Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Arun Kumar Aggarwal was assessed a deferred fine of $7,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for exercising discretionary authority to effect trades in a customer's account without obtaining written authorization from the custom...

Read More

According to FINRA, Arun Kumar Aggarwal was assessed a deferred fine of $7,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for exercising discretionary authority to effect trades in a customer's account without obtaining written authorization from the customer to exercise discretion and without his member firm having accepted the account as discretionary. Aggarwal also caused the firm to maintain inaccurate books and records by mismarking the discretionary trades as unsolicited.

Discretionary trading occurs when a broker makes decisions about what securities to buy or sell, how much, and when, without obtaining the customer's prior approval for each specific transaction. Because of the significant control this gives brokers over customer assets, discretionary trading is permitted only when specific requirements are met: the customer must provide written authorization, and the firm must approve the account for discretionary trading. These safeguards exist to ensure customers understand they are granting significant authority to their brokers and that firms can provide appropriate supervision of discretionary accounts.

Although the customer in this case understood that Aggarwal was placing trades in the account, the customer had not provided the required prior written authorization for discretionary trading. The absence of written authorization meant there was no clear documentation of the scope of Aggarwal's authority or the parameters within which he could exercise discretion. This lack of formalization creates risks for both customers and brokers, as disputes can arise about whether specific actions were authorized.

Compounding the violation, Aggarwal mismarked the discretionary trades as "unsolicited," meaning trades initiated by the customer rather than recommended by the broker. This false marking served to conceal the discretionary nature of the trading from the firm's supervisory systems. By causing the firm to maintain inaccurate books and records, Aggarwal impaired the firm's ability to supervise his activities and ensure customer protection. For investors, this case highlights important protections around discretionary trading. Customers should be wary of allowing brokers to trade their accounts without prior approval for each transaction. If discretionary trading is appropriate, it should be formalized through written authorization that clearly specifies any limitations, and customers should monitor discretionary accounts carefully to ensure trading remains consistent with their objectives. Any representative who trades an account without authorization, or who attempts to conceal the nature of trading through false markings, raises serious red flags about trustworthiness.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Frank L. Martin was suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for three months (with no monetary sanctions due to financial status) for failing to reasonably supervise registered representatives at his member firm who each excessively traded one o...

Read More

According to FINRA, Frank L. Martin was suspended from association with any FINRA member in any principal capacity for three months (with no monetary sanctions due to financial status) for failing to reasonably supervise registered representatives at his member firm who each excessively traded one or more customer accounts. Martin's supervisory failures allowed representatives under his supervision to engage in trading that caused customers to pay $663,463 in commissions, fees, and margin interest, and FINRA has ordered approximately $500,000 in restitution for these customers in settlements with some of the representatives.

Martin failed to investigate red flags of unsuitable or excessive trading despite numerous indicators including high turnover and cost-to-equity ratios in customer accounts. While Martin signed off on daily trade blotters and periodic exception reports, purportedly indicating he had reviewed them, he did not reasonably investigate red flags of potentially unsuitable or excessive trading such as frequent trading, in-and-out trading, and proceeds transactions. Martin frequently closed out exception reports without evidence of any reasonable review to verify that trades were suitable.

Excessive trading, or churning, occurs when brokers engage in trading primarily to generate commissions rather than to benefit customers. Warning signs include high turnover (frequent buying and selling), in-and-out trading (buying and selling the same securities in short timeframes), and high cost-to-equity ratios (where commissions and fees consume a large portion of account value). Supervisors are required to monitor for these red flags and investigate when they appear. Martin's failure to conduct reasonable investigations despite clear warning signs allowed the excessive trading to continue and caused significant customer harm.

As a result of Martin's unreasonable review practices, he failed to identify numerous accounts being excessively traded and took no steps to limit the trading or escalate the activity to others at the firm. The magnitude of customer losses—over $660,000 in commissions and fees—demonstrates the serious consequences of inadequate supervision. For investors, this case illustrates the importance of firms' supervisory systems in protecting customers from abusive trading practices. When supervisors fail to perform their duties, harmful conduct can persist unchecked. Investors should monitor their accounts for signs of excessive trading, including frequent transactions that generate substantial commissions, trading that seems inconsistent with stated investment objectives, and high turnover that does not align with their risk tolerance or time horizon. Account statements show commission costs, and investors should question trading patterns that generate high costs without corresponding benefits. If concerns arise, investors should escalate complaints to firm compliance departments and, if necessary, to FINRA. The substantial restitution ordered in related cases demonstrates that regulators take excessive trading seriously and that customers can recover losses through the disciplinary process.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Nicholas Michael Caruso was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months (with no monetary sanctions due to financial status) for willfully violating the Best Interest Obligation under Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) by recommending a seri...

Read More

According to FINRA, Nicholas Michael Caruso was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months (with no monetary sanctions due to financial status) for willfully violating the Best Interest Obligation under Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) by recommending a series of transactions in two elderly retail customers' accounts that was excessive in light of their investment profiles and therefore was not in either customer's best interest. Caruso placed his and his member firm's interests ahead of the interests of both customers.

Regulation Best Interest, which became effective in June 2020, requires broker-dealers and their associated persons to act in the best interest of retail customers when making recommendations. This includes an obligation of care requiring brokers to understand the potential risks, rewards, and costs associated with a recommendation and to have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is in the customer's best interest. Caruso's recommendations violated these obligations through a pattern of excessive, short-term trading.

Caruso's recommendations for both customers involved a pattern of in-and-out, short-term trading, and he failed to consider the cumulative costs of his trading strategy. In-and-out trading, where securities are purchased and sold within short time periods, can generate significant commissions while providing little or no benefit to customers. The customers lost a total of $20,300 and paid more than $14,100 in commissions and trade costs. The combination of losses and high costs demonstrates that the trading was not serving the customers' interests but was instead generating income for Caruso and his firm.

The fact that both customers were elderly makes this violation particularly egregious. Elderly investors often have limited ability to recover from losses and may be on fixed incomes, making excessive trading costs especially harmful. Seniors may also be less able to monitor their accounts closely or to fully understand the impact of frequent trading on their investment returns. For investors, particularly seniors, this case highlights the protections provided by Regulation Best Interest and the importance of monitoring trading activity for patterns that suggest the broker's interests are being prioritized over the customer's interests. Warning signs include frequent trading that generates substantial commissions, short-term in-and-out trading, trading that seems inconsistent with stated investment objectives, and declining account values despite market conditions. Investors should review monthly or quarterly statements carefully, calculate the total costs being paid in commissions and fees, and question any trading patterns that seem excessive. Regulation Best Interest provides a legal framework for holding brokers accountable when they prioritize their own compensation over customer interests, and investors should not hesitate to file complaints when they suspect violations.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Lee Michael Generous was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for falsifying customer and registered representative signatures. Generous electronically signed documents for customers, some of wh...

Read More

According to FINRA, Lee Michael Generous was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for falsifying customer and registered representative signatures. Generous electronically signed documents for customers, some of whom were seniors, with their permission. None of the customers complained about this practice. He also electronically signed the name of another representative on more than 100 documents with that representative's permission. Despite having permission, the practice violated recordkeeping rules and led to false attestations.

The documents that Generous signed included required records of the firm such as new account applications, account transfer forms, and opt-in forms for electronic prospectuses. While Generous had the customers' permission to sign on their behalf, this practice creates several problems. First, it undermines the integrity of firm records—signatures are meant to provide evidence that the person whose name appears actually reviewed and agreed to the document. When someone else signs, even with permission, it creates ambiguity about what the signatory actually reviewed and agreed to. Second, it can make it difficult to establish the authenticity of documents if disputes arise later.

The fact that some of the customers were seniors adds another layer of concern. Seniors are often targets of financial exploitation, and while there is no indication that Generous was exploiting these customers, the practice of signing documents on behalf of seniors creates opportunities for abuse by less scrupulous individuals. Proper procedures require customers to sign their own documents, or if they are unable to do so, to provide formal power of attorney to someone authorized to sign on their behalf.

Compounding the violation, Generous falsely attested in a compliance questionnaire that he had not signed or affixed another person's signature on a document. This false attestation transformed what might have been viewed as a well-intentioned shortcut into a more serious violation involving dishonesty. By causing his firm to maintain inaccurate books and records, Generous impaired the firm's ability to maintain reliable records and to demonstrate compliance with regulatory requirements. For investors, this case illustrates the importance of maintaining control over one's own signatures and documents. While it may seem convenient to allow a financial professional to sign documents on your behalf, it creates risks and undermines important protections. Investors should insist on reviewing and signing documents themselves, or if unable to do so, should establish formal power of attorney arrangements with trusted family members or advisors rather than financial professionals who may have conflicts of interest.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Kenneth John Arellano was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days for causing his member firm to maintain incomplete books and records by using a text messaging service that was not approved by the firm to exchange securitie...

Read More

According to FINRA, Kenneth John Arellano was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days for causing his member firm to maintain incomplete books and records by using a text messaging service that was not approved by the firm to exchange securities-related business communications, including information concerning customers' investment profiles and account balances. Arellano did not retain copies of any of these communications for his firm to preserve.

Recordkeeping requirements are fundamental to securities regulation. Firms are required to maintain records of securities-related communications so that regulators and firms themselves can supervise activities, investigate complaints, and ensure compliance with securities laws. When registered representatives use communication channels that are not approved by their firms and that do not automatically preserve records, it creates gaps in the firm's books and records. These gaps impair supervision and can make it impossible to reconstruct what was said if disputes or compliance questions arise.

Text messaging and other electronic communications have become increasingly common in business settings, but they create particular challenges for securities firms due to recordkeeping requirements. Firms must implement systems to capture and preserve these communications, and representatives must use only approved communication channels. When representatives use personal devices or unapproved messaging services for business communications, even with good intentions, they violate recordkeeping rules.

The communications in this case were not trivial—they included information about customers' investment profiles and account balances, which are directly relevant to suitability determinations and account supervision. Without records of these communications, the firm could not verify what information was exchanged or whether recommendations were appropriate. For investors, this case highlights why securities firms have rules about communication channels. These rules are not merely bureaucratic—they serve important investor protection functions by ensuring there is a record of what was said. When financial professionals insist on communicating through text messages, personal email, or other channels that may not be supervised by their firms, it should raise red flags. Investors should be aware that securities-related communications should occur through firm-approved channels, and should question why a financial professional would want to communicate outside those channels. If disputes arise about what was said or recommended, the absence of records can make it difficult for investors to prove their case.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Todd Morris Mezrah was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 business days for sending email communications to retail investors that violated the content standards of FINRA Rule 2210 because they were not fair and balanced, co...

Read More

According to FINRA, Todd Morris Mezrah was fined $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 business days for sending email communications to retail investors that violated the content standards of FINRA Rule 2210 because they were not fair and balanced, contained promissory, unwarranted, and misleading statements or claims, and included prohibited projections of performance.

The emails discussed an opportunity to invest in a multi-family real estate property through a private offering of interests in a company that planned to acquire and develop the property. While discussing the investment opportunity, Mezrah failed to mention any risks of investing in private placements, the specific risks of investing in the particular private placement referred to in the emails, or the real estate risks associated with the investment. In fact, the emails did not discuss any investment risks at all—they presented only the potential positive aspects of the investment.

FINRA's communications rules require that communications with the public be fair and balanced, meaning they must provide a sound basis for evaluating facts and not omit material facts or qualifications that would cause the communications to be misleading. When discussing investment opportunities, it is essential to present both potential benefits and risks. Private placements involve significant risks including illiquidity, lack of transparency, limited regulatory oversight, and potential for total loss. Real estate investments carry additional risks related to property values, development costs, financing, tenant occupancy, and market conditions.

By presenting only positive information without any risk disclosure, Mezrah's emails created a misleading impression that could induce investors to make uninformed investment decisions. The prohibition on promissory and unwarranted statements prevents brokers from suggesting guaranteed or certain outcomes. The prohibition on performance projections prevents brokers from speculating about future returns that may not materialize. For investors, this case illustrates the importance of being skeptical of investment communications that emphasize potential returns without adequately discussing risks. Any legitimate investment involves trade-offs between risk and return, and communications that present only upside without acknowledging downside should be viewed with suspicion. Private placement offerings in particular require careful due diligence, as they typically involve higher risks and fewer investor protections than registered securities. Before investing in any private offering, investors should insist on receiving detailed disclosure documents, should independently verify claims made by promoters, and should consider consulting with independent financial and legal advisors who do not have a stake in the transaction.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Gerald Michael Taylor was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for engaging in outside business activities outside the scope of his association with his member firm without providing prior writ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Gerald Michael Taylor was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for engaging in outside business activities outside the scope of his association with his member firm without providing prior written notice to the firm, for inaccurately stating his activities on compliance questionnaires, and for opening and maintaining an account at another firm without proper authorization.

Taylor served as the chief compliance officer of a local community bank and worked as an assistant professor of finance at a local college, receiving compensation for both positions. Despite these significant outside roles, he failed to provide the required written notice to his firm. The outside business activity rules require representatives to notify their firms of business activities outside their employment so firms can assess whether the activities create conflicts of interest, interfere with the representative's duties to the firm, or involve securities-related activities that should be conducted through the firm.

Taylor's positions as a bank compliance officer and finance professor both involve financial services and education, creating potential conflicts and raising questions about divided loyalties and time commitments. When Taylor submitted compliance questionnaires to his firm, he inaccurately stated that he did not receive compensation from any person or entity outside of his relationship with the firm. He also inaccurately stated on multiple conflict of interest questionnaires that he was not an officer in any other business entity, when in fact he served as chief compliance officer of the bank.

Additionally, Taylor opened an IRA at another firm in which securities transactions could be effected and in which he held a beneficial interest, without receiving prior written consent from his firm or notifying the other firm of his association. Rules requiring representatives to notify their firms of accounts at other firms exist to enable supervision and to prevent representatives from engaging in personal trading that could conflict with their duties or that could involve insider information. For investors, this case illustrates red flags to watch for when working with financial professionals. Representatives who hold multiple jobs, particularly in finance-related fields, may have divided attention and potential conflicts of interest. Investors should ask financial professionals about their other business activities and employment to assess whether conflicts exist. The fact that Taylor was a compliance officer at another financial institution while failing to comply with basic disclosure requirements at his securities firm is particularly concerning and suggests a lack of integrity. Investors can verify the background and outside activities of financial professionals through FINRA's BrokerCheck system, though it depends on representatives making accurate disclosures.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Nicholas Blake Williams was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month for recording inaccurate information on order memoranda prepared with respect to a transaction. Williams inaccurately recorded that orders were received b...

Read More

According to FINRA, Nicholas Blake Williams was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one month for recording inaccurate information on order memoranda prepared with respect to a transaction. Williams inaccurately recorded that orders were received by a registered representative of another FINRA member who had not actually received the orders. The orders were actually received by a different registered representative who was not authorized to receive them due to a conflict of interest with the other FINRA member's customer.

Order memoranda, also known as order tickets, are required records that document the details of securities transactions including who placed the order, when it was received, the terms of the order, and when it was executed. Accurate order tickets are essential for regulatory compliance, audit trails, and resolving disputes. When order tickets contain false information about who received orders, it undermines the integrity of the firm's records and can conceal problematic activities.

In this case, Williams knowingly recorded false information to hide the fact that orders were received by someone who should not have been receiving them due to a conflict of interest. This type of falsification suggests an awareness that the underlying activity was problematic and an attempt to conceal it from supervisory review. Conflicts of interest in order handling can lead to unfair treatment of customers, improper advantages to certain parties, or other abuses.

The fact that Williams was aware of both the actual source of the orders and the conflict that made that source unauthorized, yet deliberately recorded false information, demonstrates intentional misconduct rather than mere negligence. For investors, this case highlights the importance of accurate recordkeeping in the securities industry. When financial professionals falsify records, it suggests they are trying to hide something and undermines confidence in the entire system. Investors rely on firms maintaining accurate records to ensure fair treatment, to resolve disputes, and to enable regulatory oversight. While individual investors typically do not see order memoranda, they can report concerns about order handling to their firms and to FINRA. Any indication that a financial professional has falsified records should be viewed as a serious red flag about that person's trustworthiness and fitness to work in the industry.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Richard Evans Leininger was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for causing his member firm to make and preserve inaccurate books and records by mismarking order tickets as unsolicited when he had solicited the securi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Richard Evans Leininger was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for causing his member firm to make and preserve inaccurate books and records by mismarking order tickets as unsolicited when he had solicited the securities transactions.

The distinction between solicited and unsolicited orders is important for multiple reasons. Solicited orders are those where the broker recommends the transaction to the customer, triggering suitability obligations requiring the broker to have a reasonable basis to believe the recommendation is appropriate for the customer. Unsolicited orders are those initiated by the customer without a recommendation from the broker, and different suitability obligations apply. By mismarking solicited orders as unsolicited, Leininger created false records that could hide unsuitable recommendations from supervisory review.

Firms rely on accurate order markings to supervise their representatives' activities and ensure compliance with suitability rules. When orders are marked as unsolicited, supervisors may apply less scrutiny because the firm's suitability obligations are more limited. This creates opportunities for brokers to make inappropriate recommendations without triggering supervisory reviews. Additionally, if customer disputes arise about whether transactions were recommended, order tickets serve as important evidence. False markings can prejudice customers' ability to prove that recommendations were made.

The violation of causing the firm to maintain inaccurate books and records is serious because it undermines the integrity of the regulatory framework. Accurate records are essential for firms to supervise their representatives, for regulators to conduct examinations and investigations, and for resolving customer complaints. When representatives falsify records, it impairs all of these functions. For investors, this case highlights the importance of being clear with brokers about whether trades are being recommended or are investor-initiated. If a broker recommends a transaction, investors should expect that the broker has considered whether it is suitable and should feel free to ask about the basis for the recommendation. If disputes arise later about whether transactions were recommended, order tickets will be important evidence, though this case demonstrates that order tickets can be falsified. Investors should keep their own records of conversations with brokers, including notes about what was recommended and why. Confirmations and account statements should be reviewed carefully, and any transactions that were not authorized or that seem inconsistent with stated investment objectives should be questioned immediately.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Christian Thomas Holmes was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months for forging a third party's signature on forms that he submitted to his member firm in support of his application to extend a paid...

Read More

According to FINRA, Christian Thomas Holmes was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months for forging a third party's signature on forms that he submitted to his member firm in support of his application to extend a paid leave of absence. Holmes typed the third party's name on the signature line of the forms without the person's authorization or knowledge.

While this violation did not directly involve customer funds or securities transactions, it demonstrates dishonesty and lack of integrity that raise serious questions about Holmes' fitness to work in the securities industry. The securities industry operates on trust—investors must trust that the professionals handling their money will act honestly and in their best interests. When someone demonstrates willingness to commit forgery for personal benefit, it suggests they may be willing to engage in other dishonest conduct.

Holmes' forgery was deliberate and premeditated. He needed documentation to support his request for extended paid leave, and rather than obtaining legitimate documentation or accepting that his request might be denied, he chose to forge a signature to obtain what he wanted. This reflects a concerning lack of ethical judgment and willingness to deceive his employer. The fact that the forgery involved a personnel matter rather than customer accounts does not diminish its seriousness.

The securities industry maintains high standards of integrity because of the significant responsibility that comes with handling other people's money and providing financial advice. Past dishonest conduct, even in matters not directly involving customers, is considered predictive of future conduct. Individuals who have demonstrated dishonesty in any context pose risks to customers and to the integrity of the markets. For investors, this case illustrates why checking the disciplinary history of financial professionals is so important. FINRA's BrokerCheck system discloses disciplinary actions including those based on dishonest conduct. Any indication that a financial professional has engaged in forgery, falsification of documents, or other dishonest behavior should be viewed as a serious red flag. Investors should not do business with individuals who have demonstrated lack of integrity, regardless of whether the misconduct directly involved customer accounts. Honesty is a fundamental requirement for anyone entrusted with investment decisions or customer assets.

Show Less