Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Capital Investment Group, Inc. was censured, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay $64,800 plus interest in partial restitution for negligently failing to tell investors material information about private placement offerings.

The firm sold nine limited partnership interests totali...

Read More

According to FINRA, Capital Investment Group, Inc. was censured, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay $64,800 plus interest in partial restitution for negligently failing to tell investors material information about private placement offerings.

The firm sold nine limited partnership interests totaling $860,000 in two offerings related to an alternative asset management company after learning that the issuers had delayed filing audited financial statements and intended to complete a forensic audit. However, firm representatives did not inform the customers that the issuers had not timely filed their audited financial statements with the SEC or explain the reasons for the delay. The firm received $68,800 in commissions from these sales.

The delay in filing audited financial statements and the reasons for it—including the need for a forensic audit—was material information that should have been disclosed to investors before they made their investment decisions. Material information is any information that a reasonable investor would consider important in making an investment decision. Omitting such information, even negligently, violates securities regulations and can lead to investors making uninformed decisions.

This case demonstrates why transparency is critical in private placement offerings, which already carry higher risk than public securities. Red flags like delayed financial statements and forensic audits often signal serious problems with an issuer's operations or financial condition. Investors should always ask detailed questions about any delays in required filings and insist on understanding the reasons behind them. Before investing in private placements, investors should verify that all required filings are current and request explanations for any irregularities. The limited regulatory oversight of private placements makes thorough due diligence and complete disclosure even more essential for investor protection.

Show Less

According to FINRA, ViewTrade Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $250,000 for failing to establish adequate anti-money laundering programs, failing to detect and respond to suspicious activities, and failing to establish proper risk management controls for its market access business.

The fir...

Read More

According to FINRA, ViewTrade Securities, Inc. was censured and fined $250,000 for failing to establish adequate anti-money laundering programs, failing to detect and respond to suspicious activities, and failing to establish proper risk management controls for its market access business.

The firm's AML program contained significant deficiencies. Written procedures assigned responsibility for surveillance but provided no guidance on how to use reports, who would review them, or how to document and escalate issues. Many surveillance reports were not reasonably designed to detect suspicious or potentially manipulative transactions. The firm had no procedures to detect related customer accounts, relying solely on customers to report relationships and lacking systems to identify red flags like similar email or mailing addresses.

The firm accepted and routed customer orders in options but had no surveillance tools specific to options transactions. Reviewers relied on memory to identify patterns across multiple days rather than systematic analysis, and the firm failed to document its investigations of suspicious activity. The firm also failed to detect, investigate, and respond to red flags in IPO trading where it served as underwriter, including potential coordinated trading and suspicious money movements.

Additionally, the firm's market access procedures did not adequately describe processes for reviewing, escalating, and resolving surveillance exceptions for potentially manipulative activity. Anti-money laundering programs are the front line of defense against financial crimes that can victimize investors and destabilize markets. Adequate surveillance systems protect investors by identifying fraud, manipulation, and other misconduct before it causes widespread harm. This case illustrates how systematic AML failures can leave investors vulnerable to various forms of market abuse. Investors should consider a firm's AML compliance record when selecting a broker-dealer, as firms with weak controls may attract bad actors who pose risks to legitimate customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Katalyst Securities LLC was censured and fined $15,000 for conducting securities business on six days while failing to maintain the minimum required net capital.

The firm failed to record its financial entries in a timely manner, monitor its net capital position on a day-to-da...

Read More

According to FINRA, Katalyst Securities LLC was censured and fined $15,000 for conducting securities business on six days while failing to maintain the minimum required net capital.

The firm failed to record its financial entries in a timely manner, monitor its net capital position on a day-to-day basis, and set aside adequate funds for immediate capital contributions if needed. The firm did not properly account for payments of unusually large invoices and amounts due to representatives from private offering sales when evaluating its net capital status. These failures caused the firm's net capital to fall below the required minimum, with daily deficiencies ranging between $4,280 and $100,999.

Net capital rules require broker-dealers to maintain minimum levels of liquid assets to ensure they can meet obligations to customers and counterparties. These rules are fundamental investor protections designed to prevent firm failures that could result in customer losses. When a firm operates below minimum net capital requirements, it poses heightened risk to customers whose assets and transactions depend on the firm's financial stability.

Broker-dealers must continuously monitor their net capital position and immediately cease operations if they fall below required minimums. The failure to do so violates core financial responsibility rules and places customer assets at risk. Investors can protect themselves by reviewing firms' financial stability through FINRA BrokerCheck and understanding that net capital violations, even if subsequently corrected, indicate serious deficiencies in a firm's financial management and oversight. While SIPC insurance provides some protection, investors should prioritize working with financially sound firms that maintain compliance with net capital requirements. This case demonstrates the importance of robust financial controls and real-time monitoring systems for broker-dealer firms.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Kovack Securities Inc. was censured and fined $210,000 for failing to establish and enforce supervisory systems reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA's suitability rule regarding short-term trading of mutual fund class A shares.

The firm relied primarily on one ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Kovack Securities Inc. was censured and fined $210,000 for failing to establish and enforce supervisory systems reasonably designed to achieve compliance with FINRA's suitability rule regarding short-term trading of mutual fund class A shares.

The firm relied primarily on one person to manually review daily trading activity for over 300 registered representatives. These reviews were not reasonably designed to identify short-term mutual fund switches where purchases and sales occurred months apart. The firm provided no support staff or automated exception reports to assist with identifying unsuitable mutual fund trading patterns.

The firm failed to respond reasonably to red flags concerning one representative whose Form U5 from his prior firm indicated termination for short-term mutual fund trading. Despite this warning, the firm imposed no heightened supervision. When the trade reviewer identified a short-term trade of A share mutual funds in a senior customer's account, the firm cancelled the trade but did not review the representative's overall trading activity or take additional action. Consequently, additional unsuitable switches occurred, causing customers to incur unnecessary sales charges. The firm voluntarily made restitution to affected customers.

Class A mutual fund shares typically charge front-end sales loads, making them unsuitable for short-term trading. Frequent switching causes investors to repeatedly pay these loads, which can significantly erode investment returns. This practice, sometimes called mutual fund switching, benefits representatives through commissions while harming customers. Investors should be wary of frequent mutual fund trades, especially with share classes designed for long-term holding. Understanding mutual fund share class structures and associated costs is essential. Investors who experience frequent trading in their mutual fund holdings should question whether such activity serves their interests or primarily generates commissions for their broker.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Lampert Capital Markets Inc. was censured and fined $10,000 for conducting securities business while under its required minimum net capital by improperly including non-allowable assets in net capital computations.

The firm misclassified payment for order flow fees receivables,...

Read More

According to FINRA, Lampert Capital Markets Inc. was censured and fined $10,000 for conducting securities business while under its required minimum net capital by improperly including non-allowable assets in net capital computations.

The firm misclassified payment for order flow fees receivables, ranging between approximately $6,000 and $48,200, as allowable assets in its net capital calculations. This resulted in the firm overstating its net capital and excess net capital. At one point, the firm classified approximately $48,200 in non-allowable receivables as allowable assets and operated with actual net capital of approximately $88,500, creating a net capital deficiency of approximately $11,500.

The firm failed to maintain accurate books and records, overstating its allowable receivables, net capital, and excess net capital on six month-end FOCUS reports. Additionally, when the firm's net capital fell below its minimum requirement and below 120 percent of required minimum net capital, it failed to file required notices with FINRA or the SEC as mandated by regulations.

Net capital rules are designed to ensure broker-dealers maintain sufficient liquid assets to meet obligations to customers and counterparties. Payment for order flow receivables may not qualify as allowable assets because they may not be readily convertible to cash. Accurate classification of assets is critical for determining whether a firm meets net capital requirements. The failure to file required notices when net capital falls below thresholds prevents regulators from taking timely action to protect investors. Investors should understand that net capital violations indicate deficiencies in a firm's financial controls and management. FINRA BrokerCheck allows investors to review a firm's regulatory history, including net capital violations, helping them make informed decisions about broker-dealer selection. Strong financial controls and compliance with net capital rules are fundamental indicators of a firm's ability to safely handle customer assets.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated was censured, fined $150,000, and ordered to pay $266,481 plus interest in restitution for using a commission schedule that charged commissions on low-principal transactions that were not fair and reasonable.

The firm imposed a minimum commis...

Read More

According to FINRA, Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated was censured, fined $150,000, and ordered to pay $266,481 plus interest in restitution for using a commission schedule that charged commissions on low-principal transactions that were not fair and reasonable.

The firm imposed a minimum commission of $100 plus a handling fee on all equity transactions. This minimum commission structure resulted in the firm charging at least $266,481 in unfair commissions, with charges ranging from over five percent to 93 percent of the transactions' principal value. While the firm generally flagged transactions where customers were charged over five percent of principal for excessive commission review, its supervisory system did not flag transactions for review when the firm charged its minimum $100 commission.

The firm's supervisory system was unreasonable because when establishing its commission schedule and setting commissions, it did not appropriately consider the factors set forth in FINRA Rule 2121.01 for transactions subject to the minimum commission. These factors include the type of security, its availability, the price of the security, the amount of money involved, the expense of executing the order, and the value of services rendered by the broker-dealer.

FINRA rules require that commissions be fair and reasonable, taking into account all relevant circumstances. Excessive commissions, particularly on small transactions, can severely erode investment returns and harm customers who may not realize the disproportionate cost of their trades. A commission representing 93 percent of a transaction's value is clearly excessive and inconsistent with fair dealing principles. Investors should always understand the commission structure before trading and calculate commissions as a percentage of their trade size. Small trades at firms with high minimum commissions can be particularly costly. Investors should compare commission schedules across firms and consider whether a firm's commission structure aligns with their typical trading patterns and account size. Transparency in commission charges is essential for investors to evaluate the true cost of their investment activities.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Timothy Jay Fazzone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting $5,775 from a customer's estate.

Fazzone earned a $5,775 commission on the sale of a fixed annuity to a customer. After the customer died, Fazzone submitted a fraudulent clai...

Read More

According to FINRA, Timothy Jay Fazzone was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting $5,775 from a customer's estate.

Fazzone earned a $5,775 commission on the sale of a fixed annuity to a customer. After the customer died, Fazzone submitted a fraudulent claim against the customer's estate seeking reimbursement for the commission, falsely representing that his firm had reversed it. To support his claim, Fazzone presented a document purportedly signed by the customer instructing the estate to reimburse him for any commissions reversed due to her death. Based on this fraudulent claim, the estate paid Fazzone $5,775. However, the firm never reversed or charged back the commission at any time, meaning Fazzone received double payment for the same transaction.

Conversion—the unauthorized taking of another person's property—is one of the most serious violations in the securities industry. When a broker converts customer or estate funds, it constitutes theft and fundamentally breaches the trust relationship between brokers and clients. The use of a forged or fabricated document to support the fraudulent claim compounds the severity of the misconduct.

This case highlights the vulnerability of estates and beneficiaries during the administration process following a death. Executors and estate administrators should carefully scrutinize all claims against estates, verify their legitimacy independently, and confirm that any alleged chargebacks or reversals actually occurred. Investors and their families should maintain detailed records of all transactions and commissions paid. When a family member dies, beneficiaries should contact the brokerage firm directly to verify any claims submitted by brokers or financial advisors. A permanent bar is appropriate given the deliberate nature of this fraud and the abuse of trust involved in targeting a deceased customer's estate.

Show Less

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

The matter originated from a FINRA Rule 4530 filing submitted by Frerking's member firm. FINRA Rule 8210 empowers FIN...

Read More

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

The matter originated from a FINRA Rule 4530 filing submitted by Frerking's member firm. FINRA Rule 8210 empowers FINRA to require members and associated persons to provide information and testimony in connection with investigations. Frerking refused to comply with FINRA's request to appear for on-the-record testimony, obstructing FINRA's ability to investigate potential misconduct.

Cooperation with regulatory investigations is a fundamental obligation of all securities industry professionals. FINRA Rule 8210 is essential to FINRA's ability to fulfill its regulatory mission of protecting investors and ensuring market integrity. When individuals refuse to testify, they prevent regulators from uncovering misconduct, identifying victims, and taking appropriate action to protect the investing public. The refusal to cooperate is treated as an extremely serious violation, typically resulting in a bar from the industry.

The permanent bar prevents Frerking from working in any capacity with any FINRA member firm, protecting investors from an individual who refused to participate in the regulatory process. Investors should understand that regulatory cooperation is not optional for securities professionals. When brokers refuse to testify or provide information to regulators, it often suggests they have something to hide. Investors can use FINRA BrokerCheck to review disciplinary history and identify brokers who have been barred or suspended for failing to cooperate with investigations. Such red flags should prompt investors to immediately reconsider their relationship with that broker and consider moving their assets to a firm with stronger compliance standards. Regulatory cooperation is a basic expectation of securities industry participation, and refusal warrants permanent removal from the industry.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Haleh Farshi Farshi was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation.

FINRA initiated an investigation into circumstances surrounding a Form U5 filed by...

Read More

According to FINRA, Haleh Farshi Farshi was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation.

FINRA initiated an investigation into circumstances surrounding a Form U5 filed by Farshi's member firm stating that it had terminated her after she informed the firm that she had pled guilty to a conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud charge. When FINRA requested information and documents as part of its investigation, Farshi refused to comply with the request.

Pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud is an extremely serious criminal matter that raises significant concerns about an individual's fitness to work in the securities industry. FINRA's investigation was necessary to understand the full scope of the criminal conduct and determine appropriate regulatory action. By refusing to provide information and documents, Farshi obstructed FINRA's ability to protect investors and maintain industry integrity.

Federal bank and wire fraud statutes prohibit schemes to defraud financial institutions or obtain money through false pretenses using wire communications. Individuals convicted of such offenses demonstrate a willingness to engage in dishonest conduct that is fundamentally incompatible with the trust required in the broker-customer relationship. The combination of a guilty plea to serious financial crimes and refusal to cooperate with regulatory investigation warrants permanent removal from the industry.

Investors should use FINRA BrokerCheck to research their broker's background, including any criminal history or regulatory actions. A criminal conviction for fraud is a major red flag that should prompt immediate action to transfer accounts to another broker. The securities industry is built on trust, and individuals who commit fraud or refuse to cooperate with regulators have no place serving investors. A permanent bar protects the public from individuals who have demonstrated both criminal conduct and contempt for regulatory oversight.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Jolam Mendez was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting approximately $34,600 from his member firm by submitting false timesheets.

Mendez submitted timesheets falsely claiming that he worked more than 620 hours of overtime processing loa...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jolam Mendez was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting approximately $34,600 from his member firm by submitting false timesheets.

Mendez submitted timesheets falsely claiming that he worked more than 620 hours of overtime processing loan applications for the firm's bank affiliate. Based on these fraudulent timesheets, the firm paid Mendez approximately $34,600 in overtime compensation to which he was not entitled. This conduct constituted conversion—the unauthorized taking of another's property through fraud.

Timesheet fraud represents theft from an employer and demonstrates fundamental dishonesty incompatible with working in the securities industry. The substantial amount involved—over $34,600—and the systematic nature of the fraud over 620 claimed hours shows this was not an isolated mistake but rather a deliberate, ongoing scheme to steal from the firm. Such conduct violates the high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade required of securities professionals.

While this conversion involved firm funds rather than customer funds, it reveals character and trustworthiness issues that pose unacceptable risks to investors. Securities professionals must demonstrate integrity in all their dealings, as investors entrust them with their financial futures and life savings. Someone willing to systematically defraud their employer cannot be trusted to act honestly and fairly when handling customer accounts and assets.

A permanent bar is appropriate and necessary to protect investors from an individual who engaged in deliberate, ongoing theft. This case reminds investors that a broker's integrity matters greatly. FINRA BrokerCheck provides information about disciplinary actions, including bars for conversion and fraud. Investors should research their broker's background and immediately move their accounts if they discover a history of dishonest conduct. The securities industry depends on trust, and individuals who violate that trust through theft or fraud must be permanently removed to maintain investor confidence and market integrity.

Show Less