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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vining-Sparks had filed a U-5 filing for Mr. Rodgers stating that he had voluntarily resigned from the firm in May 2022. According to the AWC, Mr. Rodgers failed to appear for related on the record testimony, and he and FINRA agreed to a sanction of a bar from registering with FINRA securities Broker-Dealers.

Mr. Rodgers’ FINRA Brokercheck report shows one customer complaint relating to an alleged failure to disclose risk from 2011, with a $105,000.00 settlement.

Greco & Greco’s lawyers have extensive experience with securities fraud cases involving outside business activities of brokers which have not been disclosed to their firms. If you have suffered losses due to your broker’s recommendation to invest in an investment that turned out to be fraudulent, and wish to discuss the matter for free with an attorney, please contact Scott Greco for a free securities fraud 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.

These investments obviously carry higher risks than if an investor just invests in a single stock, and can include similar risks to using margin to purchase more shares of a stock than you can afford with cash, or risk shorting a stock in the hope that the price declines. Additionally, similar to inverse and leveraged ETFs that are spread over a sector of stocks, these ETFs reset daily, so if they are held for more than a day the price of the ETF can diverge significantly from the price of the underlying stock.

Financial advisors should not be recommending or purchasing these types of ETFs for retail investors unless the investor understands the risks involved and can afford to take those risks. Such a recommendation should be suitable and in the best interest of the customer. If you have lost monies in a single stock ETF that you did not understand or that was not suitable for your risk tolerance, please contact W. Scott Greco for a free attorney consultation about your potential case.

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.