FINRA OHO

FINRA RULES EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER RESULTS IN STATUTORY DISQUALIFICATION

October 4, 2022 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers recently rendered a decision on an issue of first impression in Dep’t of Enforcement v. NYPPEX, LLC, et al., (Disc. Proc. No. 2019064813801). Enforcement charged FINRA member firm, NYPPEX, LLC, its former CEO, Laurence Allen, and its CCO, Michael Schunk, with numerous violations of FINRA rules. The charges stemmed from Respondents’ conduct in the wake of a temporary restraining order issued by a New York state court against Allen. Among other things, the order, obtained at the behest of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of New York (“NYAG”), enjoined Allen from engaging in securities fraud and violating New York’s securities laws. Enforcement took the position that the TRO rendered Allen statutorily disqualified from continued association with a FINRA member firm. Allen could have remained associated with the Firm if it applied for, and received, FINRA’s permission pursuant to FINRA Rule 9520. Allen’s supervisor, Schunk, however, purportedly let Allen continue as an associated person at NYPPEX for over a year without seeking a waiver from FINRA.

FINRA’s disciplinary proceeding was triggered by the ex parte TRO. After a two-year investigation, in December 2018, the NYAG commenced an action under Article 23-A of New York’s General Business Law, known as the Martin Act, against Allen and certain others. The NYAG applied on an ex parte basis for preliminary injunctive relief against Allen, NYPPEX Holdings, and others under Section 354 of New York’s General Business Law. The NYAG stated that a preliminary injunction was warranted because of the allegations of fraud and fraudulent practices by Allen and his refusal to produce documents or appear for testimony. In December 2018, the Supreme Court of the State of New York granted the NYAG the relief it sought and issued the TRO without hearing from Allen or NYPPEX. Allan was served with the Order in January 2019 and Schunk learned about it that month as well.

On December 4, 2019, the NYAG filed a complaint in the New York Supreme Court against NYPPEX, Allen and others (Index No. 452378/2019). In February 2020, the New York Supreme Court concluded a five-day hearing and issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting Allen and NYPPEX from, among other things, violating the Martin Act and from “facilitating, allowing or participating in the purchase, sale or transfer of any limited partnership interest in [the fund].” At this point in time, NYPPEX filed an MC-400 Application seeking permission for NYPPEX to remain associated with a disqualified person, Allen. FINRA Enforcement, however, argued that Allen became statutorily disqualified when the TRO was issued in 2018, more than a year before NYPPEX filed the MC-400 Application.

FINRA ENFORCEMENT SEEKS BAR FOR FAILURE TO ATTEND AN OTR AND GETS DENIED BY THE OHO

July 15, 2022 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
Practitioners are familiar with the fact that a failure to respond to a FINRA Rule 8210 request almost automatically results in an industry bar. Except when it doesn’t. The Office of Hearing Officers (the “OHO”) recently published a decision in which it discussed what the Hearing Officer referred to as a “partial but incomplete response” to FINRA’s requests for testimony.

In March, the OHO rendered a decision against Jason DiPaola who was accused by FINRA Enforcement of taking discretion in his mother’s E-trade account without written instructions and without disclosing the account to his employer Chardan Capital Markets, LLC (“Chardan”) in violation of NASD Rule 3050. Dep’t of Enforcement v. DiPaola, Discip. Proc. No. 2018057274302 (OHO Mar. 25, 2022). The OHO, however, claimed that the “most serious allegation” was DiPaola’s failure to appear and provide on-the-record (“OTR”) testimony.

DiPaola was not a trader at Chardan and had no retail customers. DiPaola worked in the firm’s equity capital markets group. DiPaola was first interviewed by FINRA Staff in January of 2018. The Staff obtained account statements for DiPaola’s E-trade accounts and his mother’s E-trade account. FINRA also obtained over a million e-mails from Chardan.

FINRA HEARING PANEL REJECTS “NO HARM, NO FOUL” DEFENSE

July 11, 2022 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On July 7, 2022, FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers issued its decision in Dep’t of Enforcement v. Burford, Discip. Proc. No. 2019064656601 (OHO July 7, 2022). Here, the Hearing Panel found that Burford caused no customer harm. There was no evidence that Burford gained monetarily from his actions. Burford was “polite, respectful, and cooperative” throughout the investigation and disciplinarily proceeding. Nonetheless, the Hearing Panel refused to deem these factors “mitigating” and whacked Burford with a 6-month suspension – double the suspension sought by Enforcement – and $10,000 fine. At its core, this is a case of registered representative alleged to have improperly taken instructions from a deceased customer’s widow. This case highlights the perils of efforts by a financial adviser to assist an individual when those efforts skirt the policies of a broker-dealer.

Background Facts

Burford was registered with Hilltop Securities Independent Network, Inc. In November 2019, Hilltop discharged Burford and filed a Form U5 alleging a “failure to follow firm policy regarding the death of a client.”

GAG ORDERS USED BY FINRA UNDER REVIEW BY SCOTUS

April 19, 2022 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
When settling a FINRA investigation, the Staff drafts a letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) setting forth the terms of the settlement. In the AWC, FINRA routinely demands the settling party consent to the following restraint on speech:

“Respondent may not take any action or permit to be made any public statement, including in regulatory filings or otherwise, denying directly or indirectly, any finding in this AWC or create the impression that the AWC is without factual basis.”

A matter before the U.S. Supreme Court may upend FINRA’s use of a gag order.

FINRA CHARGES AN FA FOR STRUCTURING CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS

March 12, 2020 | Herskovits, PLLC

00025601-300x166
On March 11, 2020, FINRA charged an FA with structuring cash transactions in his personal bank account so as to evade reporting requirements. This case is worth a read because it highlights FINRAs commitment to pursue AML and AML-like cases.

Case in Point

In Department of Enforcement v. David R. Oakes, Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2018057755201, FINRA charged the FA with violating Rule 2010 (FINRAs catchall rule) for allegedly structuring three $9,000 deposits (total of $27,000) of currency to his personal bank account between December 27 and December 29, 2017; (2) structuring two $6,500 (total of $13,000) withdrawals of currency from his personal bank account on August 23, 2017; and (3) structuring four withdrawals (total of $21,500) of currency from his personal bank account between August 1 and August 4, 2016. According to FINRA, each of these series of transactions was for the purpose of avoiding the filing of a Currency Transaction Report.

FINRA Censures and Fines New York Firm $750,000 Over Its Role In Death Put Scheme

October 7, 2017 | Herskovits, PLLC

53-hedge-fund-calculator
FINRA announced it has just fined C.L. King & Associates $750,000. According to the Regulatory Authority´s decision, the broker-dealer has negligently made “material misrepresentations and omissions to issuers in connection with the firm’s redemptions of debt securities on behalf of a hedge fund customer.”

This was allegedly done in connection with the hedge fund customer´s scheme to profit from the death of terminally ill individuals.

A FINRA hearing panel also found that the Albany-based broker dealer and its Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer failed to “implement a reasonable AML program and failed to adequately respond to red flags related to the liquidation of billions of shares of penny stocks indicative of potentially suspicious activity by two customers.”

FINRA Disciplinary Proceedings – Inside FINRA’s Complaint and Hearing Process

August 5, 2017 | Herskovits, PLLC

finra-disciplinary-proceedings
FINRA’s enforcement program is big business.

In 2008, FINRA levied fines totaling $28 million. By 2016, that number jumped to $176 million. In 2008, FINRA ordered restitution payments to investors totaling $6 million. By 2015, that number jumped to $96 million.

Each year, FINRA initiates approximately 1,500 disciplinary actions against member firms and employees. FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers resolves approximately 400 proceedings per year.

Cal-based Representative Jim Seol Barred by FINRA – Failure to Disclose $100 Million in EB-5 Investments to Employer

July 24, 2017 | Herskovits, PLLC

41-ameriprise-financial
In its quest for investor protection and market integrity, FINRA diligently seeks out firm representatives who are in violation of its strict rules. Recently, the regulatory authority decided to bar California-based Jim Jinkook Seol from the industry.

A former employee of Ameriprise Financial Inc.; Seol was found to have sold $100 million worth of EB-5, permanent residency-eligible, investments without disclosing the transactions to his employer.

The EB-5 visa program offers permanent residency to foreign nationals who invest between $500,000 and $1 million and create 10 jobs in a new business venture in the US. The program is especially attractive to wealthy individuals from emerging economies like China and India, and, as such, it holds an enormous profit potential for securities industry professionals.