Securities Lawyers Blog
The securities lawyers at Gana Weinstein LLP represent investors who have been mistreated by their brokers and suffered investment losses. Our firm is experienced in bringing claims against brokerage firms, such as Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp., to hold Wall Street responsible for their misconduct. When a client contacts our firm they can expect that our attorneys will have the knowledge and ability to evaluate the potential claims and analyze their trading activity for red flags of misconduct. Our consultations are designed to help provide clients with all available options.
Intesa Sanpaolo IMI Securities Corp is a broker-dealer that provides capital markets and investment banking services, including equity and fixed income sales and trading, debt and equity capital markets, structured finance and M&A advisory, for institutional and corporate clients. Formerly known as Banca IMI Securities Corporation and incorporated in Delaware in 1986, the New York-based firm is indirectly controlled by the Italian banking group Intesa Sanpaolo as part of its IMI Corporate and Investment Banking Division and is a member of the New York Stock Exchange.
Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp. – By the Numbers:
- CRD #: 19418
- Regulatory Events: 11
- Broker Employees: 35
Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp. – In the News:
FINRA v. Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp. (Case #2024081858901) – From July 2018 to April 2024, the firm failed to report or inaccurately reported more than 12,000 transactions to the Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (TRACE) in violation of FINRA Rules 6730 and 2010. Separately, from at least July 2018 to September 2024, the firm violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Rule 10b-10 and FINRA Rules 2232 and 2010 by failing to disclose the price of the security on over 11,000 customer confirmations and violated FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010 by failing to supervise for compliance with trade confirmation disclosure requirements. For these violations, the firm is censured and fined $125,000.
FINRA v. Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp. (Case #2018058464601) – From January 2015 through May 2018, IMI Securities failed to establish an anti-money laundering (AML) compliance program reasonably designed to detect, monitor, and cause the reporting of potentially suspicious activity relating to low-priced securities transactions. These transactions consisted primarily of trades in the correspondent account of the firm’s parent bank, which traded through the firm on behalf of other FFIs not named on the account. Despite conducting approximately $153 million in transactions involving over-the-counter (OTC) securities, approximately half of which comprised low-priced securities, during this period, prior to December 2015 the firm had no systems to monitor for potentially suspicious activity involving equity trading. Although the firm later implemented new monitoring systems, these systems were not reasonably designed to detect red flags typically associated with low-priced securities transactions, and the firm failed to amend its written AML procedures to provide guidance to its employees regarding the purpose of the systems, how to use them, and how to escalate red flags to firm management for further review. Because of these deficiencies, the firm did not detect and investigate multiple red flags of suspicious low-priced securities transactions by its customers. As a result, the firm violated FINRA Rules 3310(a) and 2010. IMI Securities also failed to establish and implement a system reasonably designed to comply with the firm’s obligation to conduct due diligence and enhanced due diligence on correspondent accounts for FFIs. Among other things, the firm failed to obtain information concerning the anticipated trading activity for many accounts held by FFIs and failed to conduct periodic reviews of account activity to determine whether the activity was consistent with the type, purpose, and anticipated activity of the account. As a result, the firm violated FINRA Rules 3310(b) and 2010. In addition, from May 2015 through February 2019, the firm failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system and written procedures reasonably designed to achieve the review of electronic communications. Consequently, the firm failed to review more than 560,000 electronic communications during this period. As a result, the firm violated FINRA Rules 3110(a) and (b) and 2010.
Gana Weinstein LLP represents individuals, families, and institutions in securities arbitration and litigation against brokerage firms. If you suspect churning, excessive commissions, unauthorized trading, or other misconduct in your Intesa Sanpaolo Imi Securities Corp. account, our consultations are free and confidential.