Last individual admits role in nationwide fraud scheme targeting elderly victims (DOJ Release)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdtx/pr/last-individual-admits-role-nationwide-fraud-scheme-targeting-elderly-victims
In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Anirudha Kalkote, 25, pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud. Previously, MD Azad, 26, Sumit Kumar Singh, 25, Himanshu Kumar, 25, and MD Hasib, 27 , pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing.. As alleged in part in the DOJ Release:

Anirudha Kalkote admitted he participated in a fraud ring from 2019-2020 which operated out of various cities including Houston. The scheme targeted elderly victims throughout the United States and elsewhere.

The ring tricked and deceived victims using various ruses and instructed them to send money via wire through a money transmitter business such as Western Union or MoneyGram, by buying gift cards and providing to the fraudsters or by mailing cash to alias names via FedEx or UPS.

Part of the scheme involved fraudsters contacting victims by phone or via internet sites for computer technical support and directing victims to a particular phone number. Once victims contacted the fraudsters, they were told various stories such as they were communicating with an expert that needed remote access to their computer in order to provide technical support services. The fraudsters then gained access to victims’ personal data and bank and credit card information.

Victims typically paid a fee to conspirators for the fake technical support but were later told they were due a refund. Through paying for “technical support” or through the “refund” process, the ring gained access to the victim’s bank account(s) and credit cards and manipulated the accounts to make it appear the victim was paid too large a refund due to a typographical error. Victims were then instructed to reimburse the ring by various means.

Victims were sometimes re-victimized multiple times and threatened with bodily harm if they did not pay.

FINRA Suspends Rep For Inaccurate Customer Contact Notes
In the Matter of Derek John Rehill , Respondent (FINRA AWC 2020066887202)
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/fda_documents/2020066887202
%20Derek%20John%20Rehill%20CRD%202935032%20AWC%20va.pdf
For the purpose of proposing a settlement of rule violations alleged by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), without admitting or denying the findings, prior to a regulatory hearing, and without an adjudication of any issue, Derek John Rehill submitted a Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC"), which FINRA accepted. The AWC asserts that Derek John Rehill  was first registered in 1998 with Joseph Stone Capital L.L.C.. In accordance with the terms of the AWC, FINRA imposed upon Derek John Rehill  a two-month suspension from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities; because he submitted a statement of financial condition and demonstrated an
inability to pay, no fine was imposed. As alleged in part in the AWC:

During the relevant period, Rehill was responsible for periodically calling customers whose accounts Joseph Stone had identified as “actively traded” to confirm, among other things, the investment objective and risk tolerance reflected on the customer’s new account form. For each call, Rehill was required to complete a customer contact form which included fields for Rehill to record whether the customer had confirmed his or her investment objective and risk tolerance.

On four occasions during the relevant period, Rehill completed customer contact forms that inaccurately stated that customers had confirmed their investment objectives and risk tolerances. On three of the four occasions, Rehill completed customer contact forms reflecting that customers had confirmed they had a speculative investment objective when, in fact, the customers had not. For example, one such customer told Rehill that he wanted to “do more of a long-term thing than keep buying and selling so much.” On the fourth occasion, Rehill completed a customer contact form reflecting that a customer had confirmed he had a speculative risk tolerance when Rehill had not asked the customer any questions about his risk tolerance.

Therefore, Rehill violated FINRA Rule 2010.