New York Securities Fraud Lawyers Blog

The DOJ Announces Largest Elder Fraud Sweep After Reports of Increasing Elder Financial Exploitation

March 8, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

The Department of Justice coordinated the largest elder fraud sweep by filing cases and consumer actions related to financial scams targeting or disproportionately affecting seniors nationwide. In their announcement yesterday, the DOJ claimed that their civil, as well as criminal actions, filed with the support of law enforcement, involve claims of three-fourths of a billion in monetary losses and millions of alleged victims. Elder financial exploitation, the illegal misappropriation of an old person’s funds, is destroying millions of lives. News of the DOJ elder fraud sweep comes a month after the Consumer Financial Bureau released a report with data indicating an increase in reported incidences involving elder financial exploitation. While the reported elder financial exploitation prevalence might shock some, our investor fraud lawyers are very familiar with this growing epidemic.

Elder financial fraud manifests in many ways through a variety of scam artists from Ponzi Scheme perpetrators to relatives. The DOJ’s recent prosecution focus is tech support fraud, which is the most commonly reported fraud that the elderly reported to the Consumer Sentinel Network. Other types of popular financial scams affecting seniors are investment schemes, identity theft, internet phishing, grandparent scam, lottery scams and more, according to the National Adult Protective Services Association. Additionally, older individuals lose their life savings, investments or retirement money from unscrupulous brokers or financial advisors. Seniors get conned into making inappropriate investments because of their greater tendency to trust financial professionals. Worst of all, seniors defrauded at broker-dealers do not have the time to remake money earned throughout their lifetime.

The Consumer Financial Bureau analyzed data from Suspicious Activity Reports filed between April 2013 and December 2017 to shed more awareness on the issues of elder financial exploitation. Broker-dealers and other financial institutions file suspicious activity reports with the U.S Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in compliance with the federal Bank Secrecy Act. The study found that suspicious activity reports referencing financial exploitation quadrupled within these few years. In 2017, the financial institutions reported $1.7 billion in 63,500 suspicious activities reports. The average loss indicated on elder financial exploitation suspicious activities reports was $34,200, but that amount varied depending on the type of account, specific age group, and other factors.

FINRA Broker Charged for Churning Multiple Accounts, Even on the Day of a Customer’s Death

February 28, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Formerly registered broker James Bradly Schwartz is facing charges in a FINRA disciplinary proceeding for allegedly churning customers’ accounts while a registered broker employed with Aegis Capital Corp between August 2014 and May 2016. In this quite brief period, Schwartz allegedly executed around 535 trades in these customer accounts, many of which were unauthorized. The FINRA complaint alleges that Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder as well as FINRA rules 2010, 2011 and 2020. His alleged victims include a married couple, engineer, estate executer and a deceased individual. It is alleged that Schwartz even made unauthorized and excessive trades while one of the victims was dying in the hospital. Our securities law team is appalled to hear that possibly two unauthorized transactions were made in this customer’s account less than an hour after he passed away.

Churning is a fraudulent activity in which the broker makes excessive trades in light of the customer’s investment objectives. Common signs of churning in investment accounts are high broker commissions and significant investor losses. While Mr. Schwartz’s customers allegedly lost at least $660,000, Schwartz is reported as having pocketed over $194,000 sales credits and commissions, with annualized turnover rates ranged from 19.9 to 54.7 and annualized cost-to-equity ratios between 87% and 120%. These percentages are above average for their proclaimed non-speculative investment objectives. In an alleged effort to conceal his purported nefarious activities, Schwartz allegedly traded on a riskless principal basis. Trading on a reckless principal basis does not explicitly report the commission costs on customer’s account statements. Our securities attorneys believe that if such measures to hide his activity is true, Schwartz most likely acted with intent to defraud, which fulfilling the churning legal requirement of “scienter”.

This current FINRA disciplinary proceeding is not the first time that Schwartz has been accused of fraudulent activity. In his 18 years in the securities industry, Schwartz accumulated 12 disclosures on his official CRD records, publicly available on Broker Check. Each of the nine customer disputes mentioned on Schwartz’s BrokerCheck reference at least one allegation pertaining to unsuitability, unauthorized trading, or churning. Our New York securities attorneys encourage investors to think twice before working with brokers that have that many negative disclosures mentioned on their records. Even before Schwartz was a registered representative with Aegis Capital Corp for three years in June 2013, he procured a seemingly shady record that should have raised many flags. It is a matter of grave concern that Schwartz may have continued to gain new employment after so many customers made some of the same allegations.

Top Signs of a Ponzi Scheme and How to Respond

February 21, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

A Ponzi Scheme is a type of investment fraud that pays purported “returns” to current investors from proceeds received from new investors, rather than through genuine investments. Once the fraudster stops receiving new money or investors request too much of their money back, the Ponzi Scheme falls apart. The term for Ponzi Scheme is from a famous 1920s con man, Charles Ponzi who redistributed investor funds for international reply coupons to himself and other investors. More recently, thousands of investors, many of whom were elderly lost their money in a billion-dollar Ponzi Scheme perpetrated by the Robert Shapiro Woodbridge Group. Not all Ponzi Schemes are as large and notorious as that committed by Bernie Madoff. Many more Ponzi Schemes happen on a much smaller basis and go undetected.

Malecki Law has handled numerous Ponzi cases: McGinn Smith, Robert Van Zandt, Hector May, Illume, and Steven Pagartanis, just to name a few. We are available to review your situation at no cost. Catching these things early inures to your benefit. Investors can fight to recoup their losses from a Ponzi Scheme committed under a FINRA registered firm through arbitration.

Our securities fraud law team aims to equip investors with the knowledge to spot not only Ponzi Schemes but other fraudulent investment opportunities as well. Everyone should be aware of the following signs that could indicate a Ponzi Scheme.

How Do I Recover My Investment Losses in FINRA Arbitration?

February 15, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Arbitration is a formal alternative to courtroom litigation for resolving issues with neutral third party “arbitrators” issuing a binding decision after the litigants present their facts and argument. Compared to the usual courtroom procedures, arbitration is a faster, affordable and less formal legal proceeding. FINRA, a self-regulatory-agency for the securities industry, controls the largest, most prominent arbitration forum for securities disputes. A full FINRA arbitration proceeding from initiation through hearing can take on average 16 months, but cases often are settled before the end. Sick or elderly claimants may request an expedited arbitration process within nine months.

There is a wide range of reasons that investors might want to make a legal claim against their broker-dealer and broker firm. When opening an account with brokerage firms, investors sign a contract that often contains a clause that makes handling disputes through FINRA arbitration mandatory. Notably, investors are bound to arbitrate their securities claim after the Supreme Court upheld binding arbitration provisions in Shearson/American Express Inc. v. McMahon. FINRA registered broker-dealers, and registered representatives are similarly obligated to handle disputes arising through their employment in FINRA arbitration.

The FINRA arbitration process commences when the plaintiff, known as the claimant, submits a statement of claim, outlining the case’s relevant facts, dates, names of involved parties, type of relief requested and name of accused parties. The statement of claim must be filed within the allotted time, which is within six years after the dispute. Compared with a courtroom complaint, a statement of claim is less formal and usually a more detailed account of the background story. In addition to the statement of claim, the claimant needs to pay fees and submit a Submission Agreement. The fees owed for filing a FINRA arbitration claim are based off the sought remedies, hearing sessions, discovery motions and postponement fees. Fortunately, some individuals with financial difficulties can request a fee waiver.

FINRA’s 2019 Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter

January 31, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Financial professionals handling compliance keep abreast with changes in the regulatory landscape to effectively allocate resources. At the start of each year, regulatory agencies Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and the Securities and Exchange Commission publish their priorities. FINRA’s recently released Risk Monitoring and Examination Priorities Letter states emerging issues as well as ongoing concerns for the upcoming year. In an introductory note, Robert Cook explains that this year’s letter more broadly relays FINRA’s priorities for risk monitoring with a more pronounced focus on new issues. Firms can use the information contained within this letter to ensure that their compliance, supervisory and risk management programs reach FINRA’s standards. Distinct from earlier times, the FINRA letter focuses on explaining new issues and risk analysis.

The main new issues on the regulatory agency’s radar are the firm’s involvement with online distribution platforms, fixed income mark-up disclosure, and regulatory technology. Specifically, FINRA is concerned with how firms meet AML requirements, supervise communications with the public and conduct suitability analysis when involved with the distribution of securities on online distribution platforms. FINRA plans to evaluate the risks of excessive or undisclosed compensation arrangements between firms and issuers for offerings exempt from registration under Regulation A. Furthermore, FINRA intends to assess how firms handle risks with sales of offerings under Regulation D to non-accredited investors. FINRA expects firms to follow FINRA rule 2232 and MSRB Rule G-15 to comply with mark-up or mark-down disclosure obligations on fixed income transactions. As more firms use regulatory technology for compliance, FINRA plans to examine the efficiency and risks involved.

While this year’s letter pays more mind to new issues, FINRA briefly restates ongoing problems that have already been named as top priorities. Notably, FINRA mentions suitability determinations, outside businesses activities, and private securities transactions; private placements; data quality and governance; communications with the public; trade and order reporting; anti-money laundering (AML); net capital and consumer protection; best execution; fraud; insider trading and market manipulation; record keeping, risk management and supervision related to these and other areas. As per usual, FINRA will be mindful of how firms supervise and respond to associated persons with flawed disciplinary records. In the rest of the letter, FINRA categorizes the other concerns into sales practice risks, operational risks, market risks, and financial risks.

How Do I Know If My Broker Diversified My Portfolio?

January 28, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Investors nationwide have been on edge after the worst annual stock market performance in a decade. China trade war tensions, rising interest rates, and the partial government shutdown have caused more volatility. With these recent swings in the stock market, some investors may notice corroborating shifts in their investment portfolio. Even in volatile markets, significant losses in a conservative or moderative portfolio should raise serious concern. Nearly all investors should have a diversified investment portfolio for protection from long-term losses. Diversification is a capital-preserving risk management method that calls for an investment portfolio to carry a variety of investments within different asset classes, countries, sectors, and companies.

Diversification is essential because correlated securities within the same asset class, sector, and country will tend to follow similar patterns. Meanwhile, selecting securities from different areas will reduce such resulting risk. Investment portfolios should not only include investments that differ by asset class. For example, holding many different investments tied to just the real estate sector is not a diversified portfolio. Common sectors include financial, healthcare, energy, energy, utilities, technology, consumer staples, industrials, materials, real estate, telecommunications, and consumer discretionary. Within each of these sectors, there are many excellent choices.

An investment strategy that includes diversification will, on average, yield higher returns and lower risk than a singular holding. A diversified investment portfolio has a cumulative lower variance in return or risk than its lowest asset. In a properly diversified portfolio, the decline of a few of your holdings should be countered by the state of other unaffected holdings. On the other hand, heavy concentration in one investment will leave your portfolio’s increase or decline entirely dependent on fewer factors. For instance, investing all of your money into one stock in a company that goes under will result in the loss of all your money. Ownership of more types of shares over a long time has tended to produce around 5%-8% in returns historically.

Insurance Churning: Beware When Your Broker Recommends Replacing Your Variable Annuity Policy

January 23, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

We have previously written on the concept of “churning,” which is a fraud perpetrated by brokers who buy and sell securities for the primary purpose of generating a commission, and where that activity would be considered excessive in light of the investor’s investment goals. But is it possible to have a churning claim when a broker sells you an insurance product or recommends swapping out one variable annuity policy for another? And can a single transaction be considered “excessive” in the context of a churning claim? The answer to both of these questions is yes.

The law appears to provide an opening for churning claims when it comes to investors, and in particular retirees, who find themselves “stuck” with an illiquid annuity in their portfolio. Retirees, who tend to need access to capital more than other segments of the population (due to not working and the increased medical costs associated with getting sick and old), are often sold unsuitable variable annuities, which can tie up retirement funds for decades. Technically the investor can get of the policy, but not without paying significant IRS tax penalties and steep surrender charges, sometimes as high as 10% to 15%. Sadly, these costs and product features are often misrepresented and go undisclosed at the point of sale.

While not all annuities are considered securities under the law, variable annuities certainly are securities. The SEC requires the seller of a variable annuity to possess a Series 6 or 7 brokerage license with the Financial Industry and Regulatory Authority (FINRA). Variable annuities can be distinguished from fixed annuities in that their returns are not fixed, but rather determined by the performance of the stock market. One characteristic of a variable annuity policy is that you get to choose a fund to invest in, much like you would with a mutual fund. Variable annuities are highly complex investment products. They are also costly to investors, in part because of the high commissions they generate for the brokers who sell them. Regardless of whether you were sold a variable annuity or some other type, it should be noted that FINRA requires its member brokerage firms to monitor all products sold by their brokers.

The Government Shutdown Stalls the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Enforcement Activity After Impressive 2018 Achievements

January 18, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

The current ongoing federal government shutdown adversely affects the Securities and Exchange Commission with a “very limited number of staff members available” to carry out the agency’s tasks. The SEC handles the enforcement of federal securities laws through overseeing approximately $90 trillion in annual securities trading as well as the activities of over 27,0000 registered entities and self-regulatory organizations. The SEC’s Division of Enforcement investigates into potential securities laws or regulatory violations and recommends any required action against perpetrators. Now, the SEC is reportedly operating at 5.8% and the enforcement division at 8% of capacity. In fact, the Division will take months after the shutdown ends to recover, according to the SEC’s Office of Internet Enforcement’s chief, John Stark. The constraints posed by the government shutdown come after the SEC’s outstanding enforcement and accomplishments in 2018, posted in their second annual report.

Starting with the first 2017 report, the Division assesses the performance of their fiscal year with five core principles in mind. These Division of Enforcement’s five principles are a focus on the Main Street Investor; individual accountability; keep pace with technological change; impose remedies that most effectively further enforcement goals; and continuously assess the allocation of resources. Based on their assessment, SEC’s codirectors Stephanie Avakin and Steven Peikin described the Division of Enforcement’s efforts this year as a “great success”. In evaluating their effectiveness, the Division’s assessment focuses more on the “nature, quality, and effects” of their enforcement actions, rather than just the quantitative metrics.

Nonetheless, the Division did accomplish impressive numeric feats as well despite the constraints of a hiring freeze and the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Kovesh v. SEC. The Division has investigated and recommended hundreds of cases alleging misconduct, leading to $794 million returned to harmed investors. Compared to the prior year, the SEC filed more enforcement actions (821) with higher numbers for stand alones (490), follow-on admin proceedings (210) and delinquent filings (121) in 2018. The most common stand-alone enforcement actions involved securities offerings, investment advisors, and issuer reporting as well as disclosure. Despite Kovesh v. SEC limiting the window of time for collecting, the SEC ordered around $2.5 million in disgorgement and another $1.5 million in penalties.

Barclay PLC Fined After CEO Allegedly Tried to Find Anonymous Whistleblower’s Identity

January 8, 2019 | Malecki Law Team

Securities employees who decide to report covert unjust employer practices to other individuals are oftentimes taking a huge personal risk for public betterment. Without legal protection, these whistleblowers could end up facing termination, workplace harassment, and other retaliation. While various federal, state, and common laws exist to provide anonymity and other protections to whistleblowers, violations are not completely unprecedented. Perhaps unsurprisingly, some employers might still try to take illegal measures to find and persecute whistleblowers without regard for the rules. Fortunately, certain federal and state laws exist to also provide whistleblowers with justice because of the infringement of their rights.

Recently, New York state regulators ordered that Barclay PLC, as well as its New York branch, pay a $15 million fine for their “shortcomings in governance, controls and corporate culture” in handling a whistleblower matter. Barclay PLC’s chief executive officer, Jeff Staley allegedly tried to uncover the identity of an anonymous employee whistleblower. A New York Department of Financial Services probe uncovered that Barclay PLC’s handling of Staley’s situation potentially compromised its whistleblower program. As an additional caveat of the settlement, Barclays will submit a detailed written plan to ensure the implementation of the whistleblowing program as well as improve the board’s oversight going forward. Big banks, such as Barclay PLC are required to have a strong program in place to protect their employees.

The alleged violation ensued when Mr. Staley requested the head of Barclay PLC group security uncover the identity of the whistleblower author of two letters circling around the bank. The purported letters criticized Barclay PLC’s management, Mr. Staley and a newly hired employee, Tim Main. As repeated, Mr. Staley claims to have needed the identity of the letter writer to protect Tim Main from “personal attack”. The group chief compliance officer, general counsel and other bank officials had advised Mr. Staley to steer clear from his inquiries into the whistleblower. Yet, Mr. Staley claimed to have not been aware that unmasking a whistleblower was even against the law, according to news sources. Our whistleblowers find it puzzling how a highly ranked bank official could not understand nor respect the sanctity of whistleblower identity protections.

What is the Difference Between a SEC Subpoena and a FINRA 8210 Request?

December 12, 2018 | Malecki Law Team

At some point in their careers, many financial professionals will find themselves on the receiving end of a subpoena from Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or a Financial Industry National Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) 8210 Request. The receipt of such documents signifies the regulatory or self-regulatory agencies’ request for information and/or documents in relation to an investigation of a potential securities laws violation. While the Securities and Exchange Commission will formally issue a subpoena, FINRA sends parties the equivalent inquiry letter, often referred to as an “8210 Request.” Both entities can request the receipt of a wide range of information and a high number of documents within a short amount of time. Furthermore, recipients who do choose not to respond to these critical requests honestly could ruin their careers and lives. While the SEC subpoena and FINRA 8210 request may share some similarities, and as we have explained in this space before, there are many differences based on the powers allotted to the respective regulatory agencies.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is a federal government regulatory agency entrusted to develop national regulations and enforce federal laws. Upon reasonable suspicion of securities laws violations, the SEC can issue a subpoena to anyone. Meanwhile, FINRA is not an official government entity, but rather the security industry’s self-regulated membership organization. FINRA has the authority to request documents, information, and testimony from those under its’ jurisdiction in a FINRA 8210 letter. Both the SEC and FINRA run a similar on-the-record “OTR” interview, with the option of an attorney present in the event of a testimony request. However, the SEC offers more response flexibility, protections under the Fifth Amendment and investigation information access in comparison with FINRA.

In the face of a potential securities law violation, the SEC will often send subpoenas to the targets as well as any potential witnesses with information. A SEC subpoena can demand documents (duces tecum) or oral testimony (ad testifcandum) without including context. The SEC can start an investigation by presenting their suspicions in a formal order of investigation. Chiefly, a former SEC Enforcement attorney, John Reed Stalk alleges that there is a “low standard” of cause needed for approved subpoena issuance. The formal order of investigation mainly contains information regarding the scope and possible subjects of the investigation. Subpoenaed parties and their attorneys can request the order.