Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Brian Jerome Rice was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six weeks for borrowing $52,500 from a customer without notifying or obtaining prior approval from his firm.

Rice borrowed the money through a co...

Read More

According to FINRA, Brian Jerome Rice was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for six weeks for borrowing $52,500 from a customer without notifying or obtaining prior approval from his firm.

Rice borrowed the money through a company he partially owned and controlled. The customer was Rice's longtime friend and was described as financially sophisticated, which may explain why Rice felt comfortable with the arrangement. The loan was documented by a promissory note and secured by a commercial property, showing some level of formality to the transaction. The loan has since been fully repaid.

Despite these mitigating factors, Rice violated FINRA rules requiring representatives to obtain firm approval before borrowing money from customers. These rules exist because borrowing arrangements between representatives and customers create conflicts of interest and potential for abuse. Even when the customer is a friend and the arrangement is properly documented, the firm must be aware of and approve the loan so it can assess whether the arrangement is appropriate and monitor it for potential problems.

Adding to the violation, Rice provided false information on firm compliance questionnaires. While the loan was pending, he incorrectly stated in response to compliance questionnaires that he had not borrowed money from a firm customer. This false attestation prevented the firm from discovering and addressing the unauthorized borrowing arrangement.

Compliance questionnaires serve an important function in supervision. Firms rely on representatives to truthfully answer questions about outside business activities, borrowing arrangements, customer complaints, and other matters that might pose risks. When representatives provide false answers, they undermine the firm's ability to supervise them effectively.

There are limited exceptions to the borrowing rules when the customer is an immediate family member or is in the business of making loans. The customer in this case was not an institutional lender or involved in a lending-related business, so those exceptions did not apply even though the customer was financially sophisticated.

The relatively short six-week suspension and deferred fine suggest that FINRA considered mitigating factors including that the customer was sophisticated and a longtime friend, the loan was properly documented and secured, and the loan has been repaid. However, these factors did not excuse the violation or eliminate sanctions entirely.

Investors should be cautious about lending money to their financial representatives, even when the representative is a friend and the loan is documented. Such arrangements should only proceed with firm approval and proper documentation. When representatives fail to disclose borrowing arrangements to their firms, this raises questions about their honesty and compliance with industry rules.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Okechukwu Linton was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months for willfully failing to disclose that he had been charged with nine felonies on his Form U4.

The timing and circumstances of Linton's...

Read More

According to FINRA, Okechukwu Linton was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months for willfully failing to disclose that he had been charged with nine felonies on his Form U4.

The timing and circumstances of Linton's disclosure failure are particularly troubling. After learning that he had been charged with nine felonies, Linton completed a Form U4 for the purpose of registering with FINRA through association with a member firm. During this registration process, when his criminal charges were still pending and he was fully aware of them, Linton falsely responded "no" to a question asking whether he had ever been charged with any felony.

By providing false information on his Form U4, Linton filed inaccurate and misleading information with FINRA. This willful omission prevented the firm and FINRA from knowing about serious criminal charges that were material to Linton's fitness to work in the securities industry. The fact that he was charged with nine separate felonies—not just one—makes the omission even more significant.

Form U4 is the securities industry's uniform registration application. It requires extensive disclosure of criminal charges and convictions, regulatory actions, customer complaints, financial problems, and other information that bears on an individual's character and fitness. These disclosures serve a critical investor protection function by allowing firms to make informed hiring decisions and enabling investors to research their representatives' backgrounds through FINRA's BrokerCheck system.

The willful nature of Linton's false statement is clear from the timing. He became aware of the nine felony charges before completing the Form U4, yet deliberately answered "no" when asked about felony charges. This was not an innocent mistake or oversight—it was an intentional misrepresentation designed to conceal material information that could have prevented his registration or caused the firm to decline to hire him.

FINRA treats disclosure violations as serious offenses, particularly when they involve felony charges and are willful rather than inadvertent. The five-month suspension reflects the seriousness of lying on registration documents to conceal multiple felony charges.

Investors should check their representatives' backgrounds through FINRA's BrokerCheck system and be particularly cautious about working with representatives who have undisclosed criminal charges or who have been sanctioned for failing to disclose material information. Dishonesty in registration filings raises serious questions about an individual's character and willingness to be truthful with customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Leonard Joseph Marzocco was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months, and ordered to pay $27,078 plus interest in deferred restitution to a customer for excessively and unsuitably trading a customer's ...

Read More

According to FINRA, Leonard Joseph Marzocco was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months, and ordered to pay $27,078 plus interest in deferred restitution to a customer for excessively and unsuitably trading a customer's account.

Marzocco recommended options transactions to the customer, primarily involving call options with short-term expiration dates. The customer relied on Marzocco's advice and accepted his recommendations, trusting that Marzocco was making suitable recommendations based on the customer's investment objectives and financial situation.

However, Marzocco's recommended trades were excessive and unsuitable. In approximately six months, his trading caused the customer to pay $27,078 in commissions and other trading costs even though the account's average equity was only approximately $40,000. This level of trading costs relative to account size is extraordinary and indicative of churning—excessive trading done primarily to generate commissions rather than to serve the customer's investment objectives.

The trading resulted in an annualized cost-to-equity ratio of more than 112 percent. This means the customer's investments would have had to grow by more than 112 percent annually just to break even after paying commissions and costs. This is an impossibly high hurdle for almost any investment strategy, and demonstrates that the trading pattern was unsuitable and designed to generate commissions rather than profits for the customer.

Options with short-term expiration dates are particularly problematic for excessive trading because they create frequent opportunities to close positions and open new ones, each transaction generating commissions. While options can be legitimate investment tools when used appropriately, they are complex, risky, and typically unsuitable for frequent trading in retail customer accounts with modest assets.

FINRA's suitability rule requires that recommendations be consistent with the customer's investment profile, including financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, and other factors. Even if the customer agreed to the trades, a recommendation is unsuitable if it is inconsistent with the customer's needs and the trading pattern benefits the representative through commissions more than it serves the customer's objectives.

The requirement that Marzocco pay full restitution of $27,078 plus interest means the customer will be made whole for the excessive commissions and costs. The three-month suspension and fine provide additional deterrence and punishment for the violation.

Investors should monitor their accounts carefully for high commission charges, frequent trading in options or other securities, and investment strategies that seem focused on generating activity rather than pursuing clear investment objectives. When annualized cost-to-equity ratios exceed even 20-30 percent, this should raise serious concerns about excessive trading.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Michael James May was fined $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months, and ordered to pay $10,349 plus interest in restitution to a customer for engaging in excessive and unsuitable trading, including the use of margin, in a custo...

Read More

According to FINRA, Michael James May was fined $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months, and ordered to pay $10,349 plus interest in restitution to a customer for engaging in excessive and unsuitable trading, including the use of margin, in a customer's account.

May recommended trades to the customer, who accepted his recommendations and relied on May's expertise. However, May's trading recommendations were excessive relative to the account size and generated commission costs that made it nearly impossible for the customer to profit.

Although the customer's account had an average month-end equity of only approximately $25,331, May recommended trades with a total principal value of more than $265,044. This extraordinarily high turnover—trading volume many times the size of the account—is a hallmark of churning or excessive trading done primarily to generate commissions.

The trades May recommended caused the customer to pay $10,349 in commissions, trading costs, and margin interest. This resulted in an annualized cost-to-equity ratio in excess of 40 percent, meaning the customer's account would have had to grow by more than 40 percent annually just to break even after paying all costs. This is an unrealistic expectation for most investment strategies and demonstrates that the trading was unsuitable for the customer.

The use of margin made the situation worse. Margin involves borrowing money from the brokerage firm to purchase securities, using the securities in the account as collateral. While margin can amplify gains, it also amplifies losses and incurs interest charges. For an account with average equity of only about $25,000, the margin interest costs from the trading further reduced any potential profits and increased the breakeven hurdle.

FINRA's findings require May to pay full restitution of $10,349 plus interest to compensate the customer for the excessive commissions and costs. The three-month suspension and $5,000 fine provide additional punishment and deterrence.

This case illustrates several warning signs investors should watch for: trading volume that far exceeds account size, high commission charges relative to account equity, use of margin in accounts with modest assets, and cost-to-equity ratios that require unrealistic investment returns just to break even. When representatives recommend frequent trading or margin usage, investors should question whether these recommendations truly serve their investment objectives or primarily generate commissions for the representative.

Investors with smaller accounts should be particularly cautious about active trading strategies and margin usage, as the fixed costs of commissions and margin interest can quickly consume a substantial portion of account value.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Antoine Nabih Souma was fined $20,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for violating Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-17 by providing incorrect and misleading account reports to a customer.

Souma provided customi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Antoine Nabih Souma was fined $20,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for two months for violating Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Rule G-17 by providing incorrect and misleading account reports to a customer.

Souma provided customized reports to a customer that purported to show information about holdings in and performance of accounts held by the customer's companies, including municipal securities transactions and positions. However, these reports contained significant errors and omissions that provided a misleading picture of the accounts' actual values, performance, and costs.

The reports contained incorrect account values and account performance information, making it impossible for the customer to accurately understand how the accounts were performing. Some reports omitted positions held in the accounts, concealing investments the customer owned and preventing accurate assessment of portfolio composition and diversification. One report understated the amount of commissions the customer paid for transactions, obscuring the true costs of the trading activity.

The incorrect information was not limited to a single asset class. The reports contained errors regarding municipal securities, corporate bonds, structured products, and other types of securities. This widespread pattern of inaccuracies suggests systemic problems with how Souma was generating and reviewing the reports before providing them to the customer.

MSRB Rule G-17 requires dealers to deal fairly with all persons and prohibits deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practices. Providing account reports with incorrect values, performance information, omitted positions, and understated commissions violates this fair dealing obligation. Customers rely on account reports to make informed decisions about whether to continue holding securities, whether trading activity is appropriate, and whether costs are reasonable.

The customized nature of the reports makes the violations more troubling. These were not standard statements generated by the firm's systems, but rather customized reports that Souma prepared and provided to the customer. This suggests he had control over the information included and should have verified its accuracy before distribution.

When account reports understate commissions, they conceal the true cost of investing and make performance appear better than it actually is. When they omit positions or contain incorrect values, they prevent customers from understanding their actual portfolio composition, risk exposure, and investment results.

Investors should carefully review account statements and reports, cross-check values and positions against trade confirmations, and question any discrepancies. When representatives provide customized reports rather than standard firm statements, investors should be particularly vigilant about verifying accuracy. Any indication that reports contain incorrect values, omitted positions, or understated costs should be immediately reported to firm compliance and to FINRA.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Sebastian Wyczawski was fined $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months, ordered to pay $21,644 plus interest in restitution to customers, and required to complete 20 hours of continuing education concerning suitability obligations...

Read More

According to FINRA, Sebastian Wyczawski was fined $5,000, suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for five months, ordered to pay $21,644 plus interest in restitution to customers, and required to complete 20 hours of continuing education concerning suitability obligations for engaging in excessive and unsuitable trading, including the use of margin, in customer accounts.

Wyczawski recommended trades to two customers who accepted his recommendations. However, the trading in both accounts was excessive and unsuitable, generating commission costs and margin interest that made it extremely difficult for the customers to profit.

In the first customer's account, Wyczawski's recommended trades caused the customer to pay $10,397 in commissions, trading costs, and margin interest. This resulted in an annualized cost-to-equity ratio in excess of 34 percent, meaning the customer's account would have had to grow by more than 34 percent annually just to break even.

The trading in the second customer's account was even more excessive. Wyczawski's recommendations caused that customer to pay $11,247 in commissions, trading costs, and margin interest, resulting in an annualized cost-to-equity ratio in excess of 65 percent. This means the second customer's account would have had to grow by more than 65 percent annually just to break even—an unrealistic expectation for virtually any legitimate investment strategy.

Cost-to-equity ratios above 20-30 percent generally raise red flags for excessive trading. When ratios reach 34 percent and 65 percent as in these accounts, it is clear that the trading was done primarily to generate commissions rather than to serve the customers' investment objectives. The use of margin compounded the problem by adding interest charges to the already-excessive commission costs.

FINRA ordered Wyczawski to pay full restitution of $21,644 ($10,397 + $11,247) plus interest to compensate both customers for the excessive costs they incurred. The five-month suspension is longer than in some other excessive trading cases, likely reflecting that two customers were harmed and one account had the extremely high 65 percent cost-to-equity ratio.

The requirement to complete 20 hours of continuing education on suitability obligations is designed to ensure Wyczawski understands his obligations before returning to the industry. However, given the egregious nature of the violations—particularly the 65 percent cost-to-equity ratio—investors should be cautious about working with Wyczawski even after his suspension ends.

This case reinforces that representatives must consider trading costs when making recommendations and cannot recommend trading patterns that make it unrealistic for customers to profit. Investors should monitor their accounts for high commission charges and margin interest, particularly in relation to account size, and should question representatives about the rationale for frequent trading.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Jose Luis Batalla was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 business days for failing to timely disclose an unsatisfied federal tax lien in the amount of $188,016.01 via the filing of an amended Form U4.

Batalla entered into...

Read More

According to FINRA, Jose Luis Batalla was fined $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 20 business days for failing to timely disclose an unsatisfied federal tax lien in the amount of $188,016.01 via the filing of an amended Form U4.

Batalla entered into a payment plan with the Internal Revenue Service to address the tax lien, but to date he has not satisfied it. Despite the existence of this significant tax lien, Batalla failed to promptly amend his Form U4 to disclose it as required by FINRA rules.

Form U4 requires disclosure of various financial problems, including tax liens, because they can be indicative of financial stress that may create risks for customers. When representatives face significant financial pressures, there is increased risk they may engage in prohibited conduct such as borrowing from customers, misappropriating funds, or making unsuitable recommendations to generate commissions.

A federal tax lien of over $188,000 is substantial and represents a material financial problem that should have been disclosed. The IRS files liens when taxpayers fail to pay federal taxes, and the lien attaches to the taxpayer's property and serves as public notice of the debt. The fact that Batalla has a payment plan but has not yet satisfied the lien indicates this is an ongoing financial issue.

While having a tax lien does not automatically disqualify someone from working in the securities industry, the failure to disclose it is a violation of FINRA rules. Firms and investors have a right to know about material financial problems affecting their representatives. Firms use this information to assess risk and determine what level of supervision is appropriate. Investors can access disclosure information through FINRA's BrokerCheck system to make informed decisions about whom to trust with their money.

The relatively short 20-business-day suspension and moderate $5,000 fine suggest FINRA considered that Batalla has a payment plan in place and is working to resolve the tax debt. However, the sanctions still provide punishment for the disclosure failure and deterrence against similar violations.

Investors should be aware that representatives with significant undisclosed financial problems may face temptations to engage in misconduct to address their financial stress. Checking a representative's BrokerCheck report for disclosures of liens, bankruptcies, customer complaints, and regulatory actions is an important step in due diligence.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Andrew Timothy Durham was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for four months for forging a customer's signature on a life insurance application.

Durham completed and submitted an application for a life insu...

Read More

According to FINRA, Andrew Timothy Durham was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for four months for forging a customer's signature on a life insurance application.

Durham completed and submitted an application for a life insurance policy issued by his firm's insurance affiliate with a face value of $50,000 for a customer. However, rather than having the customer sign the application, Durham created multiple fraudulent elements to make it appear as though the customer had applied for and authorized the policy.

First, Durham input his own personal bank account information for the premium payments but falsely indicated the bank account belonged to the customer. This meant premium payments would be withdrawn from Durham's account, not the customer's, which should have been an immediate red flag that something was wrong with the application.

Second, Durham created a fake email address for the customer. This allowed him to receive communications about the policy application and approval without the actual customer ever being aware the application had been submitted.

Third, Durham forged the customer's electronic signature on the policy application. The insurance affiliate approved the application based on this forged signature, not knowing that the customer had never authorized it.

Throughout this process, Durham never possessed the customer's permission or authority to sign the policy application on the customer's behalf. This was not a case of a representative helping a customer fill out forms with permission—this was outright forgery of the customer's signature without any authorization.

Forgery is one of the most serious violations a registered person can commit because it represents a fundamental breach of trust and violation of a customer's autonomy. Every customer has the right to decide what products they wish to purchase and to review and sign applications for those products. By forging the signature, Durham deprived the customer of these rights.

The fact that Durham used his own bank account for premiums suggests he may have intended to pay the premiums himself, perhaps hoping to eventually transfer the policy to himself or someone else, or to keep the policy active for some other improper purpose. Regardless of his ultimate intent, the forgery of the customer's signature was fraud.

The four-month suspension reflects the serious nature of forgery. Investors should verify that all applications for insurance and securities products contain their genuine signatures and that all account information is accurate before submitting applications. Any representative who forges signatures or falsifies application information should be permanently barred from the industry.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Garrett Manning was fined $2,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for failing to obtain written consent from his firm to maintain outside securities accounts and for falsely attesting that he maintained no such accounts on co...

Read More

According to FINRA, Garrett Manning was fined $2,500 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months for failing to obtain written consent from his firm to maintain outside securities accounts and for falsely attesting that he maintained no such accounts on compliance questionnaires.

When Manning joined a new firm, he informed the firm about an existing outside securities account he maintained at another firm. The new firm directed him to close the account, but despite this clear directive, Manning continued to maintain it until his firm asked for confirmation that it had been closed. This demonstrated a willful disregard for his firm's instructions.

Additionally, Manning opened a second outside securities account at yet another firm without obtaining his new firm's prior written consent, though he did properly disclose his association with his firm to the outside firm where he held the second account. Manning did not disclose the second account to his new firm until after FINRA inquired about his outside securities accounts during an investigation.

Making matters worse, Manning falsely attested on both firms' annual compliance questionnaires that he maintained no outside securities accounts. These false attestations prevented the firms from knowing about the accounts and supervising them appropriately.

FINRA rules require registered representatives to provide written notice to their employing firm before opening securities accounts at other firms. The firms must also be notified about the existence of such accounts. These requirements allow firms to supervise their representatives' securities activities, monitor for conflicts of interest, and ensure compliance with industry rules.

The violations here are aggravated by several factors. First, Manning was explicitly directed to close his original outside account but defied that instruction. Second, he opened a second outside account without permission. Third, he provided false information on compliance questionnaires, actively concealing the accounts rather than simply failing to disclose them. Fourth, he only disclosed the second account after FINRA began investigating, suggesting he would have continued concealing it otherwise.

The relatively moderate sanctions—a $2,500 fine and three-month suspension—may reflect that Manning did eventually disclose the accounts and there is no indication he used them for improper purposes. However, the violations demonstrate a pattern of disregard for firm instructions and compliance obligations.

Investors should be concerned when representatives maintain outside accounts without firm knowledge, as this can be a red flag for selling away or other improper activities. While maintaining outside accounts is not inherently improper if properly disclosed, concealing such accounts and lying about them on compliance questionnaires demonstrates dishonesty that should concern investors.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Kenny Mejia was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for seven months for making reckless misrepresentations in a loan application submitted to the Small Business Administration to obtain an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. In light of Mejia's financia...

Read More

According to FINRA, Kenny Mejia was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for seven months for making reckless misrepresentations in a loan application submitted to the Small Business Administration to obtain an Economic Injury Disaster Loan. In light of Mejia's financial status, no monetary sanction was imposed.

Mejia submitted a loan application containing multiple reckless misrepresentations. He claimed he was the owner of a gardening business operated as a sole proprietorship that he founded in 2019. He stated that he operated the business out of his home using his personal telephone number and email address, and that the business had earned revenue and incurred costs in the 12 months prior to January 31, 2020.

All of these representations were false. Mejia did not own a gardening business or any other business eligible for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan from the Small Business Administration at the time he applied. Based on Mejia's misrepresentations, the Small Business Administration provided him with a $1,000 advance under the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program.

Mejia did not complete a loan agreement for a full Economic Injury Disaster Loan, and the Small Business Administration ultimately withdrew his loan application from consideration due to inactivity. However, Mejia received and kept the $1,000 advance based on his false statements.

The violations became more serious when Mejia's firm investigated. When questioned by firm investigators, Mejia made additional misrepresentations, including claiming that he filed the application on the advice of his tax preparer. This was another false statement designed to deflect responsibility for his misconduct. As a result of this conduct, the firm terminated Mejia's employment.

To date, Mejia has not repaid the $1,000 to the Small Business Administration, meaning he continues to retain money obtained through false statements.

The Economic Injury Disaster Loan program was created to help legitimate small businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Fraud in this program diverted limited resources away from businesses that genuinely needed assistance. While $1,000 may seem like a small amount compared to larger frauds, the principle is the same—making false statements to obtain government benefits is both illegal and unethical.

This case illustrates that FINRA sanctions individuals for misconduct beyond direct securities violations when that misconduct reflects on their character and fitness for the securities industry. Submitting fraudulent loan applications demonstrates dishonesty that creates risk for customers and firms.

Investors should be aware that ethical standards for financial professionals extend beyond just securities transactions. Representatives who demonstrate willingness to lie on loan applications may also be willing to lie to customers or engage in other misconduct.

Show Less