Enforcement Actions
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
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.
January 2010
Timothy E. Nenoff
AWC/2008012437501/January 2010
Nenoff wrote checks from his checking account totaling $660 even though he knew that he had inadequate funds in the account to clear the checks, deposited the checks into his savings account, and withdrew most of the funds by ATM. Nenoff admitted to FINRA in writing that he engaged in check kiting, but he failed to respond to FINRA requests for information.
Timothy E. Nenoff: Barred
Tags:  Check Kiting    NSF     |    In: Cases of Note : FINRA
Bill Singer's Comment

These cases still bother me because they underscore the two-faced nature of regulation.  Okay, I get it -- this RR kited some $600 worth of checks. It's wrong. I'm not defending his conduct. 

On the other hand, when major brokerage-firms knowingly sell product to the public at a time when they know that they are essentially unloading a dump truck's worth of garbage upon unsuspecting buyers, the regulators don't see things through the same prism as the actions of little fish like Nenoff.  As I so often ask, when was the last time a major brokerage firm was expelled from FINRA because it knowingly foisted crap that it marketed as "good as cash in the bank"?

And the difference between the two results is what?

Enforcement Actions