Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FINRA Increases the Cost of Penny Stock-Related AML Deficiencies

By Daniel Nathan & Kiersten Fletcher on August 15, 2013
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The price tag for failing to detect suspicious activity in penny stocks through an adequate anti-money laundering program continues to increase.  Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. recently agreed to pay FINRA more than $1.4 million to settle a disciplinary proceeding brought in May 2013 based on problems in the firm’s supervisory system and anti-money laundering program. FINRA’s release details how seven brokers in five branches sold more than one billion shares of twenty low priced, speculative securities known as “penny stocks,” without proper registration under the securities laws, and also without detection by the firm’s internal controls.

FINRA’s release highlights numerous red flags of suspicious activity that the firm was aware of and failed to investigate. Specifically, the firm did not notice when customers made large deposits of penny stocks and then sold them immediately after deposit, when customers deposited large quantities of penny stocks shortly after opening an account, or when the penny stock deposits represented a significant percentage of the company’s float in the market. In short, FINRA found that the firm’s AML program focused on money movement, not securities transactions, and therefore failed to monitor patterns of suspicious activity associated with the penny stock trades. FINRA also scrutinized the firm’s decision to open a broker-dealer account for a Bahamas-domiciled company without enquiring into the Bahamas’ enforcement regime or examining the customer’s anti-money laundering policies and procedures, among other missteps.

FINRA’s emphasis on red flags in this action—and its continued willingness to punish firms that don’t spot them—is consistent with other recent FINRA settlements, as we reported in an earlier post. (See our recent post.) This action signals FINRA’s continued focus on firms’ implementation of effective AML procedures, and should motivate industry players to review and refine those procedures.

Daniel Nathan

Mr. Nathan is a partner in the firm’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement and White-Collar Defense Group. Mr. Nathan’s practice includes representation of companies and individuals who are involved as witnesses or subjects in investigations conducted by the SEC, the CFTC, FINRA and other regulatory…

Mr. Nathan is a partner in the firm’s Securities Litigation, Enforcement and White-Collar Defense Group. Mr. Nathan’s practice includes representation of companies and individuals who are involved as witnesses or subjects in investigations conducted by the SEC, the CFTC, FINRA and other regulatory entities involving financial institutions or transactions. Mr. Nathan also consults with financial institutions on examinations, supervisory procedures, product disclosure and supervision, and other regulatory matters.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    IM Insights
  • Organization:
    Morrison & Foerster LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo