Bad Brokers

According to FINRA, Aegis Capital Corp. was ordered to pay approximately $2.8 million in total sanctions, including $1.7 million in restitution to 68 customers whose accounts were potentially excessively and unsuitably traded by the firm's representatives, plus a $1.1 million fine for supervisory vi...

Read More

According to FINRA, Aegis Capital Corp. was ordered to pay approximately $2.8 million in total sanctions, including $1.7 million in restitution to 68 customers whose accounts were potentially excessively and unsuitably traded by the firm's representatives, plus a $1.1 million fine for supervisory violations. Two supervisors, Joseph Giordano and Roberto Birardi, were also fined and suspended for failing to respond to red flags.

FINRA's case originated from an examination of the firm and review of a customer arbitration complaint. The investigation revealed that from July 2014 to December 2018, Aegis failed to implement a supervisory system reasonably designed to comply with FINRA's suitability rule. As a result, the firm failed to identify and address potentially excessive and unsuitable trading by its representatives.

Eight Aegis representatives excessively traded 31 customers' accounts, generating average cost-to-equity ratios of 71.6 percent. This means customers' accounts had to increase in value by an average of 71.6 percent just to cover commissions and other trading expenses before generating any profit—an unrealistic expectation that virtually guaranteed customer losses. The excessive trading caused customers to incur more than $2.9 million in trading costs.

Aegis and designated supervisors Giordano and Birardi failed to take reasonable steps to investigate numerous red flags indicative of potentially excessive and unsuitable trading. The firm failed to act on more than 900 exception reports from its clearing firm that identified potentially unsuitable trading. These exception reports are specifically designed to alert firms to problematic trading patterns, yet Aegis ignored them.

The firm also failed to act on more than 50 customer complaints alleging excessive, unsuitable, or unauthorized trading in their accounts. When customers themselves complained about the trading, the firm still did not take adequate action to investigate and stop the misconduct.

Giordano and Birardi, who were responsible for supervising six of the eight representatives engaged in excessive trading, failed to respond to 700 of the 900 exception reports. This wholesale failure to review exception reports meant the supervisory system completely broke down for most of the problematic trading.

Making matters worse, when Aegis's compliance personnel identified deficiencies with the firm's systems and procedures used to monitor for potentially excessive trading, Aegis did not promptly address the deficiencies or improve its supervision. The firm was aware its supervisory system was inadequate but failed to fix it, allowing the excessive trading to continue.

For their supervisory failures, Giordano agreed to a six-month supervisory suspension and $10,000 fine, while Birardi agreed to a three-month supervisory suspension and $5,000 fine. Both must also complete 20 hours of continuing education. Additionally, FINRA has settled with four Aegis representatives, barring two for churning and excessive trading and suspending and fining two others.

The case demonstrates FINRA's commitment to holding accountable firms, supervisors, and individual representatives responsible for excessive trading, and providing restitution to harmed customers.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Emerson Equity LLC and its principal Dominic Julio Baldini were fined and ordered to pay over $1.6 million in restitution to customers for failing to supervise short-term trading of mutual fund shares.

The firm and Baldini were found in violation of FINRA Rule 2111, the suitab...

Read More

According to FINRA, Emerson Equity LLC and its principal Dominic Julio Baldini were fined and ordered to pay over $1.6 million in restitution to customers for failing to supervise short-term trading of mutual fund shares.

The firm and Baldini were found in violation of FINRA Rule 2111, the suitability rule, as it relates to short-term trading of mutual fund Class A and Class B shares. Their supervisory system was not reasonably designed to detect unsuitable mutual fund trading by one of the firm's registered representatives. The firm relied on a limited manual review process that lacked critical information such as mutual fund share class, holding periods, sales charges, and investor profiles.

This inadequate supervision allowed a representative to engage in unsuitable trading in customer accounts for more than five years. The representative frequently switched mutual funds, causing customers to incur front-end loads and contingent deferred sales charges totaling $1,641,929.94. This practice, known as mutual fund switching, occurs when customers sell mutual fund shares and reinvest proceeds in another mutual fund family, thereby incurring additional charges and commissions.

Investors should understand that mutual fund share classes have different fee structures designed for different investment time horizons. Class A shares typically have front-end loads but lower ongoing fees, making them suitable for longer holding periods. Class B shares have back-end loads (contingent deferred sales charges) that decrease over time. Frequent trading of these shares can result in excessive costs that erode investment returns. This case demonstrates the importance of firms implementing robust supervisory systems with automated exception reports and comprehensive data points to monitor for unsuitable trading patterns. The firm was censured and fined $60,000, while Baldini was fined $5,000 and suspended for 20 business days.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was censured and fined $375,000 for failing to amend Form U4s of registered representatives to disclose unsatisfied tax liens and judgments.

The firm was found in violation of its obligation to maintain accurate Form U4 disclosures for its registe...

Read More

According to FINRA, Citigroup Global Markets Inc. was censured and fined $375,000 for failing to amend Form U4s of registered representatives to disclose unsatisfied tax liens and judgments.

The firm was found in violation of its obligation to maintain accurate Form U4 disclosures for its registered representatives. When the firm received wage garnishment orders for its representatives, it failed to conduct sufficient inquiries to determine if the underlying events triggering the garnishment orders involved disclosable liens or judgments that should have been reported on the representatives' Form U4s. The firm's supervisory system was not reasonably designed to ensure proper disclosure.

The core problem was that the firm relied on representatives to self-determine whether wage garnishment orders resulted from reportable events, without conducting independent reviews or further inquiries. This reliance on registered representatives' own determinations, without verification, created a supervisory gap that allowed Form U4 amendments to be filed late or not at all.

Form U4 is the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer, which contains important background information about registered representatives, including disclosures about liens, judgments, bankruptcies, and regulatory actions. These disclosures are publicly available through FINRA's BrokerCheck system and help investors make informed decisions about whom to work with. Investors should regularly check their financial advisor's BrokerCheck record to review disclosure events and understand any red flags. This case underscores the regulatory requirement that firms must maintain accurate and timely disclosures, not simply rely on representatives to self-report. The firm has since revised its supervisory system and procedures to address these deficiencies.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Ecoban Securities Corporation was censured and fined $40,000 for failing to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures across multiple areas of compliance.

The firm was found in violation of several regulatory requirements. First, Ec...

Read More

According to FINRA, Ecoban Securities Corporation was censured and fined $40,000 for failing to establish and maintain adequate supervisory systems and written supervisory procedures across multiple areas of compliance.

The firm was found in violation of several regulatory requirements. First, Ecoban failed to supervise representatives' use of non-firm email for business communications and failed to comply with recordkeeping obligations. The firm's procedures did not provide adequate guidance on how business emails would be captured and reviewed, resulting in some representatives' securities business communications going unreviewed and unpreserved. Second, the firm failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system for outside brokerage accounts. The firm did not collect duplicate statements from outside brokerage accounts for six representatives, preventing it from reviewing for unacceptable trading practices such as insider trading and front running.

Additionally, Ecoban failed to properly supervise outside business activities (OBAs) and private securities transactions. The firm received only verbal notice from representatives about these activities during onboarding but did not obtain written submissions or conduct proper evaluations. The firm also failed to distribute its restricted product list to all representatives and omitted a private offering from the list despite the firm's participation in it.

Furthermore, the firm failed to have reasonable procedures regarding supervisory control testing and CEO annual certification as required under FINRA Rule 3120(a). The firm did not test or report to senior management on its supervisory controls, and the CEO did not prepare required annual certifications. Investors should understand that these supervisory failures create risks of misconduct going undetected. Proper supervision, including email review, outside account monitoring, and OBA oversight, protects investors from conflicts of interest and unsuitable recommendations.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC were censured and fined $2,250,000 jointly and severally for failing to store customer identification program (CIP) records in the required non-erasable and non-writable "write once, read many" (WO...

Read More

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC were censured and fined $2,250,000 jointly and severally for failing to store customer identification program (CIP) records in the required non-erasable and non-writable "write once, read many" (WORM) format.

The firms were found in violation of anti-money laundering (AML) recordkeeping requirements. Firm personnel discovered that approximately 13 million CIP-related records, pertaining to approximately 8.2 million customers, were stored on a system that was not WORM-compliant. Despite discovering this issue, the firms failed to escalate it to the working group that considered FINRA reporting obligations, did not report it to FINRA, and did not remediate the issue for more than three years. During this period, approximately 4 million additional documents were stored on the non-compliant platform after the firms knew about the problem.

Customer identification programs are a critical component of AML compliance, helping financial institutions verify the identity of customers and detect potentially suspicious activity. The WORM format requirement exists to ensure the integrity of these records by preventing alteration or deletion, which is essential for regulatory examinations and investigations. The firms' failure to use WORM-compliant storage meant that these important records could potentially be modified or erased, undermining their reliability.

Additionally, the firms failed to notify FINRA at least 90 days prior to using the non-WORM compliant platform, as required by regulations. Investors should understand that robust AML programs protect the integrity of the financial system and help prevent criminals from using brokerage accounts for illicit purposes. This case demonstrates the importance of firms maintaining proper recordkeeping systems and promptly addressing compliance deficiencies when discovered.

Show Less

According to FINRA, American Portfolios Financial Services, Inc. was censured and fined $225,000 for supervisory failures that allowed a sales assistant to convert approximately $390,000 of customer funds through fraudulent check disbursements and wire transfers.

The firm was found in violation o...

Read More

According to FINRA, American Portfolios Financial Services, Inc. was censured and fined $225,000 for supervisory failures that allowed a sales assistant to convert approximately $390,000 of customer funds through fraudulent check disbursements and wire transfers.

The firm was found in violation of its supervisory obligations regarding the monitoring of customer fund transmittals. The firm's supervisory system and written procedures were not reasonably designed to monitor transmittals of customer funds to third parties, and the firm failed to enforce its existing procedures. Most of the affected customers were senior citizens, making this case particularly egregious. The sales assistant issued checks to third parties at addresses associated with the assistant's family members and wired funds to accounts controlled by the assistant's family.

After the firm enhanced its wire transfer procedures, the sales assistant adapted by using checks instead, causing approximately $340,000 to be issued from customer accounts to the same entity controlled by the assistant and family members. The sales assistant falsified customer authorization forms and forged customer signatures in connection with each fraudulent transaction. The scheme only came to light when a customer's daughter alerted the firm to the theft.

Notably, the firm had previously discovered similar misconduct by a registered representative but declined to adopt an exception report for transmittals from multiple customer accounts to the same third party. Additionally, the firm failed to enforce its own procedures requiring signature verification. After learning about the theft, the firm terminated the sales assistant and reimbursed all affected customers. Investors, particularly seniors, should monitor their account statements carefully for unauthorized transactions. This case illustrates the critical importance of firms implementing comprehensive controls, including exception reports that flag patterns such as multiple accounts sending funds to the same third party.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC were censured, fined $650,000 collectively, and ordered to pay $2,458,762.33 in restitution to customers for failing to supervise early rollovers of Unit Investment Trusts (UITs).

The firms were...

Read More

According to FINRA, Wells Fargo Advisors Financial Network, LLC and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC were censured, fined $650,000 collectively, and ordered to pay $2,458,762.33 in restitution to customers for failing to supervise early rollovers of Unit Investment Trusts (UITs).

The firms were found in violation of FINRA Rule 2111, the suitability rule, as it pertains to early UIT rollovers. UITs are investment products typically designed to be held until maturity, often 15 or 24 months. The firms had an automated report that flagged mutual fund or UIT sales followed within 25 days by purchases of the same products. However, this report did not account for the length of time a UIT was held before it was sold. As a result, the firms had no automated system to identify when UITs were rolled over significantly in advance of their maturity dates.

The firms' written supervisory procedures recognized that UITs should generally be held to maturity, but their supervisory systems failed to detect that representatives repeatedly recommended potentially unsuitable early series-to-series rollovers. These early rollovers caused customers to pay unnecessary sales charges that they would not have incurred had they held the UITs until maturity. Representatives engaging in this practice generated commissions for themselves while causing financial harm to customers.

Unit Investment Trusts have sales charges based on their long-term nature, including deferred sales charges and creation and development fees. When a representative recommends selling a UIT before maturity and "rolling over" the funds into a new UIT, the customer incurs greater sales charges than if they had held the original UIT to maturity. Investors should be skeptical of recommendations to frequently trade UITs or other products with significant sales charges. This case demonstrates the importance of questioning why a financial advisor is recommending the sale of an investment before its intended holding period expires.

Show Less

According to FINRA, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was censured, fined $550,000, and ordered to pay $456,155 in restitution to customers for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems for representatives' recommendations of high-yield corporate and municipal bonds.

The firm was found in violatio...

Read More

According to FINRA, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was censured, fined $550,000, and ordered to pay $456,155 in restitution to customers for failing to establish adequate supervisory systems for representatives' recommendations of high-yield corporate and municipal bonds.

The firm was found in violation of FINRA and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) rules regarding suitability of high-yield bond recommendations. The firm's policies and procedures did not sufficiently address the suitability factors representatives should consider before recommending high-yield bonds, also known as "junk bonds." The procedures failed to include guidance on appropriate portfolio concentration levels for high-yield bonds based on customer investor profiles.

The firm used two automated alerts—a daily alert and a monthly alert—to identify potentially unsuitable concentrations of high-yield bonds in customer accounts, but neither alert functioned as intended. After the firm changed the tax coding of municipal bonds in its system, it inadvertently disabled the alerts' ability to identify potential concentration issues. The firm failed to detect that the alerts were not working, in part because it did not test its automated surveillance systems. Even after discovering the alerts were defective, the firm did not fix them for ten months and did not adopt alternative measures or notify supervisors that they could not rely on the alerts.

As a result, the firm failed to review customer accounts with conservative investment profiles for potentially unsuitable concentrations of high-yield bonds. In numerous accounts, holdings in high-yield bonds exceeded six times the thresholds set by the firm. High-yield bonds carry greater credit risk and volatility than investment-grade bonds, making them unsuitable for conservative investors. Investors should ensure their portfolio allocation to high-yield bonds matches their risk tolerance and investment objectives. This case highlights the critical importance of firms testing their automated surveillance systems and having backup procedures when technology fails.

Show Less

According to FINRA, SagePoint Financial, Inc. was censured and fined $700,000 for failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise associated persons with histories of industry and regulatory-related misconduct.

The firm was found in violation of multiple su...

Read More

According to FINRA, SagePoint Financial, Inc. was censured and fined $700,000 for failing to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to supervise associated persons with histories of industry and regulatory-related misconduct.

The firm was found in violation of multiple supervisory requirements. First, SagePoint did not clearly delineate responsibility for imposing disciplinary action. The firm divided responsibility between supervisory personnel and compliance personnel, with regional vice presidents assigned responsibility for determining discipline and heightened supervision, while compliance also maintained procedures allowing similar decisions without involving supervision. This fragmented approach resulted in confusion, with both departments sometimes deferring to the other without either responding appropriately to impose heightened supervision or increased discipline.

Second, the firm's disciplinary recordkeeping was haphazard and fragmented. The firm had no written procedures concerning what disciplinary information to record or where to store it. Field supervision and compliance departments tracked internal discipline in separate databases that neither could access. Many disciplinary matters were not recorded in any database. Consequently, personnel issued discipline without complete information about representatives' patterns of violations, failures to respond to prior discipline, or disregard of firm directives.

Third, the firm failed to establish a system reasonably designed to comply with reporting obligations under FINRA Rule 4530(b) regarding multiple instances of violative misconduct. The firm's procedures provided no guidance on evaluating whether representatives engaged in multiple instances requiring reporting, and the firm made no such reports since 2013. For numerous representatives with repeat disciplinary histories, the firm failed to impose heightened supervision, appropriate discipline, or consider reporting. The firm disciplined 11 associated persons at least 110 times collectively but failed to impose heightened supervision on any of them. Investors should be aware that repeat offenders may pose elevated risks, and firms must maintain robust systems to track and respond to patterns of misconduct.

Show Less

According to FINRA, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated was censured and fined $950,000 for failing to reasonably supervise the transmittal of customer funds via externally-initiated automated clearing house (ACH) transfers, allowing two representatives to steal in excess of $6 millio...

Read More

According to FINRA, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated was censured and fined $950,000 for failing to reasonably supervise the transmittal of customer funds via externally-initiated automated clearing house (ACH) transfers, allowing two representatives to steal in excess of $6 million from customers.

The firm was found in violation of its supervisory obligations regarding customer fund transfers. Merrill Lynch's system to review and monitor ACH transfers was not reasonably designed to identify improper transfers by the firm's own registered representatives. Critically, the firm did not systematically screen ACH transfers to detect instances where one of its representatives was the beneficiary of a transfer from a customer's account. Instead, the firm relied on a fraud-detection system designed to detect fraud by third parties, not by its own employees.

The firm's fraud unit monitored ACH transactions and, when unable to clear a transaction based on guidance, would escalate it to the representative assigned to the customer account. The representative was then responsible for validating that the transaction had been initiated by the customer—creating an obvious conflict of interest when the representative was the perpetrator. Despite being aware that a representative had previously converted customer funds via ACH transfers, the firm failed to enhance its supervisory system to identify such theft.

Only after the firm developed a tool to monitor externally initiated ACH transfers for the benefit of firm personnel and ran it for the first time did it discover a representative's conversion of millions of dollars. This came too late to prevent two representatives from running separate schemes over multiple years, stealing in excess of $6 million combined. The firm has already made restitution to affected customers. Investors should monitor their accounts regularly for unauthorized transfers and immediately report suspicious activity. This case illustrates a critical supervisory failure: firms must have controls to detect theft by their own employees, not just by external fraudsters.

Show Less