Securities Lawyers Blog
According to records kept by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) financial Broker Joseph Kirkland (Kirkland), previously associated with LPL Financial LLC, has at least 2 disclosable events. These events include one customer complaint, one regulatory event, alleging that Kirkland recommended unsuitable investments in different investment products including debt securities among other allegations and complaints.
FINRA BrokerCheck shows a final customer complaint on April 04, 2023.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (‘Commission’) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (‘Exchange Act’) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (‘Advisers Act’) against Joseph Kirkland (‘Respondent’). The Commission finds that on October 28, 2022, Respondent pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 1343 before the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, in United States v. Joseph Kirkland, et al., Crim. No. 3:21-cr-00082-ADC-MDM (D.P.R.). Respondent is awaiting sentencing. In his guilty plea, Respondent stipulated that from on or about March 2016 to on or about June 2018, he conspired with others to defraud the Municipality of Mayag\\u00fcez, Puerto Rico (the ‘City’) and its municipal enterprise, Mayag\\u00fcez Economic Development, Inc. (‘MEDI’), and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and misleading statements involving the City’s funds. Respondent was the registered representative responsible for MEDI’s brokerage account at UBIS, which held $9 million of the City’s funds earmarked for improving a local trauma center. Respondent made and caused to be made materially false statements to the City, through electronic messages, asserting that the City’s $9 million in principal was invested at a high rate of return. In reality, Respondent caused financial transactions that depleted the City’s funds and converted a portion of the City’s funds to Respondent’s own personal use.