MFDA fines 6 reps $55K combined — one for faking mother’s signature

The MFDA has fined six mutual fund reps for either using pre-signed forms or falsifying signatures.

One of the fined reps forged the signature of his mother, reveals a hearing settlement in which the rep says his mother was “unable” to visit the bank branch in person.

On July 27, an MFDA hearing panel reported that the six cases resulted in $54,500 in fines and $12,500 in costs — for a total of $67,000. None of the reps received financial benefit from their conduct, the MFDA says. Details of each case are outlined below.

Goran Stanimirovic

Stanimirovic faces the following sanctions:

• prohibition on conducting securities-related business for three years while in the employ of or associated with an MFDA member; and
• future compliance with MFDA rule 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Stanimirovic admitted he:

• falsified the signature of one client — his mother — on one account form, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1; and
• misled MFDA staff during the investigation into his conduct when he said he didn’t falsify the signature of a client on an account form.

Amrit Sharma

Sharma faces the following sanctions:

• a fine of $5,000;
• costs of $2,500;
• prohibition on acting as branch manager for six months pursuant to s. 24.1.1(e) of MFDA bylaw No.1; and
• future compliance with MFDA rule 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Sharma admitted he obtained, possessed and, in some instances, processed transactions using 18 pre-signed account forms for seven clients, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1.

Jeffery John Burchill

Burchill faces the following sanctions:

• prohibition on conducting securities-related business for 30 days while in the employ of or associated with an MFDA member;
• a fine of $20,000 pursuant to s. 24.1.1(b) of MFDA bylaw No.1;
• costs of $2,500; and
• future compliance with MFDA rule 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Burchill admitted he obtained, possessed and used to process transactions, 222 pre-signed account forms for 92 clients, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1.

John-Paul Tantalo

Tantalo faces the following sanctions:

• a fine of $12,500;
• costs of $2,500; and
• future compliance with MFDA rule 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Tantalo admitted he:

• obtained, possessed and, in some instances, used to process transactions, 14 pre-signed account forms for 13 clients, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1;
• altered and, in some instances, used to process transactions, five account forms for five clients by altering information on the account forms without having the clients initial the alterations, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1; and
• failed to accurately respond to the member’s annual compliance questionnaire by incorrectly affirming he didn’t maintain pre-signed account forms in client files, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1.

Maria Peregrina Fernandes Dias Pereira

Pereira faces the following sanctions:

• a fine of $7,000 pursuant to s. 24.1.1(b) of MFDA bylaw No. 1;
• costs of $2,500 pursuant to s. 24.2 of MFDA bylaw No. 1; and
• future compliance with MFDA rule 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Pereira admitted she:

• altered and, in some instances, used to process transactions, three account forms for three clients by altering information on the account forms without having the clients initial the alterations, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1; and
• obtained, possessed and, in some instances, used to process transactions, eight pre-signed account forms for seven clients, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1.

Susan Bernadette Doyle

Doyle faces the following sanctions:

• a fine of $10,000 pursuant to s. 24.1.1(b) of MFDA bylaw No.1;
• costs of $2,500 pursuant to s. 24.2 of MFDA bylaw No.1;
• prohibition on acting as branch manager for six months pursuant to s. 24.1.1(e) of MFDA bylaw No.1; and
• future compliance with MFDA rules 2.2.1, 1.1.2, 2.5.1 and 2.1.1.

The settlement agreement reveals that Doyle admitted she:

• opened an account and processed a trade for a client without communicating with the client, thereby failing to use due diligence to learn the essential facts relative to the client and each order or account accepted, contrary to the member’s policies and procedures and MFDA rules 2.2.1, 1.1.2, 2.5.1 and 2.1.1; and
• submitted three forms to the member for processing that she knew contained falsified client signatures (falsified by another approved person) to open an account for a client and process a trade, contrary to MFDA rule 2.1.1.