Financial Enforcement Actions | Week of June 13 to June 19

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Traffic Jam Events, LLC, a limited liability company, and David J. Jeansonne II, individually and as an officer of Traffic Jam Events, LLC,
Violation: Deceived consumers with mailers supposedly directing them how to obtain federal COVID-19 stimulus benefits, which instead lured them to a used car sale… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Barry John Hartwyk
Violation: From March 21, 2018 to October 15, 2018, (the “Relevant Period”), Hartwyk exercised discretion without written authorization for 208 trades in eight customer accounts, thereby violating NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Christopher R. Wurtzinger
Violation: Respondent failed to conduct a reasonable analysis into whether proposed activity of one FSI registered representative was properly characterized as an outside business activity or whether it should be treated as an outside securities activity, and also failed to document any analysis, in violation of FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Albert Dishner
Violation: Credit Suisse did not accept the accounts in writing as discretionary, and, for the trades involving option contracts, a Registered Options Principal (“OP”) or Limited Principal—General Securities Sales Supervisor (“SU”) did not accept the accounts in writing as discretionary. By reason of that conduct, Dishner violated NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rules 2360(b)(18)(A) and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: James Van Ham
Violation: In June 2018, Van Ham circumvented O.N. Equity’s supervisory procedures in an effort to effect a customer’s variable-to-fixed annuity exchange that his firm had already rejected as unsuitable, through the use of an unmonitored, unapproved personal email account, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010… Read More

Penalties: $20,000.00
Respondent: D.A. Davidson & Co.
Violation: Between September 1, 2018 and January 31, 2019 (the “Review Period”), Davidson violated FINRA Rules 6730 and 2010 by failing to report to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) 66 transactions in TRACE-eligible Agency Debt Securities within the time required by FINRA Rule 6730(a), constituting a pattern or practice of late reporting without exceptional circumstances… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Julian Jay Piekarczyk
Violation: Respondent Julian Jay Piekarczyk engaged in an unethical course of conduct by taking advantage of his relationship with a customer to benefit financially from the customer’s policies and accounts. In doing so, Piekarczyk acted contrary to representations he made to his firm, Pruco Securities, LLC (“Pruco” or the “Firm”), and in circumvention of its policies designed to protect customers… Read More

Penalties: $63,990.48
Respondent: Brian Colin Doherty
Violation: Registered representative engaged in a fraudulent, prearranged trading scheme to enable his customer, a proprietary trader at another member firm, to evade that firm’s aged-inventory policy… Read More

Penalties: $116,350.11
Respondent: Dennis A. Mehringer, Jr.
Violation: (1) Engaged in unsuitable short-term trading of mutual funds in a customer’s accounts; (2) exercised discretion in the customer’s accounts without written authorization or firm approval; (3) gave his firm false information about a charitable trust for which he served as a trustee; (4) settled a customer’s complaint without notifying his firm; and (5) falsely told his firm that he had not settled any customer complaint… Read More

Penalties: $30,000.00
Respondent: Frank Venturelli
Violation: Between July 2016 and November 2018 (the “Relevant Period”), Ventmelte excessively-traded three customers’ accounts in violation ofFINRA Rules 2111 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $241,479.00
Respondent: Harbour Investments, Inc.
Violation: Harbour invested some of its advisory clients in mutual fund share classes with 12b-1 fees when lower cost share classes of the same fund were available. In its capacity as a broker-dealer, Harbour received 12b-1 fees from some investments in these share classes, which created a conflict of interest that Harbour did not fully and fairly disclose to its advisory clients. Investing in a more expensive share class over a less expensive one in the same fund was also inconsistent with Harbour’s duty to seek best execution for its advisory clients. Based on the conduct above, the Commission found that Harbour willfully violated Sections 206(2), 206(4) and 207 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-7 thereunder… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Diane J. Harrison, Esq.
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against Diane J. Harrison (“Respondent” or “Harrison”) pursuant to Rule 102(e)(3)(i) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Sultan S. Issa
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Sultan S. Issa (“Issa” or “Respondent”)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Richard T. Diver
Violation: The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Richard T. Diver (“Respondent”)… Read More

Penalties: $100,000.00
Respondent: Daniel Adams, Michael Flanders, Spiderworx Media LLC, and An L.A. Minute LLC
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed on February 26, 2019, alleges that in 2016, Adams and Flanders induced the two individuals to invest $160,000 through two companies, Spiderworx Media LLC and An L.A. Minute LLC, using fabricated documents and misrepresentations. For example, according to the complaint, Flanders sent one investor, who said he would invest only if $200,000 was raised elsewhere, a fictitious wire transfer confirmation and signature page forged by Adams to create the false appearance that the funds had been raised. The complaint alleges that Adams and Flanders personally received $29,000 and $10,000, respectively, from the resulting investment… Read More

Penalties: $300,000
Respondent: Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. and Raymond J. Lucia, Sr.
Violation: As a result of the conduct summarized above and detailed in the OIP, which Respondents neither admit nor deny, RJL violated Advisers Act Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5), and Lucia willfully aided and abetted and caused RJL’s violations, of Advisers Act Sections 206(1), 206(2), and 206(4), and Rule 206(4)-1(a)(5)… Read More

Penalties: $32,854.2
Respondent: Michael Flanders – Daniel Adams, Michael Flanders, Spiderworx Media LLC, and An L.A. Minute LLC
Violation: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that, solely for purposes of exceptions to discharge set forth in Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523, the allegations in the complaint are true and admitted by Defendant, and further, any debt for disgorgement, prejudgment interest, civil penalty or other amounts due by Defendant under this Judgment or any other judgment, order, consent order, decree or settlement agreement entered in connection with this proceeding, is a debt for the violation by Defendant of the federal securities laws or any regulation or order issued under such laws, as set forth in Section 523(a)(19) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(19)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Gomes et al.;
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal district court in Boston, Massachusetts, charges Gomes, Luckhoo-Bouche, Roe, Warawa, FFS Capital Limited, and Atlantean Management Corporation with violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) and Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and Gomes with violating Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13d-1 thereunder. The complaint also charges Schmidt with violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Paifang Trading Limited, Artefactor Limited, Meadow Asia Limited, and Thyme International Limited are charged with violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act. Gomes, Luckhoo-Bouche, and FFS Capital are also charged with aiding and abetting Roe, Warawa, Paifang Trading, Atlantean, Artefactor, Meadow Asia, and Thyme International’s violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act; and aiding and abetting Schmidt, Roe, Warawa, and Atlantean’s violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Neil Burkholz, et al.
Violation: The complaint alleged that the defendants misappropriated the remaining funds by using them to repay other investors and by transferring approximately $880,000 of investor funds to Ms. Burkholz and to Mr. Burkholz, Bianco, and Bianco’s wife, Suzanne Bianco, for personal use. According to the SEC’s complaint, the defendants sent false reports to investors to conceal their fraudulent conduct and give the investors the false impression they were generating positive returns. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, Ms. Burkholz consented to the entry of a final judgment ordering her to pay $258,821 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest on a joint and several basis with Mr. Burkholz, representing the amount of investor funds he shared with her… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Daniel Adams, Michael Flanders, Spiderworx Media LLC, and An L.A. Minute LLC
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed on February 26, 2019, alleges that in 2016, Adams and Flanders induced the two individuals to invest $160,000 through two companies, Spiderworx Media LLC and An L.A. Minute LLC, using fabricated documents and misrepresentations. For example, according to the complaint, Flanders sent one investor, who said he would invest only if $200,000 was raised elsewhere, a fictitious wire transfer confirmation and signature page forged by Adams to create the false appearance that the funds had been raised. The complaint alleges that Adams and Flanders personally received $29,000 and $10,000, respectively, from the resulting investment… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Vassilios Trikantzopoulos and Navis Ventures LLC
Violation: The SEC’s complaint, filed in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts, alleges that Trikantzopoulos and Navis violated the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The SEC seeks permanent injunctions, civil penalties, and disgorgement plus prejudgment interest against Trikantzopoulos and Navis. The SEC’s case is being handled by David London, Mark Albers, and Michele T. Perillo of the Boston Regional Office… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. and Ronald E. Pipoly, Jr.
Violation: According to the SEC’s complaint, AmTrust and Pipoly failed to properly disclose the company’s process for reporting management’s best estimate of loss reserves in its filings with the SEC. The complaint alleges that AmTrust and Pipoly disclosed the company’s general actuarial process for estimating loss reserves, but failed to disclose that Pipoly made consolidated accounting adjustments that did not properly consider the actuarial analyses and diverged from the company’s actuarial estimates. The complaint further alleges that AmTrust failed to disclose the specific factors or assumptions supporting Pipoly’s judgmental adjustments, and failed to maintain sufficient supporting documentation for management’s best estimate. Further, AmTrust and Pipoly allegedly failed to disclose the loss contingencies created by Pipoly’s judgmental adjustments to the company’s historical experience… Read More

Click here to see the full list of SEC Enforcement Documents

Penalties: $1,250,000.00
Respondent: Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Violation: The Traders engaged in the conduct described herein within the course and scope of their agency relationship with Deutsche Bank. Therefore, Deutsche Bank is liable for the acts, omissions and failures of the Traders, as described above, that constituted violations of Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Act. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that, during the Relevant Period, Respondent violated Section 4c(a)(5)(C) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 4c(a)(5)(C) (2018)… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Deutsche Bank AG
Violation: As stated supra, on September 30, 2015, the CFTC Order was issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13b. See Deutsche Bank, 2015 WL 5783049. The CFTC Order provided an 18-month period for Deutsche Bank to complete seven remedial undertakings.Section VII, Paragraph A of the CFTC Order directed Deutsche Bank to cease and desist from violating 17 C.F.R. §§ 43.3(a) and (e) (failure to properly report and correct errors in real-time data), 45.4(a) (failure to properly report continuation data), 45.14(a) (failure to correct errors and omissions in previously reported data), and 23.602 (supervision failures). Through the conduct described supra, Defendant inadvertently violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 43.3(a) and 45.4(a). In addition, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. § 23.602. Thus, Defendant violated Section VII, Paragraph A of the CFTC Order… Read More

Penalties: $755,000.00
Respondent: Aaron B. Butler, et al
Violation: As stated supra, on September 30, 2015, the CFTC Order was issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C. §§ 9 and 13b. See Deutsche Bank, 2015 WL 5783049. The CFTC Order provided an 18-month period for Deutsche Bank to complete seven remedial undertakings.Section VII, Paragraph A of the CFTC Order directed Deutsche Bank to cease and desist from violating 17 C.F.R. §§ 43.3(a) and (e) (failure to properly report and correct errors in real-time data), 45.4(a) (failure to properly report continuation data), 45.14(a) (failure to correct errors and omissions in previously reported data), and 23.602 (supervision failures). Through the conduct described supra, Defendant inadvertently violated 17 C.F.R. §§ 43.3(a) and 45.4(a). In addition, Defendant violated 17 C.F.R. § 23.602. Thus, Defendant violated Section VII, Paragraph A of the CFTC Order… Read More

Penalties: £37,805,400.00
Respondent: Commerzbank AG
Violation: Between 23 October 2012 and 29 September 2017 (“the Relevant Period”), it failed to meet these requirements and, in doing so, breached Principle 3… Read More