Sencan  failed to reasonably supervise the activities of member firm personnel engaged in the charging of excessive commissions, sharing commissions with a non-member and misusing funds on deposit with the firm.

Acting through its head trader, Sencan's firm improperly shared about $4 million in commissions with one of the firm’s hedge fund clients and charged excessive commissions totaling over $580,000 in transactions.

Sencan was the head trader’s direct supervisor and was aware that the firm had entered into a commission sharing arrangement with the hedge fund client, and he was responsible for reviewing that arrangement and the head trader’s trading activities. The firm’s procedures required the chief compliance officer (CCO) to periodically review emails firm personnel sent and received. Sencan failed to perform periodic reviews of the head trader’s electronic correspondence or otherwise take reasonable steps to supervise his activities.

Acting through its FINOP, the firm misused at least $61,000 in funds on deposit with the firm. 

Sencan was the FINOP’s direct supervisor but failed to monitor the firm’s financial records, perform periodic reviews of the FINOP’s electronic correspondence or otherwise take reasonable steps to supervise the FINOP’s activities.

Sencan became the firm’s AMLCO, and in this position, he was responsible for ensuring that the firm’s AML compliance procedures (AMLCP) were enforced but failed to do so. The CIP portion of the firm’s AMLCP required the firm, prior to opening an account, to obtain identifying information such as the customer’s passport number and country of origin; but acting through Sencan, the firm failed to obtain the identifying information the CIP required for some of its customers (a portion of whom were located outside of the United States). In addition, the firm’s AMLCP required the firm to maintain transmittal orders for wire transfers of more than $3,000, and those orders had to contain at least the name and address of the transmitter and recipient, the amount of the transmittal order, the identity of the recipient’s financial institution and the recipient’s account number; on numerous occasions, a firm customer account wired out funds in excess of $3,000. Sencan did not take steps to ensure that the firm retained information regarding those wires, including the recipient’s name, address and account number and the identity of the recipient’s financial information. Furthermore, acting through Sencan, the firm failed to provide AML training to its registered personnel.

Sencan was attempting to find transactional business for the firm in medium-term notes (MTNs).  As part of an effort to purchase MTNs for resale to its clients, the firm entered into an agreement with a Switzerland-based entity. Sencan signed the agreement on the firm’s behalf, and the agreement called for the entity to provide the firm with the opportunity to purchase $100 million (face value) in specified MTNs; however, the agreement included clauses containing material misrepresentations about the firm’s ability to purchase MTNs.

The first clause represented that the firm was the actual legal and beneficial owner of cash funds in excess of $100 million on deposit at a major bank. In addition, the second clause was a representation that these funds were free and clear of liens, had been legally earned and could immediately be utilized for the purchase of financial instruments; neither of these clauses was true, as the firm never had $100 million on deposit at any bank at any time.

Baklenko engaged in private securities transactions without prior written notice to, and approval from, his member firm, in that he participated in the sales to firm customers of limited partnership interests in an entity he and a business associate had formed for a total of $1,095,000.

Baklenko and the business associate opened an account with another member firm in their entity’s name; Baklenko failed to notify his member firm in writing that he had established the account with the other firm and he failed to notify the other firm, with which he opened the account, in writing that he was associated with a firm. Baklenko effected trades in his entity’s account at the other firm, which included securities purchases totaling approximately $176,575 and securities sales totaling approximately $57,109.

The Firm failed to have a supervisory system reasonably designed to detect and prevent the misuse of material, nonpublic information by employees through an information barriers system.

The Firm did not have WSPs addressing the creation or distribution of a watch list, which is a list of securities whose trading is subject to close scrutiny by a firm’s compliance or legal department, and the firm did not maintain any list of this nature. The firm maintained a restricted list but it was not maintained in the manner its own procedures required; securities were added to the list in a haphazard manner, often after the issuer had signed a private placement agent agreement with the firm. The list did not reflect when a security was added or deleted from the list, and did not identify the contact person.

The firm did not adequately monitor employee trading outside the firm for transactions in the restricted-list securities; the firm permitted employees to maintain securities accounts with other broker-dealers, requiring any employee to have duplicate confirmations and account statements sent to the firm. Firm employees were required to disclose their outside accounts to the firm upon hire and annually in an attestation form, but the firm failed to obtain annual attestations from some employees and did not ensure that it was receiving the required duplicate confirmations and account statements.

In addition, because the firm failed to maintain a watch list, to timely add securities to its restricted list, to record the required restricted list information, and to obtain confirmations and account statements for employee accounts, it could not reasonably monitor its employees’ trading for transactions in restricted or watch-list securities. Moreover,the firm did not have procedures to restrict the flow of material, nonpublic information and routinely shared restricted-list information with unregistered individuals who were firm owners, and occasionally shared with these unregistered individuals the details of investment banking contracts; consequently the firm’s procedures were not reasonably designed to prevent violation of securities rules prohibiting insider trading.

While employed by his member firm’s New York Positions Services (NYPS) Group, Associated Person Garaventa was responsible for processing corporate actions. In that capacity, he

Garaventa entered, or caused to be entered, numerous false journal entries into the firm’s electronic system to transfer and credit at least $59,349 of unreconciled customer funds to other NYPS suspense accounts that Garaventa was using to misappropriate funds. Garaventa misappropriated customer funds from an SEC settlement fund by entering, or causing to be entered, numerous false journal entries into his firm’s electronic system to credit SEC checks totaling approximately $120,395 to the other NYPS suspense accounts he was using to misappropriate funds.

Garaventa entered, or caused to be entered, into the firm’s electronic system check requests against the suspense accounts that Garaventa was using to misappropriate funds; in this way, Garaventa misappropriated at least $179,744 of customer funds for his own benefit. Garaventa misappropriated funds from the firm by entering, or causing to be entered, numerous false journal entries into the firm’s electronic system to transfer and credit approximately $1,786,052 from different firm sources, including the firm’s Foreign Exchange accounts, leftover balances from corporate actions and accumulated American Depositary Receipt (ADR) fees, commingled with funds from other sources, to the NYPS suspense accounts; Garaventa then entered, or caused to be entered, into the firm’s electronic system check requests to be issued against those funds.

Garaventa misappropriated:

• funds from a firm counterparty; the counterparty calculated a payment to the firm related to a corporate action based on an incorrect tax withholding rate, which resulted in a $1,000,000 overpayment by the counterparty, which was credited to an NYPS suspense subaccount;
• approximately $320,422 of the $1,000,000 overpayment by entering numerous false journal entries into the firm’s electronic system, transferring the funds to other NYPS suspense accounts that he was using to misappropriate funds, and caused checks to be issued against those funds by having NYPS employees who reported to him enter check requests on his behalf, which Garaventa approved and used the identification number and password of another NYPS employee who reported to him to enter check requests; one of the checks contained funds from other firm sources; and
• an additional $228,031 from other undetermined sources by entering numerous false journal entries into the firm’s electronic system to transfer those funds to other NYPS suspense accounts he was using to misappropriate funds, and caused checks to be issued against those funds, which had been commingled with funds from other sources.

FINRA also found that Garaventa issued, or caused to be issued, approximately 50 false check requests and entered, or caused to be entered, hundreds of false journal entries in the firm’s systems to foster his misappropriation of funds from the firm, its customers and a firm counterparty.

Garaventa failed to respond to FINRA requests for information.

Prestige, acting through Kirshbaum and at least one other firm principal, were involved in a fraudulent trading scheme through which the then-Chief Compliance Officer (CCO) and head trader for the firm concealed improper markups and denied customers best execution.

As part of this scheme, the CCO falsified order tickets and created inaccurate trade confirmations, and the hidden profits were captured in a firm account Kirshbaum and another firm principal controlled; some of the profits were then shared with the CCO and another individual.

The trading scheme took advantage of customers placing large orders to buy or sell equities. Rather than effecting the trades in the customers’ accounts, the CCO placed the order in a firm proprietary account where he would increase or decrease the price per share for the securities purchased or sold before allocating the shares or proceeds to the customers’ accounts; this improper price change was not disclosed to, or authorized by, the customers, and this fraudulent trading scheme generated approximately $1.3 million in profits for the firm’s proprietary accounts. Kirshbaum was aware of and permitted the trading. In an account that Kirshbaum and another firm principal controlled. 47 percent of the profits from the scheme were retained. In furtherance of the fraudulent trading scheme, the CCO entered false information on the corresponding order tickets regarding the share price and the time the customer order ticket was received, entered and executed; the corresponding trade confirmations inaccurately reflected the price, markup and/or commission charged and the order capacity.

In addition, acting through Kirshbaum, Prestige entered into an agreement to sell the personal, confidential and non-public information of thousands of customers to an unaffiliated member firm in exchange for transaction-based compensation from any future trading activity in those accounts. In connection with that agreement, Kirshbaum provided the unaffiliated member firm with the name, account number, value and holdings on spreadsheets via electronic mail. Furthermore, Kirshbaum granted certain representatives of that firm live access to the firm’s computer systems, including access to systems provided by the firm’s clearing firm, which provided access to other non-public confidential customer information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth and home addresses. Prestige and Kirshbaum did not provide any of the customers with the required notice or opportunity to opt out of such disclosure before the firm disclosed the information, as Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Regulation S-P requires.

Acting through Kirshbaum, Prestige failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system, and establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory procedures to supervise each registered person’s activities that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the applicable rules and regulations regarding interpositioning, front-running, supervisory branch office inspections, supervisory controls, annual compliance meeting, maintenance and periodic review of electronic communications, NASD Rule 3012 annual report to senior management, review and retention of electronic and other correspondence, SEC Regulation S-P, anti-money laundering (AML), Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U4) and Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) amendments, and NASD Rule 3070 reporting. FINRA found that the firm failed to enforce its procedures requiring review of its registered representatives’ written and electronic correspondence relating to the firm’s securities business. In addition, the firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce a system of supervisory control policies and procedures that tested and verified that its supervisory procedures were reasonably designed with respect to the activities of the firm and its registered representatives and associated persons to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and created additional or amended supervisory procedures where testing and verification identified such a need. Moreover, the firm failed to enforce the written supervisory control policies and procedures it has with respect to review and supervision of the customer account activity conducted by the firm’s branch office managers, review and monitoring of customer changes of address and the validation of such changes, and review and monitoring of customer changes of investment objectives and the validation of such changes. Furthermore, firm failed to establish written supervisory control policies and procedures reasonably designed to provide heightened supervision over the activities of each producing manager responsible for generating 20 percent or more of the revenue of the business units supervised by that producing manager’s supervisor; as a result, the firm did not determine whether it had any such producing managers and, to the extent that it did, subject those managers to heightened supervision.

Acting through one of its designated principals, Prestige falsely certified that it had the requisite processes in place and that those processes were evidenced in a report review by its Chief Executive Officer (CEO), CCO and other officers,and the firm failed to file an annual certification one year. The findings also included that the firm failed to implement a reasonably designed AML compliance program (AMLCP). Although the firm had developed an AMLCP, it failed to implement policies and procedures to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious activity and transactions; implement policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to obtain and verify necessary customer information through its Customer Identification Program (CIP); and provide relevant training for firm employees—the firm failed to conduct independent tests of its AMLCP for several years. Acting through Kirshbaum and another firm principal, the firm failed to implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to enforce its procedures requiring the firm to review all Section 314(a) requests it received from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); as a result, the firm failed to review such requests. In addition, Kirshbaum and another principal were responsible for accessing the system to review the FinCEN messages but failed to do so. Moreover, FINRA found that the firm permitted certain registered representatives to use personal email accounts for business-related communications, but failed to retain those messages.

Furthermore, the firm failed to maintain and preserve all of its business-related electronic communications as required by Rule 17a-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and failed to maintain copies of all of its registered representatives’ written business communications. The  firm failed to file summary and statistical information for customer complaints by the 15th day of the month following the calendar quarter in which the firm received them. The findings also included that the customer complaints were not disclosed, or not timely disclosed, on the subject registered representative’s Form U4 or U5, as applicable.The Firm failed to provide some of the information FINRA requested concerning trading and other matters.

Prestige Financial Center, Inc. : Expelled

Lawrence Gary Kirshbaum (Principal): Barred

Ivan executed an agreement purportedly on the firm’s behalf, in which a non-customer corporation agreed to pay the firm a $35,000 refundable deposit in exchange for the firm agreeing to act as an exclusive placement agent to assist the corporation in arranging for $8 million dollars in debt financing. Subject to the agreement, Ivan instructed the corporation to wire the $35,000 deposit to a personal brokerage account he controlled at another FINRA member firm. Instead of using the funds as he represented to the corporation and in accordance with the terms of the signed agreement, Ivan diverted the corporation’s funds by wiring $25,000 of the deposit to another business entity that was supposedly going to assist the corporation with arranging the financing and used the remaining $10,000 for his personal benefit. The debt financing for the corporation never materialized, and the corporation did not receive the return of its $35,000 deposit.

Ivan made untruthful statements and provided false documents to FINRA when he untruthfully represented in his written response to FINRA that he had forwarded the $35,000 from the corporation to a business entity assisting with the financing, and that he did not receive any compensation or payments relating to his participation in arranging the financing. Ivan provided FINRA a document purporting to be an account statement for his outside brokerage account, which falsely reflected a wire transfer of $35,000 out of his account to a business entity assisting with the arrangement of financing, when in fact, the wire transfer amount had only been $25,000. That brokerage account statement had false entries for the figures representing the total amount of checks written and the total amount of checking, debit card and cash withdrawals.

Moreover, Ivan held a financial interest in a brokerage account maintained at another FINRA member firm without giving prompt written notification to the firm that he had such an account, and without notifying the other brokerage firm of his association with his member firm. Furthermore, Ivan falsely answered “N/A” on the firm’s outside brokerage account new hire certification form when requested to list every brokerage account over which he had full or partial ownership.

Acting through Homnick, the firm’s president, chief compliance officer (CCO) and AML compliance officer (AMLCO), the Firm failed to comply with AML requirements. The Firm’s AML compliance program, which Homnick implemented, did not fully comply with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or the regulations thereunder, and violated NASD® Rules 3011(a) and (b). The AML procedures in effect required the firm to make a preliminary risk assessment for each existing and potential customer of the firm, and the firm’s representatives were required to document any significant information they learned pursuant to such risk assessment, but the firm did not create or maintain written risk assessments for its customers.

The firm’s AML procedures required scrutiny of the activities of each firm customer organized as a limited liability company (LLC); specifically, for LLC customers, the firm and its registered representatives were to assess the correlation between their business activities and their formation documents and to conduct further investigations to determine the customer’s risk profile. These assessments and determinations of risk profiles were not conducted. Several accounts that were LLCs that engaged in suspicious transactions did not provide formation documents.

The AML procedures had a section that described the process firm employees were to use to report suspicious customer activities, but these procedures were not followed. In addition, registered representatives were required, upon detection of suspicious activity in customer accounts, to consult with one of the firm’s designated principals, one of whom was Homnick; no firm representative reported to, or consulted with, the firm principals about suspicious customer activities. Moreover, the firm’s procedures identified a form called the Preliminary Suspicious Activity Report (P-SAR); the purpose of the form was to identify, in writing, suspicious activities for Homnick’s internal review, but no P-SARs were completed or submitted. Furthermore,Homnick was assigned the responsibility for filing Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and was responsible for drafting, implementing and maintaining the AML program and procedures at the firm, but he did not file any SARs and did not consider filing any SARs. FINRA also found that numerous suspicious transactions were conducted by firm customers, and the firm, acting through Homnick, did not conduct a reasonable investigation, in that they failed to file a SAR, consider filing a SAR or document rationale for not filing a SAR.

Grand Capital Corp.: Censured; Fined $20,000 (In light of the firm’s revenues and financial resources, among other things, a lower fine was imposed.)

Eliezer Gross Homnick:  Fined $10,000, Suspended in Principal capacity only for 1 month;  and Required to complete eight hours of anti-money laundering (AML) training.

As his member firm’s Chief Compliance Officer, Bruno failed to ensure that his firm established, maintained and enforced a supervisory system and WSPs reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the rules and regulations in connection with private offering solicitations. Acting through Bruno, his firm maintained a deficient supervisory system and WSPs with respect to private offering solicitations in that those procedures did not specify who at the firm was responsible for performing due diligence, what activities firm personnel were required to satisfy the due diligence requirement, how due diligence was to be documented, who at the firm was responsible for reviewing and approving the due diligence that was performed and for authorizing the sale of the securities, and who was to perform ongoing supervision of the private offerings once customer solicitations commenced.

As a result of its deficient WSPs, the firm failed to conduct adequate due diligence on private placement offerings, and Bruno failed to take any other steps to otherwise ensure that it was conducted.

The Firm failed to

• establish certain elements of an adequate AML program reasonably designed to achieve and monitor its compliance with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act and implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Treasury;
  
• establish policies and procedures reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of transactions required under 31 USC 5318(g) by failing to provide branch office managers with reports that contained adequate information to monitor for potential money-laundering and red flag activity; and for the firm’s compliance department to perform periodic reviews of wire transfer activity, require either branch managers or the AML compliance officers to document reviews of AML alerts in accordance with firm procedures, identify the beneficial owners and/or agents for service of process for some foreign correspondent banks accounts, and establish adequate written policies and procedures that provided guidelines for suspicious activity that would require the filing of a Form SAR-SF;
  
• establish policies and procedures that required ongoing AML training of appropriate personnel related to margin issues, entering new account information, verifying physical securities and handling wire activity;
  
• ensure that its third-party vendor verified new customers’ identities by using credit and other database cross-references, and after the firm determined that the vendor’s lapse was resolved, it failed to retroactively verify customer information not previously subjected to the verification process;
  
• establish procedures reasonably expected to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions required under 31 USC 5318(g), in that it failed to include in its AML review the activity in retail accounts institutional account registered representatives serviced;
  
• review accounts that a producing branch office manager serviced under joint production numbers;
  
• evidence in certain instances timely review of letters of authorization, correspondence, account designation changes, trade blotters, branch manager weekly review forms and branch manager monthly reviews; failed to follow procedures intended to prevent producing branch office managers from approving their own errors;
  
• follow procedures intended to prevent a branch office operations manager from approving transactions in her own account and an assistant branch office manager from reviewing transactions in accounts he serviced;
  
• establish procedures for the approval and supervision related to employee use of personal computers and, during one year, permitted certain employees to use personal computers the firm did not approve or supervise,
  
• include a question on thefirm’s annual acknowledgement form for one year that required its registered representatives to disclose outside securities accounts and the firm could not determine how many remained unreported due to the supervisory lapse;
  
• follow policies and procedures requiring the pre-approval and review of the content of employees’ radio broadcasts, television appearances, seminars and dinners, and materials distributed at the seminars and dinners; representatives conducted seminars that were not pre-approved by the firm’s advertising principal as required by its written procedures; the firm failed to maintain in a separate file all advertisements, sales literature and independently prepared reprints for three years from date of last use; and a branch office manager failed to review a registered representative’s radio broadcast. A branch office manager failed to maintain a log of a registered representative’s radio broadcasts and failed to tape and/or maintain a transcript of the broadcasts and there was no evidence a qualified principal reviewed or approved the registered representative’s statements. Branch office managers did not retain documents reflecting the nature of seminars, materials distributed to attendees or supervisory pre-approval of the seminars; retain transcripts of a representative’s local radio program and TV appearances or document supervisory review or approval of materials used; and retain documents reflecting the nature of a dinner or seminar conducted by representatives or materials distributed;
  

• record the identity of the person who accepted each customer order because it failed to update its order ticket form to reflect the identity of the person who accepted the order; and

• to review Bloomberg emails and some firm employees’ instant messages

The Firm distributed a document, Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options, that was not current, and the firm lacked procedures for advising customers with respect to changes to the document and failed to document the date on which it was sent to certain customers who had recently opened options accounts. Also, the firm’s compliance registered options principal did not document weekly reviews of trading in discretionary options accounts.

Ta engaged in outside business activities and failed to give prompt written notice to her member firm. Ta failed to disclose that she had financial interests and/or discretionary authority in multiple brokerage accounts at other broker-dealers and failed to give her firm prompt written notice of these accounts; on account applications, she falsely indicated that she was not affiliated with a securities firm. On a firm securities annual attestation form, Ta falsely stated that she did not have a personal securities account.

Ta created websites which included representations about her career accomplishments but never obtained a registered firm principal’s approval for those sites. One of the websites stated that Ta founded a full-service broker-dealer that was a FINRA member when, in fact, it was not; although that entity had a new member application pending with FINRA, it was not an actual broker-dealer and never became a FINRA member.

Ta failed to inform a registered firm principal that she had a Twitter account which, on occasion, she used to tout a particular stock. In addition, Ta’s “tweets” were unbalanced, overwhelmingly positive and frequently predicted an imminent price rise, and Ta did not disclose that she and her family members held a substantial position in the stock.

By purchasing an issuer’s stock while in knowing possession of material, non-public information, directly or indirectly, by use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, Associated Person Usmani intentionally or recklessly employed a device, scheme or artifice to defraud or engaged in an act, practice or course of business which operated, or would operate, as a fraud or deceit in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. 

Prior to the public announcement of the tender offer for a security and after a substantial step or steps to commence the tender offer had been taken, Usmani purchased the issuer’s securities while in possession of material information relating to the offer, which he knew or had reason to know was non-public and had been acquired directly or indirectly from a person acting on the offering person’s behalf; the issuer of the securities sought or to be sought by the tender offer; or an officer, director, partner, employee, or other person acting on the offering person’s or such an issuer’s behalf.

Usmani failed to notify his member firm, in writing, of the existence of his personal securities accounts, in which he had a financial interest and maintained at another FINRA member firm, and failed to notify the other member firm, in writing, of his association with his member firm.

Usmani failed to respond to FINRA requests for information and documents.