Articles Posted in Theft/conversion

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices is investigating allegations against Eric Hollifield that came to light as a result of a regulatory filing by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).  According to FINRA, the regulator launched an investigation into Eric Hollifield who was a registered representative of LPL Financial and Hamilton Investment Counsel.  The investigation was in connection with a customer complaint filed in arbitration against Dacula, Georgia-based Hollifield that alleges he stole or misappropriated $1,240,000 from the account of an elderly client. This complaint was filed on August 25, 2021 and came on the heels of LPL terminating Hollifield for cause for “failing to disclose an outside business activity.”  On September 1, 2021 Hamilton Investment Counsel followed LPL’s lead and terminated Hollifield for cause or failing to disclose an outside business activity.

Since Hollifield failed to respond to FINRA’s request for information, pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, Hollifield accepted a lifetime ban from the securities industry.  Brokers agree to these lifetime bans, instead of cooperating with an investigation, for any number of reasons.  Obviously, given the allegations made by the pending customer complaint and the terminations from LPL and Hamilton, a reasonable conclusion to draw is, Hollifield chose to accept a lifetime bad from FINRA as opposed to disclosing or admitting information to FINRA that could be used against him by criminal authorities. It is important to realize, the facts in the customer complaint and the information contained in the FINRA AWC are mere allegations and nothing has been proven.

LPL has a long history of failing to supervise its financial advisors, like Hollifield. We have blogged on these issues numerous times.  Pursuant to FINRA Rule 3110, brokerage firms like LPL have an iron-clad responsibility to supervise the conduct of their brokers, like Hollifield.  Similarly, brokers have an obligation to disclose “outside business activities” to their member-firm pursuant to FINRA Rule 3270.  LPL cannot get off the hook, however, just because Hollifield failed to disclose an outside business. There are a few reasons for this and they are important.  First, brokers do it all the time and LPL knows it. Therefore, as required by both FINRA regulations and LPL’s open internal policies the procedures, LPL’s compliance and supervision apparatus is geared towards detecting undisclosed outside business activities because it is commonly through these outside businesses, that financial advisors execute their worst schemes and frauds on their clients.  Further, to the extent red flags existed that Hollifield was running an undisclosed outside business or doing something else that violated securities regulations, then LPL can be held liable for negligent supervision, at a minimum. Case law supports the imposition of liability on LPL under these circumstances.  See McGraw v. Wachovia Securities, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Iowa 2010).

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices has represented investors who’ve suffered losses from dealing with broker-advisors who’ve stolen their money. Sometimes brokers are not the least bit subtle about what they do with clients’ assets. They may shift cash into separate accounts and spend it themselves.  Such was the case with Apostolos Pitsironis, a former Janney Montgomery Scott advisor. He is accused of stealing more than $400,000 from his clients from 2018-2019.

In the brokerage business, stealing clients’ funds is often known as “converting” their assets. Brokers may spend the money on gambling, cars or other consumption items. Pitsironis was “discharged in June 2019 after an internal investigation uncovered that the FA transferred funds via unauthorized ACHs from a client’s account to a third-party bank account owned and controlled by Pitsironis,” according to ThinkAdvisor.com. “He later used this money to pay his family’s personal expenses, all the while deceiving both his victims and the financial services firm for whom he worked,” prosecutors stated.  Pitsironis also allegedly spent his clients’ money on casino gambling debts, credit card bills and the lease of a luxury car.

“Janney is committed to serving our clients with the utmost integrity and trust,” the brokerage firm said in a statement obtained by ThinkAdvisor. “Upon discovering the improper actions taken by this advisor with one client account, he was promptly terminated, and the client was fully reimbursed. Janney has fully cooperated with law enforcement and will continue to do so.”

Stoltmann Law Offices previously posted about Scott Wayne Reed, former broker at Wells Fargo Advisors, selling away to his customers, including customers of Wells Fargo. On December 15, 2020, the Arizona Corporation Commission filed a “Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Proposed Order to Cease and Desist, Order for Restitution, Order for Administrative Penalties, Order for Revocation and Order for Other Affirmative Action” against Reed, his wife, Sarah Reed, Pebblekick, Inc. and Don K. Shiroishi, the Chief Executive Officer and President of Pebblekick.

According to the ACC’s notice, Mr. Reed sold at least $3.5 million of investments in short-term, high-interest notes issued by Pebblekick. Mr. Reed sold these notes as offering an annualized rate of return of sixty-percent (60%). In turn, Pebblekick paid at least $191,340 to Reed. He sold these notes to clients as “100% safe” investments and represented that he also invested in Pebblekick. He went as far as personally guaranteeing $100,000 of the $200,000 investment made by one investor.Reed also sold other outside investment to customers, which he alleged were connected to Pebblekick, including but not limited to Precision Surgical, Mako Studio, and Ascensive Creator.

Reed was a registered representative of Wells Fargo Advisors at the time that he sold this investment, but did not disclose that he was selling notes in Pebblekick or that he received nearly $200,000 in commissions and fees for selling Pebblekick. According to the ACC, “when Reed’s firm reported him for potentially selling away and the Securities Division requested Reed to provide information and documents concerning the allegation, Reed impeded the Division’s investigation by providing responses that were false, incomplete, and misleading.”

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices is investigating incidences of investors whose brokerage accounts have been hacked. Market regulators are investigating reports that customers of the popular online trading app Robinhood were ripped off. Hackers reportedly obtained account information of Robinhood customers, then transferred funds out of their accounts. The customers have contacted the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and FINRA, the securities industry regulator, to probe the thefts.

How safe is your money in an online brokerage account? It should be protected by numerous safeguards, although lately cyberthieves have found a way to steal money directly from investors. During the COVID pandemic, online trading soared, with millions of day traders using their phones and other devices to trade stocks and other securities. But as a recent wave of customer complaints suggest, their accounts have been hacked and money taken from their accounts, according to Bloomberg News.

In a statement to Bloomberg, Robinhood did not take responsibility for the thefts:

Stoltmann Law Offices has been representing victims of SIM Swap scams for the past few years. This sordid scam involves a crook gaining access to your cell-phone SIM card through remote access and then essentially taking control of your phone to serve their purposes.  They’re looking for money, plain and simple. One of the most common security features many people use for their email, bank, investment, and crypto-currency accounts is called “2-step” authentication. If you want to change your password for these accounts, typically, you have to check your email and click a link that will then allow you to change a password.  Another security feature involves a pin or code being texted to you before you can change your password to an email or bank account.  If your cell phone number or SIM is “ported” to another phone not in your control, then someone else gets the text with that code; someone else can change the password to your email, investment, bank, and other accounts.  Your cell phone holds the lock and key to so much personal access, it must be secure or the fallout can be a catastrophe for victims.

On Sunday, October 18, 2020, ABC 7 Chicago aired a story on this ever increasing scam. Stoltmann Law Offices attorney Joe Wojciechowski was featured in this story as an advocate for victims of this fraud.  Stoltmann Law Offices has successfully recovered money lost or stolen as a result of SIM-Swap frauds and continues to represent victims. When suing a cell phone carrier like AT&T or Sprint, the claims must follow the dispute resolution processes outlined in the wireless customer agreements between you and the company. Buried deep in that small print lies an arbitration clause that is binding and requires disputes to be filed in the AAA (American Arbitration Association) under the Consumer Rules.  The good news about the AAA Consumer Rules is the company (AT&T, Sprint, Etc.) have to pay the arbitrator’s fees, which can get pretty high.  The bad news is, you won’t have access to the kind of discovery you would get in court.

Stoltmann Law Offices has a combine 40 years of experience prosecuting investor and consumer related claims in arbitration forums around the world.  If you or someone you know is a victim of a Sim-Swap and had money stolen as a result, please contact Stoltmann Law Offices at 312-332-4200 for a no-obligation, free consultation.  We are a contingency fee law firm which means we do not get paid unless you do!

 

 

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices has represented investors who’ve suffered losses from dealing with brokers who’ve fleeced clients. This is a sad occurrence, but sometimes brokers take advantage of clients and steal their money. We’ve investigated countless cases when this has happened.

The instances are all too familiar to us: Usually it’s elderly, retired women who are preyed upon. A recent case involving a 73-year-old client is a case in point. A former LPL broker, Matthew O. Clason, of Chesire, Connecticut, is accused of stealing more than $300,000 from the client, “with whom he formed a personal relationship.” Clason, who had been a registered broker since 2004, sold securities from his client in 45 transactions over the last 20 months, the SEC said in its suit filed against the broker.

“He transferred about $330,000 [from proceeds of the sales of client assets] to a joint checking account they had opened at a large national bank, funding most of it through securities sold from a non-retirement account that charged the client 1.54% of her assets under management,” the SEC reported. The agency is requesting “that the court enter an order freezing Clason’s assets and requiring an accounting. The SEC also seeks permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement plus prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.” Clason, who was registered with LPL and Integrated Wealth Concepts, could not be reached for comment, according to AdvisorHub.com. He was fired by LPL on August 13 for failing to comply with firm policies with respect to handling client funds, the SEC said.

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices is investigating claims made by the Securities and Exchange Commission that financial advisor Scott Fries of Piqua, Ohio engaged in a Ponzi-like scheme , defrauding investors of nearly $200,000.  According to the complaint filed by the SEC last week, Fries raised approximately $178,000 from investors and used that money to pay personal expenses like his mortgage, payday loans, and credit cards. The SEC further alleges that Fries attempted to fraudulently conceal his activities by creating fake account statements which he delivered to his clients that purported to show their money invested in legitimate investments. The SEC alleges Fries’ misconduct violated several federal securities laws including Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a), and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1) and 80b-6(2).

Before the SEC took action, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) barred Fries from the securities industry in November 2019 for violating FINRA Rule 8210. In response to being terminated for cause by his broker/dealer firm TransAmerica, FINRA launched an investigation into the allegations which led to Fries’ termination. If a broker/advisor fails to respond to these requests for information under FINRA Rule 8210, they can be barred for life from the securities industry. In many instances, brokers refuse to answer Rule 8210 requests because doing so would put them in the untenable position of having to answer question under oath.  It is likely, given the SEC’s allegations, that Fries chose not to answer FINRA Rule 8210 requests because it was not in his best interest for their to be a record of whatever this scheme actually was.

Investors who were caught up in this scheme run by Fries have legal options to attempt to recover their losses.  First and foremost, at all times relevant, Fries was a registered, licensed, representative of TransAmerica. This means victims – even those that were not contractual customers of TransAmerica – can file an arbitration action against TransAmerica to seek recovery of their losses. As a FINRA registered broker/dealer firm, TransAmerica is legally obligated to supervise the conduct of its financial advisors. This supervision requirement is rooted in the Securities Act and all applicable state laws, including myriad FINRA Rules and regulations, including FINRA Rule 3110.  Case law also supports the proposition that even non-customers of the firm can sue for the firm’s role in facilitating or failing to supervise their advisors. See McGraw v. Wachovia Securities, 756 F. Supp. 2d 1053 (N.D. Iowa 2010). When “red flags”of misconduct present themselves, firms like TransAmerica have a duty to act and to take steps to protect investors.

Barrington, Illinois based Stoltmann Law Offices has been retained by victims of Matthew Piercey’s alleged Ponzi scheme involving Wealth Legacy, UpVesting Fund, Zolla Investment Fund, amongst other alleged investments, to pursue claims against potentially liable third parties. Matthew Piercey was arrested at Lake Shasta, California after attempting to evade the FBI using an underwater scooter. Piercey was arrested and indicted on 31 counts of wire fraud, money laundering, mail fraud, and witness tampering. Piercey is alleged to have orchestrated a $30 million Ponzi scheme, converting investor funds that were supposed to be invested in supposedly legitimate investment vehicles, like the Zolla Investment Fund.  Piercey’s alleged co-conspirator, Ken Winton, was arrested separately, although under less dramatic circumstances.

Victims of Matthew Piercey’s Ponzi scheme may have claims against third-parties to recover their losses. Pursuing Matthew Piercey directly in a lawsuit to recover is probably a fool’s errand. Once the criminal justice system is through with him, there won’t be anything left. Sure, assuming he is found guilty of these heinous crimes, he will be ordered to make restitution to victims, but the money is gone and his earning capacity will be destroyed.  So victims need to look to third parties for recovery.

If you were referred to Matthew Piercey or Ken Winton by a lawyer, a financial advisor, a wealth manager, or a CPA or accountant, those individuals could be liable to you for the losses you have sustained as a result of Piercey’s alleged schemes. 

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices has represented investors who’ve suffered losses as a result of financial advisors who sell investments that are technically “unauthorized” by their firms. These side gigs, while profitable for the broker due to high commissions, are prohibited by FINRA, the industry regulator.

Brokers may pitch clients on a private securities transaction, for example. Of course, the investors rarely have any clue that what they are being asked to invest in is “unauthorized” or a “private securities transaction.” Sometimes these take the form of stock offerings that are unlisted. Broker Henry A. Taylor III, for example, then working for the Cetera brokerage firm, sold $30,000 in private stock that invested in a trucking firm. Taylor did not notify his firm of the sale and had initially deposited his client’s check in his personal account.

After a FINRA arbitration claim was filed, the regulator fined Taylor $7,500 and suspended him for three months earlier this year. Taylor neither admitted nor denied the findings of the FINRA action. The original transaction took place three years ago.

Chicago-based Stoltmann Law Offices is investigating reports of selling away and securities fraud engaged in by Douglas Kiffmeyer.  On July 27, 2020, Douglas Kiffmeyer pleaded guilty to 17 counts delivered via indictment in June 2018.  Kiffmeyer pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Section 1343, 14 counts of failing to timely file income tax returns, 26 U.S.C. Section 7203, and one count of engaging in a financial transaction in criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. Section 1957.  Kiffmeyer has yet to be sentenced but under federal criminal sentencing guidelines, should received between 46-57 months in prison. At times relevant to perpetrating his criminal scheme, Kiffmeyer was a registered representative and financial advisor for FINRA broker/dealer Brokers International Financial Services, LLC.

According to Kiffmeyer’s FINRA BrokerCheck Report, many of the entities through which he conducted his fraudulent investment scheme were disclosed as “outside business activities” to his member-firm. According to the Stipulation of Facts entered on July 27, 2020, Kiffmeyer’s scam began as investments he solicited in a company called Creative Digital, Inc., which he represented was designing a digital trigger for the M-16 rifle. In total, Kiffmeyer raised $827,000 for Creative Digital, Inc., but spent almost all of the money on a GMC Sierra 1500 truck, a Hummer H2, a motor coach, a Corvette, a Nissan 370, and an engagement ring. According to the Stipulation, of the $827,000 raised, only $1,500 was returned to investors.

Kiffmeyer’s scheme took a different and even more sordid turn next. He began selling promissory notes to elderly investors, convincing them to surrender IRAs and annuity products in exchange for promissory notes bearing interest. One of his victims was 90 years old. The last part of Kiffmeyer’s scam involved selling interests in a medical marijuana clinic. Little, if any, of the $206,000 raised for this company was used for the business and was instead converted for personal use.

CNBC
FOX Business
The Wall Street Journal
Bloomberg
CBS
FOX News Channel
USA Today
abc NEWS
DATELINE
npr
Contact Information