Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) Censures 22 CFPS!

CFP Board Censures 22 CFPS!

The Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) announced today that it would impose public sanctions on 22 CFP(r), current or former, professionals and candidates for CFP(r) certification. These sanctions will take effect immediately or at the time indicated in each case. CFP Board has taken public sanctions against 22 CFP(r), current or former CFP(r) professionals, and candidates for CFP(r) certification. They are in ascending severity order.

CFP Board opened “Historical Inspections” to investigate potential misconduct in CFP(r). This can include firm terminations, customer complaints, and arbitrations. It also involves professional conduct.

CFP Board’s Enforcement Process The CFP Board Procedural Rules outline the procedure for investigating and imposing sanctions if violations are found.

CFP Board enforces ethical standards by investigating alleged breaches and, where there’s probable cause to believe that there are grounds to sanction, presents a complaint containing the alleged violations of CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission. CFP Board alleges that a CFP(r), professional, has violated the Code and Standards or its predecessor Standards. The Commission meets at most six times per year. The Commission follows the Procedural Rules. All matters are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and the particulars of each case.

CALIFORNIA

Derrik J. Hubbard CFP(r), (Valencia (California): On September 20,21, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission issued an order where Mr. Hubbard was given a Public Censure. After determining that Hubbard failed to timely file federal taxes between 2013- 2018, the Commission issued a Public Censure. This sanction was accompanied by accrued interest, penalties, and tax liens from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Although Hubbard had violated a previous installment agreement with IRS, he signed a new installment agreement in 2019. He is currently in compliance with it. He presented evidence that he had filed his 2019 and 2020 tax returns and showed no tax balance for those years. In addition to the tax liens issued against Mr. Hubbard by California in 2014 and 2015, they totaled more than $27,000. He is also in compliance with the California installment agreement. The Commission found that Mr. Hubbard violated Rule 6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. This rule states that a certificate must not conduct himself in a way that could be detrimental to his integrity or fitness as one, on the CFP(r), or the profession. The Commission issued a Public Censure to Mr. Hubbard.

FLORIDA

Matthew M. Chancey (Tampa, Florida): On August 20th, 2121, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission issued an order where Mr. Chancey was granted a Public Censure and a Certification requirement. After determining that Mr. Chancey had failed to pay taxes on time to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for six years, the Commission issued an order. The IRS filed six federal tax liens totaling over $130,000 against Mr. Chancey. The Commission found that Mr. Chancey violated Rule6.5 of the Rules of Conduct. States that a certificate must not conduct himself in a manner that could be considered to reflect negatively on his integrity and fitness as a certificate, upon the CFP(r), or upon the profession. The Commission ordered Mr. Chancey, who had not yet entered into an installment agreement with IRS, to do additional remedial work. Every six months, Mr. Chancey must certify to the CFFP Board his progress toward resolving tax liens. Failure to comply with the certification requirements shall be treated as default according to Article 11.4 of Procedural Rules. Mr. Chancey will be subject to an administrative order of suspension for one year and one day. The Commission decided to issue Mr. Chancey an Administrative Order of Suspension for One Year and One Day.

MINNESOTA

Robert J. Hannah CFP(r), (Mound. Minnesota): CFP Board issued an Order in July 2021 which gave Mr. Hannah a Public Censure. After an appeal to a February 2021 decision of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission), this sanction was imposed. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee of CFP Board (Enforcement Committee) confirmed the Commission’s findings. Mr. Hannah (1) entered guilty pleas to a court for Driving While Intoxicated 4th Degree and (2) gave false statements to CFP Board on the 2014 CFP Board ethics disclosure form. The Enforcement Committee confirmed that Mr. Hannah violated Rules 6.2 of Rules of Conduct, stating that a certificate must meet all CFP Board requirements to keep the CFP(r) marks. Rule 6.5 of Rules of Conduct also stipulates that a certificate cannot conduct detrimental to his integrity or fitness to be a CFP(r), mark, or profession. CFP Board issued a Public Censure to Mr. Hannah.

MISSOURI

Ryan C. Judd, Wentzville, Missouri: CFP Board issued a public censure to Mr. Judd in August 2021 after he confessed (1) that he had filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy (Bankruptcy Case) in the Eastern District of Missouri (Bankruptcy Matter) and (2) that the Bankruptcy matter demonstrates his inability to manage responsible financial affairs. He also agreed to the findings that his conduct violated Standard E.2.c. The Code of Ethics states that CFP(r), professional CFP(r), cannot engage in conduct that adversely reflects on their integrity or fitness as CFP(r), professional, or upon the profession, including personal bankruptcy. The CFP Board will issue an Order of Public Censure to Mr. Judd. As a result, Mr. Judd was given a Public Censure.

RHODE ISLAND

Richard A. Rainone (Cranston, Rhode Island): A Consent Order was signed by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission and Mr. Ranone in September 2021. Mr. Ranone agreed to a Public Censure being issued by CFP Board. The Consent Order stated that Mr. Ranone accepted findings that failed to exercise reasonable, prudent, and professional judgment in providing professional services for a client. He signed an account form with a blank beneficiary designation on the instruction of the client. According to the Consent Order, Mr. Ranone filled out the beneficiary information according to his client’s instructions and presented it at his firm. It was notarized without the client’s signature. According to the Consent Order, Mr. Ranone corrected the error by filling out a new beneficiary form. The client signed the document while the client was still in the hospital. Mr. Ranone signed the document without any assistance from his firm nor a notary present. Also, Mr. Ranone agreed that his conduct violated Rules 4.5.1, 6.5, and 6.5 of Rules Of Conduct. This was based on his failure to comply with the employer’s policy regarding properly filling out required documentation and notarizing it. This ultimately led to lengthy inter-family litigation. The Commission issued a Public Censure to Mr. Ranone.

SUSPENSION

MASSACHUSETTS

Brian Lockhart (Boston, Massachusetts): CFP Board issued an Order in September 2021 where Mr. Lockhart was placed under suspension for one year and one day of his right to use CFP(r). After an appeal to a December 2020 decision of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, this sanction was imposed. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee of CFP Board Enforcement Committee confirmed the Commission’s conclusion that Mr. Lockhart acted in his interests when serving as an investment advisor to a child support trust. He also introduced the trust for an investment in a Christian Christmas movie, even though he had financial interests as an investor and an executive producer. This was a clear violation of the fiduciary obligation described in his firm’s Form ADV. Also, Mr. Lockhart failed to disclose his financial interests in the movie. He also failed to disclose the conflict between his role as an investment advisor to the trust and that of Executive Producer/investor before the trust’s investments.

Given that the trust’s investment objective was income, Mr. Lockhart recommended that the trust sell an income-oriented investment and use cash to finance a high-speculative, risky and illiquid investment that would not generate income in the early years. This reflects poorly on Mr. Lockhart as a certificate and the CFP(r), marks, and the profession. The Commission found that Mr. Lockhart had violated Rules 1.4 and 2.1 and 2.2B, 2.5, 4.5, 6.5, and 6.5 of Rules of Conduct. The Commission issued Mr. Lockhart a suspension of one year and one day. The suspension of Mr. Lockhart is effective September 16th, 2021, through September 17th, 2022.

MICHIGAN

Nathan D. Sealey (Clarkston, Michigan): In September 2021, Mr. Sealey was placed under suspension by the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission. After determining that Mr. Sealey had failed to pay federal taxes for several years, the IRS filed tax liens against him totaling more than $436,000. The Commission also issued Mr. Sealey a Consent Order, according to which he was placed under a suspension of one year and one day. The Consent Order provided that Mr. Sealey received a one-year and one-day suspension. The Consent Order also required Mr. Sealey to consent to the Commission’s finding of his conduct violating Rule 6.5 of Rules of Conduct, which states that a certificate must not conduct himself in a manner that could be considered to be detrimental to his integrity or fitness to become a certified professional and Standard E.5 of Code of Ethics, Standards of Conduct. This requires that a CFP(r), professional, comply with the Proceed and disciplinary proceedings and any requests. The Commission suspended Mr. Sealey’s certification for one-year and one-day, effective September 27th, 2021, through September 28th, 2022.

NEW YORK

David Samet, Spring Valley, New York: On August 20,21, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission and Mr. Samet signed a Consent Order. The Consent Order issued Mr. Samet a suspension of one year and one day. After determining that Mr. Samet had failed to pay federal taxes, resulting in a $94,724.60 debt over five years and that he was not currently enrolled with the Internal Revenue Service’s installment plan, the Commission issued this sanction. The Consent Order also required Mr. Samet to consent to the Commission’s finding of his conduct violating Rule 6.5 of Rules of Conduct. This rule states that a certificate must not conduct that would reflect adversely upon his or her integrity and fitness as a certificate, upon the CFP(r), or upon the profession. The Commission suspended Mr. Samet’s certification for one-year and one-day, effective August 16th, 2021, through August 17th, 2022.

James Wright (New York City, New York): On July 20th, 2021, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission and Mr. Wright signed a Consent Order, according to which Mr. Wright was placed under suspension for one year and one day. The Consent Order found that Mr. Wright had violated Rules 4.3 and 6.2 of the Rules of Conduct and Article 13.2 of CFP Board’s previous Disciplinary rules and procedures. He: (1) used two unapproved personal email addresses and text messages from his smartphone to conduct business. (2) failed to follow the firm’s written supervision procedures for electronic communications. (3) misrepresented to CFP Board that he was not terminated for cause. (4) failed in writing to CFP Board of professional discipline. The Commission suspended Mr. Wright for one year and one day. The suspension of Mr. Wright was effective from August 17th, 2021, to August 18th, 2022.

PENNSYLVANIA

Timothy Seiders, Lansdale, Pennsylvania: On July 20th, 2021, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission issued an order suspending Mr. Seiders’ right to use the CFP (r) certification marks for a year and one day. After determining that Mr. Seiders had tax liabilities for nine years consecutively, the Commission issued an order suspending his right to use the CFP(r) certification marks for one year and one day. The IRS has also filed federal tax liens against him. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also filed tax liens against Mr. Seiders for six years after failing to pay any tax liabilities assessed. Some of these liens are still outstanding. The IRS also placed federal tax liens against Mr. Seiders for three years, despite paying those liens. The Commission found that Mr. Seiders owes more than $287,000 in federal and state taxes. The Commission found that Mr. Seiders’ conduct negatively reflected his integrity as a CFP(r), professional, and upon the CFP(r) marks. The Commission suspended Mr. Seiders for one year, from September 17th, 2021, to September 18th, 2022.

TEMPORARY BARR

CALIFORNIA

Murray Todd Petersen, Roseville, California: In August 20,21, the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission approved a Consent Order in which Mr. Petersen was granted a temporary bar for four years to his right to apply or receive the CFP(r). In September 2020, the California Department of Business Oversight, Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency (now called the Department of Financial Protection and Innovation) issued a Desist and Refrained Order against Petersen. The Order stated that Petersen had offered or sold unregistered securities in the form of gemstones investment “parcel” contracts to at most four California residents. It also made untrue statements of material facts, such as (1) that investors would be able to receive a minimum of 30% profit along with their principal investment; (2) that there was low risk and that investors could see liquidation “parcels at any time” for “fast.” The Consent Order found that Mr. Petersen was not complying with the applicable regulatory requirements for professional services rendered to clients in violation of Rule 43 of the Rules of Conduct. The Commission granted Mr. Petersen an interim bar for four years. The temporary bar for Mr. Petersen is in effect from October 4th, 2021, to October 4th, 2025.

PERMANENT BARR

CONNECTICUT

James Hyland (Farmington, Connecticut): CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar in September 2021. This permanently prohibited Mr. Hyland’s application for or obtaining the CFP(r) certification marks. This was in response to Mr. Hyland’s failure to respond to CFP Board’s Complaint within the prescribed time. CFP Board claimed that Hyland had violated Standard E.5 of Code of Ethics, Standards of Conduct when he refused CFP Board’s requests to provide information about his 2017 termination at Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., and subsequent Notice of Failure To Cooperate. CFP Board’s Complaint stated that Mr. Hyland did not file an Answer within the required time period of Article 3.2 of Procedural rules. Art. 4.1.b. According to the Procedural rules, Mr. Hyland was deemed in default. CFP Board had issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar to Mr. Hyland, which, under Article 4.2 of Procedural rules, was based on the CFP Board’s determination of the severity, scope, and harmfulness of Mr. Hyland’s conduct and the fact Mr. Hyland let his CFP(r), certification lapse before the Order was issued. The permanent ban on Mr. Hyland became effective on October 14th, 2021.

FLORIDA

Marshall D. Gunn, Jr., (Jacksonville, Florida).In Oct 2021, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar, which permanently bars Mr. Gunn’s application for or obtaining CFP(r). This was in response to Mr. Gunn not filing an Answer to the CFP Board’s Complaint within a specified time. CFP Board’s Complaint stated that Mr. Gunn did not respond to CFP Board’s request for additional information regarding its investigation into a 2020 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory proceeding in which Mr. Gunn had to pay $197.500.00 in disgorgement plus interest and a $50,000.00 civil penalty. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Mr. Gunn failed to respond to CFP Board’s request for information and file an Answer. This violated Section k of Terms & Conditions and Standard E.5 of Code of Ethics & Standards of Conduct, to which he was also subject. According to Article 4.1.b Procedural rules, Mr. Gunn has been deemed in default. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar under Article 4.2 of Procedural rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s assessment of Mr. Gunn’s conduct and a determination of his severity, scope, and harm. As of November 1st, 2021, Mr. Gunn was subject to a permanent administrative bar.

MICHIGAN

Beth Ann DeBouvre, Stanwood, Michigan: CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar in January 2021. This permanently prohibited Ms. DeBouvre from applying for or obtaining CFP(r). This was in response to Ms. DeBouvre not filing an Answer to the CFP Board’s Complaint within a specified time. CFP Board’s Complaint alleged that Ms. DeBouvre allowed an individual barred by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and disqualified under Section Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 to run a securities business through a member company. CFP Board’s Complaint stated that Ms. DeBouvre created new account forms, suitability and investment disclosure forms, and other documents to hide that the statutorily barred and disqualified individual was meeting customers and making recommendations giving investment advice, and acting as an associate person in a registered capacity. CFP Board’s Complaint also claimed that Ms. DeBouvre did not inform customers that the individual was statutorily barred. She also approved the accounts the individual opened and the transactions he recommended. Finally, she attempted to discourage customers from cooperating in FINRA’s investigation. CFP Board’s Complaint also claimed that FINRA found that Ms. DeBouvre violated several FINRA rules. This included NASD Rules 2110, 1031, and FINRA Rules 2010. And that Ms. DeBouvre was banned from any association with any FINRA member company for fifteen months. She was also fined $10,000. CFP Board’s Complaint also claimed that Ms. DeBouvre violated Rules of Conduct 4.3, 5.1, and 6.5. This could lead to sanctions. Ms. DeBouvre did not file an Answer to the Complaint within 30 days of the service date as required by Article3.2 of the Procedural Rules. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar under Article 42 of the Procedural rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s assessment of Ms. DeBouvre’s conduct and a decision by CFP Board. As of February 4th, 2021, Ms. DeBouvre was subject to a permanent administrative bar.

WISCONSIN

Lori Ann Sacco, Wauwatosa (Wisconsin): On September 20,21, the CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar. This permanently prohibited Ms. Sacco’s application for or obtaining CFP(r). This was in response to Ms. Sacco not filing an Answer to the CFP Board’s Complaint as required by Article 3.0 of the Procedural rules. In September 2020, Ms. Sacco signed a Letter of Acceptance and Waiver and Consent with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. This letter stipulated that she would be suspended from any FINRA member firms for six months. According to the AWC, Ms. Sacco falsified ten customer accounts while she was associated with a company. She did this by copying and pasting customers’ initials and signatures onto documents and then submitting these forged documents to her company for processing. Ms. Sacco provided eight falsified documents to her firm. These were required records to be kept and made under FINRA Rules. This was a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 as well as FINRA Rule 4511. Ms. Sacco was fined $10,000 if she remained associated with any FINRA member company after her suspension. The Complaint claimed that Ms. Sacco had violated Rules 4.3 to 5.1 and Section 6.5 of the Rules for Conduct. Ms. Sacco was deemed to be in default under Article 4.1.b. of the Procedural Rules. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order of Permanent Bar under Article.4.2 of the Procedural Rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s determination of the severity, scope, and harm caused by Ms. Sacco’s conduct. As of October 29th, 2021, Ms. Sacco was subject to a permanent administrative bar.

REVOCATION

CALIFORNIA

Michael J. Altobell, Rocklin, California: CFP Board issued an administrative order of revocation to Mr. Altobell, which permanently revoked his rights to use the CFP(r) certification marks. CFP Board filed a complaint against Mr. Altobell in June 2021. It claimed that in September 2018, the California Department of Business Oversight, Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency issued a Final Order, in which Mr. Altobell was permanently prohibited from any employment, management, control, or position of any commodity adviser, broker-dealer, or investment adviser in California. According to the Complaint, Mr. Altobell violated Section k. of the Terms & Conditions by failing to cooperate with CFP Board’s investigation into the circumstances that led to the California disciplinary actions. For failing to respond to the Complaint, Mr. Altobell has deemed a default under Article 4.1.b. CFP Board issued an administrative order of revocation by Article.4.2 of the Procedural Rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s determination of the severity, scope, and harm caused by Mr. Altobell’s conduct. Effective October 3rd, 2021, Mr. Altobell received his administrative revocation.

GEORGIA

Daniel Motherway, Marietta, Georgia: CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation in September 2021 that permanently revoked Mr. Motherway’s right to use CFP(r). This was in response to Mr. Motherway not filing an Answer to the CFP Board’s Complaint within a specified time. CFP Board’s Complaint stated that Mr. Motherway had violated Standard E.5 of Code of Ethics, Standards of Conduct by refusing to respond to CFP Board’s requests for information or Notice of Failure To Cooperate. CFP Board wanted to investigate the 2015 resignation of Mr. Motherway from his firm. It was alleged that he had sent client account information directly to his email address and exercised unauthorized discretion in client accounts. CFP Board sought to investigate the 2020 Suspension by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority of Mr. Motherway. This resulted from a 2017 termination at UBS Financial Services and subsequent arbitration award for breaching a promissory notice. CFP Board required Mr. Motherway to respond to the Complaint within 30 days. Art. 4.1.b. According to the Procedural rules, Mr. Motherway was deemed in default. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order for Revocation per Article 42 of the Procedural rules. This was based on the CFP Board’s assessment of Mr. Motherway’s conduct and a decision by the CFP Board. Effective October 15th, 2021, Mr. Motherway was subject to an administrative revocation.

MICHIGAN

James A. Watts, Belmont, Michigan: In September 20,21, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation, permanently revoking Mr. Watts’ CFP(r) certification marks. This was in response to Mr. Watts’ failure to submit the Procedural Fein conjunction CFP Board’s Complaint alleging Mr. Watts had violated Standard E.5 of CFP Board’s Code of Ethics, Standards of Conduct when he refused information requested by CFP Board’s Requests for Information and Notice of Failure To Cooperate. CFP Board wanted to investigate Mr. Watts’ 2019 and 2010 Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Filings and his failure to report the latest bankruptcy filing to CFP Board promptly. Article 4.1.d. Under Article 4.1.d. of the Procedural Rules, Mr. Watts was deemed in default. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order to Revocation by Article 42 of the Procedural rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s assessment of the severity, scope, and harm caused by Mr. Watts’ conduct. The administrative revocation of Mr. Watts was effective October 15th, 2021.

NEW JERSEY

Daniel J. Leonetti, Marlton, New Jersey: CFP Board issued in February 2021 an Administrative Order of Revocation, permanently revoked Mr. Leonetti’s right to use CFP(r). This was in response to Mr. Leonetti’s failure not to respond within the time frame required to a CFP Board Complaint filed in November 2020. According to the Complaint, Mr. Leonetti (1) filed another petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in 2008. He then converted it into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2011. It was intentionally failing to disclose the matter in time to CFP Board. (2) deliberately failing to report a 2012 termination of CFP Board. Further, the Complaint claimed that Mr. Leonetti violated Rules 6. and 6.5 of the CFP Board’s Rules of conduct. This could lead to sanctions. Mr. Leonetti did not file CFP Board’s Complaint within the required time period of Article 3.2 of Procedural rules. CFP Board issued an administrative order of revocation per Article 42 of the Procedural rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s assessment of Mr. Leonetti’s conduct, and based on that determination, CFP Board decided the severity, scope, and harm. As of March 29th, 2021, Mr. Leonetti was subject to administrative revocation.

PENNSYLVANIA

Albert J. Krauza Jr. (Morrisville. Pennsylvania): On September 20,21, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation, permanently revoked Mr. Krauza’s right to use CFP(r). This was in response to Mr. Krauza’s failure of timely filing an Answer to the CFP Board’s Complaint alleging that he violated Standard E.5 of the CFP Board’s Code of Ethics, Standards of Conduct. He refused to provide the information required by the CFP Board’s requests and Notice of Failure To Cooperate. CFP Board wanted to investigate Mr. Krauza’s Chapter 7 Bankruptcy filings in 1997 and 2018. CFP Board required Mr. Krauza to respond to the Complaint within 30 days, as per Article 3.2 of Procedural rules. Art. 4.1.b. According to the Procedural rules, Mr. Krauza was deemed in default. CFP Board has issued an Administrative Order for Revocation per Article 42 of the Procedural rules. This was based on the CFP Board’s assessment of Mr. Krauza’s conduct and a decision by the CFP Board. Effective October 15th, 2021, Mr. Krauza was subject to an administrative revocation.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Arthur W. Rich (Aiken South Carolina): On September 20,21, CFP Board issued an Administrative Order of Revocation, permanently revoked Mr. Rich’s rights to use the CFP(r). CFP Board filed a complaint against Mr. Rich in June 2021. It claimed that Rich entered into a Consent Order with the State Department of Insurance. This agreement stated that Rich had sold 47 title insurance policies between May 2016-September 2016. Rich was fined $4,700.00 for this violation. CFP Board also claimed that Rich falsely stated that he was not the subject of an inquiry by a government agency or investigation into his 2018 Renewal Application. Rich’s conduct could have violated Rules 4.3 and 62.2 of the CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and Standard E.5 of the Code of Ethics. According to Article 4.1.b Procedural rules, Mr. Rich was deemed to default for not having filed an Answer to the Complaint. CFP Board issued an administrative order of revocation per Article.4.2 of the Procedural Rules. This was based upon the CFP Board’s determination of the severity, scope, and harm caused by Mr. Rich’s conduct. Effective October 2nd, 2021, Mr. Rich was subject to an administrative revocation.

TEXAS

Harlan T. Cardwell III (Vernon Texas): CFP Board issued an Order in July 2021 where Mr. Cardwell was given a Revocation. This permanently revoked his right to use CFP(r). Following an appeal to a December 2020 decision of the Disciplinary and Ethics Commission, this discipline was implemented. The Code and Standards Enforcement Committee of CFP Board (Enforcement Committee) confirmed the Commission’s conclusion that Mr. Cardwell:

  1. Failed professional services with dedication towards the lawful goals of his employer when he accepted a Loan from a Client and was terminated.
  2. Admitted that he accepted a Loan from a Client who was not an immediate family member or a lending institution.
  3. Failed Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Rule 8210 requires FINRA members to comply with FINRA requests and information.
  4. Failed to inform CFP Board of his FINRA Bar within thirty (30 calendar days).

CFP Board issued a Revocation to Mr. Cardwell. The Commission’s conclusion that Cardwell’s conduct violated several Rules for Conduct was confirmed by the Enforcement Committee. (1) Rule 3.6 prohibits clients from borrowing money; (2) Rule Rule 4.3 requires certificates comply with regulatory requirements regarding professional services to clients; (3) Rule Rule 5.1 requires an agent or employee to inform CFP Board in writing about any professional bar within thirty (30 calendar days of being notified by the CFP Professional; (4) Rule 6.6.4 requires a certificant notify CFP Board of any bar in writing. The Enforcement Committee confirmed that the Commission had issued a Revocation.

Scroll to Top