Securities Industry Commentator by Bill Singer Esq

[G]ift and Usifoh purchased the URL www.wealthcurrency.com and published various webpages promising investors 20-50 percent returns on investments of bitcoin with zero risk and instant withdrawals. They actively encouraged victims to transfer bitcoin to private virtual currency wallets and made numerous false claims including that their bitcoins would be invested using "unique trading methods" and they would maintain a "constant high interest rate." They created additional websites perpetuating the same scheme including www.boomcurrency.com and www.merrycurrency.com.

Beginning in December 2017 and continuing until at June 2018, Gift and Usifoh are alleged to have knowingly conspired to defraud three victims, one residing in Oregon and two in California. A photo of a fourth victim was used to create a false persona used in furtherance of the scheme. After receiving bitcoin transfers from their victims, Gift and Usifoh would transfer the bitcoin to other accounts and eventually exchange it for Nigerian Naira. The indictment alleges that in just over six months, the defendants stole 10.88 bitcoins worth approximately $59,000 from the three victims. In total, the government alleges Gift and Usifoh received more than 50 bitcoins as part of the scheme.

MSI contracted with Ginnie Mae to pool eligible residential mortgage loans and then sell Ginnie Mae-backed mortgage bonds to investors. MSI was responsible for servicing the loans in the pools it created, including collecting principal and interest payments from borrowers, as well as loan payoffs, and placing those funds into accounts held in trust by Ginnie Mae, which would ultimately pass them along to investors. Among other things, Ginnie Mae required issuers like MSI to provide regular reports to Ginnie Mae concerning the status of the loans in the pools.

Beginning in 2011, Pena began diverting money that borrowers were sending to MSI.  Specifically, Pena deposited high-dollar, loan-payoff checks into bank accounts unknown to Ginnie Mae and then used those funds for personal and business expenses. Pena also diverted borrowers' escrow funds and mortgage-insurance premiums for his own use. In total, Pena took approximately $2.5 million, which Ginnie Mae then had to pay to investors whose investments it had guaranteed. Pena also attempted to cover up his scheme by providing false reports to Ginnie Mae about the status of the loans MSI was servicing. These false reports made it appear that the loans were still in repayment.

Pena's co-conspirator, Gilda Andrade, who worked for Pena at MSI and helped Pena file false reports with Ginnie Mae, cooperated with the government's investigation. Andrade pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making a false statement to HUD in December 2017, and was previously sentenced by U.S. Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein to one year probation and ordered to pay $108,240 in restitution to Ginnie Mae.

[T]he Panel noted that the settlement in Occurrence Number 1455352 was not conditioned on Claimant not opposing the request for expungement. The Panel noted that Claimant contributed to the settlement amount in Occurrence Number 1455352 and provided the following statement regarding Claimant's contribution: 

The Panel rules that Claimant believed that he was pressured into the contribution to the settlement and that the employer's attorney failed to properly represent Claimant in giving legal advice. It appeared to the Panel that the case settled by the Insurance Company as a matter of convenience at an amount less than the expected cost to settle it (nuisance value), and Claimant was pressured into the decision or would have to pay the full cost going forward.  . . .

With respect to Occurrence Number 1237607: 

There was never an arbitration claim filed nor were any allegations actually made of wrongdoing on the part of Claimant himself. The reporting to Claimant's CRD was clearly erroneous. The customer had voluntarily and with knowledge decided to terminate the annuity for personal reasons and was able to get the insurance company to waive the surrender charge. On Claimant's CRD records, however, the waiver of the surrender charge was erroneously characterized as a "settlement" with the customer. 

There were no damages or settlements. Claimant was not involved in any alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds. 

With respect to Occurrence Number 1455352: 

This is a case pertaining to the market correction in 2008-2009. The investment vehicle utilized in which to leave a substantial amount of assets to heirs was a variable universal life policy with growth assets as the underlying investments. 

Based upon the evidence presented, the Panel concluded that the information is clearly erroneous. The Panel also concluded that Claimant was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds. 

The Panel did not have a copy of the claim because it no longer exists but references to the claim and allegations contained therein were found in the Answer provided by Claimant. 

The Panel found no violations or errors in Claimant recommending the estate plan and purchase of variable life insurance at the time of creation, years prior to the FINRA action. The complaint centered upon the losses in the insurance years after purchase which was associated with a major market loss in 2008-2009. 

Testimony included that Claimant recommended, prior to the height of the market loss, several options to stem additional losses. The customer chose to disagree with this advice which lead to significant additional short term losses. 

We found no evidence that Claimant could be held responsible for the decisions of the customer.

• Securities Industry Commentator
• Bill Singer