Wall Street Compliance Professionals Need FINRA Like A Heart AttackFormer Chase Bank Teller Charged With Bank Fraud For Targeting Older Adult Victim (DOJ Release)SEC Obtains Final Judgement Against Connecticut Investment Adviser Who Misappropriated Funds from Clients (SEC Release)The Trust, The Beneficiary, The Annuity, The Elderly Customer, and The Stockbroker (BrokeAndBroker.com Blog)
[I]n August 2016, while working as a teller at the Chase Bank located at 3300 E. Jefferson Ave. in Detroit, Hardy defrauded a victim's account of at least $32,000 in a single withdrawal. The victim in this case was over 90 years old at the time of the fraud. To date, the victim, has received no compensation for the money taken from his account.
[F]rom November 2018 to November 2019, Thomas was employed as a Call Center Representative for an insurance company with an office in Cleveland, Ohio, tasked with speaking to clients and their agents regarding annuities, updating client bank account information and processing withdrawal transactions.During this time, Thomas devised a scam to defraud three elderly victims by transferring money from his victim's annuities into his personal bank accounts. Court documents state that Victim 1 was an 84-year-old woman in Avon, Connecticut; Victim 2, an 83-year woman with dementia in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Victim 3, a 96-year-old woman and a resident of Metairie, Louisiana, were all victims of the scheme to defraud.Victim 1, Victim 2's power of attorney and Victim 3 all called Thomas to inquire about a policy-related matter. Thomas spoke to all of the victims or their agents and had access to their accounts.Thomas would then use the company's computer system to make unauthorized transfers from the annuities of Victim 1, Victim 2 and Victim 3 into his personal bank accounts. As a result of the unauthorized transfers, Victim 1, Victim 2 and Victim 3 suffered a total loss of approximately $62,600.
traded in advance of two negative announcements by Regado Biosciences, Inc. in the summer of 2014. In June 2014, Kosinski, who served as principal investigator of a drug trial sponsored by Regado, learned that patient enrollment in the trial was being suspended because patients had experienced severe allergic reactions. He sold all 40,000 shares of his Regado stock the following day to avoid approximately $160,000 in losses when the news became public and the stock price dropped. A month later, Kosinski learned that enrollment in the trial was going to be halted because a patient had died, and used this information to make approximately $3,000 by trading options, betting that Regado's stock price would drop when the news was made public.
On April 21, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entered a final judgment by consent against Burroughs. Pursuant to the final judgment, Burroughs, without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC's complaint, was permanently enjoined from violating the antifraud provisions of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The judgment against Burroughs also orders him to pay disgorgement of $560,000. The disgorgement order is deemed satisfied by the criminal restitution order.The Commission previously issued an order barring Burroughs from associating with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal adviser, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization, as well as participating in the offering of a penny stock.
In March 2011, Hakimian borrowed $120,000 from an LPL customer with whom he had a close friendship. Hakimian signed a loan agreement and agreed to pay 10 percent interest per year, with the note to be repaid within two years. The loan was then extended and restructured several times. In 2019, Hakimian fully repaid the loan. LPL's policies prohibited its registered representatives from borrowing money from customers except in certain limited circumstances, none of which applied to the loan Hakimian received from the customer. The firm's policies also required its registered representatives to receive approval prior to borrowing money from customers. At no time did Hakimian seek or receive approval from LPL to enter into the loan agreement.In addition, in eight separate annual compliance questionnaires from 2011 to 2018, Hakimian falsely represented that he had not borrowed money from another individual or entity. The firm only learned of the loan after the customer complained.