Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was fined $250,000 for issuing inaccurate trade confirmations to customers in connection with its principal trading activity on its alternative trading system.

The firm inaccurately reported its execution capacity as "agent" when, in fact, the fir...

Read More

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was fined $250,000 for issuing inaccurate trade confirmations to customers in connection with its principal trading activity on its alternative trading system.

The firm inaccurately reported its execution capacity as "agent" when, in fact, the firm acted in a principal capacity. This distinction is significant for investors because it affects transparency around potential conflicts of interest and the firm's role in the transaction.

When a firm acts as an agent, it is executing a trade on behalf of a customer with another party. When acting as principal, the firm is trading from its own inventory and is the counterparty to the customer's trade. Principal transactions can create conflicts of interest because the firm is on the opposite side of the trade from its customer.

Accurate trade confirmations are essential for investors to understand the true nature of their transactions, including who the counterparty is and whether there may be conflicts of interest. Trade confirmations also serve as important legal documentation of the terms of the transaction.

This case demonstrates the importance of accurate record-keeping and reporting in the securities industry. Even large, established firms can have systemic problems with basic reporting requirements. Investors should carefully review their trade confirmations to ensure they accurately reflect the nature of their transactions. If there are discrepancies or confusing information, investors should ask their broker for clarification. Understanding whether your broker is acting as an agent or principal in a transaction can help you better assess potential conflicts of interest and whether you're getting the best execution for your trades.

Show Less

According to FINRA, TP ICAP Global Markets Americas LLC was fined $400,000 for inaccurately reporting transactions to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) and failing to establish adequate supervisory systems.

The firm inaccurately reported transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securiti...

Read More

According to FINRA, TP ICAP Global Markets Americas LLC was fined $400,000 for inaccurately reporting transactions to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) and failing to establish adequate supervisory systems.

The firm inaccurately reported transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities without the required "No Renumeration" (NR) indicator. Specifically, the firm inaccurately reported multi-leg transactions in TRACE-Eligible U.S. Treasury securities and securitized products with non-broker-dealer customers. In these transactions, the firm earned a mark-up or mark-down on one leg of the transaction, but not on the other leg. The firm incorrectly determined the applicability of NR indicator reporting obligations and failed to report the leg of the transaction on which it did not earn a mark-up or mark-down using the NR indicator.

The firm was unaware of the NR indicator reporting issues until FINRA notified it. Although the firm attempted remediation, it was not effective with respect to U.S. Treasury securities because of a coding error that misidentified counterparties to U.S. Treasury transactions.

FINRA also found that the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with its transaction reporting obligations. The firm had no written procedures with respect to reviewing the NR indicator, nor did it have a process to check the accuracy of the NR indicator.

TRACE reporting is critical for market transparency, allowing regulators and market participants to see pricing and trading activity in fixed income markets. Accurate reporting helps ensure fair pricing and allows for effective regulatory oversight. This case demonstrates the importance of not only implementing compliance systems but also testing them to ensure they work correctly. Investors benefit from accurate TRACE reporting through improved market transparency and fairer pricing.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC was fined $6 million for submitting blue sheets that inaccurately reported transaction information and failing to establish an adequate supervisory system for blue sheet compliance.

The firm submitted blue sheets to FINRA that inaccurately reported one ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC was fined $6 million for submitting blue sheets that inaccurately reported transaction information and failing to establish an adequate supervisory system for blue sheet compliance.

The firm submitted blue sheets to FINRA that inaccurately reported one or more of 39 separate types of transaction information. In those FINRA blue sheets, the firm failed to include required transactions or transaction information, or included incorrect information for at least 97 million transactions. The firm's blue sheet errors caused it to fail to report or report inaccurately trade information that was critical to FINRA's regulatory function.

Particularly concerning, the firm reported inaccurate execution times of trades, which is a significant piece of information for investigations into insider trading and market manipulation that rely on determining exactly when trades occur.

FINRA found that the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with blue sheet requirements. Initially, the firm discovered 18 different types of errors affecting the accuracy of its blue sheets. These discoveries raised red flags that its blue sheet reporting system had other and/or widespread deficiencies, but the firm did not reasonably investigate those red flags. Although the firm continued its internal review, it failed to promptly determine the full scope and impact of blue sheet errors once discovered or ascertain whether there were other errors.

Blue sheets are detailed trading records that firms must provide to regulators upon request as part of investigations into potential market manipulation, insider trading, and other violations. Accurate blue sheet reporting is essential for effective regulatory oversight and market integrity. This case demonstrates that even the largest financial institutions can have significant compliance failures in their reporting systems. The massive scale of the errors (97 million transactions) underscores the importance of robust testing and validation of compliance systems.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was fined $2.5 million and ordered to pay disgorgement of $5.7 million for over-tendering shares in partial tender offers and failing to maintain adequate supervisory systems to comply with the Short Tender Rule.

The firm over-tendered shares in 1...

Read More

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was fined $2.5 million and ordered to pay disgorgement of $5.7 million for over-tendering shares in partial tender offers and failing to maintain adequate supervisory systems to comply with the Short Tender Rule.

The firm over-tendered shares in 13 partial tender offers (PTOs) and received ill-gotten gains of approximately $5.7 million. The firm tendered approximately 11.1 million more shares than it was entitled to tender in the offers because it calculated the number of shares available for tender on an account-by-account basis instead of a firm-wide basis. In addition, in two PTOs, the firm over-tendered shares because it did not account for relevant short call positions.

The Short Tender Rule (Securities Exchange Act Rule 14e-4) is designed to prevent market participants from tendering more shares in a tender offer than they actually own on a net long basis. This rule protects the integrity of tender offers and ensures that participants cannot manipulate the proration process to gain an unfair advantage.

FINRA found that the firm did not have a supervisory system reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Short Tender Rule. The firm had only operational procedures that instructed Asset Services to check individual accounts to make sure shares were held in the account. If the tendering account was long the shares, it was permitted to tender the shares. However, the procedures did not require the firm to determine whether it held any short positions in the security in other accounts.

This case demonstrates how seemingly technical compliance failures can result in a firm gaining millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains at the expense of other market participants. The disgorgement requirement ensures the firm does not profit from its violation. Investors participating in tender offers should understand that these regulatory protections help ensure a level playing field.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Maxim Group LLC was fined $500,000 and required to retain an independent consultant to review its AML policies and compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act.

The firm failed to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems and written procedures to achieve complian...

Read More

According to FINRA, Maxim Group LLC was fined $500,000 and required to retain an independent consultant to review its AML policies and compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act.

The firm failed to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems and written procedures to achieve compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act, which governs the registration of securities. The firm conducted reviews only when customers deposited securities at the firm. For Delivery versus Payment/Receive versus Payment (DVP/RVP) accounts, the firm relied on due diligence performed by other firms that held the accounts as agents for customers. The firm did not have written procedures specifically designed to address Section 5 compliance for DVP/RVP accounts and did not take reasonable steps to ensure that transactions were exempt from registration. As a result, the firm executed sales of securities for DVP/RVP accounts when it lacked sufficient information to determine whether the securities were exempt from registration. The firm also failed to respond reasonably to red flags of potentially unregistered distributions, including failing to investigate customers' sales of low-priced securities on multiple days.

From an AML perspective, the firm failed to establish and implement policies and procedures reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious activity in low-priced securities. The firm did not have any AML procedures that specifically addressed DVP/RVP accounts and did not collect required information from customers with DVP/RVP accounts. The firm closed hundreds of alerts of suspicious trading in DVP/RVP accounts after conducting only minimal investigation and without sufficient analysis of whether the trading required filing a SAR.

This case highlights the risks associated with low-priced securities and the importance of firms having robust procedures to prevent unregistered distributions and detect suspicious activity. Investors should be particularly cautious with low-priced securities and DVP/RVP arrangements.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Santander US Capital Markets LLC was fined $100,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems to prevent misuse of material non-public information (MNPI) and ensure compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act.

Regarding MNPI controls, the firm conducted investm...

Read More

According to FINRA, Santander US Capital Markets LLC was fined $100,000 for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems to prevent misuse of material non-public information (MNPI) and ensure compliance with Section 5 of the Securities Act.

Regarding MNPI controls, the firm conducted investment banking business as an underwriter in debt and equity offerings along with its global affiliates. However, the firm did not have procedures to ensure that supervisors responsible for reviewing emails of employees temporarily granted access to MNPI were themselves approved to access MNPI. The firm also did not have adequate systems to ensure that employees of its affiliates with access to MNPI were appropriately identified for monitoring. Some employees of foreign affiliates had access to MNPI but were not identified for monitoring or were not identified until after they were exposed to MNPI. Additionally, the firm did not have a reasonable system to ensure that when employees gained access to MNPI, the relevant issuers were added in a timely manner to the watch list used to monitor trading, sales, and research activities. Furthermore, the firm's system was not reasonably designed to review securities transactions in employee outside brokerage accounts maintained at foreign broker-dealers.

For Section 5 compliance, the firm failed to obtain Regulation S or qualified institutional buyer certifications from potential investors at the time of transactions in some cases. The firm also failed to contemporaneously document the steps it took to ensure sales pursuant to Regulation S and Rule 144A safe harbors were made to qualified investors, meaning it did not have records demonstrating a reasonable process to confirm compliance.

This case demonstrates the challenges firms face when operating across borders and coordinating compliance across multiple affiliates. Proper information barriers and monitoring systems are essential to prevent insider trading and ensure that securities offerings comply with registration requirements. Investors benefit when firms maintain robust MNPI controls.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Ethan Christopher Martin was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting and improperly using customer funds and refusing to cooperate with FINRA's investigation.

Martin converted funds from a married couple, one of whom was a senior, that he...

Read More

According to FINRA, Ethan Christopher Martin was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting and improperly using customer funds and refusing to cooperate with FINRA's investigation.

Martin converted funds from a married couple, one of whom was a senior, that held a joint brokerage account at his member firm. When the customers asked Martin for their account information for purposes of initiating direct deposits, Martin provided the customers with the account number for his personal account rather than the customers' account number. Martin then received three electronic deposits of the customers' social security payments, totaling $6,981, which he retained and used for personal investments and expenditures.

Adding to the severity of his misconduct, Martin refused to produce information or documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into the allegations of misappropriated funds.

Conversion of customer funds is one of the most serious violations a financial professional can commit. It represents a fundamental breach of trust and fiduciary duty. The fact that one of the victims was a senior citizen makes this case particularly egregious, as seniors are often more vulnerable to financial exploitation.

This case serves as an important reminder for investors to carefully monitor their accounts and verify all account information independently. Investors should be cautious when providing account information to their broker and should verify that deposits and withdrawals are going to the correct accounts. Regular account monitoring can help detect unauthorized activity early. Additionally, refusing to cooperate with regulatory investigations typically results in a bar, as it did in this case. The permanent bar means Martin can never again work in the securities industry in any capacity, protecting future investors from his misconduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Joseph Corey Quintons was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA.

FINRA was investigating whether Quintons failed to timely disclose a reportable event on his Form U4. Quintons initia...

Read More

According to FINRA, Joseph Corey Quintons was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA.

FINRA was investigating whether Quintons failed to timely disclose a reportable event on his Form U4. Quintons initially provided a partial but incomplete response to FINRA's request, however he declined to produce the remainder of the information and documents requested.

Form U4 is the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, which registered representatives must file and keep current. The form requires disclosure of various events including criminal charges, regulatory actions, customer complaints, judgments, liens, and other matters that could be relevant to a representative's fitness to work in the securities industry. Timely and accurate disclosure on Form U4 is critical for regulatory oversight and investor protection.

When a registered representative refuses to cooperate with a FINRA investigation, it severely hampers the regulator's ability to protect investors and maintain market integrity. For this reason, refusing to provide information or testimony to FINRA is itself a serious violation that typically results in a bar from the industry.

Investors can check a broker's Form U4 disclosures through FINRA's BrokerCheck system, which is available for free on FINRA's website. BrokerCheck provides information about a broker's professional background, including employment history, licenses, and any reported regulatory actions, customer complaints, or other disclosures. Investors should always check a broker's background before doing business with them. The permanent bar in this case means Quintons can never again work in the securities industry in any capacity.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Stephen Kiyoshi Takeda was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA.

FINRA was investigating potential rule violations stemming from a customer complaint and other potential violations....

Read More

According to FINRA, Stephen Kiyoshi Takeda was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide documents and information requested by FINRA.

FINRA was investigating potential rule violations stemming from a customer complaint and other potential violations. The customer complaint involved potential customer loans, which would raise concerns about violations of rules prohibiting loans between registered representatives and customers except under limited circumstances.

FINRA rules generally prohibit registered representatives from borrowing money from or lending money to customers, with certain narrow exceptions. These rules exist to protect customers from potential exploitation and conflicts of interest. When a registered representative borrows from a customer, it creates a personal financial relationship that can compromise the representative's ability to provide objective investment advice.

Takeda's refusal to provide documents and information to FINRA made it impossible for the regulator to complete its investigation into these serious allegations. Cooperation with regulatory investigations is a fundamental obligation of anyone working in the securities industry. When registered persons refuse to cooperate, they not only obstruct the specific investigation at hand but also undermine the entire regulatory framework that protects investors.

This case demonstrates that refusing to cooperate with FINRA is treated very seriously and typically results in a permanent bar from the industry. The bar means Takeda can never again work in the securities industry in any capacity, which serves to protect investors from someone who has demonstrated unwillingness to comply with regulatory oversight. Investors should be aware that FINRA has the authority to compel testimony and documents from registered persons, and failure to cooperate has severe consequences.

Show Less

According to FINRA, the SEC sustained FINRA's findings that Michael Joseph Clarke converted money from three individuals and made misrepresentations to obtain their money in connection with his ticket brokering business. Clarke was barred from the industry and ordered to pay $563,100 in restitution....

Read More

According to FINRA, the SEC sustained FINRA's findings that Michael Joseph Clarke converted money from three individuals and made misrepresentations to obtain their money in connection with his ticket brokering business. Clarke was barred from the industry and ordered to pay $563,100 in restitution.

The SEC sustained FINRA's findings that Clarke converted money from three individuals and made misrepresentations to them to obtain their money in connection with his ticket brokering business. The SEC also sustained FINRA's finding that Clarke issued one bad check in connection to his ticket brokering business, though it set aside findings regarding three other bad checks because the record contained insufficient evidence that they were business-related.

The SEC sustained the unitary bar that FINRA imposed against Clarke for his conversion and misrepresentations, agreeing there were numerous aggravating factors and a lack of mitigation. The SEC also sustained FINRA's order of restitution but reduced the amount Clarke was ordered to pay to reflect payments Clarke made to the victims.

Conversion is the unauthorized taking of someone else's property for one's own use. It is one of the most serious violations a financial professional can commit because it represents a fundamental breach of trust. When combined with misrepresentations to induce victims to turn over their money, it demonstrates a pattern of fraudulent conduct.

The fact that this case went all the way to the SEC on appeal demonstrates the seriousness of the allegations and Clarke's unwillingness to accept responsibility for his conduct. The numerous aggravating factors and lack of mitigation that the SEC noted suggests this was not a simple mistake but rather egregious misconduct.

Investors should be cautious when financial professionals seek to involve them in side businesses or ventures outside of their securities activities. This case serves as a reminder to thoroughly investigate any investment opportunity and be wary of misrepresentations.

Show Less