by Bill Singer
Pruco Broker Impersonates 9 Customers In Phone Calls
April 22, 2013
For the purpose of proposing a settlement of rule violations
alleged by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA"), without
admitting or denying the findings, prior to a regulatory hearing, and without
an adjudication of any issue, Earl William Fay submitted a Letter of
Acceptance, Waiver and Consent ("AWC"), which FINRA accepted. In the Matter of
Earl William Fay, Respondent (AWC 2012034068501, April 15, 2013).
Fay first became registered in 1994 with Pruco Securities, LLC , where he remained
until his September 17, 2012, discharge. The AWC asserts that he had no prior relevant
disciplinary history with the Securities and Exchange Commission, any
self-regulatory organization or any state securities regulator.
Fay's regulatory problem starts out in benign enough fashion. Seems that he had authorized customer sub-account reallocations to effectuate. On top of that, Fay also needed to enter certain unsolicited securities sales and purchases.
Now things careen over the cliff.
From November 2010 to February 2012, Fay allegedly impersonated nine customers in telephone
calls to Pruco in order to effectuate twenty-seven transactions involving
reallocations and securities buys/sells.
Purportedly, he placed a telephone call to his firm's Customer Service
Center, identified himself as the customer, and impersonated the customer.
According to online FINRA records as of April 22, 2013, in a
Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration ("Form U5")
filed on August 28, 2012, by Pruco, the employer provides the following basis
for Fay's "Discharge":
REGISTERED REPRESENTATIVE IMPERSONATED SEVERAL CLIENTS IN CALLS TO SERVICE CENTER. ALLEGATIONS CONFIRMED.
In accordance with the terms of the AWC, FINRA imposed upon
Fay a $7,500 fine and a 30-business-day suspension with any FINRA member in any
and all capacities.
Bill Singer's Comment
I sort of understand why Fay may have needed to go through
the alleged subterfuge for the reallocations, but I'm somewhat at a loss as to
why he may have thought it necessary to impersonate a customer in order to
enter buys/sells. Seems to me that in the regular course of business such transactions are routinely called in by stockbrokers -- albeit without impersonating their clients. Consequently, something just doesn't add up here for me but, notwithstanding, Fay entered into the AWC settlement and if he is happy then who am I to question what he did, didn't do, or whatever actually happened here?
Also READ: