Articles Tagged with investment fraud

shutterstock_178801082The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned broker Robert Livingstone (Livingstone) concerning allegations that Livingstone failed to respond FINRA’s request for documents concerning claims that Livingstone deposited a customer’s money into a private company called Newland Strategies.

Livingstone first became registered with FINRA in 1992 as a General Securities Representative with Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. Thereafter, in 2001, Livingstone registered with BB&T Investment Services, Inc. (BB&T). Livingstone remained registered with BB&T until the firm filed a Form U5 that terminated his registration with on October 3, 2013. BB&T stated on Livingstone’s BrokerCheck that a “client alleged she thought she invested 200,000 with BBTIS through her BBTIS rep in February 2013. However, it was deposited into a private company called Newland Strategies by her rep and was told she lost $68,000.”

FINRA alleged that in October 2013, BB&T terminated Livingstone’s registration after the firm investigated a customer complaint against Livingstone alleging participation in a private securities transaction. On March 21, 2014, FINRA investigated the customer complaint against Livingstone and requested documents and information from Livingstone. FINRA stated that Livingstone did not produce the requested documents and information after several requests. It was alleged that on April 24, 2014, Livingstone informed FINRA that he would not comply with requests. As a result of Livingstone’s failure to provide documents and information as required by FINRA Rule 8210, FINRA found that Livingstone violated FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010 and imposed a bar from the financial industry.

shutterstock_95643673The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) sanctioned financial advisor James Applewhite (Applewhite) concerning allegations that from about January 2010, through October 2012, Applewhite exercised discretion by effecting approximately 171 transactions in eight customer accounts without obtaining prior written authorization from the customers and without having the accounts accepted as discretionary accounts as required by NASD Rule 2510(b). FINRA found that the discretion was generally exercised pursuant to a strategy previously agreed upon with the customers. Nonetheless, FINRA alleged the firm did not permit discretionary trading, except for managed accounts, with pre-approved written discretion. As a result FINRA found that Applewhite violated NASD Rule 2510(b) and FINRA Rule 2010.

Applewhite entered the securities industry in November 1983. During all periods mentioned in the FINRA finding he was associated with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC. Applewhite’s employment with Wells Fargo ended on October 22, 2012. Thereafter, Applewhite became registered with BB&T Securities, L.L.C f/k/a Scott & Stringfellow, LLC.

The allegations made against Applewhite constitute unauthorized trading. Unauthorized trading occurs when a broker sells, buys, or exchanges, securities without the prior consent or authority from the investor. Unless an investor gives discretion to make trades, the broker must first discuss all trades with the investor before executing them. Even if the a customer verbally grants a broker discretion such an agreement is not valid under industry rules The SEC has found that unauthorized trading also constitutes securities fraud due to its fraudulent nature. No omission of information could be more material than the failure to inform the investor of his or her own purchases and sales.

shutterstock_24531604Our firm has covered the supervisory and due diligence failures concerning the sale and recommendation of Advanced Equities private placement since the SEC brought charges against the firm and its principals for selling one of its products by making material misrepresentations to investors. We also represent numerous clients who have unfortunately invested in these products that were alleged to have been sold as “late-stage private equities” by First Allied Securities brokers among others. Below are posts with additional information concerning these products.

shutterstock_143179897Gana Weinstein LLP is investigating claims were brought by securities and exchange commission (SEC) against Matthew Bell (Bell) and Craig Josephberg (Josephberg) in connection with participation in a $300 million securities fraud market manipulation scheme. The SEC brought charges against Abraxas J. Discala (Discala), Marc E. Wexler (Wexler), and Ira Shapiro (Shapiro), for manipulating the stock price of sale of CodeSmart Holdings (OTC: ITEN), Cubed, Inc. (OTC: CRPT), StarStream (OTC: SSET) and The Staffing Group, Ltd. (OTC: TSGL).

According to the complaint, in 2013, Discala and Wexler conspired with Bell and Josephberg, both registered representatives with different brokerage firms, to inflate the price of the stock of CodeSmart. The SEC found that Discala, Wexler, Bell, and Josephberg then profited by selling their shares at inflated values at the expense of Bell’s clients and Josephberg’s customers.

Bell was taken into custody by the FBI and appeared in federal court in San Antonio. In Court, Bell was informed of a 10-count indictment returned in Brooklyn, New York, and was released on bond. Bell has a long history of customer complaints and two firm terminations.

shutterstock_184149845In our prior post, our offices, Gana Weinstein LLP, noted its investigation of the July 17, 2014, claims brought by securities and exchange commission (SEC) against Craig Josephberg in connection with his participation in a $300 million securities fraud market manipulation scheme. The SEC brought charges against Abraxas J. Discala (Discala), Marc E. Wexler (Wexler), Matthew A. Bell (Bell), Craig L. Josephberg (Josephberg), and Ira Shapiro (Shapiro), for manipulating the stock price of four publically traded companies, CodeSmart Holdings, Inc. (CodeSmart), Cubed, StarStream Entertainment Inc., and the Staffing Group, Ltd.

According to the complaint, in 2013, Discala and Wexler conspired with registered representatives Bell and Josephberg to inflate the price of the stock of CodeSmart. The SEC found that Discala, Wexler, Bell, and Josephberg then profited by selling their shares at inflated values at the expense of Bell’s clients and Josephberg’s customers.

Josephberg has a long and troubled regulatory, criminal activity, debts, customer complaints, among a host of other supervisory “red flags” of potential misconduct in the handling of his clients. Josephberg entered the securities industry in 1996. Thereafter, he was associated with eight different firms including Maxim Group LLC, ICM Capital Markets, LTD, vFinance Investments, Inc., Halcyon Cabot Partners, LTD. (Halcoyon), and most recently Meyers Associates, L.P. (Meyers Associates). Indeed, when Josephberg was terminated from Halcoyon he was under investigation by the firm for sales practice violations including the selling of unsuitable securities, unauthorized trades, and securities fraud in connection with the sale of penny stocks including VHGI and Cell Therapeutics.

shutterstock_115971289The law offices of Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating the July 17, 2014, claims brought by securities and exchange commission (SEC) against Craig Josephbergin connection with his participation in a $300 million securities fraud market manipulation scheme. According to the SEC, Abraxas J. Discala (Discala), Marc E. Wexler (Wexler), Matthew A. Bell (Bell), Craig L. Josephberg (Josephberg), and Ira Shapiro (Shapiro), assisted in manipulating the stock price of four publically traded companies, CodeSmart Holdings, Inc. (CodeSmart), Cubed, StarStream Entertainment Inc., and the Staffing Group, Ltd.

According to the complaint, in 2013, Discala and Wexler served as the CEO and President of OmniView Capital Advisors LLC (OmniView) conspired with registered representatives Bell and Josephberg to inflate the price of the stock of CodeSmart. The SEC found that Discala, Wexler, Bell, and Josephberg then profited by selling their shares at inflated values at the expense of Bell’s clients and Josephberg’s customers.

The SEC alleged that defendants accomplished their scheme following CodeSmart’s reverse merger into a public shell company in May 2013, whereby Discala and his associates, including Wexler, Bell, and Josephberg, obtained control of 3,000,000 shares of CodeSmart. Later in May 2013, the SEC found that Discala and Wexler flooded the market with CodeSmart’s shares and found ready buyers in Bell’s advisory clients and Josephberg’s brokerage customers.

shutterstock_184920014The attorneys at Gana Weinstein LLP are investigating claims that broker Michael Frew (Frew). Frew allegedly solicited millions of dollars from investors including his friends and family on claims that he said would use the money to invest in real estate to rehabilitate properties in areas hit by natural disasters. Frew has now accused been accused of orchestrating a Ponzi scheme and converting these funds. Recently, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has sanctioned and barred Frew concerning these allegations and for Frew’s failure to properly respond to the agencies investigation requests.

Our attorneys have significant experience recovering investor funds by holding brokerage firms and Ponzi schemer’s responsible. In a similar real estate related fraudulent investment scheme our attorneys obtained a $2.8 million award on behalf of a group of defrauded investors including $1.9 million in punitive damages. See Reuters, Arbitrator orders alleged Ponzi-schemer to pay $2.8 million (Aug. 8, 2013) and the Award here.

Frew entered the securities industry in 1975. From 1988 to 2003, Frew was associated with Prudential Securities Inc. In 2003, Frew became registered with Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC (Wells Fargo). According to FINRA, Wells Fargo permitted Frew to resign in January 2014 when Frew refused to provide the firm bank records the firm requested in their investigation into whether Frew had received funds from customers. In February 2014, FINRA began investigating whether Frew accepted loans from customers and potentially converted those funds. Thereafter, FINRA stated that between March and May 2014, Frew failed to fully respond to FINRA’s requests for documents and information and refused to appear for testimony. For failing to respond to FINRA’s requests, the agency imposed a permanent bar from the securities industry.

shutterstock_180342155As discussed in Part I, the primary defense to preventing securities fraud is has been to “bar” the person from the industry and to instruct the criminal to stop committing fraud. Despite the evidence that the slap on wrist approach has been ineffective, some lawmakers continue to think barring individuals and educating the public is the best way to stop securities fraud.

Yet, according to Futures Magazine, during the hearing Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) stressed the importance of “consumer education” to prevent future scams. If only we could convince senior citizens to spend their golden years reading CFTC and SEC news releases and memorize the names of hundreds of barred fraudsters each year maybe we can turn the tide in this fight – right. Great game plan. At least Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) understood the disservice the education alone approach would provide the investing public by stating that “The first line of defense is not consumer education,” but rather “putting the crooks in prison.”

The hearing also featured testimony of a former fraudster, Karl Spicer. Spicer was convicted for ripping off investors in a metals scam. Spicer’s testimony also clearly stated that it is government agencies failure to instill fear into fraudsters that has resulted in no progress in investor protection. Without real world consequences, criminals merely go from scam to scam and will unapologetically continue to swindle. Spicer stated that “With all due respect to the civil authorities, the people that I have encountered…don’t really respect the civil authority bans.” In fact, “The gentleman I was with had a CFTC ban, he cooperated; he had a ban and he still went about doing business the very next day.”

shutterstock_186211292If someone broke into your home and stole hundreds of thousands of dollars of your possessions you expect that person to go to jail. But what if the consequence was merely to pay a fine and a court ordered bar from breaking into homes. Would you be alright with that outcome? Could such an approach really stop or even deter criminals? Could you imagine lawmakers arguing with you that the key to preventing more burglaries is to inform homeowners about locking their doors and windows and installing alarms – but not jail. If such an approach sounds silly then why have we accepted this approach to securities fraud.

The primary defense to preventing securities fraud is simply to “bar” the person from the securities industry and to instruct him or her to stop committing fraud. For many recidivist fraudsters, being barred from the industry is merely part of the career plan. Often times being barred from the industry merely frees the fraudster from the shackles of having to conceal their fraud within the confines of industry supervision. After being barred fraudsters are often in a perfect position to continue stealing from investors. Think about it – they have been industry trained, have spent years learning their craft, and have established many contacts and industry connections that they can now utilize for their post-industry frauds.

Yet regulators and lawmakers seemingly fail to grasp the very simple principal that those who commit securities fraud need to go to jail – period. Recently, the Senate presented findings of the Senate Special Committee on Aging concerning investigations gold investment scams targeting Florida seniors. The hearing clearly exposed how securities regulators, in this case the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has no ability to prevent securities fraud and protect the investing public.

shutterstock_143179897Our law firm is currently investigating an alleged Ponzi scheme run by financial advisor Patricia S. Miller (Miller) of McMurray, Pennsylvania. According to the United States Attorney Office, on June 6, 2014, Miller was arrested on charges that she orchestrated a massive Ponzi scheme and committed wire fraud.

Our attorneys encourage investors to contact our office if they have been an unfortunate victim of Miller’s. Our attorneys have significant experience recovering investor funds by holding brokerage firms and Ponzi schemer’s responsible. In a similar fraudulent investment scheme our attorneys obtained a $2.8 million award on behalf of a group of defrauded investors including $1.9 million in punitive damages. See Reuters, Arbitrator orders alleged Ponzi-schemer to pay $2.8 million (Aug. 8, 2013) and the Award here.

In Miller’s case, the United States has alleged that Miller used and abused her position of trust and her association with a Massachusetts broker dealer in order to obtain money from clients. While Miller represented to clients that their funds would be invested prudently, it is becoming clear that Miller never made such investments. According to the United States Attorney’s Office, Miller promised high returns in “investment clubs” called KS Investments and Buckharbor, among others. Miller represented, that the investment clubs would be placed in fixed-income notes and other investments. Instead, Miller has been accused of misappropriating the client’s funds for her own personal use. If convicted, Miller could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Contact Information