Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Amina Kennedy was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 1, 2024.

Kennedy certified to the State of New York that she had personally completed 18 hours of continuing education required to renew her state ins...

Read More

According to FINRA, Amina Kennedy was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 1, 2024.

Kennedy certified to the State of New York that she had personally completed 18 hours of continuing education required to renew her state insurance license when, in fact, another person had completed that continuing education on her behalf. This fraudulent certification allowed Kennedy to renew her insurance license without actually completing the required education.

Continuing education requirements exist to ensure that licensed professionals maintain current knowledge of regulations, products, and industry practices. Insurance products can be complex, and regulations change over time. The continuing education requirement ensures that agents stay informed about these changes and can properly serve their clients.

When someone else completes continuing education on a representative's behalf, the representative misses the opportunity to learn updated information and refresh their knowledge. More importantly, the false certification is an act of dishonesty that demonstrates a willingness to circumvent requirements and misrepresent facts to regulators.

This type of fraud undermines the entire continuing education system. If representatives can simply have someone else complete their continuing education, the system becomes meaningless. State insurance regulators and the public rely on certifications to be truthful, and false certifications erode trust in the regulatory framework.

While this violation involved insurance continuing education rather than securities continuing education, it is still relevant to Kennedy's fitness as a registered representative. The willingness to commit fraud in one area suggests a broader disregard for rules and honesty. FINRA appropriately sanctioned this conduct to deter similar violations and maintain the integrity of licensing requirements.

For investors, this case serves as a reminder to check their broker's qualifications and licensing status through FINRA's BrokerCheck system and state insurance department websites. Investors should also be aware that brokers are required to maintain current licenses and complete continuing education. A broker who cuts corners on education requirements may also cut corners in other areas that could affect the quality of service provided to clients.

The one-month suspension ensures that Kennedy faces consequences for her dishonesty while allowing her to return to the industry after serving the sanction. However, the violation will remain on her permanent regulatory record and will be visible to anyone who checks her background. Investors considering working with Kennedy in the future should be aware of this violation and consider whether they are comfortable working with someone who has demonstrated a willingness to commit fraud, even in what might be considered a relatively minor matter.

Show Less

According to FINRA, David Allen Gibbs was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months on October 2, 2024.

Gibbs borrowed $780,000 from a personal friend who was also a customer of his member firm, without notifying or obtaining written appr...

Read More

According to FINRA, David Allen Gibbs was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months on October 2, 2024.

Gibbs borrowed $780,000 from a personal friend who was also a customer of his member firm, without notifying or obtaining written approval from the firm. The loan was memorialized in a promissory note requiring monthly payments with interest for a 30-year term. Gibbs has made timely monthly payments, as well as principal payments of approximately $550,000, under the loan. The customer has not complained about the loan.

In addition, Gibbs submitted compliance attestations to his firm in which he falsely represented that he had not borrowed money from any of his clients other than immediate family members. These false attestations compounded the original violation by demonstrating active concealment of the unauthorized borrowing.

FINRA rules generally prohibit registered representatives from borrowing money from customers except in limited circumstances, such as when the customer is an immediate family member or a financial institution in the business of lending. These rules exist to protect customers from being pressured or manipulated into lending money to their broker, and to prevent conflicts of interest that could affect the broker's recommendations.

Even though the customer in this case was a personal friend and has not complained, the borrowing was still improper. The rule exists regardless of whether the customer suffers harm, because it addresses the potential for harm and the conflict of interest created by the financial relationship. When a broker owes a substantial sum to a customer, it could affect the broker's judgment about what recommendations to make to that customer.

The false compliance attestations are particularly concerning because they demonstrate intentional concealment rather than mere oversight. Gibbs knew about the firm's policy against borrowing from customers and actively misrepresented his compliance with that policy. This suggests a willingness to deceive the firm to avoid consequences for his violation.

The fact that Gibbs has made timely payments and paid down a substantial portion of the loan demonstrates some responsibility, and the customer's lack of complaint suggests the loan has not caused financial harm. However, these factors do not excuse the original violation or the false attestations.

For investors, this case illustrates the importance of maintaining appropriate boundaries in relationships with financial professionals. While brokers and customers may develop friendships over time, lending money to your broker creates conflicts of interest that can affect the quality of advice you receive. Investors should be very cautious about entering into lending or borrowing arrangements with their broker, even if the broker is also a friend.

The three-month suspension ensures that Gibbs faces meaningful consequences for his violations while allowing him to return to the industry. The violation will remain on his permanent regulatory record and will be visible through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Taulant Matthew Kodi was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 3, 2024.

Kodi certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education requir...

Read More

According to FINRA, Taulant Matthew Kodi was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 3, 2024.

Kodi certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew his state insurance license when, in fact, another person had completed that continuing education on his behalf. This fraudulent certification is the same type of violation committed by Amina Kennedy in a separate case.

Continuing education requirements ensure that insurance agents and registered representatives maintain current knowledge of products, regulations, and industry practices. When representatives have someone else complete their continuing education, they miss the opportunity to learn updated information while fraudulently representing to regulators that they have met the educational requirements.

This violation demonstrates dishonesty and a willingness to circumvent regulatory requirements. While it might seem like a minor shortcut to have someone else complete continuing education, it is actually fraud—making a false certification to a state regulator in order to maintain a license.

The false certification undermines the integrity of the continuing education system and deprives Kodi of the knowledge he would have gained from actually completing the education. Customers who work with Kodi may be receiving advice from someone who has not actually kept up with current developments in insurance products and regulations.

For investors and insurance customers, this case reinforces the importance of working with properly licensed and educated professionals. Licensing and continuing education requirements exist to protect the public by ensuring that agents and representatives have baseline competence. When these requirements are circumvented through fraud, it compromises the protective purpose of the licensing system.

The one-month suspension from October 7, 2024, through November 6, 2024, ensures that Kodi faces consequences for his dishonesty. The deferred fine acknowledges his financial circumstances while still imposing a monetary penalty. This violation will remain on Kodi's permanent regulatory record and will be visible to anyone who checks his background through FINRA's BrokerCheck system or state insurance department records.

Investors should be aware that fraudulent conduct in one area—even something that might seem relatively minor like continuing education fraud—can indicate a broader pattern of cutting corners or disregarding rules. When evaluating whether to work with a financial professional, investors should consider the complete disciplinary history, including violations that might not directly involve customer transactions.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Christian Scalia was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two years on October 3, 2024.

On two separate occasions, Scalia possessed unauthorized materials while taking the Securities Industry Essentials (...

Read More

According to FINRA, Christian Scalia was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two years on October 3, 2024.

On two separate occasions, Scalia possessed unauthorized materials while taking the Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) examination. Scalia took the SIE examinations at his residence using a remote delivery platform. Prior to beginning each examination, Scalia attested that he had reviewed and would abide by the SIE Rules of Conduct, which prohibited the use or attempted use of personal items during the examination, including cellular phones. However, during both examinations, Scalia possessed and repeatedly accessed his cellular phone.

The SIE examination tests basic knowledge of securities products, markets, and regulatory requirements. It is the first step in the licensing process for most securities industry positions. The examination is administered under strict rules to ensure the integrity of the testing process and verify that individuals actually possess the knowledge required to work in the industry.

Using unauthorized materials during an examination is a form of cheating that undermines the entire licensing system. When someone passes an examination by cheating, they have not demonstrated actual knowledge of the tested material. This means they may lack the competence necessary to properly serve customers and comply with regulatory requirements.

The fact that Scalia violated the rules on two separate occasions is particularly troubling. After cheating on the first examination, he had an opportunity to reflect on his conduct and take the examination properly the second time. Instead, he chose to cheat again, demonstrating a pattern of dishonesty rather than a one-time lapse in judgment.

The attestation that Scalia signed before each examination makes his violation even more egregious. He explicitly agreed to abide by the rules prohibiting use of cellular phones, then immediately violated those rules. This shows a willingness to make false promises and disregard agreements he has just made.

For investors, this case demonstrates why checking a broker's disciplinary history is so important. Someone who is willing to cheat on licensing examinations has demonstrated fundamental dishonesty and may be willing to cut corners or violate rules in other areas, including in dealings with customers.

The two-year suspension from October 7, 2024, through October 6, 2026, is a substantial sanction that reflects the seriousness of cheating on examinations. This lengthy suspension ensures that Scalia cannot work in the securities industry for an extended period and may deter others from similar violations. When Scalia eventually returns to the industry, this violation will remain on his permanent record as a warning to potential employers and customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Jeremy Dillon Baldwin was assessed a deferred fine of $7,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months on October 4, 2024.

Baldwin engaged in an outside business activity by acting as an investment advisor for a 401(k) plan without ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jeremy Dillon Baldwin was assessed a deferred fine of $7,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months on October 4, 2024.

Baldwin engaged in an outside business activity by acting as an investment advisor for a 401(k) plan without providing prior written notice to his member firm. Baldwin received compensation from the 401(k) sponsor for the services he provided, including facilitating employee enrollment and acting as an intermediary between the sponsor and the 401(k) provider and administrator. Baldwin also falsely attested that he did not have any undisclosed outside business activities on annual firm questionnaires.

Additionally, Baldwin falsified firm records when he completed two annual compliance questionnaires for another representative and submitted them to the firm. Although Baldwin completed and submitted the questionnaires at the representative's request, the representative did not review the questionnaires for accuracy or completeness prior to their submission. Baldwin thus created the false impression that the registered representative had completed the questionnaires.

Outside business activities must be disclosed to firms so they can assess potential conflicts of interest and ensure appropriate supervision. Acting as an investment advisor to a 401(k) plan is exactly the type of activity that creates potential conflicts. Baldwin was presumably advising 401(k) participants about investment options and possibly receiving compensation based on plan assets or participant enrollment. This could create conflicts with his duties to customers at his firm.

The false attestations on annual questionnaires demonstrate active concealment rather than mere oversight. Baldwin knew about the disclosure requirement and deliberately chose to hide his outside business activity from his firm. This prevented the firm from supervising the activity and managing potential conflicts.

The falsification of compliance questionnaires for another representative is a separate serious violation. Compliance questionnaires are critical tools that firms use to identify potential issues and ensure representatives are following rules. When Baldwin completed questionnaires on behalf of another representative, he undermined the entire purpose of the questionnaires and created false records suggesting the other representative had completed them.

Even though the other representative requested Baldwin's assistance, that does not excuse the violation. Each representative is responsible for personally completing their own compliance questionnaires and cannot delegate this responsibility to others. The fact that the other representative didn't even review the questionnaires before submission shows a complete disregard for the compliance process.

For investors, this case illustrates multiple compliance failures involving undisclosed activities, false attestations, and falsified records. These violations demonstrate a pattern of disregarding rules and creating false documentation. Investors should be concerned about working with someone who has shown such a willingness to circumvent compliance requirements.

The five-month suspension from October 7, 2024, through March 6, 2025, reflects the seriousness of Baldwin's multiple violations. The deferred fine acknowledges his financial circumstances while still imposing a monetary penalty.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Nathan Elliot Lemberg was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 4, 2024.

Lemberg certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew his st...

Read More

According to FINRA, Nathan Elliot Lemberg was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 4, 2024.

Lemberg certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew his state insurance license when, in fact, another person had completed that continuing education on his behalf. This is the same type of continuing education fraud committed by Amina Kennedy and Taulant Matthew Kodi in separate cases.

The pattern of multiple representatives engaging in this same fraud in New York suggests there may have been a scheme or understanding among representatives that they could have others complete their continuing education. Regardless of whether this was an isolated incident or part of a broader pattern, it represents serious misconduct.

Continuing education exists to ensure that licensed professionals maintain current knowledge and competence. When representatives have someone else complete their education, they not only commit fraud by falsely certifying completion, but they also deprive themselves of the knowledge and updates they would have gained from actually completing the education.

State regulators rely on certifications to be truthful, and false certifications undermine the integrity of the licensing system. If representatives can simply have someone else complete their continuing education while falsely certifying they did it themselves, the entire continuing education requirement becomes meaningless.

For investors, this case reinforces that even violations that don't directly involve customer transactions can indicate broader problems with a representative's integrity and commitment to compliance. Someone who is willing to commit fraud to avoid completing continuing education may be willing to cut corners in other areas that could affect the quality of service provided to customers.

The one-month suspension from November 4, 2024, through December 3, 2024, ensures that Lemberg faces consequences for his dishonesty. The violation will remain on his permanent regulatory record and will be visible through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

Investors should check their financial professional's disciplinary history before entrusting them with their investments. While continuing education fraud might seem like a relatively minor violation compared to theft or fraud against customers, it demonstrates dishonesty and disregard for rules that should concern potential customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, George Apolonides (also known as George Apollo) was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 11 months on October 8, 2024. In light of Apolonides' financial status, no monetary sanction was imposed.

Apolonides willfully violated the Best Interest ...

Read More

According to FINRA, George Apolonides (also known as George Apollo) was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 11 months on October 8, 2024. In light of Apolonides' financial status, no monetary sanction was imposed.

Apolonides willfully violated the Best Interest Obligation under Regulation Best Interest by recommending a series of trades in customer accounts, three of whom were senior customers, which was excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customers' best interests. Apolonides' customers relied on his advice and routinely followed his recommendations and, as a result, he exercised de facto control over the customers' accounts. Apolonides' trading in the customer accounts generated total trading costs of $618,911, including $563,263 in commissions, and caused $735,376 in total realized losses.

Excessive trading, also known as churning, occurs when a broker makes trades in a customer's account primarily to generate commissions rather than to benefit the customer. The high commission costs and substantial losses in this case are classic indicators of excessive trading. Over $563,000 in commissions on accounts that lost over $735,000 suggests the primary beneficiary of the trading activity was Apolonides, not his customers.

The fact that three of the customers were seniors is particularly troubling. Senior investors are often targeted for excessive trading because they may be less financially sophisticated, more trusting of their broker, or less able to monitor their accounts closely. They may also have limited ability to recover from investment losses.

Regulation Best Interest requires brokers to act in the best interest of retail customers when making recommendations. Excessive trading clearly violates this standard because the primary purpose is to generate commissions rather than benefit the customer. The fact that customers relied on Apolonides' advice and routinely followed his recommendations gave him de facto control, which he abused by engaging in excessive trading.

The magnitude of the losses and commissions is staggering. Customers lost over $735,000 while Apolonides generated over $563,000 in commissions. This means the commissions alone consumed a huge portion of the account values, making it virtually impossible for customers to achieve positive returns even if the underlying investments performed well.

For investors, this case illustrates the importance of understanding how your broker is compensated and monitoring trading activity in your account. Warning signs of excessive trading include: frequent trades that don't align with your investment objectives, high commission costs relative to account value, trading in and out of similar positions, and trading activity that seems unnecessary or excessive.

Investors should ask their broker to explain the purpose and expected benefit of each recommended trade. If the broker cannot provide a clear explanation of how a trade serves your investment objectives, it may be excessive trading designed primarily to generate commissions.

The 11-month suspension from October 21, 2024, through September 20, 2025, is a substantial sanction. The fact that no fine was imposed due to Apolonides' financial status suggests he may not have substantial assets, despite having generated over $563,000 in commissions from the excessive trading.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Vincent Edward Catanzaro was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 8, 2024.

Catanzaro certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew h...

Read More

According to FINRA, Vincent Edward Catanzaro was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month on October 8, 2024.

Catanzaro certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed 15 hours of continuing education required to renew his state insurance license when, in fact, another person had completed that continuing education on his behalf. This is the same type of continuing education fraud committed by several other representatives in New York in this disciplinary report.

The pattern of multiple New York-based representatives engaging in continuing education fraud raises questions about whether there was a coordinated scheme or whether representatives were sharing information about how to circumvent the continuing education requirement. Regardless, each representative who participated in this fraud made a conscious choice to commit misconduct.

Continuing education fraud is particularly problematic because it defeats the purpose of the education requirement while involving active dishonesty toward regulators. Representatives who have someone else complete their continuing education not only miss the opportunity to learn updated information but also fraudulently certify to state regulators that they have met the requirement.

For investors, violations involving dishonesty and fraud—even if they don't directly involve customer transactions—should be considered serious red flags. A representative who is willing to lie to state regulators about continuing education may be willing to be dishonest in other contexts, including in dealings with customers.

The one-month suspension from November 4, 2024, through December 3, 2024, ensures that Catanzaro faces consequences for his fraud. The $5,000 fine provides additional deterrence. This violation will remain on Catanzaro's permanent regulatory record and will be visible through FINRA's BrokerCheck system and state insurance department records.

Investors can and should check their financial professional's disciplinary history before working with them. While continuing education fraud might not seem as serious as theft or unauthorized trading, it demonstrates a willingness to commit fraud and circumvent regulatory requirements that should concern potential customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Feng Kou Chen was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 months on October 8, 2024, and required to complete 20 hours of continuing education regarding discretionary trading within 60 days of his reassociation with a FINRA member firm. In light ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Feng Kou Chen was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 months on October 8, 2024, and required to complete 20 hours of continuing education regarding discretionary trading within 60 days of his reassociation with a FINRA member firm. In light of Chen's financial status, no monetary sanction was imposed.

Chen falsified information on customer account forms by adding his own name as beneficiary to the accounts without the customers' knowledge or consent or his member firm's approval. In doing so, Chen falsely identified himself as a friend or relative of the customers on the required forms. Subsequently, the firm detected Chen's misconduct and removed him as beneficiary from the accounts.

Additionally, without the customers' prior authorization, Chen sold mutual funds in customer accounts totaling more than $1.9 million and purchased Unit Investment Trusts (UITs) for customer accounts totaling more than $1.7 million. This unauthorized trading involved substantial sums and represented a complete disregard for customer control over their own accounts.

Adding himself as beneficiary on customer accounts without the customers' knowledge is an extremely serious violation that suggests Chen was planning to financially benefit from customers' deaths. This is a form of elder abuse and financial exploitation that fortunately was detected before any customers died. The fact that Chen falsely identified himself as a friend or relative compounds the misconduct by involving additional false statements.

The unauthorized trading is equally serious. Trading nearly $1.9 million in mutual funds and purchasing nearly $1.7 million in UITs without customer authorization represents complete control over customer accounts without proper authorization. Customers have a fundamental right to control their own accounts and must authorize trades.

The fact that Chen's misconduct involved both fraudulent beneficiary designations and unauthorized trading suggests a pattern of treating customer accounts as if they were his own. This represents a fundamental breach of the trust that customers place in their broker.

The requirement that Chen complete 20 hours of continuing education on discretionary trading is intended to ensure he understands the rules and requirements for discretionary trading if he returns to the industry. However, given the serious nature of his violations, potential employers and customers should carefully consider whether to work with someone who has demonstrated such a fundamental disregard for customer rights and proper procedures.

For investors, this case illustrates the importance of regularly reviewing account statements and beneficiary designations. Customers should verify that beneficiary designations reflect their actual wishes and should question any changes they did not authorize. Similarly, customers should review trade confirmations and monthly statements to ensure all transactions were authorized.

Red flags that might indicate problems include: trades you don't remember authorizing, changes to beneficiary designations you didn't make, or a broker who discourages you from reviewing your account statements or asks you to sign blank forms.

The 20-month suspension from October 21, 2024, through June 20, 2026, is a substantial sanction that reflects the seriousness of Chen's violations. This case demonstrates that FINRA will impose lengthy suspensions for serious violations even when no fine is imposed due to the respondent's financial status.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Kevin Patrick Kuhl was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months on October 8, 2024.

Kuhl falsified customer signatures by electronically signing documents on behalf of customers, some of whom were seniors, with their pe...

Read More

According to FINRA, Kevin Patrick Kuhl was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months on October 8, 2024.

Kuhl falsified customer signatures by electronically signing documents on behalf of customers, some of whom were seniors, with their permission. The documents included account applications and money movement forms and were required books and records of his member firm. None of the customers complained. In addition, Kuhl falsely attested to his firm on compliance questionnaires that he had not signed or affixed another person's signature on a document. Kuhl's conduct caused his firm to maintain inaccurate books and records.

While Kuhl had customer permission to sign the documents, the practice of electronically signing on behalf of customers is still improper. Signature requirements exist to ensure clear documentation of customer authorization and to create proper records. When a broker signs on behalf of a customer, even with permission, it undermines these safeguards and creates documents that falsely appear to contain the customer's actual signature.

The fact that some of the customers were seniors is concerning because seniors may be more vulnerable to pressure or may not fully understand the implications of allowing someone else to sign documents on their behalf. Even with permission, allowing a broker to sign documents creates opportunities for abuse in future transactions where permission might not be given.

The false attestations on compliance questionnaires demonstrate that Kuhl knew he was violating firm policy but chose to conceal his violations. This shows active dishonesty toward his employer and a willingness to circumvent compliance requirements.

The fact that none of the customers complained suggests that Kuhl's conduct did not result in direct harm to customers—the documents reflected transactions and account changes that customers actually authorized. However, the violation is still serious because it creates inaccurate books and records and circumvents important safeguards.

For investors, this case illustrates why it's important to personally sign all account documents and forms. Even if a broker offers to sign on your behalf as a convenience, investors should decline and insist on personally signing all paperwork. This ensures clear documentation and prevents situations where a broker might sign documents without actual permission in the future.

The two-month suspension from November 4, 2024, through January 3, 2025, ensures that Kuhl faces meaningful consequences for his violations. The $5,000 fine provides additional deterrence. The violation will remain on Kuhl's permanent regulatory record and will be visible through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

Show Less