Ex-BrokerDealer Earns 3 Yr Jail Sentence for Bribe Plot

brokerdealer jail

Law360, New York (December 15, 2015, 6:16 PM ET) — A former employee of New York broker-dealer Direct Access Partners LLC was sentenced in federal court on Tuesday to three years in prison for his role in a $60 million bribery scheme involving a Venezuelan state-owned bank.

U.S. District Judge Denise Cote sentenced Jose Alejandro Hurtado during a hearing in Manhattan court. Hurtado pled guilty in August 2013 to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, money laundering and obstruction of justice, among other criminal charges.

Prosecutors have said Hurtado and others at DAP funneled millions of dollars in bribe payments to a senior official at Banco de Desarrollo Economico y Social de Venezuela, or BANDES, in exchange for bond-trading business. Hurtado personally received about $11.9 million in profits from the scheme, according to prosecutors.

Hurtado, one of six people charged in the case, will receive credit for the nearly 17 months he spent in prison following his arrest. Direct Access Partners ceased operations in May of 2013 after the criminal charges and a related SEC suit. It was forced into bankruptcy by creditors on May 30.

“I’m here to apologize about this terrible situation and the pain I have caused everyone,” he said prior to the sentence, fighting back tears. “My behavior gave a terrible reputation to the financial industry and to future generations.”

The other DAP officers and employees who were charged in the case are Benito Chinea, Joseph Demeneses, Ernesto Lujan and Tomas Alberto Clarke Bethancourt.

All of the defendants have pled guilty. Chinea and Demeneses were each sentenced to four years in prison, Lujan and Bethancourt were each sentenced to two years in prison, and Gonzalez is scheduled to be sentenced Jan. 15.

For the full story from 360Law, please click here

BrokerDealer Leading Crowdfund Bandwagon

crowdfund brokerdealer

As the crowdfund movement picks up more steam thanks to the recent update from the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the broker-dealer community is paying close attention to what could be a big pay day.  One BrokerDealer leading the crowdfund bandwagon is Seed Equity Ventures, led by finance industry veteran Todd Crosland.

In a recent Forbes.com profile, CEO Crosland talks about his broker dealer, which is already operating and doing crowdfunding type equity raises under the SEC’s Regulation D 506(c) rules for general solicitations, says, “ I believe the SEC passing Title III will be a watershed event for both startups and investors. Startups and the general investing public will be forever changed.”

BrokerDealer.com is the global directory of broker-dealers; the firm’s database covers brokerdealers operating in more than 30 countries across the free world.

Seed Equity Ventures is a registered broker dealer with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and is a member of both FINRA and SIPC. Seed Equity Ventures provides investment banking services to startups and growth companies from around the world.

The Forbes piece by Devin Thorpe was excerpted by the curators at crowdfund industry search portal, RaiseMoney.com; here’s the link

Finra Takes Aim At MetLife BrokerDealer Unit

finra metlife

(Bloomberg) — MetLife Inc., the largest U.S. life insurer, said the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority’s staff has indicated the agency will seek a “significant fine” from the company’s broker-dealer unit as part of a probe into possible violations tied to variable annuities.

The company is cooperating in this investigation, MetLife said Thursday in its quarterly regulatory filing. The probe focuses on potential violations “regarding alleged misrepresentations, suitability, and supervision in connection with sales and replacements of variable annuities and certain riders on such annuities,” MetLife said in the filing.

Finra, the brokerage industry’s regulator, is among government watchdogs seeking to guard against abuses in the sale of retirement and savings products in the U.S. The authority told the insurer on Sept. 25 that it would recommend disciplinary action, according to the filing.

“We strongly disagree with the conclusions reached by Finra, and we will defend ourselves vigorously,” John Calagna, a spokesman for the New York-based insurer, said in an e-mailed statement. “MetLife is reserved for this matter.”

The insurer said in the filing that its estimate for reasonably possible legal costs in excess of reserves was as much as $425 million. That compares with an upper range of $410 million at the end of the second quarter.

 

Equity Crowdfunding and BrokerDealer Rules

sec rules equity crowdfund

BrokerDealer.com curators have received many inquiries from across the industry with regard to equity crowdfunding rules and regs.  As spotlighted by industry experts at RaiseMoney.com, the portal launched by Wall Street expats, the SEC is getting ready to formally announce new rules for the multi-billion dollar crowd fund industry, and towards addressing the common questions, below is post produced by Scott Purcell, serial entrepreneur and founder and CEO of FundAmerica. Purcell keeps a highly informative blog, focusing on equity crowdfunding in the US, and we are sharing the latest post below…and remind our readers that the following is for informational purposes only. BrokerDealers or Investment Advisors who are engaged in crowdfunding initiatives should consult with their compliance officer and an attorney.

This is the single most common question I get asked. There’s a lot of misinformation about this, so let’s clear it up…

BrokerDealer.com hosts the world’s most comprehensive database of brokerdealers operating across 35 countries worldwide

Keep in mind that a “platform” is just a website. It’s NOT a business in and of itself (people often confuse a 506b/c or Reg A platform with a Title III “portal” as defined in the JOBS Act, and they are very differrent things). A platform is simply a tool for general solicitation. So you are not a platform, you are an issuer/investment adviser/listing service/broker-dealer who might have a website that lists offerings of securities, might use other websites that promote offerings of securities, might use social media to promote offerings of securities, might run newspaper ads to promote offerings of securities, might send emails to promote offerings of securities…you get the picture.

Platform Types:

There are four main types of businesses using platforms to market securities pursuant to 506-D (aka “Title II of the JOBS Act”) and Regulation A (“Title IV”):

  • Broker-dealers
  • Investment advisers
  • Ad/listing services
  • Direct Issuers

Which one are you? Well that depends upon your business model.

Broker-dealers can charge commissions based upon the amount and/or success of an offering. They can also make specific recommendations (not to be confused with “general solicitation”, which anyone can do in a 506(c) or Reg A offering whether registered or not). BD’s typically charge around 8%+ of an offering to cover costs associated with compliance, due diligence, sales commissions, etc. So if you want to charge, for example, an 8% commission on a $1M offering then you need to either be a FINRA member firm or a registered representative of one.

NOTE: only BD’s and registered representatives can receive commissions or success-based compensation. You CANNOT receive commissions as a rep and then hand those over to an unregistered person or company. This is a huge mistake we have heard many operators are making; getting someone in their firm registered so the BD can pay them, and then having them hand over those fees as income to the firm. Illegal. Games cannot be played with this (e.g. charging the rep a huge office rent) as regulators are wise to that and the results will not be pretty. So unless you intend to register every single person in your business, or to buy all or part of a broker-dealer, there is no way for you to receive any income tied to the amount or success of a securities offering.

Investment-advisers typically operate on a “2/20” model – meaning a 2% annual management fee on the assets resulting from the funds raised in the offering and an upside profit-share of 20% in the profits of the business/investment (referred to in securities lingo as “carried interest” – it’s called that as it’s your interest in the success of the venture, so don’t confuse it with interest-rate or a commission on the deal). This falls under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Thus, under this model it is not necessary (or advisable) to be a BD or a branch-office of one. Starting an IA is generally free as you are usually initially exempt from federal and state registration requirements due to de minimis exemptions. Even when you do hit the threshold for state or SEC registration, the costs are minuscule compared to those associated with operating a broker-dealer.

Ad/Listing services might charge a listing fee that is non-refundable and/or a fixed transaction fee for processing data and/or other types of fees which are not (and cannot be) contingent upon the success of the deal. Issuers come to the platform and agree to pay the ad or listing fees (if any) for displaying their offering. The platform focuses on marketing itself and providing general solicitation services to issuers who engage them. They get no compensation in the form of commissions, fund management fees or carried interest like broker-dealers or investment advisers do. Thus, under this model it is not necessary (or advisable) to be a BD or a branch-office of one.

Interesting: investment advisers and broker-dealers can post the offerings or deals they are selling on listing services platforms. Some such platforms are even aggregating (re-displaying) offerings which are displayed on other platforms. My next article will discuss various forms of syndication.

Issuer-Direct websites (platforms) are run by businesses (e.g. real estate developers, technology incubators and others) to solicit investors for their own deals, and as such don’t charge any fees at all. They are just platforms that list and advertise the offerings to prospective investors as allowed in 506-D and Reg A offerings. These platforms are not subject to any specific regulatory memberships or oversight, though of course the securities themselves still have to comply with the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act), and the sale of those securities has to comply with each of the 50 “mini-SEC’s” state laws regarding securities dealers. Under this model it is not necessary (or advisable) to be a BD or a branch-office of one (but almost always necessary to engage one to “sell” your securities to states residents).

Why not just go ahead and operate as a broker-dealer even if you really don’t have to? Because unless you’re already a broker-dealer then your expertise is likely elsewhere, it’s not what you do, and the added burden of regulatory compliance can be debilitating to your business and to the offerings your promote; and registered representatives can’t share fees with non-registered persons anyhow. So stick with what you know, and hire other firms to do what they do.

But don’t offerings displayed on platforms have to be under the control of/underwritten by a broker-dealer? No.

So, is my business model legal? Here are a few guidelines…
If operating as an investment advisor, listing service or issuer direct - do not charge fees based upon the amount or success of the offering and don’t make specific investor recommendations (as opposed to general solicitation, which is fine). Engage a broker-dealer to assist you with various federal and state compliance tasks.
If you are operating as a broker-dealer – do not pay anyone (neither individuals nor businesses) any portion of the compensation you are receiving unless they too are registered and you have specific approval to do so from your broker-dealer.
But…as always…check with your securities attorney before you do anything.

SEC Issues Risk Alert on Broker-Dealer Controls

risk alert

SEC Issues Risk Alert on Broker-Dealer Controls Regarding Retail Sales of Structured Securities Products

BrokerDealer.com blog update is courtesy of the following extract from CorporateFinancialWeeklyDigest.com

On August 24, the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations’ National Examination Program staff (Staff) released a Risk Alert summarizing findings from an examination of 10 broker-dealers (Firms). The Staff evaluated whether the Firms effectively supervised and monitored the risks and activities associated with sales of structured securities products (SSPs) to retail investors.

BrokerDealer.com provides the world’s most comprehensive database of broker-dealers operating in more than 30 countries throughout the world.

The examinations revealed significant deficiencies in all of the Firms, including that they failed to maintain and enforce adequate controls to determine suitability of SSP recommendations. The Staff noted that the Firms’ written supervisory procedures related to reviews of representatives’ determinations of customer suitability were also deficient and the Staff cited all of the examined Firms for such deficiencies.

Click here to read the Risk Alert.