The Brokercheck Report further states that LPL Financial “Discharged” Mr. Tunink for “Failed to disclose and receive prior approval for loans from customers; and settled a customer complaint away from the Firm.” Mr. Tunink had been registered with LPL as a securities representative from 2021 to September 2025, and previously was registered with Avantax Investment Services from 1996 to 2021.

Financial advisors who are registered with FINRA are generally prohibited from taking loans from their customers pursuant to FINRA Rule 3240. The limited exceptions in the rule include loans from family members, loans from financial institutions, and the borrowing or lending arrangement is based on a bona fide business relationship outside of the broker-customer relationship. However, even in those limited exceptions, the representative’s FINRA firm must be notified of the loan and approve the loan.

The Securities Fraud lawyers at Greco & Greco have decades of experience representing harmed investors from across the country for claims related to improper loans and broker theft, as well as claims for suitability, securities fraud, failure to supervise, negligence, violations of Regulation Best Interest, and breach of fiduciary duty. If you have had your trusted investment advisor solicit a loan from you or otherwise wrongfully take control of your funds and savings, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation.

Gleason’s career spanned several decades, commencing in 1985 when he first registered with FINRA. However, recent disclosures by former employers have brought his practices under scrutiny by FINRA. According to his FINRA Brokercheck report, his association with Cantella & Co., Inc., ended with him being “discharged” due to “Concerns regarding the origin of notations added to firm-requested Active Account and Concentration client letters.”

The AWC focused on Gleason’s actions between July 2020 and June 2021, during which he allegedly breached the Best Interest Obligation under Rule 15l-1(a)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act. This rule mandates that brokers prioritize clients’ interests over their own when recommending investments. According to the AWC: “Gleason recommended to a retail customer (Customer A) a series of transactions that were excessive in light of the customer’s investment profile. In so doing, Gleason placed his interests ahead of the interests of the customer.” The AWC further stated that this pattern of behavior resulted in significant costs for Customer A, including substantial commissions despite modest account balances.

The AWC sanctioned Mr. Gleason with a three month suspension of his license and a $5,000.00 fine.

Greco & Greco has extensive experience representing customers in churning claims against their financial advisors and firms. Churning occurs when the advisor engages in excessive trading for the purpose of generating commissions or fees, without regard for the suitability of the trading for the customer. If you believe you may have been the victim of churning, please contact Scott Greco for a free securities fraud attorney consultation about your case.

Unauthorized trading by investment advisors is generally considered to be a fraudulent activity. Typically, unless discretion to trade without speaking to the customer is granted to the broker in writing, the broker is required to obtain permission for all transactions for the customer after discussing the relevant factors which form the basis for a recommended trade.

Greco & Greco has represented North Carolina investors for decades in FINRA arbitrations based on wrongful conduct by stock brokers and their brokerage firms. If you believe you may have been harmed by a broker’s bad acts, please contact Securities Fraud Lawyer Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

Of particular note is The Huntington Investment Company’s case, which stands out due to its self-reporting and cooperation with the SEC. As a result, Huntington was ordered to pay a lower civil penalty compared to other firms, totaling $1.25 million. This demonstrates the importance of voluntary disclosure and cooperation in regulatory investigations.

The investigations uncovered widespread use of unapproved communication methods, such as personal text messages, across all sixteen firms. Employees at various levels, including supervisors and senior managers, were involved in these violations. The failure to maintain and preserve required records potentially deprived the SEC of crucial information in various investigations.

Each of the firms involved was charged with violating recordkeeping provisions of relevant securities laws and failing to reasonably supervise to prevent and detect such violations. In addition to the financial penalties, the firms were ordered to cease future violations, receive censures, and engage independent compliance consultants to review and enhance their policies and procedures.

Most securities brokerage firms and investment advisory firms prohibit texting between financial advisors and brokers and their customers because of the difficulty of supervising those communications. The reality is, however, that many brokers and advisors don’t follow these rules and often will send texts that can be used against them and their firms in related securities fraud actions. For this reason, customers who have been damaged by the wrongdoing of their advisors should take care to preserve all communications with their advisors including texts. If you believe you may have a claim against your financial advisor, broker, or their firm, please contact securities fraud attorney Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation.

The case underscores the importance of regulatory vigilance in the investment industry. Despite assurances of safety and profitability, Woods’s actions demonstrated a flagrant abuse of trust, ultimately causing financial ruin to hundreds of victims across 20 different states.

Investment Advisers are fiduciaries, and as such they owe their customers duties of care and loyalty, both of which were flagrantly breached in this situation. Mr. Woods was a longtime investment adviser representative at Oppenheimer & Co., Inc.

Although Investment Advisory firms and brokerage firms (Broker-Dealers) often claim they are not legally responsible for the unauthorized actions of their advisers, the law of most states holds otherwise. Firms can be legally responsible for the actions of their agents even if the agents acted solely for their own purposes and the firms received no compensation for the wrongful acts. Furthermore federal and state securities laws hold “control persons” liable for agents under their control, and firms further may be liable for breaches of their duties to supervise their agents.

If you believe you were the victim of a ponzi scheme or other fraudulent actions of your investment advisor, please contact securities fraud attorney Scott Greco for a free consultation about your potential case. Greco & Greco has decades of experience representing investors across the country for similar situations.

Kennedy’s actions, as detailed in the findings and conclusions of the order, paint a troubling picture of misconduct and deceit. He directed over 5,300 trades totaling more than $350 million in the accounts of six customers, with an average of 102 trades per account each month. These excessive transactions generated substantial commissions for Kennedy while causing substantial losses for his clients. Moreover, Kennedy went to lengths to conceal the true extent of these losses by fabricating account statements and providing false information to his clients.

The disciplinary order found Kennedy in violation of several securities regulations, including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Regulation Best Interest, and various FINRA rules.

Mr. Kennedy’s FINRA Brokercheck Report reports ten customer complaints in the past several years, most of which have been settled, many for multiple millions of dollars.

If you believe you may be the victim of a financial advisor who has churned your accounts, please contact Investment Fraud attorney Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential claim.

According to the indictment, from July 2017 through March 2021, Welsh, operating as a financial advisor registered with Wells Fargo Clearing Services, purportedly abused his position to misappropriate funds entrusted to him by clients. Instead of responsibly managing their investments, Welsh is accused of diverting substantial sums into accounts under his control, leaving his clients in financial distress. The charges carry severe penalties, with each wire fraud count potentially leading to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, while the investment advisor fraud count could result in five years behind bars and a $10,000 fine, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.

The indictment details that Mr. Welsh allegedly used multiple fraudulent means to siphon off customer funds, including having customers sign forms in blank, fraudulently forging signatures, and carrying out unauthorized wires from customer accounts.

U.S. Attorney Philip R. Sellinger emphasized the importance of maintaining trust in financial advisors, stating that investors must have confidence that their advisors will act in their best interests. The FBI, led by Special Agent in Charge James E. Dennehy, played a crucial role in investigating the case.

FINRA Broker-Dealers such as Wells Fargo have duties to supervise their registered representatives such as Mr. Welsh. They must have a reasonable supervisory system designed to follow up on red flags and prevent violations of the law such as what occurred here.

Mr. Welsh’s FINRA Brokercheck report reveals that Wells Fargo has already paid out over a million dollars in settlements of claims related to Mr. Welsh, and another multi million dollar arbitration is pending.

W. Scott Greco of the securities fraud law firm Greco & Greco, P.C. has decades of experience representing customers against their brokerage firms related to broker theft of customer funds. If you believe you may have been the victim of a fraud or theft by your trusted financial advisor, please contact securities fraud lawyer Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

Then, on November 15, 2022, the Maryland Securities Commissioner issued a Consent Order in which Jean admitted to fraudulent actions during his time with Morgan Stanley in Maryland. Specifically, he was found to have initiated four ACH transfers, totaling $10,182, from a Morgan Stanley customer’s brokerage account to cover his personal credit card expenses.

FINRA, a national self-regulatory securities regulator, recently barred Mr. Miche from the industry pursuant to a decision by its Office of Hearing Officers.

Securities firms such as Morgan Stanley have legal duties requiring them to reasonably supervise their brokers to attempt to prevent fraudulent and criminal activity. Greco & Greco’s local Maryland Securities Fraud Lawyers have decades of experience representing customers against securities firms and brokers for cases of investment fraud and theft by brokers. Please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation if you believe that you may have been the victim of similar misconduct.

As shown by Mr. Starke’s FINRA Brokercheck report, found here, in the last two years customers have filed seven complaints against Mr. Starke, most involving allegations of the sale of illiquid, unsuitable, and high-risk investments.

Alternative Investments, which include REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), are often sold as an alternative to more traditional stocks, bonds, and stock and bond funds. These higher-risk investments are often touted for their high returns, especially in a low interest rate environment, however those high returns are accompanied with corresponding high risk.

In addition to their often high-risk nature, alternative investments may also have significant liquidity risk. Because they are typically not traded on an exchange, investors may not be able to determine the actual value of the investment, and further if the investment experiences problems, investors may not be able to sell or otherwise get out of the problem investment.

Pursuant to the Virginia Securities Act, financial advisors are required to disclose the risks associated with investments that are being recommended, and the Act provides for an award of rescission or losses, interest, and reasonable attorneys fees.

Prior to recommending the purchase of specific investments or a specific investment strategy to a customer, a stockbroker / financial advisor such as Mr. Starke is required to determine that the investments are suitable to that particular investor (or in the “best interest” of the customer after 2020). A suitability determination is based upon many different factors such as age, investment objectives, risk tolerance, employment situation, needs, income, assets, and investment experience. If an advisor’s recommendations of unsuitable investments result in the investor incurring significant losses, that investor may have a suitability, negligence, and breach of contract claim against the broker and his/her firm.

Generally, retirees and those on a fixed income should not have their life savings concentrated in high-risk illiquid investments due to the risk of loss as well as the difficulties of selling the investments.

Greco & Greco’s local Virginia-based lawyers have been representing Virginia residents for decades in claims against their financial advisors and brokerage firms. If you have suffered losses in unsuitable high-risk and illiquid investments and wish to discuss your potential claims with a local lawyer, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case.

Greco & Greco is investigating investor losses in the following alternative investments:

• GWG L Bonds
• Moody National REIT
• Mobile Infrastructure
• Parking REIT
• Necessity Retail REIT
• American Finance Trust
• Silver Star Properties REIT
• First Capital Real Estate Trust
• Priority Income Fund
• American Hospitality Properties Fund
• Phoenix American Hospitality
• Commonwealth Capital
• Hospitality Investors Trust
• American Realty Capital Hospitality Trust

Background

The AWC against LPL Financial LLC was the result of a failure to reasonably supervise the transmittal of customer funds, which enabled two firm registered representatives to convert substantial sums of money for their personal use. The findings by FINRA in the AWC are outlined below:

1. Improper Transfers of Customer Funds: One representative persuaded nine customers, five of whom were seniors, to issue checks from their brokerage accounts payable to an undisclosed entity controlled by the representative. Instead of investing these funds, the representative used them for personal and business expenses, totaling approximately $550,000.
2. Wire Transfers for Personal Use: Another representative convinced four customers, three of whom were seniors, to wire money from their firm accounts to an outside business he controlled, purportedly for investment purposes. However, he misappropriated around $675,000 of their funds for personal use. Furthermore, this representative electronically forged a senior customer’s signature on a wire transfer form to transfer approximately $1.2 million for his personal real estate purchase.
3. Lack of Reasonable Supervisory Systems: LPL Financial LLC failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system to review transmittals of customer funds to third parties by wire or check. Their automated tool for reviewing checks only examined the second line of the recipient’s address, missing discrepancies in the address on the fourth line. Additionally, the firm did not monitor transmittals from unrelated customer accounts to the same third party.
4. Failure to Respond to Red Flags: The firm did not adequately respond to red flags indicating potential conversion/theft, such as all third-party checks being mailed to the undisclosed entity and flagged wire transfers. They also failed to detect instances of signature forgery or falsification and did not verify questionable transfers adequately.
5. Unauthorized Electronic Signatures: At least 50 firm representatives electronically signed customers’ names on over 1,000 firm documents without proper verification.

Penalties

As a result of these violations, FINRA imposed significant sanctions on LPL Financial LLC:

1. Censure: The firm was officially censured by FINRA.
2. Financial Penalty: LPL Financial LLC was fined a substantial amount of $3,000,000.00.
3. Restitution: The firm was ordered to pay $100,000 plus interest in restitution to affected customers who suffered financial losses due to the actions of the two representatives.
4. Remediation and Supervision: LPL Financial LLC must undertake a review to identify and rectify any additional improper transfers of customer funds, establish a supervisory system designed to monitor customer fund transmittals and electronic signatures to ensure compliance with securities laws and FINRA rules.

This disciplinary action against LPL Financial LLC underscores the importance of robust supervisory systems, diligent monitoring, and quick response to red flags.

Here are some key takeaways for FINRA securities firms:

1. Enhance Supervision: FINRA Broker-Dealers must implement robust supervisory systems that can detect and prevent unauthorized transfers of customer funds.
2. Vigilance with Red Flags: Red flags indicating potential misconduct should never be ignored. Firms must respond promptly and thoroughly investigate any suspicious activity.
3. Authentication and Verification: Verification procedures for electronic signatures and fund transfers must be stringent to prevent forgery and misappropriation.
4. Regular Audits and Reviews: Regularly audit and review transactions and documents to ensure compliance and prevent unauthorized actions.

Greco & Greco’s securities fraud lawyers have extensive experience pursuing legal recovery of monies stolen by customers’ financial advisors. Although criminal advisors may not be able to repay the monies they have stolen, their securities firms bear responsibility for the fraud and theft under multiple legal theories. This includes liability by the firm’s for the actions of their agents related to investments, as well as direct liability by the firms for supervisory failures and failures to follow up on red flags as discussed herein. If you have been defrauded by your financial advisor or firm, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation.

The investigation allegedly was initiated in response to a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5), reporting Carpenter’s discharge from his firm, LPL Financial. The Form U5 stated that LPL was reviewing Carpenter’s “alleged participation in unapproved real estate investments with customers.”

Mr. Carpenter’s FINRA Brokercheck report states that he was registered with LPL in Charlotte from 2020 to 2023, and prior to that he was registered with Spire Securities.

If you have lost money as a result of real estate investments associated with Mr. Carpenter or LPL, please contact W. Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case. Greco & Greco has decades of experience representing harmed investors in cases of high risk real estate and other investments, as well as cases of securities fraud and investment fraud.

The Brokercheck report also states that Western International discharged Mr. Kennedy in 2021 after allegations were made about unauthorized options trading.

Mr. Kennedy was registered with Western at a branch office in Woodland Hills, California and Tarzana, California.

The securities fraud attorneys at Greco & Greco have extensive experience arbitrating claims on behalf of customers against Western International. One can also read here about a recent FINRA action against Western International regarding supervisory failures in the sale of GWG L bonds by Western brokers, and another related to non traded REIT sales.

If you have lost money as a result of unauthorized trading or unsuitable options trading by your financial advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case. We have represented wronged customers from California and across the country for decades.

According to the AWC, Mr. Smith borrowed money in five different loans from a single customer without advising his firm about the loans. Loans from customers to stock brokers are generally prohibited unless they fall into several limited exceptions such as when the customer is a family member. The loans were allegedly discovered when the customer died and the estate raised questions about the loans. Mr. Smith subsequently resigned from Edward Jones while under investigation.

The FINRA AWC imposed a year suspension on the financial advisor, and a $10,000 fine.

Greco & Greco has previously recovered funds for multiple customers who knowingly or unknowingly were involved in loans to the financial advisors in violation of industry rules and brokerage firm policies. In some situations advisors may attempt to cover up broker theft from customers through the use of claimed loans. If you or someone you know was a victim of such misconduct, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

Mr. Craffy’s Brokercheck report from FINRA discloses that he was discharged by Monmouth for failing to “disclose Outside Business Activity.” It also states that he has one customer complaint pending with allegations of negligence, fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

The FINRA Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent states that Mr. Craffy failed to appear to testify regarding his “potential conversion of customer money, loans or gifts from customers, active trading in customer accounts, and failure to fully disclose certain outside business activities.” He was barred from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities.

The Washington Post has reported that Mr. Craffy allegedly lost large amounts of monies paid in life insurance proceeds to grieving Army families.

FINRA advisors such as Mr. Craffy are required to invest customer monies in a suitable manner that is in the best interest of the customer, and in a manner that complies with the level of risk appropriate for the customer. If you are a victim of Mr. Craffy or any other broker who has lost monies as a result of the wrongdoing of the broker, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

REITs – Real Estate Investment Trusts – are investment companies that invest in a portfolio of various real estate properties. A non traded REIT is not traded on any exchange, and often is illiquid with no short term method of selling the investment.

FINRA charged Western with failing to implement and follow a reasonable supervisory system to ensure that REIT sales were suitable for the customers to whom they were recommended. Although Western had a REIT suitability form, they system did not require supervisors approving sales to review important suitability information from new account forms such as age, objectives, risk tolerance, income, etc.

The letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent (AWC) further discussed the extreme misconduct of an unnamed Western advisor who sold REITs to a majority of his customers, including those with limited financial resources and investment experience. Several significant facts were disclosed in the AWC which should have, but didn’t, trigger supervisory action, included the fact that 19 of the 59 customers sold the REITs were 60 years old or older, many were recommended to switch from variable annuities to REITs, and in some years 90% of the broker’s commissions were from REIT sales.

Western agreed to a public censure, a $400,000 fine, and restitution payments of $471,401.57.

Non-traded REITs are often considered speculative high risk investments, and as such they would not be suitable for many customers who could not afford to take the associated risks, such as senior citizens, retirees, and those on a fixed income. If you have lost money in unsuitable REITs, or if you are unable to sell or exit a REIT that is unsuitable, please contact our securities fraud lawyers for a free consultation about your case. These unsuitable sales can support a FINRA arbitration claim based on securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence.

The AWC discussed the fact that Janney’s supervisory system red flagged these concentrations, but Janney “failed to take reasonable steps to understand the potential risks and rewards.”

In addition to being censured by FINRA, Janney was fined $100,000 and ordered to pay restitution to the customers that had not yet received restitution in the total amount of $145,019.

Concentration of customer accounts in one sector such as energy, or in multiple master limited partnerships (MLPs), can result in an unsuitable risk in customer accounts, and also may violate Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI). Firms such as Janney are required to have in place reasonable systems to supervise their advisors and accounts to attempt to prevent such violations.

If you have lost monies resulting from unsuitable overconcentration in a single sector, in oil and gas, or in unsuitable MLPs, we may be able to help. Please contact our securities fraud lawyers at Greco & Greco for a free attorney consultation.

The letter alleges that Mr. Turley has been registered with J.P. Morgan Securities LLC since 2009, and that he was terminated by J.P. Morgan in 2021 for “[l]oss of confidence concerning adherence to firm policies and brokerage order handling requirements.” According to FINRA, Mr. Turley has had five FINRA multi-million dollar arbitrations filed in 2020 – 2021 relating to allegations regarding sales practice violations and unsuitable trading. One of these resulted in an arbitration award.

Mr. Turley apparently refused to provide on the record testimony to FINRA in response to a Rule 8210 Request.

Investors who lost money as a result of wrongful conduct (including unsuitable trades, unauthorized trades, or churning) at J.P. Morgan or other firms should contact securities attorney W. Scott Greco for a free consultation about your potential case. Greco & Greco, Securities Fraud Lawyers, represent harmed investors across the country in cases against their financial advisors and firms.

Reg BI, 17 CFR 240-15l-1, specifically describes the “best interest” obligation as follows in section (a)(1):

“A broker, dealer, or a natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer, when making a recommendation of any securities transaction or investment strategy involving securities (including account recommendations) to a retail customer, shall act in the best interest of the retail customer at the time the recommendation is made, without placing the financial or other interest of the broker, dealer, or natural person who is an associated person of a broker or dealer making the recommendation ahead of the interest of the retail customer.”

Reg BI includes four best interest obligations – the disclosure obligation, the care obligation, the conflict-of-interest obligation, and the compliance obligation.

Although firms may address some conflicts of interest by disclosure to customers, the SEC discussed that certain conflicts cannot simply be disclosed, and must be eliminated. Specifically, the following activities by the Broker-Dealer would violate Reg BI – “sales contests, sales quotas, bonuses, and non-cash compensation that are based on the sales of specific securities or specific types of securities within a limited period of time.”

Many cases of investor harm that end up in FINRA Arbitration are a result of financial incentives to the broker which encouraged the wrongful conduct or unsuitable recommendation. This can include churning, but also can involve high risk securities / investments that pay higher fees or compensation to the broker to generate more sales of the product. Issuers of high risk but low reward investments pay high commissions (sometimes at 8% or higher) because otherwise no reasonable broker would sell the investment. This can and does then lead to losses by public customers who were not explained the risk, and trusted their financial advisor. As the SEC makes clear, a Broker-Dealer cannot encourage the sale of certain kinds of high commission products through sales contests or quotas, and must have a compliance system in place to detect and prevent such violations of Reg BI.

If you believe you may have a potential claim against your financial advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

• From 2012 until 2022 Mr. Good solicited customers to transfer funds to his personal bank account, allegedly for investments in real estate and government bonds.
• In ponzi scheme fashion, the transferred monies were used to repay earlier customers who had also invested, in addition to payment of Mr. Good’s personal expenses.
• The alleged fraud included at least $4,800,000.00 paid from customers, and approximately $2,000,000.00 in losses for investors.

Mr. Good was also indefinitely barred from the securities industry by FINRA pursuant to an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent agreement. Mr. Good’s FINRA Brokercheck report also discloses two customer complaints of alleged misappropriation of funds.

The Brokercheck report does not report any settlement of the claims by Mr. Good or Morgan Stanley. Securities firms such as Morgan Stanley may be found liable for the wrongful and fraudulent actions of their brokers under a number of legal theories. First, employers can be liable for the fraudulent acts of their employees and agents under basic agency law. Second, most state securities laws including North Carolina’s hold control persons (firms and management of firms) legally responsible for the securities fraud of their brokers, and provide for returns of losses, interest, and reasonable attorneys fees.

If you were a victim of Mr. Good or another financial advisor who stole funds or conducted a ponzi scheme, and wish to discuss your potential case with an attorney, please contact the securities fraud lawyers at Greco & Greco. You can contact Scott Greco here for a free attorney consultation.

Under federal laws governing retirement plans (commonly known as ERISA), the investment manager of a 401(k) plan is considered a fiduciary, who must act solely in the financial interests of the plan participants. Courts hold fiduciaries to very high standards of professional care and prudence. When these standards are breached, the asset manager can be held personally liable for the losses resulting from the breach. For 401(k) plans, the fiduciary is obligated to evaluate independently which investments are suitable to include in the investment options from which plan participants may choose. Offering imprudent investment options to participants is considered a breach of duty.

The Department of Labor identified several areas of concern that make cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency-tied products exceptionally risky investments for 401(k) participants.

• Cryptocurrencies are highly speculative and volatile investments—in their short history, cryptocurrencies have been subject to extreme price volatility which may be due to uncertainty regarding valuing these assets, speculative and fictitious trading, and reports of theft, and fraud. Such wild and unpredictable fluctuations can be devastating for retirement accounts, and investors near retirement age.
• The Challenge for Plan Participants to Make Informed Decisions—the newness of cryptocurrency and unfamiliarity of investors with how it differs from traditional investments can make it difficult for them to make an informed decision as whether it is right for them. With crypto being held out as an innovative product that offers the possibility of high returns, its inclusion in a 401(k) plan’s offering can wrongly lead participants to conclude that it is a suitable risk for them.
• Custodial and Recordkeeping Concerns. Cryptocurrencies are not like traditional investments where assets are held in a trust account and are available to pay out benefits. Rather cryptocurrencies exist as lines of code on a computer, where in some cases simply losing a password can result in losing the asset, and where they are also susceptible to theft by hackers. This makes these assets difficult for plan fiduciaries to reliably safeguard.
• Valuation Concerns. There is still no industry consensus on how to appropriately value cryptocurrencies, nor are there standards for reporting or maintaining data integrity by market intermediaries.
• Evolving Regulatory Environment. Rules and regulations regarding cryptocurrency are evolving such that there may be market entities that are not operating in accordance with existing regulatory frameworks or who will not be if the rules change. Plan fiduciaries must stay abreast of the ever-changing regulatory framework to ensure that their recommendations do not run afoul of securities’ laws. For example, the sale of some cryptocurrencies could constitute the unlawful sale of securities in unregistered transactions, according to the Labor Department. Regulatory bodies and law enforcement are also scrutinizing the industry for illegal activities including money laundering, drug dealing and other illegal forms of commerce, which could result in future limitations on the accessibility of these platforms.

If you have experienced losses as a result of your financial advisor’s recommendation to invest in cryptocurrency, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation.