The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against them, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against them, if any.Revocation of broker licenses for employing unlicensed salesperson, dishon- est dealings, failure to maintain escrow funds, failure to allow inspection.

Each of the Respondents have been charged with violations of the Florida Securities and investor Protection Act, Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. The following violations were described in the Administrative Complaint dated August 30, 1990: Whether Respondent Baum, in his capacity as a Branch Manager for the Boca Raton branch office of First Eagle, Inc., offered for sale and sold securities from an unregistered branch office. Complaint, Paragraph 20A Whether Respondent Baum, in his capacity as a Branch Manager for the Boca Raton branch office, offered for sale and sold from the branch securities which were neither exempt from registration nor registered with the State of Florida. Complaint, Paragraph 20B Whether, while serving as branch manager, Respondents Baum, Canouse and Bergelt failed to have a registered options principal in the Boca Raton branch office for First Eagle, Inc., but permitted options trades, which the Department alleges is a violation of Rule 6E- 600.013(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code, and Article III, Section 33, Appendix E, Section 20(c), of the National Association of Securities Dealers Rules of Fair Practice. Complaint, Pagagraphs 20F, 21F Whether Respondent Baum, in his capacity as Branch Manager of the Boca Raton branch office of First Eagle, Inc., failed to maintain statements for the customers' accounts which involved option transactions in violation of Rule 6E-600.013(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 33, Appendix E, Section 17(b), of the National Association of Securities Dealers Rules of Fair Practice. Complaint, Pagagraph 20G. Whether all Respondents functioned as the Branch Manager and in that capacity permitted the sale of securities by unregistered persons and concealed trading by unregistered persons in violation of Section 517.301, Florida Statutes. Complaint, Paragraph 21A Whether the Respondents failed to conduct their business so as to provide an audit trail for all of their transactions, in violation of Rule 6E-600.014(7), Florida Administrative Code. Complaint, Paragraph 21C Whether the Respondents engaged in and concealed the activity of splitting commissions between registered and unregistered sales persons in violation of Section 517.301(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 3E-600.13(2)(f), Florida Administrative Code. Complaint, Paragraph 21D Whether the Respondents failed to observe just and equitable principles of trade in violation of Rule 6E-600.013(1)(p), Florida Administrative Code, and Article III, Section I, of the National Association of Securities Dealers Rules of Fair Practice. Complaint, Paragraph 21E.Respondent fined for selling unregistered, non-exempt securities.

The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondents, David P. Piccoli and First Freedom Mortgage Corporation, committed multiple acts in violation of applicable statutes and administrative rules, the nature and extent of any penalties that should be imposed if one or more of the alleged acts were committed, and whether the application for registration as a mortgage brokerage business by Respondent, First Freedom Mortgage Bankers, Inc., should be denied.Mortgage broker who recorded mortgage prior to availability of funds, failed to pay commission to another broker and failed to disclose costs to customer should be fined and supended.