Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Jorge A. Reyes was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered to pay $4,009,000 in restitution to customers for engaging in fraud, making unsuitable recommendations, and converting customer funds.

Reyes violated Section 10(b) of the Securities ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jorge A. Reyes was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities and ordered to pay $4,009,000 in restitution to customers for engaging in fraud, making unsuitable recommendations, and converting customer funds.

Reyes violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 by engaging in fraud when recommending and selling promissory notes to customers. He falsely told customers that the notes were safe investments like bonds when they were actually high-risk, illiquid investments carrying the risk of total loss. The marketing materials he created falsely represented that investor funds would be preceded by a comprehensive due diligence process when no such process existed or was performed.

The fraudulent conduct extended to misrepresentations about how investor funds could be used and the regulatory status of the offerings. Reyes's marketing materials contained false, exaggerated, and misleading statements and falsely implied that regulatory organizations endorsed the promissory notes. These materials violated FINRA Rule 2210's standards for public communications by failing to disclose the significant risks inherent in the notes.

Beyond fraud, FINRA found that Reyes made unsuitable recommendations to a customer by recommending that she invest more than half of her net worth in the high-risk promissory notes despite knowing she had a low risk tolerance and investment objectives focused on preserving assets and generating income. This violated FINRA Rule 2111's suitability requirements.

Most egregiously, Reyes converted funds from a customer who intended to use the money to establish an incubator fund and purchase a promissory note. Instead of using the funds for their intended purpose, Reyes transferred the money to his personal checking account and used it for personal expenses including rent, car payments, credit cards, groceries, personal trips, dining, shopping, alimony, and providing money to a relative of his girlfriend.

This case demonstrates multiple layers of serious misconduct—fraud in the offer and sale of securities, unsuitable recommendations, misuse of marketing materials, and outright theft through conversion. The $4 million restitution order reflects the substantial harm Reyes caused to customers who trusted him.

Investors should be extremely skeptical of promissory notes and other private placements, particularly when sold with marketing materials that minimize risks or make guarantees. Promises that investments are "safe like bonds" when they are actually high-risk should be immediate red flags. Customers should verify that due diligence has been performed, understand the liquidity and risks, and ensure recommendations match their risk tolerance and objectives.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Roderick Len Whited was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting $44,170 in charitable donations that were intended for a pediatric cancer charity.

Whited's branch office at his firm hosted fundraising events for a pediatric cancer charity...

Read More

According to FINRA, Roderick Len Whited was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for converting $44,170 in charitable donations that were intended for a pediatric cancer charity.

Whited's branch office at his firm hosted fundraising events for a pediatric cancer charity. Instead of transmitting the donated funds to the charity as intended by the donors, Whited caused the donated funds to be deposited into his personal bank account and used the funds to pay for his own personal expenses. This constituted conversion—the unauthorized taking and use of property belonging to others.

The misconduct was eventually discovered by Whited's firm, which directed him to make repayment. Subsequently, Whited repaid $35,150.19 to the charity, leaving approximately $9,000 still owed. While partial repayment shows some recognition of wrongdoing, it does not excuse the original conversion or fully compensate the charity for the loss.

This case is particularly egregious because it involved theft from a charity dedicated to helping children with cancer. Donors gave money believing they were supporting sick children, but instead Whited stole the funds for his personal use. This betrayal of trust not only harmed the charity and the children it serves, but also undermined the legitimate charitable fundraising efforts of other financial professionals.

Conversion is one of the most serious violations in the securities industry because it represents a fundamental breach of trust and fiduciary duty. When someone in a position of trust takes money that belongs to others and uses it for personal benefit, they demonstrate unfitness to work in an industry built on trust and handling of other people's money.

The bar imposed by FINRA ensures that Whited can no longer work in the securities industry, protecting investors from someone who has demonstrated a willingness to steal funds entrusted to him. Even though the misconduct involved charitable donations rather than customer securities accounts, it reveals a character flaw that poses risks in any role involving handling of money.

Investors should be reassured that FINRA takes conversion cases extremely seriously regardless of the circumstances. Whether the conversion involves customer investment funds, firm money, or charitable donations, those who misappropriate funds face permanent bars from the industry. This case also illustrates the importance of proper oversight of charitable activities conducted through brokerage offices.

Show Less

According to FINRA, James Earl Simpson 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 into whether he misappropriated client funds or made unsuitable recommendations.

FIN...

Read More

According to FINRA, James Earl Simpson 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 into whether he misappropriated client funds or made unsuitable recommendations.

FINRA's investigation focused on two extremely serious potential violations. Misappropriation of client funds represents one of the most harmful violations a registered representative can commit, involving theft or unauthorized use of money belonging to customers. Unsuitable recommendations, while typically less severe than outright theft, can also cause substantial customer harm when representatives recommend investments that are inconsistent with customers' investment objectives, risk tolerance, or financial situation.

When FINRA requested information and documents to investigate these allegations, Simpson refused to provide them. This refusal prevented FINRA from determining whether Simpson had stolen from customers or made recommendations that caused them financial harm.

The refusal to cooperate is particularly troubling given the seriousness of the underlying allegations. While refusing to provide information always warrants a bar from the industry, the refusal in the context of a misappropriation investigation suggests consciousness of guilt. If Simpson had a legitimate explanation for his conduct or evidence that he did not misappropriate funds, one would expect him to provide that information to clear his name.

Investors should understand that FINRA's authority to protect them depends on registered persons cooperating with investigations. When someone refuses to provide information about alleged misappropriation, FINRA cannot recover funds for victims or determine the full extent of the harm. The bar prevents Simpson from harming additional customers, but investors who may have been victims of any misappropriation should consult with legal counsel about their options for recovery.

This case also illustrates why investors should monitor their accounts carefully and immediately report any unexplained transfers, withdrawals, or suspicious activity to both the firm and to FINRA. Early detection of potential misappropriation can limit losses and make it easier to recover funds. Investors can check a representative's background through FINRA's BrokerCheck system, which will show if someone has been barred for refusing to cooperate with a misappropriation investigation.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Caroline Mohan was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA during its review of a Form U5 filing.

The Form U5 was submitted by Mohan's firm stating that she voluntarily resigned while...

Read More

According to FINRA, Caroline Mohan was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony requested by FINRA during its review of a Form U5 filing.

The Form U5 was submitted by Mohan's firm stating that she voluntarily resigned while under internal review for potential involvement with undisclosed outside business activities and participation in private securities transactions. These allegations are serious because they suggest Mohan may have engaged in business activities or securities transactions without her firm's knowledge and approval, depriving the firm of the opportunity to supervise these activities and ensure they were appropriate.

Outside business activities (OBAs) are any business activities outside the scope of a representative's relationship with their firm. Representatives must provide written notice to their firms about OBAs so the firm can determine whether the activities present conflicts of interest or create supervision concerns. Private securities transactions—sometimes called "selling away"—involve recommending or selling securities transactions outside the regular course of business with the firm. These transactions must be disclosed to and approved by the firm.

When FINRA sought to investigate the circumstances described in the Form U5, Mohan refused to appear for testimony. This refusal prevented FINRA from determining what activities Mohan engaged in, whether they were properly disclosed, and whether customers were harmed.

Refusing to testify is treated as one of the most serious violations because it directly obstructs FINRA's regulatory function. FINRA's ability to protect investors depends on registered persons cooperating with investigations. When someone refuses to testify, they prevent FINRA from fulfilling its mission and assessing risk to the investing public.

The context makes the refusal particularly concerning. Mohan resigned while under internal review, suggesting the firm discovered problematic conduct. Rather than addressing the allegations through the regulatory process, she refused to provide testimony, preventing any examination of what occurred.

Investors should be aware that outside business activities and private securities transactions conducted without firm approval deprive investors of important protections. Firms cannot supervise activities they do not know about, and investors lose access to firm resources and dispute resolution processes when transactions occur outside normal firm channels. When a representative is barred for refusing to testify about such activities, investors should understand this likely indicates serious underlying problems.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Murray Todd Petersen was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for engaging in an unapproved outside business activity selling jewelry for investment purposes and participating in undisclosed private securities transactions involving jewelry investments....

Read More

According to FINRA, Murray Todd Petersen was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for engaging in an unapproved outside business activity selling jewelry for investment purposes and participating in undisclosed private securities transactions involving jewelry investments.

Petersen's firm initially approved an outside business activity allowing him to sell jewelry. However, the firm later withdrew its approval. Despite the withdrawal of approval, Petersen continued selling jewelry and receiving commissions, earning approximately $115,900 in jewelry sales commissions after the firm had specifically prohibited the activity.

The violations became more serious when Petersen participated in undisclosed private securities transactions while associated with a different firm. He introduced two customers to an investment offered by the jewelry company and helped facilitate their investments. Each investor signed a contract stating the investment would fund the manufacture of diamond jewelry for sale to retail stores in China and other Asian markets, with the jewelry company handling sales and making periodic payments to investors for one year. The investors were also entitled to a percentage of profits from jewelry sales.

Unfortunately, the investment went badly for the customers. They received only a portion of the promised payments, received no distribution of profits from jewelry sales, and never received repayment of their principal investments. Despite facilitating these transactions, Petersen never provided written notice to his firm and never obtained written permission for his participation. The transactions occurred outside the scope of his employment with the firm.

Adding to the misconduct, Petersen provided false information on annual compliance questionnaires by stating he had not engaged in any private securities transactions when he had facilitated these jewelry investments.

This case illustrates the dangers of investment schemes involving tangible assets like jewelry, particularly when marketed as securities offering profit participation. The promise that investors would receive both periodic payments and profit distributions made these arrangements investment contracts and therefore securities under federal law. By facilitating these transactions without firm approval, Petersen deprived customers of firm supervision and due diligence that might have revealed problems with the jewelry company.

Investors should be extremely cautious about investments in jewelry, gems, precious metals, or other tangible goods, particularly when sold through registered representatives. These investments often carry high markups, lack liquidity, and present significant fraud risks. Any investment offering involving a registered representative should be conducted through the firm with proper disclosure and supervision.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Tyrone Maurice Smiles was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for engaging in outside business activities without disclosure or approval from his firm, and for providing false and misleading information to FINRA during its investigation.

Smiles ran ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Tyrone Maurice Smiles was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for engaging in outside business activities without disclosure or approval from his firm, and for providing false and misleading information to FINRA during its investigation.

Smiles ran an overseas vacation property rental business involving two properties he rented out for short-term stays without disclosing this activity to or receiving approval from his firm. While Smiles worked as a dedicated retirement counselor meeting with retirement plan participants and educating them about corporate retirement plans—a role that did not involve recommending or selling securities—he engaged in additional undisclosed activities that crossed into securities sales.

Without disclosing to or receiving approval from his firm, Smiles referred customers to a registered representative at an affiliated firm to purchase variable annuity contracts. Variable annuities are securities that must be sold in accordance with FINRA rules. The representative sent Smiles checks totaling $118,007.95 in compensation for referring the customers. This compensation arrangement, which essentially functioned as commission sharing for securities referrals, should have been disclosed to Smiles's firm and properly documented on the firm's books and records.

The violations became more serious when FINRA investigated and Smiles provided false and misleading information. In response to written requests and during on-the-record testimony, Smiles falsely maintained that each of the checks he received from the representative related to his vacation property timeshare business rather than to customer referrals for variable annuity purchases. This false explanation was an attempt to conceal his undisclosed compensation for securities-related referrals.

This case demonstrates that even representatives who do not have traditional securities sales roles must disclose outside business activities and cannot receive undisclosed compensation for referring customers for securities purchases. The substantial amount of compensation Smiles received—over $118,000—created a significant financial incentive to make referrals, yet neither his firm nor the customers were aware of this arrangement.

Providing false information to FINRA during an investigation is treated as a serious aggravating factor. Rather than cooperating with the investigation and acknowledging his misconduct, Smiles attempted to mislead investigators with a false cover story about his vacation rental business.

Investors should be aware that compensation arrangements for referrals must be properly disclosed. When retirement counselors or other financial professionals receive undisclosed payments for referring customers to purchase specific products, this creates conflicts of interest that can compromise the quality of advice.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Blair Edwards Olsen was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for willfully failing to make timely disclosures of criminal charges on his Form U4 and for refusing to provide information, documents, and testimony requested by FINRA.

Olsen was indicted ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Blair Edwards Olsen was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for willfully failing to make timely disclosures of criminal charges on his Form U4 and for refusing to provide information, documents, and testimony requested by FINRA.

Olsen was indicted on seven felony counts of aggravated assault but failed to amend his Form U4 to disclose the charges as required. When his firm learned of the arrest, it filed an amended Form U4 on his behalf. However, Olsen represented falsely on the form that the indictment consisted of only a single count when it actually contained seven counts. The firm later filed another amendment to accurately reflect all seven counts.

While the first indictment was pending, Olsen was indicted a second time on a single count of felony aggravated harassment. He appeared in court multiple times in connection with this indictment but never amended his Form U4 to disclose it, despite having a continuing obligation to keep his registration information current.

Form U4 is the uniform registration application used by individuals seeking to register with FINRA. Registered persons must promptly amend their Form U4 to disclose criminal charges, regulatory actions, customer complaints, and other material information. These disclosures allow firms to supervise registered persons appropriately and enable investors to make informed decisions about whom to trust with their money. Willfully failing to disclose criminal charges is a serious violation because it conceals information that is material to an individual's fitness to work in the securities industry.

When FINRA investigated these disclosure failures, Olsen initially provided a late and partial response but then failed to fully respond or provide requested testimony. Refusing to cooperate with FINRA's investigation is treated as an independent violation warranting a bar from the industry.

The combination of multiple felony charges, false disclosures minimizing the charges, complete failure to disclose the second indictment, and refusal to cooperate with FINRA's investigation demonstrates a pattern of dishonesty and disregard for regulatory requirements. Seven counts of aggravated assault and one count of aggravated harassment raise serious questions about an individual's character and fitness to handle customer funds and provide financial advice.

Investors can and should check their representative's background through FINRA's BrokerCheck system, which includes disclosures of criminal charges, convictions, regulatory actions, and customer complaints. When representatives fail to disclose criminal charges or are barred for disclosure failures, this raises serious red flags about their honesty and trustworthiness.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Jesus Rodriguez was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents requested by FINRA during its investigation of allegations regarding his use of a client line of credit for his personal benefit.

FINRA's inves...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jesus Rodriguez was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for refusing to provide information and documents requested by FINRA during its investigation of allegations regarding his use of a client line of credit for his personal benefit.

FINRA's investigation was prompted by a Form U5 filed by Rodriguez's firm disclosing that he voluntarily resigned following allegations that he used a client line of credit for his personal benefit. This allegation suggests potential misappropriation or unauthorized use of customer credit—a serious violation that could constitute theft or breach of fiduciary duty.

Lines of credit are financial arrangements where customers have the ability to borrow money up to a specified limit. If Rodriguez used a customer's line of credit for his own personal benefit without authorization, this would represent conversion—the unauthorized taking and use of property belonging to another. Even if the customer was somehow aware of the use, facilitating personal loans or financial arrangements with customers raises serious conflict of interest and suitability concerns.

When FINRA requested information and documents to investigate these allegations, Rodriguez refused to provide them. This refusal prevented FINRA from determining what actually occurred, whether customer funds were misappropriated, and what harm may have resulted.

Refusing to cooperate with investigations is always treated as a serious violation warranting a bar from the industry. However, refusal in the context of potential misappropriation is particularly troubling because it prevents FINRA from assessing harm to customers and taking steps to facilitate restitution. The refusal also suggests consciousness of guilt—if Rodriguez had a legitimate explanation for his conduct, one would expect him to provide that information to clear his name.

The timing of Rodriguez's resignation is also significant. He resigned from his firm after the allegations surfaced but before the firm completed its investigation or took formal action. This voluntary resignation while under investigation may have been an attempt to avoid being terminated, but it did not prevent FINRA from pursuing its own investigation.

Investors should be extremely cautious about any financial arrangements with their registered representatives beyond standard brokerage accounts. Representatives should never have access to customer lines of credit for personal use, and any requests for such arrangements should be refused and reported to the firm. When a representative is barred for refusing to provide information about alleged personal use of customer credit lines, investors should understand this strongly suggests serious underlying misconduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Paul Eric Flesche was fined $30,000 jointly and severally with his firm and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 business days for failing to supervise a registered representative handling Asia-based customers.

This case is connected to the...

Read More

According to FINRA, Paul Eric Flesche was fined $30,000 jointly and severally with his firm and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 business days for failing to supervise a registered representative handling Asia-based customers.

This case is connected to the larger Glendale Securities matter and involves Flesche's role in supervising account openings for customers based in Asia. Along with the firm's Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer, Flesche approved account opening documents and deposits for the representative's Asia-based customers. However, he failed to take adequate supervisory steps to address obvious red flags.

Critically, Flesche did not ask the representative basic questions about how he communicated with the customers, including whether the customers understood the representative's written communications in English. This was a significant oversight given the language barriers that likely existed with Asia-based customers.

While Flesche and the AMLCO knew that the representative had translated portions of the firm's account opening documents for the customers, they took no steps to ensure the accuracy of these translations. They also asked no questions about whether customers understood the portions of documents that were not translated. This created a serious risk that customers did not fully understand the account terms, risks, and obligations they were undertaking.

Effective supervision requires more than simply approving paperwork. When obvious red flags exist—such as customers who likely do not speak English as their primary language, translated documents of unknown accuracy, and a representative acting as intermediary for all communications—supervisors must investigate further and take steps to address the risks. Flesche's failure to do so allowed the representative to open and operate customer accounts without adequate verification of customer understanding or identification.

The National Adjudicatory Council affirmed the findings and sanctions, and Flesche has appealed to the Securities and Exchange Commission, so the sanctions are not currently in effect pending that review. The allegations that Flesche participated in the sale of restricted securities were dismissed.

This case illustrates the challenges of supervising international customer accounts and the heightened diligence required when language barriers, translated documents, and intermediary representatives are involved. Firms and supervisors must ensure that customers genuinely understand account terms regardless of language, and cannot simply rely on representatives' translations without verification.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Brian Stanley Pearce was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for seven months, and ordered to pay disgorgement of $9,723 plus interest for participating in private securities transactions without prior disclosure ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Brian Stanley Pearce was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for seven months, and ordered to pay disgorgement of $9,723 plus interest for participating in private securities transactions without prior disclosure to and approval from his firm.

Pearce solicited investors to purchase $607,730 in securities of a company that represented itself as a structured cash flow investment. He received $24,309 in total commissions from these sales, which were conducted outside his firm's supervision and approval. The investment turned out to be fraudulent—the company later ceased business owing nearly $300 million in unpaid investor payments.

The United States charged the company and its owner with conspiracy to engage in mail and wire fraud related to its operations, confirming that the investment was indeed a fraudulent scheme. Investors who trusted Pearce and purchased these securities lost their money when the company collapsed.

Pearce subsequently entered into a settlement agreement with a court-appointed receiver for the company, agreeing to repay approximately $14,586 of the $24,309 in commissions he received. FINRA ordered him to disgorge an additional $9,723 plus interest, meaning he must return most of his ill-gotten commissions from these transactions.

This case exemplifies why firms must approve securities transactions conducted by their representatives. The approval process allows firms to conduct due diligence on investments, assess their legitimacy and suitability, and protect customers from fraudulent schemes. When representatives engage in "selling away"—conducting securities transactions outside firm supervision—customers lose these protections.

Structured cash flow investments and similar products are frequent vehicles for fraud. They often promise high, steady returns and use complex structures that are difficult for investors to understand or verify. The promise of predictable cash flows attracts conservative investors seeking income, making them particularly effective for fraudsters.

While there is no indication that Pearce knew the investment was fraudulent, his decision to sell securities without firm approval exposed his customers to a scheme that cost them money while he earned commissions. Even without scienter (intent to defraud), selling away is a serious violation because it deprives customers of crucial protections.

Investors should never purchase securities recommended by a registered representative unless the transaction goes through the representative's firm with proper documentation and supervision. Any request to send money to outside accounts, invest in products the firm has not approved, or conduct transactions outside normal firm channels should be refused and reported to the firm and FINRA.

Show Less