FINRA

Morgan Stanley and E*Trade Securities Face Penalties for Inadequate Customer Information Protection

Published on: June 8, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Securities and Exchange Commission says that Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC (MS) will pay a $1M penalty to resolve charges involving its purported failure to protect customer data. Some of this information was hacked and violators attempted to sell the data online.

According to the regulator, the firm did not put into place written policies and procedures that were designed in a manner reasonable enough to protect customer information. Because of this, said the SEC, from ’11 to ’14, former Morgan Stanley employee Galen J. Marsh was able to access without permission information regarding approximately 730,000 accounts and move them to his own server. This made it possible for third parties to access and hack the information from there.

The Commission said that Morgan Stanley had two internal portals that made it possible for employees such as Marsh to access confidential customer account information and it was for these internal applications that the firm lacked the needed authorization modules that would have restricted which employees could see this information. This deficiency existed for over a decade.

It was just last week that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that it was censuring and fining E*Trade Securities LLC for supervisory violations related to customer order information protection and for not performing sufficient review of the quality of customer order executions. As a firm that offers online services for securities investing and trading to retail customers, E*Trade is supposed to evaluate the competing markets that it routes customer orders to, including exchange and non-exchange market centers. Firms such as E*Trade are also supposed to conduct periodic and stringent reviews of the quality of customer order executions to see if there are any differences among the markets, which is why the firm set up a Best Execution Committee to do this job.

Securities Cases: Stephens Inc. to Pay $900K Fine, FINRA Bans Ex-Wells Fargo Broker, And Former State Street Executive is Accused of Charging Hidden Fees

Published on: June 3, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

SEC Files Fraud Charges Against Former State Street Executive
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is filing fraud charges against ex-State Street Corp. (STT) executive Ross McClellan. According to the regulator, McLellan was one of a number of people who purposely charged hidden markups on certain transactions to customers, making the bank $20M in extra revenue.

Addressing the charges, McLellan’s lawyer claims that his client did not commit any securities law violations and that all banks charge client markups on bond transactions to make money. The attorney also noted that it was State Street and not the bank that profited from the charges.

The U.S. Department of Justice has charged McLellan with securities fraud, conspiracy, and wire fraud.

Ex-Wells Fargo Broker to Be Barred
Christopher John Pierce, a former Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) broker, will be barred from working with any FINRA-registered firm and associating with any member of the self-regulatory organization. Pierce agreed to the bar after he was accused of stealing money from the accounts of banking customers.

FINRA Approves Wider Public Arbitrator List, Proposes Rule Change, and is Accused by Lawmakers of Not Doing Enough to Protect Investors From Bad Advisers

Published on: May 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory authority has broadened its list of public arbitrators to preside over cases. The self-regulatory organization will provide dispute participants with the names of 15 public arbitrators, instead of 10, from which to choose. FINRA’s Board also modified its eligibility requirements for who can chair an arbitration panel.

FINRA allows plaintiffs and defendants of arbitration cases to choose three arbitrators.

In other FINRA arbitration news, the SRO is asking the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to approve a proposed rule change that would allow monetary awards mandating that parties pay one another damages to be offset. This rule change is for situations in which an arbitration panel awards damages to both the respondent and claimant and one party can’t or doesn’t pay what it owes.

If approved, the rule would allow the party that owes more money to only have to pay the net difference. If arbitrators don’t mean for an award to be offset when both parties owe one another money, they must state so in the award notice.

Raymond James to Pay $17M Fine for Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Failures

Published on: May 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is fining Raymond James Financial Inc. https://www.securities-fraud-attorneys.com(RJFS) and Raymond James & Associates (RJA) $17M. The self-regulatory organization is accusing the company of widespread failures related to anti-money laundering compliance.

According to FINRA, from 2006 to 2014 the processes that the firm had in place to stop money laundering failed to line up with its business growth. The SRO said that the company instead depended on “patchwork” systems and procedures to identify suspect activity. Because of this, Raymond James was unable to notice certain “red flags” that arose.

FINRA also said that both firms did not perform the mandated due diligence and risks reviews for foreign institutions. RJFS is accused of not putting into place and maintaining a Customer Identification Program that was adequate.

It was just in 2012 that Raymond James Financial Services was subject to sanctions for its inadequate procedures related to anti-money laundering. The firm said that it would evaluate its AML procedures and programs.

Also sanctioned and fined is former Raymond James Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Officer Linda Busby. She is suspended for three months and must pay a $250K fine. FINRA said that along with the two firms, she did not succeed in setting up AML programs geared toward the two companies, respectively.

By settling, Raymond James Financial Services, Raymond James & Associates, and Busby are not denying or admitting to the FINRA charges.

It is important that financial firms have systems in place to identify suspect transactions that may be signs of money laundering.

Emotions Make Older Investors More Vulnerable to Fraud, Says FINRA/Stanford/AARP Study

Published on: May 23, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

According to research, some financial fraudsters may try to manipulate investors by getting them to feel strong emotions so that they will hand over their money, and older investors are the ones who most vulnerable to this type of manipulation. Research was conducted and funded by the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, the AARP Fraud Watch Network, and Stanford University psychologists. They said that inducing certain emotions in older individuals may make them more likely to purchase items that were falsely advertised.

The team studied adults in the 65- 85 age group and adults in the 30-40 age group. They sought to find out whether inciting anger or excitement in either demographic made them more susceptible to fraud.

According to their findings, feeling excitement or anger enhanced an older investor’s desire to buy in investment item as opposed to when there was no emotional arousal. Furthermore, the emotional state felt by an older adult did not have to be positive or negative for him/her to become more vulnerable to fraud. As AARP Fraud Watch Network Dr. Shadel stated, whether a fraudster is trying to get an older investor excited about making a lot of money or angry about past or future financial losses, either approach, when used to get them to make a purchase, proved just as impactful. The elderly investor’s rational thinking becomes suspended in the process.

The research found that in younger adults, experiencing strong feelings of excitement or anger did not appear to be a factor in whether or not they would make a purchase. This suggests that heightened feelings do not increase the younger group’s susceptibility to fraud.

Wells Fargo to Pay UBS $1M Over Broker Departure

Published on: May 17, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A FINRA arbitration panel has ordered Wells Fargo Advisors LLC (WFC) to pay UBS Financial Services Inc. $1.1M to resolve a claim involving financial adviser David Kinnear who went to work for the Wells Fargo & Co. brokerage arm after leaving the UBS Group AG (UBS) unit. UBS claims that Kinnear stole thousands of client and business records, as well as proprietary information, after resigning from the firm.

The Wall Street Journal reports that according to a source, Kinnear downloaded the data and distributed it to clients. UBS contends that the compensation Kinnear received at Wells Fargo was related to his ability to successfully bring UBS clients with him. UBS also claims that Kinnear owes it promissory notes.

Wells Fargo denies UBS’s allegations. It submitted a counterclaim accusing the firm of unfair completion, including preventing clients from moving from UBS to Wells Forgo.

Under the Protocol for Broker Recruiting, brokers are only allowed to bring the names and contact information of clients that they serviced while having worked at a firm when moving to another brokerage firm.

MetLife Securities Ordered to Pay $25M FINRA Sanction Related to Variable Annuities

Published on: May 5, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that MetLife Securities Inc. (MSI) would pay a $20M fine as well as $5M to customers for negligent and material misrepresentations that it purportedly made related to variable annuity replacement applications. According to the self-regulatory organization, these alleged omissions and misrepresentations were on tens of thousands of applications, and they made each replacement variable annuity seem of greater benefit to the customer despite the fact that the variable annuities that were recommended were usually more costly than the ones that the customers already owned. MetLife Securities made at least $152M in gross dealer commissions over six years through its variable annuity replacement business.

Based on a sample of transactions that were randomly examined, FINRA said that from ’09 through ’14, MetLife Securities omitted or misrepresented at least one material fact connected to the guarantees and costs of existing variable annuity contracts in 72% of the 35,500 replacement applications that it approved. Among the alleged misrepresentations:

· Existing variable were costing customers more than the variable annuities they were recommending, when the opposite was true.

· Customers were not told that the variable annuity replacements promised to them would lessen or get rid of key features that their current variable annuity possessed.

· In disclosures, the value of customers’ existing death benefits was understated.

Broker News: J.P. Morgan Firms to Pay $1M Fine, FINRA Bans Broker For Money Laundering, and Former Maine Broker Gets 3-Years in Prison for Fraud

Published on: April 27, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Two J.P. Morgan Firms Fined over Deficiencies
J.P. Morgan Securities and J.P. Morgan Clearing Corp. have been fined $775K and $250K respectively for several deficiencies. J.P. Morgan Securities is a broker-dealer of the bank JPMorgan Chase (JPM). .J.P. Morgan Clearing is the custodian, clearing, lending, and settlement arm of the bank. The fines were imposed by FINRA.

According to the self-regulatory organization, the firms committed a number of breaches that violated FINRA and SEC rules. The alleged violations by the brokerage firm mostly affect clients of J.P. Morgan Private Bank and JPMS Heritage Private Client Services, which are two JPMS Global Wealth Management businesses.

From 9/07 to 2014, JPMS purportedly did not send letters to clients confirming modifications to their investment goals within 30 days of the changes. JPMS also allegedly did not collect and check the outside brokerage account statements of nearly 2,000 representatives from ’12 – ’13. Morgan Clearing Corp. is accused of, from ’11-’13, not sending out yearly privacy notices to hundreds of thousands of account holders at the broker-dealers where it provides clearing and custody.

Broker Banned by FINRA for Money Laundering
The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority said that it is barring James Van Doren. The broker was sentenced to 15 months behind bars for a money laundering scam.

According to FINRA, Van Doren took part in unethical behavior by helping to make it possible for a childhood friend and business associate to avoid certain legal duties. The former broker invested in a number of real estate deals with the friend’s company and helped conceal assets when the company couldn’t fulfill its duties.

He also accepted $244K from the friend to hide the assets that his creditors were looking for. He eventually returned most of the funds to the friend while keeping some for financial losses he sustained.

Judge Dismisses Scottsdale Capital Advisor’s Lawsuit Challenging FINRA’s Enforcement Authority

Published on: April 26, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

U.S. District Judge Deborah K. Chasanow has dismissed Scottsdale Capital Advisors’ securities case claiming that the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority did not have legal authority to enforce securities laws. The self-regulatory organization had filed an administrative case against the financial firm, accusing it of selling unregistered penny stock shares.

In March, Scottsdale filed its complaint, contending that the claims brought by the regulator came out of violations of the Securities Act of 1933, which it believes that the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not FINRA, has purview over when it comes to enforcing it the act. However, Scottsdale also said that both the SEC and FINRA did not have the “realm of expertise” to make a ruling in the SRO’s case against it.

Judge Chasanow dismissed Scottsdale’s lawsuit citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. She said that the allegations brought by FINRA as they pertain to the penny stock trades should not be in heard in federal court.

Broker Violations & FINRA: PNC Investments to Pay $225K for Overcharging for Mutual Funds and Stifel Nicolaus is Fined $750K For Not Following Reserve Requirements

Published on: April 15, 2016 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority has announced that PNC Investments will pay nearly $225K in restitution for charging retirement clients too much for mutual fund investments. According to the regulator, the brokerage firm did not apply waivers for investors in certain Class A share mutual funds even though there was a waiver for front-end charges for eligible customers.

Instead, said FINRA, PNC Investments sold Class A shares customers with a front-end load or other shares that had a back-end load and higher fees and expenses, some of which were charged on an ongoing basis. Because of this, certain customers were charged excessive fees and paid them.

FINRA said that PNC Investments charged 121 customer accounts in excess of $191,740 for mutual funds—although the actual amount, with interest, was closer to $224,750. PNC will pay restitution to eligible investors.

The brokerage firm self-reported the overcharges after reviewing its own conduct last year to assess whether it was issuing the sales waiver to those that were eligible. FINRA said that the broker-dealer experienced lapses in supervision, did not keep up written policies and procedures that were adequate, and failed to help advisers assess when to waive the sales charges.