I hope that you have had the chance to enjoy Jessica Hopper’s paean to Rule 8210 in her recent blog posted on FINRA’s website. Very disturbing, and for all the old reasons.
First, once again, she starts by patting herself – well, not just herself, I guess, but Enforcement generally – on the back for…
Thanks to Blaine not only for attending this conference, but for actually listening, so he could share with you the insights he gleaned from the local securities regulators here in Chicago. – Alan
While much of the broker-dealer world has been trying to figure out how to protect the financial welfare of their customers, in…
I may have said this before in another post, but in my opinion, whether a baseball umpire is good or bad is not a matter of whether he has a low strikezone, a high strikezone, or a wide one. What matters is that whatever that umpire deems to be a strike vs. a ball is…
Let’s take a step back from Covid-19 news, for a moment, which, rightfully, has dominated the news and everyone’s collective conscience, and focus on something that has been pervasive in the broker-dealer world for much, much longer than this virus, and which has taken its own toll on the industry in terms of dollars –…
If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know that one of my pet peeves with FINRA is its unrelenting zeal to bar people, permanently, from the securities industry. Seemingly without much regard for the actual conduct at issue, or for the existence of mitigating circumstances. It is literally a running joke in…
I read with interest earlier this week that a judge in Texas conducted a one-day bench trial via Zoom, apparently representing the first time this has happened. I understand that hearings, i.e., matters that involve arguments of counsel, rather than the introduction of evidence through the examination of live witnesses, are often done over the…
The day after Christmas, FINRA issued a press release announcing that five big firms – Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, LPL, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch – had each entered into a settlement, collectively agreeing to pay a $1.4 million fine. Their offense? They each violated FINRA’s supervisory rules because for a number of years, dating…
From time to time, I have lamented that FINRA does not hold itself to the same lofty standards to which it holds its members. I realize I am painting with a broad brush, as there are lots of folks at FINRA who do a great job, who are easy and reasonable to deal with, and…
I have written a few times about FINRA’s ceaseless interest in bringing cases against registered reps who fail to update their Form U-4 in a timely manner to disclose the fact that a tax lien has been filed against them. Or several tax liens. The problem with these cases is not so much the sanctions that FINRA imposes, as they tend to be fairly modest, e.g., a fine of $5,000 or less plus a suspension, maybe of 30 or 60 days in length. No, the problem is that FINRA often likes to characterize these failures as “willful,” which results in the registered rep being statutorily disqualified from continuing to work in the securities industry, necessitating the filing of a MC-400 application to seek FINRA’s approval to remain a registered rep notwithstanding the modest nature of the rule violation.
Well, this week, FINRA accepted a very interesting AWC from J.P. Morgan Chase, which included a $1.1 million fine, as a result of the fact that JPMC failed to update the Forms U-5 of 89 former registered representatives, over a six-year period, to disclose the fact that these RRs were the subject of an internal review concerning allegations that they had misappropriated or transmitted “proprietary Firm information,” took customer information in connection with the transfer to another broker-dealer, or violated some “investment-related banking industry standard of conduct.”[1] A repeat violation for the firm, too.…
Continue Reading It Is Not Possible To Predict When FINRA Will Charge Something As Willful. Or Is It?
What is it with big firms and fingerprints? You may recall back in October 2017, J.P. Morgan entered into an AWC with FINRA in which it agreed to pay a $1.25 million fine for the following, as described in FINRA’s press release about the case:
FINRA found that for more than eight years, J.P. Morgan did not fingerprint approximately 2,000 of its non-registered associated persons in a timely manner, preventing the firm from determining whether those persons might be disqualified from working at the firm. In addition, the firm fingerprinted other non-registered associated persons but limited its screening to criminal convictions specified in federal banking laws and an internally created list. In total, the firm did not appropriately screen 8,600 individuals for all felony convictions or for disciplinary actions by financial regulators. FINRA also found that four individuals who were subject to a statutory disqualification because of a criminal conviction were allowed to associate, or remain associated, with the firm during the relevant time period. One of the four individuals was associated with the firm for 10 years; and another for eight years.
Ok, now compare that description to this one, from a press release that FINRA issued just two days ago to announce an AWC that Citigroup entered into, and in which it, too, agreed to pay a $1.25 million fine:…
Continue Reading Big Firms Paying Big Fines: A Discussion Of Two FINRA Settlements
