Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total
21744 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Revocation by DEC
Keyword(s): Professionalism; Client's Best Interest; Forgery; Misrepresentation; Professional Discipline; Unauthorized Transaction; Employer Policy Violation; Fraud Related to Professional Activity; Settlement
Standard(s) Violated: Article Article 3(d); 201; 406; 102; 103(c); 607; 202; 606(b)
Matter Type(s): FINRA Discipline; Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 12/19/2008
Summary: Whether a candidate for CFP® certification violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he signed clients’ signatures on documents without their authorization.

23037 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Private Censure
Keyword(s): Diligence; Customer Complaints; Fitness; Client's Best Interest; Disclosure to Clients; Fraud Related to Professional Activity; Lawsuits Involving Financial Matters; Professionalism; Misrepresentation
Standard(s) Violated: Article 409; 607; Article 3(a); 606(b); 102; 201; 606(a); 202
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 06/21/2011
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when he failed to inform his financial planning client that he was renting her property below the market price and that he exercised discretionary authority over her online account without obtaining prior written authorization from the client and principal approval from Respondent’s firm.

27735 – Anonymous Case History
Decision: Letter of Admonition
Keyword(s): Suitability; Fraud Related to Professional Activity; Professionalism; Disclosure to Clients; Client's Best Interest; Customer Complaints
Standard(s) Violated: Article 202; 606(b); 201; 703; 607
Matter Type(s): Client Dissatisfaction
Decision Date: 05/14/2014
Summary: Whether a CFP® professional (“Respondent”) violated CFP Board’s Standards of Professional Conduct when she: 1) recommended that a client, a risk-adverse retiree, invest $100,000 into The Fund, an investment that Respondent described as a partnership, but which was in actuality a hedge fund; 2) failed to disclose the conflict of interest that existed as a result of Respondent’s role as Advisor for The Fund; 3) recommended The Fund to Grievant although Respondent when the client may not have met the requirements to be an accredited investor; and 4) denied any remunerative connection to The Fund, despite her advisory role.

Page 1 of 1 , 3 Items in Total