What's missing from the FINRA discussion is a very clear and concise statement NOT merely that the NAC imposed the sanctions as published BUT that the NAC significantly modified both the OHO's findings and sanctions as against Impellizeri.  However, since I am a well known critic of FINRA and some may acccuse me of overstating the issue, let me not add my own words but simply let the NAC Decision speak to the issue.

 In the Matter of the Department of Member Regulation v. Steven Richard Jaloza et al. (July 28, 2009) (http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@enf/@adj/documents/nacdecisions/p119659.pdf

At Page 1 of the NAC Decision:

Hearing Panel found that two respondents engaged in fraudulent sales practices involving OTC Bulletin Board securities and all respondents violated the Recommendation Rule by recommending purchases of OTC Bulletin Board securities without reviewing or ensuring that their firm reviewed materials necessary to provide a reasonable basis for making the recommendations. Held, findings of violations of the Recommendation Rule reversed and dismissed; findings of fraud affirmed in part and reversed in part; sanctions vacated in part and modified in part.

At Page 23 of the NAC Decision:

The Hearing Panel barred each respondent and assessed $8,770 in costs, jointly and severally. In light of our dismissal of findings of violation as to Jaloza and Gimeli, we eliminate all sanctions imposed on them. In light of our dismissal of some of the findings as to Impellizeri, we reduce the bar imposed by the Hearing Panel to a six-month suspension, $25,000 fine, and order to pay restitution of $7,929 to customers J & CH. We also affirm the imposition of one third of the Hearing Panel's costs ($2,923) on Impellizeri and impose no appeal costs.25

At Page 24 of the NAC Decision:

We next turn to the customers' and Impellizeri's testimony regarding their pre-hearing conversations. TA did not testifY, and his affidavit does not address his pre-hearing conversations with Impellizeri. JW testified that Impellizeri contacted him and suggested that, rather than pay extensive legal fees, he would "just as soon" reimburse JW for his losses. JW believed that Impellizeri's statement implied that, if JW did not testifY at the hearing, Impellizeri may be willing to reimburse JW's losses. CH testified that Impellizeri left a telephone message encouraging her to talk to him. She could not recall if Impellizeri encouraged them not to attend the hearing. CH and Impellizeri never spoke before the hearing because she did not return his call. Impellizeri admitted that he attempted to contact JW, CH, TA and other clients to whom Market Regulation had talked. He denied that he tried to persuade any of them not to attend the Hearing Panel hearing. He stated that several customers had told him that Market Regulation staff had harassed them, and he wanted his clients to understand that FINRA was not a government agency and could not force them to testify against him.