196 Enforcement Actions in the U.S. over past 30 days

-

FINRA enforcements decreased 70% over the past 30 days

-

CME issued enforcements: $1,241,754.92 over the past 30 days

-

161 Final Rules go into effect in the next 30 days

-

37 Mortgage Lending docs published in the last 7 days

-

1460 docs with 2637 extracted obligations from the last 7 days

-

57 new Proposed and Final Rules were published in the past 7 days

-

2509 new docs in pro.compliance.ai within the last 7 days

-

Considering RCM Solutions?  Here’s an RFP to get started.

-

Enforcement Report Mar 13-19

FINRA

9 Enforcement Documents

$80,161.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Kishan Parikh
Violation: Respondent Kishan Parikh, while associated with FINRA menmber, made unsuitable recommendations and excessively traded the accounts of five of his customers, Customers A,B,C,D and E (the Customers’) from August 2014 through November 2016 (the “Relevant Period”)… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Tonya Nicole Smoake
Violation: Between April 2017 and January 2019, Respondent participated in private securities transactions involving approximately $1.6 million in total sales, without the firm’s knowledge or approval, in violation of FINRA Rules 3280 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $10,000.00
Respondent: Trevor B. Rahn
Violation: During his association with JPMS, Rahn engaged in a pattern of breaking up customer orders for execution in violation of FINRA Rules… Read More

Penalties: $15,000.00
Respondent: The Logan Group Securities
Violation: From October 2017 through September 2018, the Logan Group failed to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures, reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and FINRA rules concerning investment recommendations of multi-share class variable annuities. As a result, the firm violated FINRA Rules 2330, 3110(b), and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $20,000.00
Respondent: Corey A. White
Violation: Between January 2013 and July 2017, White was responsible for establishing, maintaining and enforcing the firm’s supervisory systems and Written Supervisory Procedures (WSPs)… Read More

Penalties: $15,161.00
Respondent: Edmund Zack
Violation: Between November 2014 and September 2015, Zack violated FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010 when he made unsuitable stock recommendations to, and engaged in excessive and quantitatively unsuitable trading in the Aegis account held by, one of his customers… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Carlos Sosa
Violation: On November 13, 2019, while taking the Series 7 General Securities Representative examination, Sosa possessed unauthorized study materials in violation of FINRA Rules 1210.05 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Robert Riviere
Violation: Between September 2019 and December 2019, while he was associated with Heritage Financial Systems, Riviere engaged in an outside business activity for which he received compensation without providing the firm with prior written notice. Riviere thereby violated FINRA Rules 3270 and 2010… Read More

Penalties: $5,000.00
Respondent: Robert Benjamin Caiati
Violation: From July 2016 to December 2018, Caiati submitted twenty-seven expense reimbursement requests, totaling $3,646.86, for business meals and entertainment that he knew were not compliant with the firm’s expense reimbursement policies… Read More

CME

4 Enforcement Documents

$95,000.00 in Fines

Penalties: $50,000.00
Respondent: Tullett Prebon Energy (Singapore) PTE. LTD
Violation: TP Singapore failed to diligently supervise the execution of block trades by its employees to enable compliance with Exchange block trade reporting requirements… Read More

Penalties: $10,000.00
Respondent: Yuri Alishaev
Violation: A Panel of the COMEX Business Conduct Committee (the “Panel”) found that on May 19, 2019, Alishaev placed buy and sell orders in the same product and expiration month, where he knew or reasonably should have known that the purpose of the orders was to avoid taking a bona fide market position exposed to market risk in the Gold futures market… Read More

Penalties: $10,000.00
Respondent: Yuri Alishaev
Violation: Pursuant to an offer of settlement in which Yuri Alishaev (“Alishaev”) neither admitted nor denied the rule violation upon which the penalty is based, on March 16, 2021, a Panel of the NYMEX Business Conduct Committee (the “Panel”) found that on February 20, 2020, Alishaev placed buy and sell orders in the same product and expiration month, where he knew or reasonably should have known that the purpose of the orders was to avoid taking a bona fide market position exposed to market risk in the Palladium futures market… Read More

Penalties: $25,000.00
Respondent: Mirabella Financial Services LLP
Violation: Pursuant to an offer of settlement that Mirabella Financial Services LLP (“Mirabella”) presented at a hearing on March 16, 2021, in which Mirabella neither admitted nor denied the rule violation upon which the penalty is based, a Panel of the NYMEX Business Conduct Committee (“Panel”) found that on August 18, 2020 accounts owned or controlled by Mirabella, which were aggregated for the purposes of Exchange position limits, held September 2020 Light Sweet Crude Oil Futures (“SEP20 CL”) futures equivalent positions that exceeded the spot month position limit of 3,000 contracts in effect at that time… Read More

OFAC

4 Enforcement Documents

$216,464.00 in Fines

Penalties: $216,464.00
Respondent: UniControl, Inc
Violation: As a result of its failure to act on multiple apparent warning signals, UniControl exported 21 shipments of its goods from the United States to two European companies with knowledge or reason to know that the goods were intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation to Iran by the two European companies… Read More

SEC

16 Enforcement Documents

$1,820,217.00 in Fines

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Tra Jay Scarlett & Chatfield PCS Ltd.; GO ECO Manufacturing, Inc.
Violation: According to the SEC’s complaint, which was filed in federal court in the District of Colorado, since approximately March 2016, Scarlett, through Chatfield, has raised at least $3.2 million from investors in two securities offerings by GO ECO, which was billed as an environmentally-friendly drink bottling and manufacturing company… Read More

Penalties: $1,725,216.87
Respondent: Chris A. Dantin; Christopher D. Dantin; Andrew L. White; David P. Ortiz
Violation: The SEC’s complaints allege that the four individual defendants were among 1 Global’s top revenue producers, cumulatively selling more than $24 million of 1 Global’s unregistered securities to numerous retail investors… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: JESSICA RICHMAN and ZACHARY APTE
Violation: To make the securities offering a success, Richman, who was the Chief Executive Officer of uBiome, and Apte, who was its Chief Scientific Officer, painted a false picture of uBiome as a rapidly growing company with a strong track record of reliable revenue through health insurance reimbursements for its tests, one to detect “gut” microorganisms and another for women’s health… Read More

Penalties: N/A
Respondent: Ivan Ramos
Violation: On January 26, 2021, the Commission filed SEC v. Ramos, 21-cv-01180 (WJM) (D.N.J.) (“SEC v. Ramos”), in which the Commission alleges that, from approximately August 2017 to August 2020, Ramos, who was employed as an insurance agent at a large, reputable company, misled investors to invest at least $1 million in two purported investment vehicles… Read More

Penalties: $60,000.00
Respondent: Peter Ettro & Ettro Capital Management Corp.
Violation: From at least November 2016 to January 2019, Respondents made material misstatements and omissions to prospective investors about (1) the past performance of the Fund; (2) capital raised and assets under management (“AUM”); and (3) ECM’s investment management and real estate development experience. Respondents also raised a total of $4.4 million for the Fund from 13 individual investors in multiple states in an unregistered, non-exempt securities offering of membership interests in the Fund… Read More

Penalties: $35,000.00
Respondent: Joel M. Frank
Violation: Beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2011, Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC (“Och-Ziff”) entered into a series of relationships and investments in which bribes were paid through intermediaries and business partners to high ranking government officials in several nations on the African continent in order to win or retain business for Och-Ziff… Read More

CFTC

1 Enforcement Document

$6,500,000.00 in Fines

Penalties: $6,500,000.00
Respondent: Coinbase Inc.
Violation: Between January 2015 and September 2018, Coinbase violated Section 6(c)(1)(A) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. § 9(1)(A) (2018), and Regulation 180.1(a)(4), 17 C.F.R. § 180.1(a)(4) (2020), by recklessly delivering false, misleading or inaccurate reports concerning transactions in digital assets, including Bitcoin, on the electronic trading platform it operated, GDAX. During this period, Coinbase operated at least two trading programs which generated orders that, at times, matched with one another… Read More

FTC

11 Enforcement Documents

$73,499,587.00 in Fines

Penalties: $11,291,993.00
Respondent: LaShone Elam a/k/a LaShone Caldwell, and Talesia Neely & Absolute Financial Services, LLC, Absolute Financial Services Recovery, LLC, AFSR Global Logistics, LLC
Violation: The Complaint charges that the Settling Defendants participated in unlawful acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 –1692p, in connection with the collection and attempted collection of purported debts… Read More

Penalties: $2,027,295.31
Respondent: RANDON J. MORRIS, a/k/a Randy Morris & NATIONAL WEB DESIGN LLC; B2B WEBSITE DESIGN LLC d/b/a Affiliate Web Design; AMAZON AFFILIATE PROGRAM LLC d/b/a The Affiliate Consultants; R&C CONSULTATION, LLC d/b/a R&C Consulting
Violation: The Complaint charges that Defendants participated in deceptive and abusive acts or practices in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, and Sections 310.3 and 310.4 of the FTC’s Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”), 16 C.F.R. §§ 310.3(a)(2)(iii), (vii), (a)(4), and 310.4(b)(1)(v), by (1) making false or unsubstantiated earnings claims regarding the goods and services they market and sell to consumers; (2) misrepresenting, directly or indirectly, expressly or by implication, that Defendants are part of or affiliated with Amazon; and (3) initiating or causing the initiation of illegal outbound telephone calls that delivered prerecorded messages to induce the purchase of goods or services… Read More

Penalties: $32,470,000.00
Respondent: GEORGE M. MOSCONE & WELLCO, INC.
Violation: The Complaint alleges that Defendants participated in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), in connection with the advertising, marketing, distribution, and sale of television antennas and related amplifiers… Read More

Penalties: $16,418,306.00
Respondent: Jean Cellent, a/k/a Jean Pierre Cellent; James Dennison; and Eric Dennison & National Landmark Logistics LLC d/b/a UBS TRStar Systems, LLC; National Landmark Service of United Recovery LLC; Liberty Solutions & Associates LLC; LSA Processing System LLC; Silverlake Landmark Recovery Group LLC
Violation: The Complaint charges that the Liberty Solutions Defendants participated in unlawful acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a), and multiple provisions of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692–1692p, in connection with the collection and attempted collection of purported debts… Read More

Penalties: $11,291,993.00
Respondent: LaShone Elam, a/k/a LaShone Caldwell; Talesia Neely & Absolute Financial Services, LLC; Absolute Financial Services Recovery, LLC; AFSR Global Logistics, LLC
Violation: Collected more than $5.2 million from consumers through illegal debt collection practices. In its complaint, the FTC alleged that the company used the defendants in the National Landmark Logistics case to place deceptive robocalls alleging that consumers owed debt and faced legal action if they did not reply. Once consumers called the defendants after receiving the message, the defendants often falsely claimed to be representing a law firm or threatened consumers with arrest if they did not immediately pay the debt… Read More

X