Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Robert Kennedy Thompson (CRD #1975407), a registered representative based in Oak Lawn, Illinois, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Thompson conse...

Read More

According to FINRA, Robert Kennedy Thompson (CRD #1975407), a registered representative based in Oak Lawn, Illinois, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Thompson consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in an outside business activity (OBA) without providing prior written notice to his member firm. The findings stated that Thompson served as a business development officer of an outside bank after his firm denied his request to pre-approve his employment in that capacity at the bank. In this role, Thompson sold financial products and received compensation of approximately $85,000. The suspension was in effect from September 16, 2024, through November 15, 2024. This case is particularly noteworthy because Thompson did not simply fail to disclose an outside business activity -- he actively pursued the activity after his firm specifically denied his request to engage in it. FINRA Rule 3270 requires registered representatives to provide prior written notice to their firms before participating in any business activity outside the scope of their relationship with the firm. This rule exists so that firms can evaluate potential conflicts of interest and ensure appropriate supervision. When Thompson's firm denied his request, it determined that the activity posed unacceptable risks. By proceeding anyway, Thompson not only violated FINRA rules but also defied his firm's supervisory authority. Selling financial products at an outside bank while registered with a FINRA member firm creates significant potential for conflicts of interest and customer confusion. Customers interacting with Thompson at the bank may not have understood his dual role or the regulatory implications, and the firm had no ability to supervise his activities at the bank. The $85,000 in compensation Thompson received underscores that this was a substantial business activity, not a minor side engagement. For investors, this case highlights the importance of knowing whether your financial professional is working exclusively for the firm they represent. If a broker has undisclosed outside business activities, it could affect the advice they give you or create conflicts of interest that are not apparent. FINRA's BrokerCheck is a valuable resource for reviewing a broker's disclosed outside business activities and disciplinary history.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Bert Kenji Takita Jr. (CRD #5852632), a registered representative based in Honolulu, Hawaii, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Takita consented t...

Read More

According to FINRA, Bert Kenji Takita Jr. (CRD #5852632), a registered representative based in Honolulu, Hawaii, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Takita consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in several outside business activities (OBAs) without providing prior written notice to his member firm. The findings stated that Takita's activities were outside the scope of his relationship with the firm and included businesses related to insurance sales, the purchase, development, sale, and management of real property, and solar panel sales and installation. Takita received compensation from his insurance business, and he served as an owner, manager, or member of the companies through which he conducted his real estate and solar panel businesses. The suspension was in effect from October 7, 2024, through December 6, 2024. This case involves multiple undisclosed outside business activities spanning several different industries. FINRA Rule 3270 requires registered representatives to notify their firms in writing before engaging in any outside business activity. The rule exists because outside business activities can create conflicts of interest, divert a representative's attention from their duties to customers, and expose customers to risks that the firm cannot monitor. Takita's case is notable for the breadth of his undisclosed activities. He was not simply engaged in one side business -- he was involved in insurance sales, real estate development and management, and solar panel installation and sales. Each of these activities represents a separate potential source of conflicts of interest and a separate area where the firm had no supervisory oversight. The insurance sales activity is particularly relevant because it involves selling financial products that could directly compete with or overlap with the products available through his firm. Real estate and solar panel businesses, while not securities-related, still require disclosure because they could affect Takita's time commitment to his firm duties and create situations where he might direct customers toward his outside businesses. For investors, this case is a reminder that your broker is required to disclose their outside business activities. If your financial advisor is running multiple businesses on the side, it could affect the time and attention they devote to managing your investments. Review your broker's disclosures through FINRA BrokerCheck and ask questions about how they allocate their professional time.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Christian Eduardo De Berardinis (CRD #4312327), a registered representative based in West Palm Beach, Florida, was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 24 months, and ordered to pay deferred disgorgement of se...

Read More

According to FINRA, Christian Eduardo De Berardinis (CRD #4312327), a registered representative based in West Palm Beach, Florida, was assessed a deferred fine of $15,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 24 months, and ordered to pay deferred disgorgement of selling compensation in the amount of $22,500 plus interest. Without admitting or denying the findings, De Berardinis consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he participated in private offerings of securities that raised $2.45 million from customers of his member firm without providing prior written notice to, or receiving approval from, his firm. The findings stated that De Berardinis introduced the customers to the chief executive officer of a dairy company and recommended that they invest in the company. De Berardinis facilitated the customers' investments by providing them with information about the investment, assisting customers with paperwork, and, at customers' requests, transferring funds from the customers' firm accounts to the company to fund their investments. De Berardinis received $22,500 from the company in referral fees. In addition, De Berardinis falsely responded to questions on annual firm compliance questionnaires about whether he had participated in private securities transactions. The suspension was in effect from October 7, 2024, through October 6, 2026. The severity of the sanctions in this case -- a $15,000 fine, a two-year suspension, and disgorgement of $22,500 -- reflects the seriousness of participating in unapproved private securities transactions. FINRA Rule 3280 (commonly referred to as the "selling away" rule) prohibits registered representatives from participating in securities transactions outside of their firm without prior written notice and approval. This rule is one of the most important investor protections in the securities regulatory framework. Private securities offerings are inherently risky, and when a broker facilitates these investments outside of firm supervision, investors lose critical protections including the firm's due diligence review and compliance oversight. The $2.45 million raised from firm customers in this case represents significant exposure for those investors. For investors, "selling away" is one of the most dangerous forms of broker misconduct. Always verify that any investment recommended by your broker is offered through their firm and subject to the firm's supervisory processes. Be cautious of investments introduced through personal connections or outside channels.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Anida Venniro (CRD #5121189), a registered representative based in West Bloomfield, Michigan, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month. Without admitting or denying the findings, Venniro consented ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Anida Venniro (CRD #5121189), a registered representative based in West Bloomfield, Michigan, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month. Without admitting or denying the findings, Venniro consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that she engaged in an outside business activity (OBA) without providing prior written notice to her member firm. The findings stated that Venniro provided property management and commercial real-estate related services to two firm customers, with the reasonable expectation of receiving compensation for such services. This activity was outside the scope of Venniro's relationship with her firm. The suspension was in effect from October 7, 2024, through November 6, 2024. This case highlights an important aspect of outside business activity rules: even when the outside activity involves services provided to existing firm customers, it must still be disclosed. In fact, providing outside services to firm customers can create particularly acute conflicts of interest, as the dual relationship may influence the broker's investment recommendations or the customer's willingness to follow advice. In Venniro's case, providing property management and commercial real estate services to firm customers created a situation where her financial advice could have been influenced by her real estate business interests, or where clients might have felt obligated to maintain their brokerage accounts because of the real estate relationship. This is precisely the type of entanglement that the disclosure requirement under FINRA Rule 3270 is designed to address. When a firm knows about an outside business activity, it can evaluate whether the activity creates conflicts of interest, implement additional supervisory measures if necessary, or prohibit the activity altogether. Without disclosure, none of these protective steps can be taken. The fact that Venniro's outside services were provided with the reasonable expectation of compensation is also significant. FINRA Rule 3270 specifically covers activities for which a person has a reasonable expectation of compensation. For investors, this case is a reminder to be aware of any dual relationships with your financial advisor. If your broker is also providing you with non-securities services, such as real estate or insurance, ask whether the firm is aware of these arrangements. Undisclosed dual relationships can create subtle conflicts of interest that may not be immediately apparent but could influence the advice you receive.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Harshavardhan Reddy Pakhal (CRD #6354296), a registered representative based in Mountain View, California, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Pakh...

Read More

According to FINRA, Harshavardhan Reddy Pakhal (CRD #6354296), a registered representative based in Mountain View, California, was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six months. Without admitting or denying the findings, Pakhal consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he engaged in outside business activities (OBAs) without providing prior written notice to, or receiving written approval from, his member firm to engage in those activities. The findings stated that Pakhal began working for an international retail company as a director in the company's corporate development department, assisting with various investment projects and coordinating project activities. The company paid Pakhal approximately $530,000. While employed by the company, Pakhal incorrectly answered "No" on annual compliance certifications to questions asking whether he was involved in any OBAs. Later, again without providing notice to his firm, Pakhal accepted a separate position as vice president of corporate development for a technology company, where his responsibilities included preparing presentations for senior management and assisting with fundraising efforts. The technology company paid Pakhal approximately $77,500. Pakhal's firm discovered his employment with both companies when it reviewed a press release announcing his new position with the technology company. Pakhal initially denied to his firm that he had any outside employment, but later admitted that the press release was accurate. The suspension was in effect from October 7, 2024, through April 6, 2025. This case stands out for the scale and deliberateness of the undisclosed outside employment. Pakhal earned a combined total of approximately $607,500 from two undisclosed positions -- as a director at an international retail company and as a vice president at a technology company. These were not minor side engagements; they were substantial, senior-level corporate positions. The six-month suspension is among the longer suspensions in this month's disciplinary actions, reflecting the magnitude and duration of the violations. Particularly troubling is that Pakhal initially denied having any outside employment even when confronted by his firm. For investors, this case demonstrates the risk of working with a broker who may be dividing their attention between multiple demanding roles. If your financial advisor is secretly working full-time at other companies, they may not be giving your financial interests the attention they deserve.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Mark Sam Kolta (CRD #5324620) of Miami, Florida is facing sanctions after an Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) decision found that he made unsuitable recommendations and falsified customer records. Kolta is currently appealing the decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC...

Read More

According to FINRA, Mark Sam Kolta (CRD #5324620) of Miami, Florida is facing sanctions after an Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) decision found that he made unsuitable recommendations and falsified customer records. Kolta is currently appealing the decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), and the sanctions are not in effect pending review. The OHO decision imposed a bar from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered Kolta to pay disgorgement of commissions in the amount of $297,823, plus prejudgment interest. The sanctions were based on findings that Kolta made unsuitable recommendations to 16 customers, six of whom were seniors, to invest over $4.8 million in a non-traded real estate investment trust (REIT). The findings stated that Kolta's recommendations were unsuitable based on the customers' financial situations, investment objectives, and risk tolerances, including excessive concentrations of the REIT in relation to their net worth. The REIT prospectus described the investment as speculative and high-risk, appropriate only for persons who could afford a complete loss, which the senior customers could not afford. Most customers had modest incomes and relatively low net worth, needing liquidity at the time they invested. Despite their liquidity needs, Kolta recommended that customers invest a large percentage of their liquid net worth in the illiquid, non-traded REIT. Kolta received $297,823 in commissions from these sales. All customers subsequently filed arbitration claims against Kolta's member firm, and the firm settled all claims by paying the customers millions of dollars. The OHO decision also found that Kolta caused his firm to make and preserve false books and records by recording materially false and inaccurate information on new account forms, updates to customer account forms, and REIT investment documents. Kolta repeatedly recorded inaccurate income, net worth, and liquid net worth figures, overstated investment experience, investment objectives, and risk tolerances. The decision further found that Kolta falsified account records and investment documents on multiple occasions so customers would be permitted to buy the REIT. Without these falsifications, his firm would likely not have allowed many of the REIT investments. FINRA also found that Kolta sent customers emails containing misleading, unwarranted, and promissory statements that failed to address the risks associated with the REIT, and that he failed to obtain principal approval before sending those emails. Investors should be aware that this case remains under appeal and the sanctions are not yet final.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Jose Luis Centeno (CRD #6368188) of Secaucus, New Jersey is facing sanctions after an Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) decision found that he falsified his member firm's records. Centeno is currently appealing the decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), and the sanct...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jose Luis Centeno (CRD #6368188) of Secaucus, New Jersey is facing sanctions after an Office of Hearing Officers (OHO) decision found that he falsified his member firm's records. Centeno is currently appealing the decision to the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC), and the sanctions are not in effect pending review. The OHO decision imposed a $10,000 fine and a suspension from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 12 months. The sanctions were based on findings that Centeno falsely marked his member firm's records to show that he had reviewed exception reports for suspicious trading activity when he had not actually done so. Exception reports are a critical compliance tool used by broker-dealer firms to detect potentially suspicious or unauthorized trading activity in customer accounts. These reports flag transactions that fall outside normal parameters, and compliance personnel are responsible for reviewing each flagged transaction to determine whether further investigation is warranted. The findings stated that Centeno hastily batched and marked as reviewed numerous exception reports assigned to him, long after the reports were generated. Many of the reports contained hundreds and even thousands of transactions, but Centeno typically spent only a few seconds on each report, which was insufficient time to conduct any meaningful review. During hearing testimony and on-the-record testimony provided to FINRA, Centeno admitted that he falsified records of his purported review. Although Centeno vaguely suggested he might have looked at some transactions in some exception reports, he provided no evidence or specific memory of reviewing any of the reports. Further, Centeno admitted that he did not review all the transactions in the reports, even though he testified that he was expected to review the reports in their entirety. This type of misconduct is particularly concerning because exception report reviews serve as a key safeguard against fraud, market manipulation, and other forms of trading abuse. When compliance personnel fail to properly review these reports, suspicious activity may go undetected, potentially exposing customers to harm. Investors should understand that this decision is currently under appeal to the NAC, which may increase, decrease, modify, or reverse the findings and sanctions. The case remains pending and the sanctions are not yet final.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Shadi Taysir Barakat (CRD #5031281) of Cresskill, New Jersey has been named as a respondent in a FINRA complaint and is facing charges for allegedly failing to provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA. It is important to note that the issuance of a disciplinary complain...

Read More

According to FINRA, Shadi Taysir Barakat (CRD #5031281) of Cresskill, New Jersey has been named as a respondent in a FINRA complaint and is facing charges for allegedly failing to provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA. It is important to note that the issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents FINRA's initiation of a formal proceeding, and findings as to the allegations have not yet been made. The complaint alleges that Barakat failed to provide on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210 as part of an investigation into whether he engaged in churning and excessive trading in his customers' accounts. FINRA Rule 8210 is one of the most fundamental rules in the self-regulatory framework, granting FINRA broad authority to request information, documents, and testimony from associated persons as part of its investigations. When a registered representative refuses to comply with a Rule 8210 request, it is treated as a serious violation because it directly impedes FINRA's ability to protect investors and maintain market integrity. The complaint further alleges that Barakat's refusal to appear for testimony impeded FINRA's investigation into his potential misconduct. Churning and excessive trading are among the most harmful practices that can occur in a brokerage account. Churning occurs when a broker executes trades in a customer's account primarily to generate commissions rather than to benefit the customer. Excessive trading involves a pattern of transactions that is inconsistent with the customer's investment objectives, financial situation, and needs. Both practices can result in significant financial losses for investors through unnecessary commission charges and potential tax consequences. When a registered representative is accused of churning and then allegedly refuses to cooperate with the resulting FINRA investigation, it raises serious concerns about investor protection. FINRA's ability to investigate and adjudicate potential misconduct depends on the cooperation of registered persons. Without testimony from the individuals under investigation, it becomes more difficult for FINRA to determine the full scope of any harm to customers and to take appropriate remedial action. Investors should be aware that these are allegations only, and Barakat has not been found to have committed any violations at this stage of the proceedings. The complaint initiates a formal disciplinary process in which Barakat will have the opportunity to respond to the charges.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Airlink Markets, LLC (CRD #322261) of Issaquah, Washington was suspended for failure to provide information or keep information current pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552. The suspension became effective on September 3, 2024. FINRA Rule 9552 is an administrative proceeding that allows F...

Read More

According to FINRA, Airlink Markets, LLC (CRD #322261) of Issaquah, Washington was suspended for failure to provide information or keep information current pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552. The suspension became effective on September 3, 2024. FINRA Rule 9552 is an administrative proceeding that allows FINRA to suspend a member firm or associated person who fails to provide information or keep information current as required by FINRA rules. Under this rule, FINRA first sends a notice to the firm identifying the deficiency and providing a deadline to comply. If the firm fails to respond or remedy the deficiency within the allotted time, the suspension takes effect automatically. This process exists to ensure that FINRA has access to the information it needs to effectively regulate the securities industry and protect investors. When a firm is suspended under Rule 9552, it cannot conduct securities business during the period of suspension. This means the firm cannot execute trades, accept new customer accounts, or engage in other broker-dealer activities. For customers of a suspended firm, this can be a significant disruption, as they may need to transfer their accounts to another broker-dealer to continue managing their investments. The requirement to provide information and keep records current is a fundamental obligation of every FINRA member firm. Broker-dealers are required to maintain accurate records and to respond to regulatory inquiries in a timely manner. These obligations serve several important purposes: they enable FINRA to monitor firms for compliance with securities laws and regulations, they help identify potential problems before they result in investor harm, and they support the overall integrity of the securities markets. When a firm fails to meet these basic obligations, it raises questions about the firm's commitment to regulatory compliance and its ability to operate in the best interests of its customers. Investors who have accounts with a firm that has been suspended should take immediate steps to protect their interests, including contacting another broker-dealer about transferring their accounts. The suspension of a firm under Rule 9552 is a serious regulatory action that signals potential compliance failures within the organization.

Show Less

According to FINRA, EnrichHer Funding LLC (Funding Portal Org ID #292218) of Atlanta, Georgia was suspended for failure to provide information or keep information current pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552. The suspension became effective on September 3, 2024. This action is associated with FINRA Case #202...

Read More

According to FINRA, EnrichHer Funding LLC (Funding Portal Org ID #292218) of Atlanta, Georgia was suspended for failure to provide information or keep information current pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552. The suspension became effective on September 3, 2024. This action is associated with FINRA Case #2023077514101. EnrichHer Funding LLC operates as a funding portal, which is a type of entity registered with FINRA to facilitate crowdfunding offerings under Regulation Crowdfunding. Funding portals serve as intermediaries that connect small businesses and entrepreneurs seeking capital with investors looking to participate in crowdfunding offerings. These portals are subject to FINRA oversight and must comply with applicable rules, including the obligation to provide requested information and maintain current records. FINRA Rule 9552 is an administrative proceeding that allows FINRA to suspend a member or associated person who fails to provide information or keep information current as required by FINRA rules. The rule provides for a notice to the entity identifying the deficiency and a deadline by which the entity must comply. If the entity fails to respond or remedy the deficiency within the specified timeframe, the suspension takes effect. This process is designed to ensure that FINRA has the information necessary to carry out its regulatory responsibilities and to protect investors who participate in securities offerings through these platforms. When a funding portal is suspended, it cannot facilitate any new crowdfunding offerings or conduct other regulated activities during the suspension period. This can have significant implications for both the entrepreneurs who rely on the platform to raise capital and the investors who may have pending investments through the portal. The suspension of a funding portal underscores the importance of regulatory compliance for all entities that participate in the securities markets, regardless of their size or the type of offerings they facilitate. Investors who have participated in crowdfunding offerings through a suspended portal should monitor their existing investments carefully and be aware that the portal's inability to operate during the suspension period may affect ongoing communications and services related to their investments.

Show Less