Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
CASES OF NOTE
2009
NOTE: Stipulations of Fact and Consent to Penalty (SFC); Offers of Settlement (OS); and Letters of Acceptance Waiver, and Consent (AWC) are entered into by Respondents without admitting or denying the allegations, but consent is given to the described sanctions & to the entry of findings. Additionally, for AWCs, if FINRA has reason to believe a violation has occurred and the member or associated person does not dispute the violation, FINRA may prepare and request that the member or associated person execute a letter accepting a finding of violation, consenting to the imposition of sanctions, and agreeing to waive such member's or associated person's right to a hearing before a hearing panel, and any right of appeal to the National Adjudicatory Council, the SEC, and the courts, or to otherwise challenge the validity of the letter, if the letter is accepted. The letter shall describe the act or practice engaged in or omitted, the rule, regulation, or statutory provision violated, and the sanction or sanctions to be imposed.
November 2009 - View all for this month
Jeffrey Robert Unruh
AWC/2008014322401
Unruh forged a customer’s signature on an acknowledgment form. After flagging the order for shares of a bond fund because they did not match the primary investment objective on the new customer’s profile form, Unruh’s member firm instructed him to obtain a signed letter from the customer acknowledging that she understood that the bond fund that Unruh recommended was contrary to her conservative risk and capital preservation investment objectives specified in her new account documents. Instead of obtaining the requested acknowledgement letter from his customer, Unruh drafted a letter, signed his customer’s name and submitted it to his member firm. Unruh offered a false explanation in response to a FINRA request for information.
Jeffrey Robert Unruh: Fined $10,000; Suspended 18 months
Tags: Forgery  
Bill Singer's Comment

Sometimes a sanction that strikes me as less than called for given the allegations is the result of excellent lawyering -- and other times it's merely part of the game-playing by regulators to make their case seem far worse than it actually was.  Unfortunately for those of us trying to divine the signs, we rarely have sufficient information to decide which of the two situations resulted in the sanctions imposed.

In Unruh, I'm puzzled as to exactly what an RR has to do these days to warrant a multi-year suspension or bar.  Here we have an RR who fabricated a letter, forged his customer's name thereto, handed the falsified record to his firm, and then "offered a false explanation" to FINRA.  Frankly, silly me, but what the hell is the difference between offering a false explanation to a regulator and lying to a regulator?  And for all this subterfuge, the sanction is a lousy $10,000 and 18 months?  Wow, talk about regulatory inconsistency!

Enforcement Actions
Search in Cases of Note : FINRA
Months
 
Cases of Note : FINRA Archive
Tags