Euro Pacific failed to timely report quarterly statistical information concerning most of the customer complaints it received to FINRA’s then 3070 System.

The firm failed to maintain complete complaint files and did not enforce its WSPs pertaining to customer complaint reporting, and the Uniform Applications for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Forms U4) for those representatives who were the subject of the complaints were not timely updated.

The firm failed to enforce its written supervisory control policies and procedures that would test and verify that the firm’s supervisory procedures were reasonably designed with respect to the firm’s activities to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws, regulations and self-regulatory organization (SRO) rules; the firm’s annual NASD Rule 3012 report for one year did not comport with these procedures, and the firm failed to implement its supervisory control procedures to review its producing managers’ customer account activity.

The firm prepared a deficient NASD Rule 3013 certification as it did not document the firm’s processes for establishing, maintaining, reviewing, testing and modifying compliance policies reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws, regulations and SRO rules. The firm failed to timely file a Financial and Operational Combined Uniform Single (FOCUS) Report and Schedule I Reports.

The firm failed to preserve, in an easily accessible place, electronic emails for one of its representatives for almost a year.

The firm offered and sold precious metal-related products through an entity, but failed to develop, implement and enforce adequate AML procedures related to the business; the firm did not establish and implement policies and procedures reasonably designed to identify, monitor for and, where appropriate, file suspicious activity reports (SARs) for its business processed through its k(2)(i) account. Moreover, the firm failed to implement and enforce its AML procedures and policies related to its fully disclosed business through its then-clearing firm; aspects of its AML program that the firm failed to implement and enforce included monitoring accounts for suspicious activity, monitoring employee conduct and accounts, red flags and control/restricted securities. Furthermore, the firm’s procedures provided that monitoring would be conducted by means of exception reports for unusual size, volume, pattern or type of transactions; the firm did not consistently utilize exception reports made available by its then-clearing firm, and the firm did not evidence its review of the reports and did not note findings and appropriate follow-up actions, if any, that were taken. When notified by its clearing firm of possible suspect activity, on at least several occasions, the firm did not promptly and/or fully respond to the clearing firm’s inquiries. Such review was required by the procedures for employee accounts, but the firm did not maintain any evidence that such inquiries for employee accounts were conducted. The firm’s procedures contained a non-exclusive list of numerous possible red flags that could signal possible money laundering, but the firm did not take consistent steps to ensure the review of red flags in accounts.

The firm’s AML procedures reference that SAR-SF filings are required under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for any account activity involving $5,000 or more when the firm knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction involves illegal activity or is designed to evade BSA regulation requirements or involves the use of the firm to facilitate criminal activity; because the firm was not consistently reviewing exception reports or red flags, it could not consistently identify and evaluate circumstances that might warrant a SAR-SF filing.

The firm failed to establish and implement risk-based customer identification program (CIP) procedures appropriate to the firm’s size and type of business; and the firm failed to provide ongoing training to appropriate personnel regarding the use of its internal monitoring tools as AML program required.

In addition, certain pages of the firm’s website contained statements that did not comport with standards in NASD Rule 2210; FINRA previously identified these Web pages as being in violation of NASD Rule 2210, but the firm failed to remove such pages from its website.

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.

Gallagher acted as a principal of his member firm without being registered as such and the firm allowed Gallagher to act in an unregistered capacity.

Gallagher failed to adhere to the heightened supervisory requirements FINRA imposed and the agreements he entered into with three states; because of his controlling role at the firm and the transitory nature of supervision at the firm, he was able to sidestep the heightened supervision requirements. The firm failed to ensure that Gallagher’s heightened supervisory requirements from the states and FINRA were being followed, and failed to have a system to adequately monitor Gallagher’s compliance.

Gallagher was responsible for the firm adhering to the requirements to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory control policies and ensuring the completion of an annual certification certifying that the firm had in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and WSPs to comply with applicable securities rules and regulations. The firm failed to conduct the analysis required to determine whether, as a producing manager, Gallagher should have been subjected to the heightened supervision requirements.

The firm failed to establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory control policies and procedures and failed to identify at least one principal who would establish, maintain and enforce written supervisory control policies and procedures. In addition, through Gallagher, the firm, failed to ensure that an annual certification was complete, certifying it had in place processes to establish, maintain, review, test and modify written compliance policies and WSPs to comply with applicable securities rules and regulations.

Moreover, FINRA found that the firm failed to report customer complaints against Gallagher and one customer-initiated lawsuit in which he was listed as a defendant.

Furthermore, the firm failed to make the necessary and required updates to Forms U4 and U5 for representatives to reflect customer complaints, arbitrations and lawsuits within the required 30 days.

Thefirm failed to conduct and evidence an independent test of its AML program, and failed to conduct and evidence an annual training program of its CE program for its covered registered persons.

While testifying at a FINRA on-the-record interview, Gallagher failed to respond to questions.

Gallagher willfully failed to timely amend his Form U4 with material facts. Gallagher appealed the decision to the NAC and the sanction is not in effect pending the appeal.

Vision Securities Inc.: Censured; Fined $60,000

Daniel James Gallagher: Barred

Acting through Erickson and Brewer, the Firm:

• sold the private placement offerings of a company formed exclusively to acquire and provide growth to its parent company and a limited liability company for which Brewer was a director, without disclosing to the investors material facts that:
• the parent company had defaulted on a $2.5 million loan,
• had reported an operating loss of $1,622,912 for one calendar year and an approximate operating loss of $4.5 million for another calendar year, and
• had defaulted on interest payments to note-holders.
• continued to sell the limited liability company’s private placement offering to new investors, knowing that it had defaulted on its interest payments to existing investors and without disclosing that material fact to new investors.

The firm sold the private placement offerings to non-accredited investors without providing them with the financial statements required under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 506, resulting in the loss of exemption from the registration requirements of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. Because no registration statement was in effect for the offerings and the registration exemption was ineffective, the firm sold these securities in contravention of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Acting through Erickson, the Firm conducted inadequate due diligence related to its sale of the offerings in that it failed to ensure the issuers had retained a custodian to handle certain investors’ qualified funds prior to accepting investment of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) funds into the offerings.

Ating through Erickson and Brewer, the Firm offered to sell and sold the company’s private placement offering by distributing to the public a private placement memorandum (PPM) containing unbalanced, unjustified, unwarranted or otherwise misleading statements; among other things, the PPM implied that the parent company was not experiencing financial difficulty and failed to disclose that it reported a significant loss one year. In addition, the investors in the company’s notes were not provided with financial statements for either the company or the parent company. Moreover, the PPM was misleading in that it failed to state clearly how offering proceeds would be used, lacked clarity regarding the relationship between the issuer and its affiliates, and failed to provide the basis for claims made regarding the performance expectations of the issuer or its affiliates.

Furthermore, the firm failed to establish adequate written supervisory procedures related to its sales of private placement offerings, in that the firm’s procedures failed to require that financial statements be provided to investors when private placement offerings are sold to non-accredited investors, pursuant to SEC Rule 506.

The Firm allowed Brewer to be actively engaged in managing the firm’s securities business without being registered as a principal and a representative although Brewer signed and submitted an attestation to FINRA stating he would not be actively engaged in the management of the firm’s securities business until he completed registration as a representative and principal. Among other things, Brewer reviewed and revised the firm’s recruitment brochure, approved offer letters to prospective firm registered representatives, dictated the structure of new representatives’ compensation, including the level of commissions and loan repayment terms, and instructed firm personnel to send private placement offering documents to prospective investors.

The firm maintained the registrations for individuals who were not active in the firm’s investment banking or securities business or were no longer functioning as registered representatives.

The Firm conducted a securities business on a number of days even though it had negative net capital on each of those dates. The firm’s net capital deficiencies were caused by its failure to classify contributions from the parent company as liabilities after the firm returned the contributions to the parent company within a one-year period of having received them, and improperly treating its assets as allowable even though all of its assets had been encumbered as security for a loan agreement the parent company executed. Moreover, the Firm had inaccurate general ledgers, trial balances and net capital computations, and filed inaccurate Financial and Operational Uniform Single

Brewer Financial Services, LLC: Expelled

Adam Gary Erickson (Principal) and Steven John Brewer: Barred

The Firm failed to develop and implement a reasonably designed anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program (AMLCP).

The firm’s written procedures, which contained information primarily relating to customer identification procedures (CIP),

• offered little or no guidance on how to comply with most requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act;
• contained no provisions on conducting customer due diligence and enhanced due diligence, and insufficient guidance on responding to, and properly documenting responses to, information requests the United States Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued pursuant to Section 314(a) of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act; and
• did not address how to monitor for and report suspicious activity, and the firm failed to conduct an adequate independent test of its AMLCP. FINRA found that the testing, which an independent auditor performed, was deficient by failing to test the firm’s implementation of a suspicious activity report (SAR) surveillance program, AML training program and Bank Secrecy Act requirements, including customer identification procedures.

FINRA also found that the firm failed to

• establish, maintain and/ or enforce a supervisory system and written procedures reasonably designed to record and supervise private securities transactions, and failed to record such transactions; and
• make and keep current all account forms in compliance with Securities Exchange Act Rule 17a-3(17), and NASD Rules 3110(a) and (c).

Acting through Burchard, his Firm failed to

• prepare accurate general ledgers and trial balances;
• prepare accurate computations of net capital under the aggregated indebtedness standard while conducting a securities business;
• maintain or meet its minimum net capital requirement, failed to notify FINRA when its net capital declined below the minimum required under SEC Rule 15c3-1;
• prepare and file FOCUS Reports Part IIA for several calendar quarters;
• comply with the terms of its membership agreement when it acted as a dealer after executing more than 10 proprietary trades in its account during a calendar year, thereby increasing its minimum net capital requirement from $5,000 to $100,000;
• file an application for approval of a material change in its business operations as originally provided in its membership agreement;
• report customer complaints, which were discloseable events, within 10 business days and statistical and summary information of customer complaints the firm received on a quarterly basis;
• timely amend Forms U4 to disclose settlements;
• timely report settlements, arbitration awards and a default judgment that were required to be disclosed;
• develop, establish and implement an adequate AML compliance program;
• conduct and/or document adequate independent testing of its AML compliance program and procedures;
• establish procedures to ensure the designation of an AML Compliance Officer to NASD;
• NASD of any changes in contact information for its AML Compliance Officer in a reasonable amount of time and failed to implement and adequate AML training program;
• establish and implement an adequate Customer Identification Program;
• evidence that a due diligence review was performed to review the identities or beneficial owners of accounts of foreign financial institutions;
• establish adequate procedures designed to monitor, detect and investigate suspicious activity despite the presence of red flags noted in the firm’s procedures;
• prepare and maintain exception reports produced to review for unusual activity in accounts; failed to evidence due diligence in opening accounts of foreign financial institutions;
• monitor and respond to requests for information from FinCEN; and
• establish and implement policies, procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act, including failure to implement policies and procedures designed to detect and report suspicious activity and to verify the identity of customers.

Burchard failed to reasonably supervise the activities of a registered representative and registered principal to ensure that she performed the supervisory responsibilities Burchard delegated to her.