering's success conducts proper due diligence. When underwriters have conflicts of interest, they may be incentivized to overlook problems or present offerings in an overly favorable light.

This case reminds investors that conflicts of interest are pervasive in the securities industry. When considering IPO investments, investors should understand who the underwriters are and whether any conflicts exist. The prospectus should disclose such information.

IPO investments carry inherent risks, including limited operating history, volatile pricing, and potential conflicts among market participants. Investors should conduct thorough due diligence and consider whether an IPO investment is appropriate for their risk tolerance and investment objectives.

Show Less