Adjudication and Decisions
When FINRA determines that violations of securities rules have occurred and formal disciplinary action is necessary, the Enforcement Department or Market Regulation Department files a complaint with the Office of Hearing Officers (OHO).
The Office arranges a three-person panel to hear the case. The panel is chaired by a hearing officer who is an employee of the Office of Hearing Officers. The Chief Hearing Officer appoints two industry panelists, drawn primarily from a pool of current and former securities industry members of FINRA's District Committees, as well as its Market Regulation Committee, former members of FINRA's National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) and former FINRA Governors.
At the hearing, the parties present evidence for the panel to determine whether a firm or individual has engaged in conduct that violates FINRA rules, SEC regulations or federal securities laws. In reaching its decision, the hearing panel also considers previous court, SEC, and NAC decisions to determine if violations occurred. The NAC is the national committee which reviews initial decisions rendered in FINRA disciplinary and membership proceedings.
For each case, the hearing panel will issue a written decision explaining the reasons for its ruling and consult the FINRA Sanction Guidelines to determine the appropriate sanctions if violations have occurred. FINRA also, when feasible and appropriate, can order firms and individuals to make restitution to harmed customers.
Under FINRA's disciplinary procedures, a firm or individual has the right to appeal a hearing panel decision to the NAC, or the NAC may on its own initiate a review of a decision. On appeal, the NAC will determine if a hearing panel's findings were legally correct, factually supported and consistent with FINRA's Sanction Guidelines. While a panel decision is on appeal, the sanction is not enforced against the firm or individual.
Unless FINRA's Board of Governors decides to review the NAC's appellate decision, that decision represents FINRA's final action. A firm or individual can appeal FINRA's decision to the SEC and then to federal court.
|Date of Decision||Proceeding No.||Title||Type|
|Aug 28, 2006||E8A2004095901||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Jason A. Craig||Disciplinary Decision|
|Apr 23, 2010||E8A2004072203||Jonathan M. Skiba||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jul 6, 2009||E8A2004072203||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Jonathan M. Skiba||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 10, 2006||E8A2004065102||Order Requiring Respondent to Supplement His Rule 9252 Request||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 16, 2006||E8A2004065102||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|May 18, 2007||E8A2003091501||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Roy M. Strong||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 13, 2008||E8A2003091501||Roy M. Strong||Disciplinary Decision|
|Sep 28, 2006||E8A2003091501||Order Granting Motion for to Permit Certain Witnesses to Have Counsel Present||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 6, 2008||E8A2003084806||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Dec 28, 2006||E8A2003084806||Order Granting Complainant's Motion in Limine||Disciplinary Order|
|Jul 21, 2006||E8A2003080701||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement vs. Robert E. Elkins||Disciplinary Decision|
|Jan 12, 2006||E8A2003080701||Order Denying Respondent's Motion for Discovery||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 28, 2007||E8A2003062001||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondent||Redacted Decision|
|Jul 27, 2007||E8A2002109804||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Joseph A. Zaragoza||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 20, 2008||E8A2002109804||Joseph A. Zaragoza||Disciplinary Decision|
|Feb 22, 2007||E8A2002109804||Order Granting the Parties' Motions for Telephone Testimony and Deferring Ruling on Respondent's Objection to Enforcement's Proposed Exhibit CX-7||Disciplinary Order|
|Feb 1, 2007||E3A20050065||Order Regarding Respondent's Pre-Hearing Submissions||Disciplinary Order|
|Sep 22, 2009||E3A20050037-02||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. R. Matthew Shino||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 8, 2008||E3A20030495-01||Order Denying Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|May 15, 2008||E112005002003||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. StoneGate Partners, LLC and Brian W. Bernier||Disciplinary Decision|
|Aug 16, 2007||E112005002003||Order Denying Respondents' Motion to Compel Identification and Production of Withheld Documents||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 12, 2007||E1020040926-01||Hearing Panel Decision in Department of Enforcement v. Respondents||Redacted Decision|
|Nov 7, 2006||E1020040926-01||Order Precluding the Respondents from Presenting Witnesses at the Hearing, Other Than Respondent 2||Disciplinary Order|
|Apr 17, 2006||E1020040926-01||Order Directing the Respondents to File a Proper Answer to the Complaint||Disciplinary Order|
|Aug 15, 2008||E1020040926-01||America First Associates Corp. and Joseph Ricupero||Disciplinary Decision|