Kessler was a financial advisor and investment broker who did business as Guardian Group Investments, LLC. According to the plea agreement and other court records, Kessler used his position to induce several individuals to entrust their retirement savings to him. During the period from February to August 2016, Kessler fraudulently convinced four victims to entrust him with a total of $121,267. Although Kessler had represented that he would place that money in retirement accounts for the benefit of those individuals, Kessler instead deposited their funds in his business bank account, which is specifically prohibited by New Mexico securities regulations. Kessler subsequently converted the victims' retirement funds to his own purposes. Kessler used the fraudulently obtained money to pay for his personal expenditures and to make payments to earlier victims of his scheme. In his plea agreement, Kessler admitted that he devised and executed this scheme with the intent to defraud the investors.Kessler failed to file federal income tax returns for tax years 2014 through 2017. Kessler's failure to file tax returns and pay federal income taxes resulted in an aggregate tax liability of $82,627 for those four years, not including any penalties or interest.
Since at least 2019, STOJANOVICH has controlled various companies, including Chet Mining Co. LLC ("Chet Mining"). Starting in or about March 2019, STOJANOVICH engaged in a scheme to defraud people who were seeking to purchase Miners and Miner-hosting services through which they expected to obtain "hash power" convertible into cryptocurrency and money. STOJANOVICH defrauded these victims by falsely telling them that: (1) he would purchase, and had purchased, Miners on their behalf; and (2) he would provide them with Miner-hosting services and had already obtained such Miner-hosting services for them. In fact, STOJANOVICH failed to deliver the promised Miners and Miner-hosting services.In all, STOJANOVICH induced more than a dozen customer-victims to pay a total of more than $1.84 million to STOJANOVICH and his companies, ostensibly in return for Miners and Miner-hosting services. Despite fraudulent representations to the contrary, STOJANOVICH: (1) failed to provide many of the Miners that he told customers he had acquired; (2) failed to provide the hosting services and cryptocurrency hash power that he represented that he would provide; (3) employed deceptive practices to create the illusion that such Miners had been acquired and were being used to provide hash power to those customers; and (4) misappropriated his customers' funds and spent the funds on unrelated and personal expenditures, including by spending a substantial portion those funds on personal expenses, including chartered air flights, hotel rooms, limousines, and private parties.Defrauding at Least 10 Victims in 2019In the spring and early summer of 2019, STOJANOVICH fraudulently induced at least 10 customers to pay a total of more than $1.66 million to STOJANOVICH and Chet Mining, in return for Miners and Miner-hosting services. Between March and July 2019, based on these and other misrepresentations, STOJANOVICH issued at least 15 invoices to these 10 victims, with instructions to make payment to STOJANOVICH or one of his companies. As directed by STOJANOVICH, these 10 customers paid STOJANOVICH a total of approximately $1,618,000 in bank wires and cryptocurrency transfers. However, STOJANOVICH failed to provide the Miners and Miner-hosting services that he had agreed to provide and for which he had been paid.Defrauding 3 More Victims in 2021In or about August and September 2021, STOJANOVICH induced at least three additional customer-victims to pay him a total of approximately $179,880, as payment for a total of 127 Miners. Ultimately, STOJANOVICH provided those customers with only 3 of the 127 Miners they had paid for and repaid those customers only approximately $61,000 of the $179,880 they had paid.The March 2022 DepositionSeveral of the victims of the scheme described in the Complaint brought lawsuits against STOJANOVICH in federal court in Manhattan. In one such lawsuit, Holmes et al. v. Chet Mining, Chet Stojanovich, et ano., Case No. 1:20-CV-04448-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), STOJANOVICH was ordered by the court to appear for a deposition on March 4, 2022. During that deposition, STOJANOVICH testified falsely on a number of subjects. For example, in response to several questions, STOJANOVICH testified that he did not know the answers without looking in his personal cellphone, and falsely testified that his phone was downstairs in his rental car or in storage. The deposition was thereupon adjourned for a half-hour, and STOJANOVICH was instructed to retrieve his cellphone and return to the deposition. Instead, STOJANOVICH left the deposition and loitered in the vicinity of his car until after everyone else participating in the deposition had left. Shortly thereafter, he returned to Canada, where he has been residing in recent weeks.
[G]azit, the former head of mergers and acquisitions at Ormat and resident of Tel Aviv, Israel, tipped her close friend, Strugano, an attorney and resident of Caesarea, Israel, with material, nonpublic information she had obtained concerning Ormat's potential acquisition of U.S. Geothermal. The SEC alleges that based on Gazit's tip, Strugano purchased more than 740,000 shares of U.S. Geothermal stock from December 19, 2017 through January 18, 2018. In the months following the merger announcement, Strugano sold all of these shares for a total profit of over $1.2 million.
Parker hosted an annual training and educational event for approximately 250 clients during the holiday season at a local banquet venue. At the conclusion of the event, the venue issued an invoice detailing the charges incurred, including the costs of the food and beverages served, which Parker paid. At the conclusion of the annual training events, Parker directed her staff to prepare reimbursement requests to be submitted to the firm, seeking reimbursement for Parker from wholesaler contributions that had been provided for the event.For at least the 2017 and 2018 events, the expense reports submitted at Parker's direction contained falsified invoices that overstated the total amount of reimbursable expenses incurred at the event. As a result, Parker received at least $25,000 to which she was not entitled. Parker has since entered into an agreement with the firm to refund the amounts at issue.FINRA Rule 2010 requires associated persons to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade in the conduct of their business. Conversion is an intentional and unauthorized taking of and/or exercise of ownership over property by one who neither owns the property nor is entitled to possess it. Conversion of firm funds is a violation of FINRA Rule 2010. Therefore, Respondent violated FINRA Rule 2010.
Between April 2018 and May 2019, Amman participated in a private securities transaction involving one of his LPL customers. His customer, a sophisticated investor, was selling partnership interests in a limited partnership which would generate large capital gains and he wanted to invest in a specialized tax-advantaged investment that would offset those gains. In April 2018, Amman introduced the customer to a third party with experience in these types of investments. In addition to making the introduction, Amman also provided information about the customer to the third party, participated in two phone calls with the customer and the third party, and facilitated the wire transfer out of the customer's LPL account used to fund the investment. In May 2019, the customer invested approximately $3.5 million in the investment, which was a security and structured as a private placement. The customer did not complain.Amman did not provide written notice to LPL prior to his participation in the transaction. Further, in August 2019, when asked on an annual firm questionnaire whether he had participated in a private securities transaction, Amman incorrectly answered "no."Therefore, Amman violated FINRA Rule 3280 and 2010.
[I]n May 2008, Respondent registered as a General Securities Representative through an association with a FINRA member firm. In December 2016, the firm filed a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5), stating that Respondent had been permitted to resign on December 13, 2016, after "[a]n insurance company provided the firm with information indicating that [Respondent] called into the insurance company and impersonated clients to gain access to client account information and or change client account information."In December 2016, Respondent registered as a General Securities Representative through an association with Vanderbilt Securities, LLC. In September 2020, the firm filed a Form U5 stating that Respondent had been permitted to resign after he "was found to have represented himself as [a] client to Ohio National in order to obtain Variable Annuity contract information on behalf of [the] client. The client confirmed in writing on 8/3/2020 that he had previously given the RR permission to speak to Ohio National in May 2018 at his request."In September 2020, Respondent registered as a General Securities Representative through an association with a FINRA member firm. In April 2022, the firm filed a Form US stating that Respondent had been permitted to resign on April 11, 2022, after he "informed the firm that he [was] entering into an AWC relating to his conduct at a prior broker-dealer."
On May 18, 2018, after receiving a warning from FINRA in February 2017 that impersonating customers violates Rule 2010, Respondent impersonated a customer during four telephone calls he placed to an insurance company. Respondent obtained permission from the customer to impersonate him during these telephone calls, which Respondent conducted in the physical presence of the customer at Respondent's office, to obtain information about the customer's existing variable annuity investment. During these telephone calls, Respondent introduced himself to the insurance company as the customer by name and used the customer's personal identifying information for authentication purposes. In addition, during one of the telephone calls, a representative of the insurance company informed Respondent that the representative had reason to believe that Respondent was impersonating the customer. In response, Respondent repeated his claim that he was the customer and ended the call, rather than acknowledging that he was not the customer.