The following list of factors should be considered in conjunction with the imposition of sanctions with respect to all violations. Individual guidelines may list additional violation-specific factors.
Although many of the general and violation-specific considerations, when they apply in the case at hand, have the potential to be either aggravating or mitigating, some considerations have the potential to be only aggravating or only mitigating. For instance, the presence of certain factors may be aggravating, but their absence does not draw an inference of mitigation.1 The relevancy and characterization of a factor depends on the facts and circumstances of a case and the type of violation. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive; as appropriate, Adjudicators should consider case-specific factors in addition to those listed here and in the individual guidelines.
1. An individual respondent's Disciplinary and Arbitration History, or a respondent firm's relevant disciplinary history (see General Principle No. 2).
2. Whether an individual or member firm respondent accepted responsibility for and acknowledged the misconduct to his or her employer (in the case of an individual) or a regulator prior to detection and intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or a regulator.
3. Whether an individual or member firm respondent voluntarily employed subsequent corrective measures, prior to detection or intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or by a regulator, to revise general and/or specific procedures to avoid recurrence of misconduct.
4. Whether the respondent voluntarily and reasonably attempted, prior to detection and intervention, to pay restitution or otherwise remedy the misconduct.
5. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed reasonable supervisory, operational and/or technical procedures or controls that were properly implemented.
6. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed adequate training and educational initiatives.
7. Whether the respondent demonstrated reasonable reliance on competent legal or accounting advice.
8. Whether the respondent engaged in numerous acts and/or a pattern of misconduct.
9. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct over an extended period of time.
10. Whether the respondent attempted to conceal his or her misconduct or to lull into inactivity, mislead, deceive or intimidate a customer, regulatory authorities or, in the case of an individual respondent, the member firm with which he or she is/was associated.
11. With respect to other parties, including the investing public, the member firm with which an individual respondent is associated, and/or other market participants, (a) whether the respondent's misconduct resulted directly or indirectly in injury to such other parties, and (b) the nature and extent of the injury.
12. Whether the respondent provided substantial assistance to FINRA in its examination and/or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or whether the respondent attempted to delay FINRA's investigation, to conceal information from FINRA, or to provide inaccurate or misleading testimony or documentary information to FINRA.
13. Whether the respondent's misconduct was the result of an intentional act, recklessness or negligence.
14. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct at issue notwithstanding prior warnings from FINRA, another regulator or a supervisor (in the case of an individual respondent) that the conduct violated FINRA rules or applicable securities laws or regulations.
15. Whether the respondent member firm can demonstrate that the misconduct at issue was aberrant or not otherwise reflective of the firm's historical compliance record.
16. Whether the respondent's misconduct resulted in the potential for the respondent's monetary or other gain.
17. The number, size and character of the transactions at issue.
18. The level of sophistication of the injured or affected customer.
19. Whether the respondent exercised undue influence over the customer.
1.See, e.g., Rooms v. SEC, 444 F.3d 1208, 1214–5 (10th Cir. 2006) (explaining that while the existence of a disciplinary history is an aggravating factor when determining the appropriate sanction, its absence is not mitigating).