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.

In the pump and dump scheme, criminals artificially inflate prices through coordinated trading and/or deceptive promotional activity. Once the prices are sufficiently “pumped,” the fraudsters sell off their positions at a profit, often leaving the account owners and unwitting investors facing substantial losses when the stock price collapses. The ease of access to customer securities accounts through apps (and lax security by investment firms) have only made these schemes easier to execute.

In response to these threats, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has issued comprehensive guidance to broker-dealers, most notably four years ago in Regulatory Notice 21-18, to help prevent and mitigate securities account takeover attempts. FINRA highlights the importance of robust authentication procedures, continuous monitoring for indicators of unauthorized account activity, and swift escalation and remediation protocols in the event of a suspected compromise. Broker-dealers are urged to evaluate and, where needed, enhance their existing controls in light of evolving attack techniques, particularly as more firms adopt fully online service models and rely on automated account opening processes.

Specific practices recommended by FINRA include multi-factor authentication for customer logins, use of out-of-band verification for sensitive transactions, real-time monitoring for unusual activity patterns, and regular education and training for both staff and customers about current fraud risks and social engineering tactics. Broker-dealers are also encouraged to have clear written escalation procedures for suspicious account events, collaborate closely between compliance, AML, and customer service functions, and leverage reporting from industry peers to stay ahead of emerging threats. Additionally, timely communication with customers regarding suspicious activity can help contain losses and reinforce a culture of vigilance.

U.S. SEC Regulation S-ID (17 CFR § 248.201) similarly requires investment firms to “develop and implement a written Identity Theft Prevention Program (Program) that is designed to detect, prevent, and mitigate identity theft…”

As securities account takeover incidents and related pump and dump schemes continue to grow in scale and sophistication, it is essential for broker-dealers to implement comprehensive, adaptive controls aligned with FINRA’s guidance, including those in Regulatory Notice 21-18. Proactive measures such as layered authentication, prompt fraud detection, and internal training are not only key to protecting client assets but also crucial for safeguarding the integrity and reputation of the securities industry as a whole.

If your securities firm allowed criminals to access your account without authorization causing losses or unauthorized withdrawals or wires, please contact the Securities Fraud Lawyers at Greco & Greco for a free consultation with one of our attorneys about your claims and possible recourse against your brokerage firm. We also recommend reading our blog post regarding our successful recovery in FINRA arbitration of losses, interest, and attorney’s fees for our client against Interactive Brokers in an unauthorized access and withdrawal case.

A. Alleged Violations of Whistleblower Protections

The core issue in this matter revolves around the Respondents’ alleged violations of whistleblower protections under Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a). According to the SEC, during the period from May 2021 to February 2024 (the “Relevant Period”), the Respondents asked eleven clients to sign confidentiality agreements linked to compensatory payments for losses in their investment accounts. These agreements included provisions that obstructed the clients from reporting potential securities law violations to the SEC or other regulatory authorities. The confidentiality agreements contained clauses that not only restricted clients from disclosing information about the disputes or payments but also imposed conditions that clients would only be able to report violations if initiated by the regulators. This effectively impeded clients from voluntarily communicating with the SEC about potential violations.

B. Regulatory framework.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 introduced Section 21F into the Exchange Act, which aimed to bolster whistleblower protections by offering financial incentives and confidentiality protections. Rule 21F-17, effective from August 12, 2011, specifically prohibits any actions that obstruct individuals from reporting potential securities law violations directly to the SEC, including enforcing confidentiality agreements that restrict such reporting.

C. Details of the Agreements and Alleged Violations

The Respondents utilized two main templates for their confidentiality agreements: the “Agreement” and the “Agreement and Release”. According to the SEC, both templates contained provisions that violated Rule 21F-17(a). Key problematic clauses included:

One paragraph restricted clients from discussing the terms of the agreement or the underlying dispute, even in response to inquiries from regulators, unless those inquiries were unsolicited and did not result from any action by the client.
Another paragraph required clients to affirm that they had not previously reported the dispute to any regulatory authority and pledged to refrain from doing so in the future. It also contained provisions providing only a limited carve-out for responding to unsolicited inquiries, thereby creating a reasonable impression that clients were discouraged from voluntarily reporting potential violations to regulators.
The confidentiality agreements created significant barriers for clients who might otherwise report securities law violations. The restrictive clauses not only limited the clients’ ability to report violations voluntarily but also imposed a misleading impression that reporting to the SEC was only permissible if initiated by the SEC itself.

D. Penalties Imposed

The SEC has imposed the following sanctions on the Respondents:

NPA Asset Management, LLC: A civil monetary penalty of $160,000.
Nationwide Planning Associates, Inc.: A civil monetary penalty of $70,000.
Blue Point Strategic Wealth Management, LLC: A civil monetary penalty of $10,000.
The SEC’s order further requires the Respondents to cease and desist from future violations of Rule 21F-17(a) and the Respondents to be censured.

E. Conclusion

The sanctions reflect the SEC’s emphasis on enforcing whistleblower protections ensuring that entities do not obstruct the reporting of securities law violations, and punishing securities firms for whistleblower violations. If you are aware of significant violations of securities laws or industry rules by a FINRA Broker-Dealer firm or a Registered Investment Advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free securities fraud attorney consultation about the issues and any potential case or whistleblower action.

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.

FINRA securities brokerage firms such as Interactive Brokers have various duties under FINRA Rules and federal law to safeguard customer assets and guard against money laundering.

The U.S. Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) is set out in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5311 – 5330. Securities Broker-Dealers such as IB are defined as a “financial institution” under the BSA. 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5312(a)(2).  “Money Laundering” is defined in 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5340 as “the movement of illicit cash or cash equivalent proceeds into, out of, or through the United States, or into, out of, or through United States financial institutions…”
The fraudulent theft of customer monies through unauthorized withdrawals/transfers by ACH or wire meets the definition of “money laundering” because it involves the movement of illicit cash through and out of United States financial institutions.
The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial institutions such as IB to develop and institute internal policies, procedures, and controls to “guard against” money laundering. Specifically, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 5318(h) requires:

“(h) Anti-Money Laundering Programs.—
(1) In general.—In order to guard against money laundering through financial institutions, each financial institution shall establish anti-money laundering programs, including, at a minimum—
(A) the development of internal policies, procedures, and controls;
(B) the designation of a compliance officer;
(C) an ongoing employee training program; and
(D) an independent audit function to test programs.”

FINRA Rules require IB and other member securities firms to comply with the BSA and associated regulations, and implement appropriate policies and procedures. Specifically, FINRA Rule 3310 states: “Each member shall develop and implement a written anti-money laundering program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the member’s compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (31 U.S.C. 5311, et seq.), and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of the Treasury.” FINRA Notice to Members 02-21 also advised broker-dealers “to look for signs of suspicious activity that suggest money laundering” – or, “red flags” – and if they detect “red flags,” to “perform additional due diligence.”

Interactive Brokers was censured and fined $15,000,000.00 by FINRA in 2020 in a letter of Acceptance, Waiver, and Consent (AWC) for “deficient” Anti-Money Laundering procedures and procedures/supervision relating to money transfers. IB’s documented failures therein included the same situation as the arbitration above – “[IB] did not reasonably surveil for AML purposes outgoing wire transfers identified as “first-party” transfers (i.e., transfers where the recipient was the customer itself), because the Firm accepted customers’ designations that they were first-party wire transfers, even when the Firm learned that some purportedly “first-party” wires were, in fact, third-party wires.”

Greco & Greco has been representing harmed investors against their securities brokerage firms for over twenty-five years. If your investment firm has transferred monies from your account to criminals or scammers without your knowledge or consent, please contact Virginia Securities Fraud Lawyer Scott Greco for a free consultation about your potential case.

According to FINRA’s Brokercheck report, Mr. Trimber was terminated by Wells Fargo in February 2024 for the following reason: “Financial Advisor discharged after he admitted during review to making unauthorized transfers of client funds to recipients outside of the Firm.”

Financial Advisors occupy positions of trust and access to accounts that unfortunately can result in the theft of customer funds. In such situations, the brokerage firms for which the advisor is registered also bear responsibility for their advisors’ criminal actions, and also can be found liable for failures to supervise the wrongful activity.

The Virginia Securities Fraud Lawyers of Greco & Greco have been representing the interests of wronged customers in Virginia and across the country for over thirty years. These cases, many of which end up in FINRA arbitration, have often involved the fraudulent theft of funds by trusted financial advisors and brokers. If you believe you may have been victimized by your advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

FINRA states “Pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(h) and in accordance with FINRA’s Notice of Suspension and Suspension from Association letters dated June 2, 2023, and June 26, 2023, respectively, on September 5, 2023, Wilhelm is barred from association with any FINRA member firm in all capacities. Wilhelm failed to request termination of his suspension within three months of the date of the Notice of Suspension; therefore he is automatically barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities.”

The Virginia-based securities fraud lawyers at Greco & Greco have been representing wronged customers of financial advisors for decades, including many clients from southwest Virginia including Roanoke. We have extensive experience for cases of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, churning, broker theft, false statements, unsuitable recommendations, and unauthorized trading. If you believe you may have been victimized by your investment advisor, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation.

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.

Background: LPL Financial LLC

LPL Financial LLC, a long-standing member of FINRA since 1973, operates as a significant player in the securities industry and is one of the larger “independent” FINRA firms. Headquartered in Fort Mill, South Carolina, LPL boasts a considerable network, with over 27,000 registered representatives across more than 18,000 branch offices. Most advisors who are registered with independent firms operate out of small one or two advisor offices. Although independent firms have the same supervisory duties and more traditional firms with big branch offices, proper supervision does not always occur.

Overview of Allegations

The allegations against LPL Financial LLC span a significant timeframe, from January 2012 to November 2022. Among the key alleged violations cited by FINRA include the firm’s failure to reasonably supervise transactions conducted directly with product sponsors on behalf of customers. This lack of oversight led to approximately 830,000 transactions not being reported, raising concerns about potential sales practice violations and unsuitable recommendations.

Moreover, LPL’s shortcomings extended to inaccurate information provided to customers regarding switch transactions, where approximately 11,300 letters were found to contain misleading fee information. This negligence in supervision and communication not only violated FINRA rules but also compromised the interests of customers.

Furthermore, the firm failed to establish a proper supervisory system for recommendations involving publicly traded securities of business development companies (BDCs which are considered “alternative” investments), leading to potential overconcentration in Listed BDC investments for certain customers. The AWC stated: “LPL also failed to have a reasonable supervisory system to ensure the collection of information for its direct business customers’ investment profiles—such as the customers’ ages, investment time horizons, and liquidity needs—that was relevant for making suitability determinations. LPL relied on its representatives to collect such information by completing new account forms for direct business transactions. However, the firm did not take steps to ensure that representatives completed the new account forms.”

Consequences and Sanctions

In response to these violations, LPL Financial LLC has consented to several sanctions imposed by FINRA, including a censure, a substantial fine of $5.5 million, and restitution totaling $651,374.51 plus interest. Additionally, the firm is required to undertake remedial actions within a specified timeframe to address the identified issues and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.

Contact a Securities Fraud Lawyer if you may have a claim.

If you think you may have a potential claim for unsuitable investments or failure to supervise against a financial advisory firm such as LPL, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

The alleged wrongdoing centered on the language included by J.P. Morgan in its settlement agreements with its advisory and brokerage firm customers to which it paid over $1,000.00. Virtually all FINRA securities firms and Registered Investment Advisors require a confidentiality clause to be included in any settlement agreement with a customer. These settlement agreements are often the result of various misconduct by the firms or their advisors, such as securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unauthorized trading, broker theft, recommended unsuitable investments, and churning. The reason why securities firms always require their settlements to be confidential is clear – they wish to hide their misconduct and the misconduct of their advisors from the public. FINRA’s Brokercheck report does require firms to disclose settlements with advisors/firms, but the details are often extremely general, and one has to look up the broker directly to find the disclosures.

According to the SEC Order, from 2020 to 2023 J.P. Morgan included language in 362 release agreements that prohibited customers not only from disclosing the amount of the settlement to the SEC, but also prohibited disclosing the facts related to the account (i.e. the misconduct). Although the releases did allow disclosure to the SEC in response to an inquiry, it did not allow the customers to initiate contact with the SEC.

These actions allegedly violated the SEC protections for securities whistleblowers, and as stated by the SEC in the Order: “JPMS willfully violated Exchange Act Rule 21F-17(a), which prohibits any person from taking any action to impede an individual from communicating directly with the Commission staff about a possible securities law violation.”

In addition to the fine, J.P.Morgan was required to advise its customers that they were allowed to contact the SEC directly.

If you were the victim of misconduct of a securities brokerage firm or financial advisor/broker resulting in the loss of your monies, please contact investment fraud attorney Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case.

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.

Mr. Quach was allegedly under investigation by FINRA as a result of being permitted to resign “while under review by the firm for violating firm’s policy related to borrowing funds from a client.” Mr. Quach’s FINRA Brokercheck report states that he was registered with Transamerica since 2012. The report further states that he had one recent customer complaint relating to borrowed funds that settled, and that he was permitted to resign in March, 2023.

Registered financial advisors are generally prohibited from borrowing money from customers under FINRA Rule 3240 except in limited circumstances such as from a family member or other personal relationship. The loan must also be disclosed and approved by the advisor’s firm.

The reasons behind the rule include the myriad of conflicts of interest associated with an advisor recommending to a customer that they pay the advisor their funds, and further include the fact that such loans can be cover for thefts by financial advisors.

The Maryland Securities Fraud attorneys at Greco & Greco have decades of experience representing customers who have been defrauded by their financial advisors through loan schemes or actual thefts. Please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation if you may have been a victim of such a scheme.

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

According to the SEC Order, between February 2017 and August 2021, BAM, under Bruderman’s direction, persuaded at least thirteen investment advisory clients to invest substantial amounts totaling $6.1 million in entities where Bruderman had significant ownership and decision-making authority. Shockingly, these clients were not informed that their investments would temporarily be diverted to cover expenses unrelated to their intended investments or to repay loans made by Bruderman himself.

One particularly concerning example involved a $500,000 equity investment, where $400,000 was transferred to Bruderman’s personal bank account to repay a loan owed by one of the entities. The clients invested based on BAM’s advice, unaware of the temporary diversion of their funds. Despite BAM’s written policies requiring disclosure of material conflicts of interest, these conflicts remained undisclosed, leaving clients in the dark about the use of their investments.

The SEC found BAM and Bruderman in violation of the Advisers Act, specifically Sections 206(2) and 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-7. As part of the settlement, BAM and Bruderman have voluntarily repaid certain debts to investment advisory clients, totaling $1,650,000, and further were required to pay a $250,000 civil penalty.

This SEC order serves as a stern reminder of the regulatory responsibilities that investment advisers bear towards their clients. Misuse of customer funds and failure to disclose conflicts of interest are serious violations that can result in substantial penalties. Greco & Greco’s securities fraud lawyers have decades of experience seeking recovery of customer losses resulting from misconduct and fraud by investment advisory firms. If you believe you may be a victim of similar conduct, please contact Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your case.

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.