Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Sagetrader, LLC was censured and fined a total of $775,000 for failing to reasonably supervise potentially manipulative trading on its platforms, including layering, spoofing, wash trades, and marking the close or open.

The firm's supervisory system had multiple deficiencies. ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Sagetrader, LLC was censured and fined a total of $775,000 for failing to reasonably supervise potentially manipulative trading on its platforms, including layering, spoofing, wash trades, and marking the close or open.

The firm's supervisory system had multiple deficiencies. First, the firm conducted no supervisory reviews for potentially manipulative trading initially. When it later implemented an automated surveillance system that generated post-trade alerts, the system did not initially surveil for marking the open, and a coding error prevented it from capturing trading activity of individual traders at one high-risk customer. Second, the firm's review of alerts was unreasonable, with first-level reviewers permitted to close alerts without any oversight or supervision by a principal.

The firm's written supervisory procedures failed to provide reasonable guidance on reviewing for manipulative trading. Procedures required escalation of "significant alerts" to a review committee but did not explain what qualified as significant or what steps reviewers should take. The firm focused on resolving individual alerts from separate traders but had no system to consider aggregate alerts from multiple traders at the same customer to evaluate overall regulatory risk. Although the firm identified two customers as high risk requiring enhanced surveillance, it had no procedures for conducting such surveillance and did not do so. Finally, the firm did not routinely document alert reviews, and existing documentation was often insufficient.

This case emphasizes the responsibility of broker-dealers to actively surveil for market manipulation that can harm legitimate traders and undermine market integrity. Manipulative practices like spoofing and layering create false impressions of supply and demand, leading to artificial prices. Investors should be aware that reputable firms must maintain robust surveillance systems with proper oversight. The lack of effective supervision allowed potentially manipulative trading to continue undetected, putting other market participants at risk.

Show Less

According to FINRA, David Michael Karandos was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA.

FINRA's ability to conduct effective investigations depends on the cooperation of registered individuals. When FINR...

Read More

According to FINRA, David Michael Karandos was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA.

FINRA's ability to conduct effective investigations depends on the cooperation of registered individuals. When FINRA requests testimony as part of an investigation, registered persons have an obligation to comply. Refusal to appear undermines the regulatory process and prevents FINRA from fulfilling its mandate to protect investors.

By refusing to provide testimony, Karandos prevented FINRA from obtaining potentially relevant information about matters under investigation. This type of non-cooperation is considered a serious violation because it obstructs FINRA's ability to investigate potential misconduct and take appropriate action to protect investors and maintain market integrity.

The permanent bar means Karandos cannot work in any capacity with any FINRA member firm, effectively ending his career in the securities industry. This severe sanction reflects the importance FINRA places on cooperation with its investigations.

This case serves as an important reminder that all securities professionals have an obligation to cooperate with regulatory investigations. Investors should be aware that refusing to cooperate with regulators is itself a serious violation that can result in permanent industry bars. When individuals refuse to provide testimony or information, it raises questions about what they may be trying to hide. The securities industry depends on transparency and accountability, and regulators must be able to investigate potential violations effectively. Investors can take some comfort knowing that FINRA has the authority to permanently remove individuals who refuse to cooperate with investigations, even without making findings on the underlying conduct being investigated.

Show Less

According to FINRA, William Edward Torriente Jr. was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide on-the-record testimony in connection with FINRA's investigation into allegations of unauthorized trading.

FINRA initiated its investigation after Torriente...

Read More

According to FINRA, William Edward Torriente Jr. was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide on-the-record testimony in connection with FINRA's investigation into allegations of unauthorized trading.

FINRA initiated its investigation after Torriente's member firm filed a Form U5 stating that he had voluntarily terminated his association while under internal review for placing transactions in client accounts without the clients' knowledge. The firm later filed an amended Form U5 disclosing additional customer complaints alleging unauthorized discretion, among other issues. When FINRA requested that Torriente appear for testimony to address these serious allegations, he refused to comply.

The refusal to cooperate with FINRA's investigation is particularly concerning given the nature of the underlying allegations. Unauthorized trading represents a fundamental breach of trust between a broker and client. Clients must authorize transactions in their accounts, and brokers who place trades without permission violate basic industry rules and potentially expose clients to unsuitable investments and unnecessary risks.

By refusing to provide testimony, Torriente prevented FINRA from fully investigating these allegations and determining what actually occurred. This non-cooperation constitutes an independent violation that resulted in his permanent bar from the securities industry, regardless of whether the underlying allegations could have been proven.

This case illustrates two important investor protection principles. First, unauthorized trading is a serious violation that firms and regulators take seriously, often resulting in termination and investigation. Second, securities professionals who refuse to cooperate with regulatory investigations face severe consequences, including permanent bars that prevent them from working anywhere in the industry. Investors should immediately report any suspicious or unauthorized activity in their accounts and can verify a broker's disciplinary history and registration status through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Daniel Lee Bicket was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony during an investigation into whether he sold equity indexed annuities in violation of FINRA rules governing undisclosed outside business activi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Daniel Lee Bicket was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony during an investigation into whether he sold equity indexed annuities in violation of FINRA rules governing undisclosed outside business activities.

FINRA rules require registered representatives to provide written notice to their member firms of any outside business activities. This requirement allows firms to supervise their representatives' activities and identify potential conflicts of interest that could harm investors. The rules apply even to activities that may seem unrelated to a representative's securities business, because such activities can create conflicts or compliance issues.

The investigation into Bicket focused on whether he sold equity indexed annuities without properly disclosing this activity to his firm, which would violate both FINRA rules on outside business activities and the firm's written supervisory procedures. Equity indexed annuities are complex insurance products that can be appropriate for some investors but carry specific risks and features that must be properly explained.

When FINRA requested Bicket's testimony to investigate these allegations, he refused to appear. This refusal prevented FINRA from determining the facts surrounding his activities and whether he had violated disclosure requirements. The refusal to cooperate is itself a serious violation of FINRA rules and resulted in a permanent bar from the industry.

Investors should understand that outside business activities by their financial advisors can create conflicts of interest. Representatives might prioritize products that generate outside income over those that best serve clients. The disclosure requirement exists so firms can monitor these activities and protect investors. When representatives refuse to cooperate with investigations into such activities, it raises red flags. This case reminds investors to ask their advisors about all business activities and compensation sources, and to report concerns about undisclosed activities to firms and regulators.

Show Less

According to FINRA, David Gene Menashe was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested in connection with an investigation into potential unsuitable and excessive trading in customer accounts.

Excessive trading, also...

Read More

According to FINRA, David Gene Menashe was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested in connection with an investigation into potential unsuitable and excessive trading in customer accounts.

Excessive trading, also known as churning, occurs when a broker executes trades in a customer's account primarily to generate commissions rather than to benefit the customer. This practice violates FINRA suitability rules and can cause significant financial harm to investors through unnecessary transaction costs and tax consequences. For churning to occur, the broker must have actual or de facto control over the account, the trading must be excessive given the customer's investment objectives, and the broker must act with fraudulent intent.

FINRA's investigation sought to determine whether Menashe engaged in this prohibited practice. Testimony from the broker would be crucial to understanding the nature of trading activity, the basis for investment recommendations, how trading decisions were made, and the broker's intent. By refusing to appear for testimony, Menashe prevented FINRA from fully investigating these serious allegations.

The refusal to cooperate with a regulatory investigation is treated as a standalone violation that warrants severe sanctions. In this case, FINRA imposed a permanent bar, which means Menashe can no longer work in any capacity with any FINRA member firm. This sanction protects investors by removing from the industry an individual who refused to participate in the regulatory process.

This case highlights important investor protections. Excessive trading allegations are taken seriously because they represent a fundamental breach of a broker's duty to act in accordance with a customer's best interests. Investors should monitor their accounts for unusual trading frequency and question advisors about the rationale for frequent transactions. High trading costs and frequent turnover may indicate churning. When brokers refuse to answer questions from regulators about their trading practices, it raises serious concerns about their conduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Robin Lee Taliaferro was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation into whether he engaged in sales practice violations during his associations with mult...

Read More

According to FINRA, Robin Lee Taliaferro was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation into whether he engaged in sales practice violations during his associations with multiple member firms.

FINRA's investigative authority extends to requesting both testimony and documents from registered persons. Documents can provide critical evidence about transactions, communications with customers, compensation arrangements, and other matters relevant to determining whether violations occurred. When FINRA requests documents, registered persons have an obligation to conduct a thorough search and produce all responsive materials.

The investigation into Taliaferro focused on potential sales practice violations, which can encompass a wide range of misconduct including unsuitable recommendations, misrepresentations, unauthorized trading, excessive trading, and failure to disclose material information. Sales practice violations harm investors by exposing them to inappropriate investments or deceptive practices. Because the investigation covered Taliaferro's associations with multiple firms, the potential scope of impact on investors could be significant.

By refusing to produce requested information and documents, Taliaferro obstructed FINRA's ability to investigate these allegations thoroughly. This non-cooperation prevented FINRA from obtaining potentially crucial evidence that could have revealed whether violations occurred, how many customers were affected, and the extent of any harm. The refusal to produce documents constitutes an independent violation that resulted in a permanent bar from the securities industry.

Investors should understand that regulatory investigations serve an important protective function. When brokers refuse to provide information to regulators, they prevent the discovery of potential misconduct that could harm other investors. The permanent bar sanction removes individuals who obstruct investigations from the industry entirely. Investors can check a broker's background, including any disciplinary actions, through FINRA's BrokerCheck system before working with them.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Adam Thomas Marquardt was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide on-the-record testimony in connection with an investigation into allegations that he deposited cashier's checks into client accounts without firm knowledge or authori...

Read More

According to FINRA, Adam Thomas Marquardt was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide on-the-record testimony in connection with an investigation into allegations that he deposited cashier's checks into client accounts without firm knowledge or authorization.

The investigation was triggered by a Form U5 filed by Marquardt's member firm stating that he was under internal review at the time of his resignation for allegations that he deposited cashier's checks into client accounts in part to cover certain clients' investment losses. This allegation raises serious concerns because it suggests potential fraud or manipulation to conceal losses from the firm or from clients. Depositing funds into client accounts without proper authorization and disclosure could serve to temporarily hide losses, delay discovery of problematic trading, or create false account statements.

Such conduct, if proven, would represent multiple violations. It could constitute unauthorized activity, fraud, and failure to follow firm procedures. More fundamentally, it could indicate an attempt to cover up unsuitable recommendations or excessive trading that caused client losses. Using cashier's checks in this manner could also involve the broker's personal funds or funds obtained from other sources, potentially creating a complex web of financial obligations and conflicts.

When FINRA requested Marquardt's testimony to investigate these serious allegations, he refused to provide it. His refusal prevented FINRA from understanding the facts, including whether the allegations were true, what motivated the deposits, how many clients were affected, and the source of the funds. This obstruction of the investigation resulted in a permanent bar from the securities industry.

This case illustrates the importance of transparency in securities accounts. Investors should carefully review all deposits and withdrawals in their accounts and question any unexpected activity. Brokers should never make deposits or withdrawals without explicit customer authorization and proper documentation. The refusal to cooperate with regulators about such serious allegations compounds the concern about the underlying conduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Joseph A. Ambrosole was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony in connection with an investigation concerning a customer complaint alleging unsuitable trading.

The investigation stemmed from an amended...

Read More

According to FINRA, Joseph A. Ambrosole was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony in connection with an investigation concerning a customer complaint alleging unsuitable trading.

The investigation stemmed from an amended Form U5 filed by Ambrosole's former member firm disclosing a customer complaint that alleged he engaged in unsuitable trading. Suitability is a fundamental obligation in the securities industry. Brokers must have a reasonable basis to believe that a recommended transaction or investment strategy is suitable for the customer based on the customer's investment profile, including age, financial situation, investment experience, investment objectives, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and time horizon.

Unsuitable trading can take many forms. It can involve recommending investments that are too risky for a conservative investor, too illiquid for someone with short-term cash needs, or too concentrated for someone requiring diversification. It can also involve recommending trading strategies, such as frequent trading or using margin, that are inappropriate given a customer's profile. The costs of unsuitable recommendations can be substantial, including losses from inappropriate risk exposure and unnecessary fees and expenses.

When FINRA sought Ambrosole's testimony to investigate the customer's allegations, he refused to appear. His testimony would have been important to understanding the basis for his recommendations, his knowledge of the customer's investment profile, and his investment rationale. By refusing to cooperate, Ambrosole prevented FINRA from fully investigating whether the trading was indeed unsuitable and, if so, whether other customers might have been similarly affected.

The permanent bar sanction reflects the serious view FINRA takes of non-cooperation with investigations. This case reminds investors of their rights under suitability rules and the importance of providing accurate information about their financial situations and investment objectives to their brokers. Investors who believe they have received unsuitable recommendations should file complaints with their firms and report concerns to FINRA. They can also verify a broker's disciplinary history through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Wei Donald Tang was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days for engaging in outside business activities without providing written notice to his member firm.

Tang served as the managing member and owner of four limited lia...

Read More

According to FINRA, Wei Donald Tang was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days for engaging in outside business activities without providing written notice to his member firm.

Tang served as the managing member and owner of four limited liability companies, each owning an investment property. He hired property managers to manage three properties as rentals, generating combined annual income ranging from $100,000 to $200,000. Tang also expected to profit from appreciation on the fourth investment property. Despite the significant scale of these activities, Tang did not notify his firm about this outside business until after the firm received inquiries from FINRA.

FINRA rules require registered representatives to provide written notice to their firms of any outside business activities. This requirement exists for several important reasons. First, it allows firms to supervise their representatives and identify potential conflicts of interest that could affect investment recommendations. Second, it helps firms assess whether outside activities might distract representatives from their securities business or create time management issues. Third, it enables firms to determine whether outside activities comply with securities regulations.

While Tang's real estate activities did not involve firm customers, the substantial income he earned from these properties represented a significant outside business that required disclosure. The property management and ownership responsibilities could have created time commitments that impacted his availability to clients. Additionally, his experience as a property owner might have created bias toward or against real estate investments when advising clients.

This case illustrates the breadth of the outside business activity disclosure requirement. Even activities that do not directly involve securities or firm customers may require disclosure if they constitute a business activity. The relatively modest sanctions reflect that Tang's activities did not involve customers and that he cooperated with the investigation. Investors should ask their advisors about outside business activities to understand potential conflicts and time commitments.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Michael Burton Ohlemacher was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for engaging in an insurance-related outside business activity without providing prior written notice to his member firm.

Oh...

Read More

According to FINRA, Michael Burton Ohlemacher was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for engaging in an insurance-related outside business activity without providing prior written notice to his member firm.

Ohlemacher referred both firm clients and non-clients to an insurance company not affiliated with his firm's insurance affiliate, earning over $94,000 in commissions. This substantial income stream was generated entirely outside his firm's knowledge and supervision. Ohlemacher never disclosed this outside business activity in writing to his firm or its insurance affiliate, nor did he receive firm approval as required by FINRA rules and firm policies.

The violations were compounded by Ohlemacher's false attestations on annual compliance questionnaires, where he falsely certified that he had disclosed all outside business activities. These questionnaires are critical compliance tools that firms use to monitor their representatives' activities and identify potential conflicts of interest. By providing false information, Ohlemacher undermined his firm's compliance program and prevented proper supervision.

Insurance sales by securities representatives can create significant conflicts of interest, particularly when conducted outside firm supervision. Representatives might be incentivized to recommend insurance products that generate higher outside commissions rather than securities products that might better serve clients' needs. They might also fail to disclose compensation arrangements or the existence of affiliated products that could be more appropriate. Additionally, unsupervised insurance sales may not be subject to the same suitability and disclosure requirements that apply to securities transactions.

This case emphasizes the importance of full disclosure of outside activities and truthful compliance attestations. The three-month suspension reflects the substantial income earned, the involvement of firm clients, and the false compliance certifications. Investors should ask their advisors about all sources of compensation and whether insurance recommendations are made through the advisor's firm or through outside arrangements.

Show Less