According to FINRA, Robert Jeffrey Boschke was assessed a deferred fine of $5,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for 30 days for impersonating a former customer of his member firm in calls with an annuity company to facilitate the transfer of the former customer's annuity.

Boschke called the annuity company to facilitate the transfer of the former customer's annuity to the former customer's ex-wife as part of a divorce settlement. During the call, Boschke impersonated the former customer and stated that he was divorced, that his ex was getting the account and that he was instructed by his attorney to call and get the value of the account as of the divorce date. The annuity company provided the information to Boschke.

Later, Boschke called the annuity company again and impersonated the same former customer. Boschke stated that a problem existed with the Notification of Divorce and Division Instructions form due to outdated signatures. Boschke asked the company to email him (the former customer) the form to be re-signed. Boschke was unable to answer the security question that the annuity company posed to him, and the instruction form was not sent.

The suspension was in effect from February 6, 2023, through March 7, 2023.

Impersonating a customer is a serious violation that involves deception and misrepresentation. Even if Boschke believed he was helping facilitate a legitimate transfer as part of a divorce settlement, he had no authority to impersonate the customer and represent himself as that person to the annuity company.

The proper procedure would have been to have the customer contact the annuity company directly or to arrange for a three-way call where Boschke could participate with the customer's knowledge and consent. By impersonating the customer, Boschke bypassed important safeguards designed to protect customer accounts from unauthorized access.

The fact that Boschke was unable to answer the security question posed by the annuity company shows that the company's security procedures were effective in preventing the impersonation from succeeding. This case serves as a reminder that brokers must never impersonate customers, even when they believe they are acting in the customer's best interest.