According to FINRA, William Anthony Massarweh was assessed a deferred fine of $10,000 and suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for one year for serving as chief financial officer for a non-profit foundation without providing prior notice to or receiving approval from his member firm, and for improperly using customer funds.

Massarweh's duties with the foundation included bookkeeping and tracking its expenses. Additionally, Massarweh completed, signed, and filed documentation establishing the foundation as a non-profit organization in the State of California. These activities fell outside the scope of Massarweh's relationship with his firm. Massarweh did not disclose his involvement with the foundation to his firm until after it inquired about his role with the foundation.

Massarweh also improperly used the funds of a customer at the firm. The customer instructed Massarweh to transfer $600,000 to the foundation as a charitable bequest. Instead of transferring the funds to an account held by the foundation, Massarweh initiated a request to transfer the funds to an account in his name. Although Massarweh believed the account was a related account of the foundation's, it was not and was solely in Massarweh's name. The firm reversed the transfer of funds, and the funds were never transferred to Massarweh.

The suspension was in effect from February 6, 2023, through February 5, 2024.

This case involves two separate but related violations. First, Massarweh failed to disclose his significant outside business activity serving as CFO of a non-profit foundation. Firms need to know about outside business activities so they can identify potential conflicts of interest and ensure that registered persons are not engaging in activities that could harm customers or the firm.

Second, and more seriously, Massarweh attempted to transfer $600,000 in customer funds to an account in his own name. Even though Massarweh claimed he believed the account was related to the foundation, the fact remains that the account was solely in his name. This created an unacceptable risk to customer funds. The firm's reversal of the transfer prevented the customer from being harmed, but the attempt itself was a serious violation.