The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person in the state of Florida with Value Equities Corporation should be granted or denied. The Department proposes to deny the application on the basis of Section 517.161(1)(h) and (k), Florida Statutes, contending that the Petitioner has demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the business of an associated person and is of bad business repute. The Petitioner has little, if any dispute with the facts relied upon by the Department, but offered evidence in mitigation and asserts that, on the facts in this case, he is entitled to registration. Subsequent to the hearing in this case, a transcript was filed on March 4, 1987, and, pursuant to ruling at the close of the hearing, the parties were allowed until March 16, 1987, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed timely post-hearing documents, containing proposed findings of fact. A specific ruling on all proposed findings of fact is contained in the Appendix attached to and incorporated into this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, and on the exhibits received in evidence, I make the following findings of fact. Petitioner, Kenneth Joseph Whitehead, ("Whitehead") filed a Form U-4 application to be registered as an associated person in the state of Florida with Value Equities Corporation, located at 216 South Fairway Drive, Belleview, Illinois. Said application was received at the Department of Banking and Finance ("Department") in due course on June 21, 1986. By letter dated September 3, 1986, the Department advised the Petitioner that it intended to deny his application for registration for the reasons set forth at length in the letter. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a timely request for hearing. The National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") District Business Conduct Committee, District #4, on July 11, 1978, accepted a "Letter of Admission, Waiver and Consent" against Weinrich, Zitzman & Whitehead, Inc., Kenneth J. Whitehead and others. In said agreement, Whitehead personally consented to a censure, a fine in the amount of $2000, and a ten day suspension from NASD membership. The sanctions imposed by the NASD resulted from violations of Regulation T imposed against Whitehead individually. The State of Missouri issued an order entitled "ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST" in the matter of: Weinrich, Zitzman and Whitehead, Inc., Kenneth Whitehead, et al., on February 24, 1982, and found Whitehead to have personally made sales of unregistered securities, to have effected Unauthorized transactions, to have distributed promotional materials while not providing a prospectus and to have omitted to purchasers the fact that said securities were unregistered. Further, all respondents in that proceeding, including Whitehead, were found by the State of Missouri to have omitted the fact that unsuccessful attempts were made to register certain stocks, the fact that certain stocks could not justify their offering price, and the fact that the promoter's equity position could not be justified with respect to certain stock. All of the aforementioned were found to have constituted violations of Missouri law. As a result, Whitehead and others were ordered to cease and desist from violating Missouri law. Petitioner was afforded his due process rights to contest said order which was subsequently upheld. On May 31, 1983, the NASD District Business Conduct Committee #4 ("Committee"), entered a "Decision in Complaint No. KC-261" as to Whitehead and others. The Committee found that Whitehead failed to maintain minimum margin equity on certain accounts and failed to deliver securities as required by Article III, Sections 1 and 30, of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice. As a result of said violations, Whitehead was censured, fined $2500 and suspended by the NASD for three days. On September 19, 1985, the Committee issued a second complaint (KC-339) against Whitehead and others alleging violations of Article III of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice by failing to maintain required net capital, proper books, and records. As a result of an offer of settlement, Whitehead was censured and fined $1500. On December 20, 1985, the Committee issued a third Complaint (KC-343) against Whitehead and others for failure to maintain required net capital in violation of SEC Rule 15C3-1 and Article III, Section 1, of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice. The complaint remains pending. In 1982, eleven suits were filed by individual plaintiffs against WZW Financial Services, Inc., Whitehead, and others in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis to effect rescission of the sale of unregistered securities in the state of Missouri. The suits were settled for an aggregate of $240,000. The Petitioner was not directly involved in the sales that led to these suits, but he was vicariously liable as an officer of the corporation. In 1984, a suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois by certain individual plaintiffs against WZW, Inc., Kenneth Whitehead, and others in the sale of limited partnership interests wherein the allegations included violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C 78j(b), Rule 10b-5, involving securities fraud; violations of Section 1964c of the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") of 18 U.S.C. 1962C, 1964c, involving racketeering activity; and violations of 18 U.S.C. 1341, involving mail fraud. The case is currently pending. On January 30, 1986, O. R. Securities, Inc., filed a Form U-5 termination notice in which Whitehead was terminated for violating the firm's policy concerning margin accounts. The termination was investigated by the NASD. Following the investigation, the NASD determined that no further action was warranted.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Banking and Finance issue a final order in this case which denies the Petitioner's application for registration as an associated person with Value Equities Corporation. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. M. M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4055 The following are my specific rulings on each of the proposed findings of fact submitted by both parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner First unnumbered paragraph: Accepted in substance with unnecessary details omitted. Second unnumbered paragraph: First sentence accepted in substance. Second sentence covered in introductory portion of this recommended order. Paragraph 1: All but last sentence is accepted in substance. Last sentence is rejected as irrelevant because there is no persuasive competent substantial evidence that customers were not hurt or jeopardized. Paragraph 2: First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected as incomplete. Third sentence rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Fourth and fifth sentences rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Sixth sentence accepted. Seventh sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance. Unnumbered paragraph following paragraph 3: First sentence is rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence. Second and third sentences are rejected as in part contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and in part not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 4: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The first four sentences are rejected as constituting irrelevant and unnecessary details. The fifth sixth, and seventh sentences are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not supported by credible competent substantial evidence. Paragraph 7: Accepted in substance with unnecessary details omitted. Findings submitted by Respondent Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Accepted. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Accepted. Paragraph 6: Accepted. Paragraph 7: Accepted. Paragraph 8: Accepted. Paragraph 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: Accepted with additional facts for clarity and accuracy. Paragraph 11: Rejected as constituting proposed conclusions of law or legal argument regarding what was not proved, and not constituting findings of fact based on evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James S. McClellan, Esquire 314 North Broadway, Suite 1930 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Charles E Scarlett, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Diane Aquino, is a 33 year old female who currently resides at 1271 North West 23rd Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. By application filed on February 10, 1981, Petitioner sought licensure as a real estate salesman by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate. (Respondent's Exhibit l) Question 7(a) on the application asked whether any judgment or decree of a court has been entered against the applicant in which the applicant was charged with any fraudulent or dishonest dealing. Question 15(a) asked whether the applicant has ever had any registration to practice a profession revoked, annulled or suspended upon grounds of fraudulent or dishonest dealing or violations of law. Question 15(b) asked whether applicant has ever surrendered her registration to practice any regulated profession or occupation. Aquino answered each of those questions affirmatively and included a written statement describing actions taken against her by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SFC) based upon fraudulent activities which occurred in 1976. The application was denied by Respondent by letter dated April 28, 1981, on the ground she had failed to demonstrate that she was "honest, truthful, trustworthy, and of good character, and ... (has) a good reputation for fair dealing." The denial precipitated the instant hearing. Between September, 1975, and April, 1976, Petitioner was employed by Colonial Securities, Inc. located in Jersey City, New Jersey, in the capacity of a registered sales assistant. Colonial was a broker-dealer registered with the SEC pursuant to Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In 1977 Colonial, Petitioner and two other Colonial employees were the subject of an administrative proceeding instituted by the SEC charging that they had "willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act in that they, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce and of the mails to offer, sell and deliver after sale shares of the common stock of Tucker (Drilling Company, Inc.) when no registration statement was filed or in effect as to such securities pursuant to the Securities Act." (Respondent's Exhibit l). Because of the time and expense involved in contesting these charges, and upon advice of her counsel, Aquino consented to the entry of an order by the SEC that made findings that she had willfully violated and willfully aided and abetted violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. The consent order also imposed the following sanctions: that Aquino be barred from association with any broker, dealer or investment company, except in a secretarial capacity; and that, after a period of two years she be permitted to apply to become reassociated in non-supervisory and non-proprietary capacity. Aquino is now reapplying for registration with the SEC. In addition to the sanctions imposed by the SEC, Petitioner has been enjoined by a federal court in New York from violating Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. Since the entry of the consent order, Petitioner has owned and operated a laundry and dry cleaner business in Pompano Beach, Florida, and been employed as a sales assistant at a stock brokerage firm in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Since 1980 she has been the president and 50 percent stockholder of Financial Communications, Inc., a small private investment company located in Pompano Beach, Florida. In her present business, Petitioner deals with private investors who entrust her with sums of money for different securities and stock investments. One such investor described her as being honest and trustworthy, and stated he is completely satisfied with the business relationship that they enjoy. Another investor attested to Aquino's excellent reputation for honesty and truthfulness. A former employer indicated he is willing to sponsor her reapplication for licensing with the SEC as a registered securities representative. He is also willing to hire her if that application is approved. Other than the difficulties incurred in 1977, Petitioner has had no other problems that would reflect adversely upon her reputation and integrity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner, Diane Aquino, for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Rishken, Esquire Suite 203, Dadeland Towers North 9700 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Linda A. Lawson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Diane Aquino 1271 NorthEast 23rd Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33062
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioners' applications for registration should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: On January 26, 1988, KC Securities, Inc. (KC) filed an application for broker-dealer registration. Ted Casey Kata was identified as the president and principal owner of KC. Question 7E. of the application asked: Has any self-regulatory organization or commodities exchange ever: * * * (2) found the applicant or a control affiliate to have been involved in a violation of its rules? The answer KC gave to question 7E.(2) was "yes". Question 7G. of the KC application asked: Is the applicant or a control affiliate now the subject of any proceeding that could result in a "yes" answer to parts A-F of this item? The answer KC gave to question 7G. was "yes." The "control affiliates" whose conduct caused KC to answer in the affirmative to the questions noted above are Ted C. Kata and Mary S. Kata. KC has not previously been registered as a broker-dealer. Petitioner, Mary S. Kata, filed an application for securities industry registration and requested registration as a general securities principal, financial and operations principal, and municipal securities principal. According to the application, Mary S. Kata has been unemployed since October, 1985. Previously, Mary S. Kata was the financial principal for TK Securities. Prior to working for TK, Mrs. Kata worked for Cooper Investments, Inc. and Southeast Securities of Florida, Inc. Mrs. Kata later amended her request to seek registration as an associate with KC. Petitioner, Ted C. Kata, filed an application requesting registration as a general securities principal and a municipal securities principal. According to the application, Ted C. Kata has been unemployed since October, 1985. Previously, Mr. Kata had owned and been the principal for TK Securities, he had managed Cooper Investments, Inc., and had owned and managed Southeast Securities of Florida, Inc. The National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD) is a self- regulatory organization comprised of securities dealers of which Ted C. Kata and Mary S. Kata were members. Ted C. Kata, entered the securities business as a registered associate in 1965. In 1973, he purchased a general securities business known as First Broward Securities, Inc. Later, Mr. Kata changed the name of First Broward to Southeast Securities of Florida, Inc. (Southeast). On March 3, 1976, Ted C. Kata, as registered principal of Southeast, and Southeast were censured and fined by NASD based upon a violation of Article III, Sections 1 and 32 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice. This violation was based upon Southeast's failure to obtain and maintain a blanket fidelity bond as prescribed by NASD requirements. The amount of the fine assessed against Mr. Kata was $400 plus costs in the amount of $20. Mr. Kata considered this a minor infraction but took steps to correct the situation and did obtain the required bond. On November 17, 1978, the NASD filed a complaint against Southeast and Ted C. Kata, the registered principal. This complaint alleged Southeast and Kata had violated several provisions of Article III of the Rules of Fair Practice which were set forth in six separate causes. After hearing on the issues, NASD entered findings which determined Kata had operated in a deceptive manner, had presented a false accounting of the firm's income and capital, and had taken excessive mark-ups. As a result, Mr. Kata was censured and fined $500 and was required to pay costs totaling $1,636. Mr. Kata paid this fine but felt that the investigators had not understood the true facts of the case. On October 9, 1986, the NASD filed a complaint against TK Securities, In., Ted C. Kata and Ruth Elaine Berry. Mr. Kata was charged as the sole general securities principal for TK. This complaint alleged violations related to a failure to maintain sufficient net capital, failure to make and keep current records, and failure to file a correct FOCUS report. In accepting an offer of settlement, the NASD censured Mr. Kata and fined him in the amount of $1000. Again, Mr. Kata paid the fine as required. In the latter part of 1985, James Stibal sued Ted C. Kata and alleged, among other complaints, that Mr. Kata had represented the Stibals in their stock transactions and that Mr. Kata had made numerous false or misleading statements to induce the Stibals to invest. According to Mr. Kata this case was settled when he agreed to pay approximately $22,000 to the Stibals. On December 14, 1987, the Securities and EXCHANGE Commission (SEC) took action against Mary S. Kata. The SEC had charged that Mrs. Kata had willfully aided and abetted violations of the Securities EXCHANGE Act by failing to make and keep current books and records for a company for which she served as the financial principal. The settlement, offered by Mrs. Kata and accepted by the SEC, suspended Mrs. Kata for a period of six months from association in a proprietary or supervisory capacity with any broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, investment company or investment advisor. It should be noted that the acts complained of against Mrs. Kata in the SEC action and the acts complained of by the NASD against Mr. Kata and Berry resulted from errors allegedly committed at TK. According to Mr. and Mrs. Kata, TK was sold two months prior to the incidents which gave rise to these complaints. The Katas maintained that the acts complained of occurred while Mrs. Berry was operating TK. However, the record is clear that Mr. Kata remained as the principal for TK and Mrs. Kata remained as the financial principal for TK during all periods in question. In fact, the Katas remained employed at TK despite the change in ownership. Further, Mr. Kata continued to advise Mrs. Berry and the staff from time to time on matters regarding the business. Approximately two months after the sale of TK, the company went into liquidation by the Securities and Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC). During the liquidation period, Mrs. Kata assisted the trustee to locate and process records. Leonard Simons has known Ted C. Kata since 1968. Mr. Kata handled Mr. Simons' investment account for a number of years. Mr. Simons found that his sales and purchases were promptly confirmed, that he was always paid correctly, and that Mr. Kata's brokerage rates were competitive. If given the opportunity, Mr. Simons would trade with Mr. Kata again. Mr. Simons was unaware of the NASD actions against Mr. Kata. George Brown has known Ted C. Kata since 1964. Mr. Brown and Mr. Kata studied to become NASD members at the same time, and Mr. Brown subsequently worked both with and for Mr. Kata. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Kata has always confirmed trades accurately and promptly, has always been fair and considerate, and brought to the attention of salesmen in his employ the applicable rules and regulations. Mr. Brown intends to register with Mr. Kata again if the applicant is approved and considers Mr. Kata worthy to be in the securities business. Christopher Constable has known Ted C. Kata since 1972. Mr. Constable worked for Mr. Kata as an associate of all of the brokerage firms for which Kata served as principal for the period 1973-1985. Mr. Kata required that Mr. Constable and the other sales associates review all new rules and regulations. Mr. Constable knows of no complaints from customers while he was associated with Mr. Kata. Mr. Constable believes Mrs. Kata to be an excellent bookkeeper and believes both Katas to be worthy to engage in the securities business. Mr. Constable was not aware of the NASD actions against Mr. Kata. Don Saxon is the director of the Division of Securities and Investor Protection. According to Mr. Saxon, the NASD actions against Mr. Kata are the type which would result in revocation of registration since the violations were related to failures in books and records keeping, illegal markups, and since the Katas were principals of the company which went into SIPC liquidation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection, Office of the Comptroller enter a final order denying the registration applications of the Petitioners. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2493 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY PETITIONERS: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 10 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial to the findings made herein. No conclusion is reached as to whether Mrs. Berry exercised control over TK after the sale since the Katas remained as principals with the company. With regard to paragraph 11, that TK went into liquidation approximately two months after the sale is accepted. All other conclusions reached in paragraph 11 are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial to the findings made herein. Paragraphs 12 and 13 are accepted. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial to the findings made herein. The evidence established that at all periods in question, before the sale of TK and until its liquidation, that Mrs. Kata was the financial principal for the company. Paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraph 16 is accepted. The first two sentences of paragraph 17 are accepted. The third sentence is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Mr. Kata remained as principal for TK after its sale, he continued to work there, and he advised staff regarding business matters. Whether he or Mrs. Berry exercised final control over the business is immaterial since Mr. Kata was the sole registered principal. There is no conclusion that the shortcomings were committed after the sale. Paragraphs 18-20 are accented. Paragraphs 21-22 are rejected as hearsay or not supported by the record. Paragraphs 23 and 24 are accepted. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are rejected as a recitation of testimony not findings of fact. Mr. Kata may not have agreed with the ultimate findings reached by the NASD; however, the censure was issued as found in the findings of fact. With regard to paragraph 27, see the findings of fact, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 28-33 are accepted but are irrelevant or immaterial to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraph 34 is accepted to the extent that it describes the NASD action taken against Kata. Those portions of the paragraph which suggest Kata did not have control over the company after its sale are rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial. Kata remained as principal for the company after the sale and continued to advise the staff. That he might have allowed the new owner to exercise poor judgment does not excuse Kata of all liability. Paragraph 35 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 36 is accepted only to the extent that it describes the penalty Kata agreed to accept. The action was resolved without hearing. Paragraph 37 is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 38 is accepted. The second sentence is rejected since the record is clear that the total of the fines and costs associated with the NASD actions exceeded the amount of the fines alone, consequently, it would be erroneous to consider only the fine portion. To his credit, Mr. Kata paid all amounts owed by him for the various violations. Paragraph 39 is accepted only to the extent that it finds that TK went into liquidation two months after the sale. The rest of the paragraph is rejected as speculation, unsupported by the record, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence presented. Paragraph 40 is accepted. Paragraph 41 is accepted but is irrelevant and immaterial to the conclusions reached herein. Mr. Kata's self-serving testimony both as to the denials of all wrongdoing and the reasons for either agreeing to pay fines or settlements has not been credited. Paragraph 42 is accepted. Paragraph 43 is accepted. Paragraphs 44 and 45 are rejected as self-serving comment, Mr. Kata's testimony having not been credited. Paragraph 46 is accepted but is irrelevant to the conclusions reached herein. Paragraph 47 is accepted to the extent it relates charges against Mrs. Kata; however, it should be noted that Mrs. Kata was the financial principal for her husband during the periods in which he was censured for problems relating to bookkeeping. Paragraph 48 is accepted but is irrelevant and immaterial to the conclusions reached herein; Mrs. Kata's self-serving comments have not been credited. Paragraph 49 is accepted. Paragraph 50 is accepted. Paragraph 51 is accepted. Paragraph 52 is rejected; Mrs. Kata remained as financial principal for the company after its sale. Whether she should have discovered the errors or whether she could have discovered the errors is immaterial. The sale does not excuse the responsibility for the errors of the company. Thus, paragraph 52 is immaterial, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence submitted. Paragraph 53 is rejected as speculation but in any event, if true, would be irrelevant or immaterial to the conclusions reached. Paragraph 54 is accepted but, again, is irrelevant or immaterial to the conclusions reached. Paragraph 55 is rejected; see comment to p. 53. Paragraph 56 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence; Mrs. Kata remained as a principal throughout all periods. Paragraphs 57-68 are accepted. Paragraph 69 is accepted to the extent that it expresses one witness' perception. However, that witness' testimony conflicted with another's and was given little weight in light of the self-interest and long-term friendship involved. Paragraphs 70-80 are accepted. Paragraph 81 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant or immaterial to the issues in this case. Paragraph 82 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 83, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of paragraph 83 is rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraphs 84-86 are rejected as contrary to the record. Paragraph 87 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 88 is rejected as argumentative, irrelevant or immaterial. Paragraph 89 is rejected as contrary to the record in its entirety. Paragraph 90 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 91 is rejected as a recitation of testimony, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 92-93 are rejected as argument, irrelevant, or immaterial. Whether the Division may properly rely on a rule which establishes prima facie evidence of unworthiness for registration has not been challenged. Such a challenge would have been pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. These Petitioners have challenged the denial of their registration pursuant to 120.57, Florida Statutes, and the rule by which they are governed is presumed valid for purposes of this review. RULINGS ON RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Paragraphs 1-26 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas N. Holloway 2101 W. Commercial Boulevard Suite 5300 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Charles E. Scarlett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller Department of Banking and Finance Legal Section, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Hon. Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Charles L. Stutts General Counsel Plaza Level The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact On November 20, 1985, petitioners, Richard Schulze and Constable Atlantic, Inc., made application with respondent, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities (Divi- sion), for licensure as a principal and broker-dealer, respec- tively. In response to a Division request, petitioners submitted amended applications containing additional information on January 31, 1986. After conducting an investigation of petitioners' backgrounds, the agency issued a proposed final order on February 18, 1986, denying the application on the grounds (a) Schulze had violated the federal Commodity Exchange Act and had been the subject of a final administrative order in the State of Minnesota involving a violation of that state's security laws, and (b) an officer or director of Constable Atlantic, Inc. (Schulze) had been guilty of an act which would be cause for denying or revoking the registration of an individual dealer. The agency action prompted the instant proceeding. Schulze is president of Wyndwood Merchantile Corporation (Wyndwood) and various affiliated organizations. Wyndwood is involved in the sale of precious metals and is currently doing business in the State of Florida and other states. Constable Atlantic, Inc. is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Schulze is Constable's president, his wife Theodora treasurer, and his son Otto secretary. The three are also the directors and shareholders of the corporation. Constable is now registered as a broker and dealer with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. Just recently, Schulze was licensed as an associated person and a commodity pool operator by the National Futures Association, which is the licensing arm of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), a federal agency in Washington, D.C. Schulze has been involved in selling securities for the last six or seven years. At one time he was also a principal with Atlantic Futures, Inc. (AFI), which was then licensed as a commodity pool operator and trading advisor with the CFTC. AFI and Schulze were both under the regulatory jurisdiction of that agency. On October 2, 1984 the CFTC issued a complaint and notice of hearing alleging that AFI and Schulze had violated various provisions of the federal Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC regulations. More specifically, it alleged that: ...AFI and Schulze, aided and abetted by each other,...cheated and defrauded or attempted to cheat and defraud AFI's pool participants in violation of Section 46(A) of the Commodity Exchange Act, as amended...; that AFI, aided and abetted by Schulze, violated Section 40(1) of the Act and Sections 4.41(a) and 166.3 of the Commission's regulations; and that AFI violated Sections 4.21(a) and 4.21(a)(3) of the Commission's regulations. Thereafter, Schulze and AFI submitted an offer of settlement to the CFTC which was accepted and formalized in a consent decree entered by the CFTC on April 23, 1985. The consent decree made no adjudication of law or fact, or an adjudication on the merits of the case. Rather, it was entered solely for the purposes of accepting the offer of settlement and terminating the proceeding. Under the terms of that decree, which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 2, Schulze and Atlantic paid a $100,000 fine and agreed to cease and desist from any violations. In addition, AFI agreed to a suspension of its registrations for six months and to never apply for any other registrations with the CFTC. Finally, for purposes of the settlement only, the CFTC found Schulze had violated certain portions of the Act and regulations and noted that "these findings may be used only in any other proceedings brought by the Commission." Schulze later made application with the CFTC for licensure as a dealer, and this application was approved on September 11, 1986. On or about July 26, 1984 the State of Minnesota issued an ex parte cease and desist order against Wyndwood, Schulze and others requiring them to stop selling securities in that state without being registered. The order, which has been received in evidence as respondent's exhibit 1, required Schulze to request a hearing within a prescribed time, or the order would become final. Schulze did not timely request a hearing. However, after the prescribed time to request a hearing had expired, he filed a request with the State Commissioner and the order of July 26 was subsequently vacated on September 18, 1986. The outcome of the proceeding is not known. Constable Atlantic, Inc. is a member firm of the National Association of Security Dealers (NASD) and is registered as a broker and dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In obtaining their registrations, Constable and Schulze furnished the SEC and NASD the same information that was submitted to respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the applications of Constable Atlantic, Inc. and Richard Schulze for registration as a broker- dealer and principal, respectively, be APPROVED. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-1065 Petitioners: 1. Covered in finding of fact 4. 2. Covered in finding of fact 4. 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. 4. Covered in finding of fact 3. 5. Covered in finding of fact 3. 6. Covered in finding of fact 3. 7. Covered in finding of fact 3. 8. Covered in finding of fact 3. 9. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Rejected as being irrelevant. Covered in finding of fact 5. Respondent: Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 3. Rejected as being irrelevant. Rejected as being irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward Brodsky, Esquire Sarah S. Gold, Esquire SPENGLER, CARSON, OUBAR, BRODSKY and FRISCHLING 280 Park Avenue New York, New York 10017 Calianne P. Lantz, Esquire Office of the Comptroller 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue Suite 870 Miami, Florida 33128 Honorable Gerald Lewis, Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8054 Charles E. Scarlett, Esquire Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8054
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant in the state of Florida based upon the alleged violations of Chapter 473, Florida Statutes, set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaints filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was licensed to practice as a certified public accountant ("CPA") in the state of Florida, having been issued license number AC0001638. Respondent's most recent business address was 224 North Federal Highway, Suite #4, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301. Petitioner has presented evidence of a number of Final Orders entered by the Florida Board of Accountancy (the "Board") against Respondent as a result of prior disciplinary action initiated by Petitioner. While the records presented are somewhat confusing and bear several different case numbers, it appears that, as a result of the various cases, Respondent has been on probation for approximately the last 12 years. According to the records presented, the first action taken against Respondent's license is reflected in a Final Order dated December 31, 1981 and filed on February 8, 1982 in DPR Case Number 0000499. That Final Order indicates that a stipulation executed by Respondent "as to facts, law and discipline" was accepted by the Board "with no changes." The stipulation referenced in that Final Order was not included with the exhibits entered into evidence in this proceeding. Thus, the "facts, law and discipline" are not of record in this case. Next, the Board entered a Final Order dated May 11, 1982 and filed on May 17, 1982 in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 imposing a $1,000 fine against Respondent and suspending his license for eighteen (18) months. An Amended Final Order dated September 3, 1982 was filed in DPR Case Numbers 16369, 16370 and 15399 on September 15, 1982. That Amended Final Order accepted a signed stipulation dated July 30, 1982 and modified the Final Order entered on May 11, 1982. In lieu of the fine and suspension imposed in the May 11 Final Order, the Amended Final Order placed Respondent on probation for five years with a requirement for a review of Respondent's practice at the end of each year by a CPA selected by the Department at Respondent's expense. The independent certified public accountant was supposed to submit written and oral reports to the Board and the Department regarding Respondent's compliance with the applicable statutes and rules governing the accounting profession. The Stipulation which was incorporated into the Amended Final Order specifically required Respondent to comply "with all provisions of Chapter 455 and 473, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto." The Stipulation provided in part as follows: The Board shall determine at a public hearing whether [Respondent] has complied with Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. and the rules promulgated thereto. The Board may restrict or prohibit [Respondent's] practice of public accountancy during his period of probation as it deems necessary to protect the public safety and welfare. It is clearly understood and agreed that, in the event the DEPARTMENT, the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel find sufficient evidence to believe reasonable cause exists that [Respondent] has violated any of the conditions of probation as outlined above, a notice of said violation shall be sent to [Respondent], by certified mail, setting forth the nature of the alleged violation and an emergency hearing will be held by the BOARD or the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel, and upon a find [sic] of probable cause, [Respondent's] probation may be vacated and his license to practice accountancy in the State of Florida, subject to automatic suspension, with further disciplinary proceedings, pursuant to Chapters 455 and 473, F.S. If Respondent has not complied with all the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation and final order of the BOARD, the BOARD shall enter an Order imposing such further terms and conditions of probation pursuant to the statutory powers set forth in 473.323(1)(3), F.S., and shall further cause said matter to be referred to the BOARD'S Probable Cause Panel or such other jurisdictional authority as may be established for purposes of determining probable cause and initiating further administrative and/or judicial action against the Respondent. * * * [Respondent] expressly waives all further procedural steps and expressly waives all rights to seek judicial review of, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of a joint stipulation of facts, conclusions of law and imposition of discipline, and the final order of the BOARD incorporating said stipulation. At a meeting on January 21, 1985, the Florida Board of Accountancy reviewed a report from the consultant hired to conduct the inspection and review of Respondent's public accountancy practice in accordance with the terms of the Amended Final Order entered on September 15, 1982. Based upon its review of the consultant's report, the Board imposed an additional condition of probation that all audits, reviews and compilations prepared by Respondent were to be reviewed prior to their issuance by a CPA selected by Respondent at Respondent's expense. This additional aspect of Respondent's probation was incorporated in a Final Order dated February 15, 1985 and entered on February 28, 1985 in DPR Case Number 0016369. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 4, 1985, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating the terms of his probation by issuing compilations without prior review by another CPA. This Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 0063064. As reflected in a Final Order dated February 23, 1987 and filed on March 10, 1987 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Respondent's probation was extended until September 1988 based upon a signed Stipulation dated November 16, 1986 which was accepted by the Board during its meeting on January 30, 1987. As a result of the March 10, 1987 Final Order extending Respondent's probation, Respondent was required to continue to obtain review and approval by an independent CPA prior to issuance of any audited financial statements, reviewed financial statements and compiled financial statements and related accountant's reports. In an Administrative Complaint dated December 7, 1989 in DPR Case Number 0063064, Petitioner charged Respondent with violating Section 473.323(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as a result of his issuance of financial statements without prior review by a CPA as required by the previous Final Orders entered against Respondent. The Complaint did not specify any date(s) or specific financial statements involved. At a meeting on February 22, 1990, the Board accepted a Counter- Settlement Stipulation signed by Respondent on March 26, 1990 in Case Number 0063064. The Board entered a Final Order dated April 4, 1990 and filed on April 10, 1990 confirming its acceptance of the Counter-Stipulation. 2/ The Counter- Settlement Stipulation incorporated in the April 1990 Final Order extended Respondent's probation "until the terms of probation have been met." The terms of probation were stated to be: That the Respondent shall not violate the provisions of Chapters 455 or 473, Florida Statutes or the rules promulgated pursuant thereto or the terms and conditions of this joint stipulation. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant consultant shall interview the Respondent's clients to determine the type of work product they are receiving from the Respondent. A Department of Professional Regulation Certified Public Accountant Consultant shall conduct a review of the Respondent's tax practice along with work papers at the Respondent's expense. The Counter-Stipulation further provided that: Respondent and the Department fully understand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detailed in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. Respondent and the Department expressly waive all further procedural steps, and expressively waives [sic] all rights to seek judicial review of or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity of the joint stipulation and the Final Order of the Board, if said stipulation is accepted by the Board and incorporated in the Final Order.... In early 1991, Marlyn Felsing, a CPA retained as a consultant to conduct a review of Respondent's work pursuant to the terms of his probation, met with Respondent and reviewed financial statements, work papers and various tax returns prepared by Respondent for his clients. Felsing reviewed the financial statements and/or business tax returns for approximately four of Respondent's business clients and reviewed the personal income tax returns for approximately three of Respondent's clients who were business owners. He also reviewed all of the related work papers and discussed his review with Respondent. Felsing prepared a report dated April 23, 1991 detailing several problems and deficiencies he found during his review. A copy of Felsing's report was offered into evidence in this case and he testified at the hearing regarding many of those findings. This evidence was offered in support of the charges in the First DOAH Complaint (DOAH Case Number 92-3421) as amended. Neither Felsing's report nor any of his findings are specifically alleged in the First DOAH Complaint. That Complaint referenced a probation report which "revealed deficiencies which were brought before the Probable Cause Panel, and it was determined that Respondent had violated the terms of the Final Order." As noted in the Preliminary Statement above, the First DOAH Complaint was filed on January 23, 1992. As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991, and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 0063064, the Board reviewed a probation report during its meeting on May 21, 1991 and approved a settlement stipulation extending the probation imposed by the April 4, 1990 Final Order for a period of one (1) year. The settlement stipulation referenced in this July 1, 1991 Order has not been offered into evidence in this proceeding. As best can be determined from the evidence presented in this case, the Final Order entered in DPR Case Number 0063064 on July 1, 1991, was entered after review of the probation report prepared by Marlyn Felsing on April 23, 1991. Thus, it appears that the Board has already taken final action with respect to the deficiencies found in Felsing's report. During the Board Meeting on May 21, 1991, the Board also considered whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent with respect to another Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent on January 7, 1991. That new Administrative Complaint was assigned DPR Case Number 95979 and contained allegations that Respondent "was associated with personal financial statements for Michael Raybeck which did not meet the appropriate standards." As reflected in a Final Order dated June 19, 1991 and filed on July 1, 1991 in DPR Case Number 95979, the Board during its May 21, 1991 meeting accepted a settlement stipulation signed by Respondent on April 15, 1991. In that settlement stipulation, Respondent admitted the allegations in the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case Number 95979. The Settlement Stipulation provided as follows: * * * Stipulated Disposition 2. Respondent's license to practice public accounting is currently on probation in case number 63064. Probation in this case shall run concurrently with the probation in case number 63064. The same CPA consultant who is assigned to review the Respondent's practice in Case Number 63064 shall also review the personal financial statements the Respondent's office prepares. The consultant shall also review the Respondent's records to determine whether he is accepting commissions. These additional terms shall also be paid for by the Respondent. * * * 5. Respondent and the Department fully under- stand that this Stipulation, and the subsequent Final Order incorporating same, will not in any way preclude additional proceedings by the Board and/or Department against the Respondent for acts or omissions not specifically detained [sic] in the investigative findings of the Department upon which a finding of probable cause was made. * * * 8. This Settlement Stipulation is [sic] an admission of any liability on behalf of the Respondent and is being entered into merely to resolve a dispute. It shall not be admissible in any court of law or any subsequent adminis- trative proceeding for any purpose. As reflected in an Order dated September 29, 1992 and filed on September 30, 1992 in DPR Case Number 90-95979, the Board reviewed a probation report during its September 24, 1992 meeting and determined "that the probation imposed upon Respondent by the Final Order dated July 1, 1991, shall be extended and/or modified as follows: extend probation and defer action until Case Number 90-13254 is resolved." Case Number 90-13254 is the Second DOAH Complaint, which was filed on July 6, 1992 (DOAH Case Number 92-5696). The Second DOAH Complaint includes specific allegations against Respondent based upon his purported preparation of misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The Second DOAH Complaint The evidence presented in this case established that Respondent provided a number of accounting services to American British Enterprises, Inc. and Federal Restaurants, Inc. The exact nature and scope of the services provided by Respondent are not entirely clear. Respondent's records of his engagement include a balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987; Consolidated Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. as of August 25, 1987; Interim Compiled Financial Statements, American British Enterprises, March 31, 1988; Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc. November 30, 1988; and Financial Statements of American British Enterprises, Inc., December 31, 1988. The Second DOAH Complaint, as amended, alleges that the financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above were included in due diligence packages for American British Enterprises and were distributed to broker- dealers. No persuasive evidence was presented regarding any such distribution. The Second DOAH Complaint also alleges that "Respondent distributed misleading financial statements to brokers with the purpose of driving up the price of the stock so they could sell shares they controlled at a profit." No evidence was presented to support this allegation. Respondent's counsel suggested that all of the financial statements in question were simply drafts and were not intended to be issued. The evidence established that Respondent executed a letter in connection with the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants which provided as follows: I have examined the accompanying Balance Sheet of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 whose sole Assets are Cash and [sic] Purchase Deposit. My examination was made in accordance with standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and accordingly, included such procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances. In my opinion the enclosed Balance Sheet represents the financial position of Federal Restaurants, Inc., as of August 17, 1987 in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals. Similarly, Respondent's records include a signed letter to the Board of Directors of American British Enterprises in connection with the August 28, 1987 Consolidated Balance Sheet. That letter provides that Respondent conducted an examination "in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and accordingly, included such tests of the accounting records and such other auditing procedures as I considered necessary in the circumstances." The letter further opines that the financial statements "present fairly the Consolidated Financial Position...[of the companies] in conformity with generally accepted accounting principals." Respondent's records also include a signed letter regarding both the November, 1988 and December, 1988 Financial Statements for American British Enterprises indicating that Respondent had conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and that, in his opinion, the financial statements "present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position" of the company as of the stated date. There is no indication on any of these financial statements that they were drafts that were not to be issued. Aside from the letters noted in paragraph 22, the only evidence presented that any of the financial statements listed in paragraph 19 above were issued was the testimony of one of Petitioner's experts who suggested that the statements had to have been issued since they were found in the SEC's files. However, no direct evidence was presented to establish that any investors or potential investors received the financial statements. Moreover, no evidence was presented that any such investors suffered a loss as a result of their reliance upon the financial statements. Certified public accountants are required to utilize specific guidelines in the performance of accounting services. Those guidelines are codified in the Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services ("SSARS"). The failure to abide by the SSARS guidelines constitutes performance below acceptable accounting standards. Petitioner has presented testimony from two experts regarding the deficiencies in the various financial statements referenced in paragraph 19 above. Many of the problems cited by Petitioner's experts relate to alleged deficiencies in Respondent's work papers. Respondent's expert has challenged some of those alleged deficiencies. Because the work papers have not been offered into evidence, it is impossible to resolve some of the conflicts in the experts' opinions. Nonetheless, the evidence was sufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that Respondent's work was not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals in several respects and the financial reports identified in paragraph 19 failed to comply with the SSARS in several ways. The August 17, 1987 balance sheet of Federal Restaurants indicates that the only assets of the company were cash and a purchase deposit on a contract to acquire a restaurant. The balance sheet of Federal Restaurants as of August 17, 1987 has no notes to it. Accounting Principals Board ("APB") Opinion 22 provides that a description of all significant accounting policies of the reporting entities should be included as an integral part of the financial statements. In this particular instance, the omission of accounting policies is of minor importance since the balance sheet only reflects two assets: cash being held in escrow and a deposit on a contract to purchase a restaurant (the "Purchase Contract"). As discussed below, none of the financial statements prepared by Respondent disclosed the terms of the Purchase Contract. Furthermore, it appears from other documents in Respondent's records that the corporation is wholly owned by American British Enterprises and/or is jointly controlled, but there is no disclosure of that relationship in the financial statements. These omissions are significant deficiencies which have not been explained. Statement of Auditing Standards ("SAS") 41 requires work papers to support the conclusions of an audit. According to SAS 41, the work papers constitute the principal record of the work that the auditor has done and the conclusions that he has reached concerning significant matters. Respondent's records do not include work papers for the August 17, 1987 audit. SAS 22 provides guidance to an independent auditor making an examination in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards on the considerations and procedures applicable to planning and supervision, including preparing an audit program, obtaining knowledge of the entity's business, and dealing with differences of opinion among firm personnel. While there is conflicting evidence as to what was included in Respondent's work papers, the evidence was clear that Respondent's records for the August 17, 1987 audit do not comply with the requirements of SAS 22, because there was no clearly identified planning memos or audit programs. In fact, there is not even an engagement letter. SAS 19 requires an independent auditor to obtain certain written representations from management as part of an examination made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and provides guidance concerning the representations to be obtained. Petitioner's experts contend that Respondent's work papers do not include an appropriate representation letter from management for any of the Financial Statements. Respondent's expert contends there was such a letter with respect to the August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements. While it is not clear what is contained in the records, it is clear that the records do not clarify conflicting documentation in Respondent's work papers regarding the relationship between Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not include a clear statement from management regarding the terms of the Purchase Contract and the apparent contingencies involved with that Contract. Consequently, Respondent has failed to comply with SAS 19 and SAS 45 (which addresses related-party disclosures). The August 27, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are not properly consolidated in accordance with Accounting Research Bulletin ("ARB") 51. In addition, the consolidated Financial Statements do not include the disclosures required by Accounting Principals Board Opinion 22. Respondent's expert contends that the statements were mistakenly entitled and they should have been captioned as "combined" rather than consolidated financial statements. Even if this after the fact justification is accepted, the statements do not adequately disclose the relationship between the companies. Respondent's expert suggests that the August 25 Consolidated Financial Statement for American British Enterprises and Federal Restaurants reflects a voidable acquisition of Federal Restaurants by American British Enterprises. If this interpretation is accepted, the August 17, 1987 Balance Sheet for Federal Restaurants was not necessarily misleading for failure to disclose its relationship with American British Enterprises. However, the August 25, 1987 Consolidated Financial Statements are incomplete since the transaction is not fully explained. Moreover, there is no disclosure that the companies were apparently under common control or ownership. With respect to the November, 1988 balance sheet of American British Enterprises, the evidence established that there was a discrepancy between the amount reflected in the financial statement for a note receivable which was the major asset of the corporation and the confirmation in the work papers regarding that asset. While this discrepancy may have been due to a discount and/or accrued interest, no explanation is provided. The discrepancy constitutes a violation of SAS 1, Section 331, which addresses the appropriate background information for receivables, and SAS 1, Section 530 which addresses the dating of the auditor's report. If the discrepancy is due to a discount, Respondent failed to comply with APB Opinion 6, paragraph 14 which requires unearned discounts to be shown as a deduction from the related receivable and/or APB Opinion 21, paragraph 16 which provides for the discount or premium to be reported on the balance sheet as a direct deduction from or addition to the face amount of the note. The work papers for the November audit do not include a reconciliation between the 1982 financial statements of the predecessor corporation and the 1987 statements. There is no documentation of efforts to communicate with the prior auditor nor is there any discussion of the consistency of application of accounting principals between the two statements. As a consequence, the statements do not conform with SAS 7 which addresses communications with a prior auditor. The work papers fail to reflect any audit work being performed on the appraisal for the equipment collateralizing the note. In addition, the work papers include a confirmation from the stock transfer agent that doesn't agree with the number of shares reflected on the financial statement. There is no explanation for this discrepancy nor is there any clear indication of the audit work performed. The financial statements also include a footnote referencing a joint venture agreement. Respondent's records do not include any evidence of audit work performed with respect to this venture agreement. The deficiencies noted in paragraph 33 also appear in the December 31, 1988 financial statements for American British Enterprises. Furthermore, Respondent's records do not contain an audit file for this December statement. The November 30, 1988 and the December 31, 1988 audits of American British Enterprises do not contain a segregation between current and noncurrent assets. This deficiency is relatively insignificant since the company was essentially just a holding company. However, it does constitute a violation of ARB 43. Similarly, the cash flows in the financial statements were not presented in the appropriate format or style required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards 95. However, it appears that all of the necessary information was present. The deficiencies found in the financial statements prepared for Federal Restaurants and American British Enterprises constitute negligence on the Respondent's part and establish a failure to exercise professional competence and due professional care in the performance of accounting services. On or about June 14, 1990, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filed a civil lawsuit against Respondent and three other defendants alleging the preparation of false and misleading financial statements for American British Enterprises, Inc. On August 5, 1991, Respondent executed a Consent of Edwin Tunick to the Entry of a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction in the civil action initiated by the SEC. On September 2, 1991, a Final Judgement of Permanent Injunction as to Edwin Tunick was entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Fort Lauderdale Division) in Case Number 90-6483CIV-ZLOCH. That Final Judgment "permanently restrained and enjoined" Respondent from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. 77q(a) and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C 78 (j)b and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Final Judgment did not include any specific findings of any violations of the federal securities laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Accountancy enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-3421 (DPR Case Number 91-09729); finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 473.323(1)(a), (g) and (h), Florida Statutes, and Rules 21A-22.0001, 21A-22.0002, and 21A-22.003, Florida Administrative Code, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in DOAH Case Number 92-5696 (DPR Case Number 90-13254) and dismissing the other charges in that Complaint. As penalty for the violations, Respondent should be fined $1,000, and his license should be suspended for three years. Before resuming practice, Respondent should be required to complete such mandatory continuing education courses as may be mandated by the Board and he should be placed on probation for three (3) years. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1994.
Findings Of Fact The Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Securities and Investor Protection (Department), is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility to administer and to enforce the provisions of Chapter 517, Florida Statutes (1987), and administrative rules promulgated thereunder, related to regulating the practice of securities dealers, "associated persons" and investment advisors. It regulates sales and other transactions in securities and investments, as those items are defined in that chapter. The Respondent, David John Kury, has been registered with the Department since 1967 as an associated person under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to that registration, he is authorized to engage in the offer and sale of securities to clients. Since 1967 he has also been registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). Since July 21, 1987, Respondent Kury has been registered with the Department as an associated person of American Capital Equities, Inc. (American), and he has also been registered as an associated person with the following broker/dealers: Associated Planner Securities Corporation (Associated); Prudential Bache Securities, Inc.; and E. F. Hutton. These registrations cover the period of time from April 1978 through May 1987. During all times Respondent Kury has been registered with the Department as an associated person of American, he has been simultaneously registered with the NASD as a "principal" of American. American is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri, which has been lawfully registered with the Department as a broker/dealer since approximately August 1984. American operates a branch office at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. This office has been lawfully registered with the Department and in continuous operation since approximately August 21, 1987. Respondent Kury has been the branch manager of the office during all the period of time it has been registered with the Department. Kury has been registered with the Department as a principal of the Kury Investment Advisory Corporation (KIAC), pursuant to Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, since approximately March 2, 1988. That corporation is incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida and has been registered itself with the Department as an investment advisor, pursuant to Chapter 517, since approximately March 2, 1988. The Respondent corporation maintains its principal place of business also at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida, at which address Respondent Kury maintains the branch office of American. Respondent Kury is and has been at all pertinent times the sole owner, officer, director and chief operating officer of the Respondent corporation. Since March 2, 1988, Respondent David Kury has been registered as an investment advisor himself, with KIAC. He is also registered in approximately 15 other states as an associated person, thereby being authorized to offer and sell securities in those states as well. Kury Financial Planning Group, Inc. (Group) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida on or about October 23, 1985. It maintains its principal place of business at the above-referenced address as well. Respondent David Kury is the registered agent, sole officer and director of Group. Since approximately 1976, Kury has engaged continuously in the business of financial planning for individuals in the Pensacola area. Pursuant to this business, he has recommended various financial products, including securities and insurance products for individuals' personal portfolios. He has also rendered advice to clients concerning matters that are not involved with securities or insurance, although the bulk of his financial planning advice and experience relates to these two areas. During the twenty or more years he has been licensed as an associated person only one minor complaint has been lodged against Kury by a client. He has never been the subject of a complaint or an investigation by the Securities Exchange Commission, the NASD, the State of Florida or any other state securities regulatory agency. Neither has he been the subject of a complaint or investigation by the Florida Department of Insurance. He is a member of the Institute of Certified Financial Planners, a member of the International Association for Financial Planning and is in the Registry of Financial Planning Practitioners, a very select group comprised of only a very small percentage of the total number of certified financial planners in the United States. The Respondent, Mr. Kury, has been highly successful as an associated person dealing in securities and as a financial planner. In 1983, while employed with E. F. Hutton as a salesperson, selling securities and investments, the Respondent earned commissions in excess of $500,000 for that year and was one of the largest producers for E. F. Hutton in the entire nation for that year. He received commendations directly from the Chairman of the Board of E. F. Hutton and other senior management for his sales efforts and his integrity. His personal share of the commissions earned that year amounted to $330,000. It is obvious that the Respondent has substantial earning power due to his knowledge, experience and other capabilities in the field of securities and investment sales and advice and the field of financial planning. The Department, commencing on or about May 20, 1988, conducted an investigation and examination of the affairs of Kury Investment Advisory Corporation and the branch office of American, of which Respondent David Kury was branch manager, located at 116 West Government Street, Pensacola, Florida. It was thus determined (and established by clear and convincing evidence in this proceeding) that David Kury, as well as Kury Financial Planning Group, Inc. ("Group") sold or offered for sale both personal notes of David Kury, as well as corporate promissory notes of the Group, since approximately 1975. At the present time, there are approximately 50 persons holding 83 notes in amounts ranging from $5,000 to $200,000. These notes have maturities ranging from three months to four years, with investment return rates ranging from 9 percent to 13 percent. Some of the note-holders were told by Respondent Kury that certificates of deposit, by comparison, were then available to the note-holders or investors at rates ranging from two to three percent less than the rates offered by Kury and Group for the subject personal and/or corporate promissory notes. The total principal amount outstanding, represented by the corporate and personal promissory notes at issue, is approximately $2.4 million. The total principal and accrued interest as of June 15, 1988 is approximately $2.8 million. The total principal amount with accrued interest at the maturity of the notes in question would amount to approximately $3.1 million. The 50 note- holders are clients of the Respondent's. The notes were offered to them in the context of being investment alternatives to certificates of deposit and other "passive" investments, with the primary inducement being higher rates of return on the notes. Respondent David Kury and/or the Corporation failed to maintain and preserve an adequate record of purchases and sales of equity securities by maintaining a "purchase and sales blotter," as well as a "securities received and delivered blotter" and failed to maintain a current "trial balance." These items were not maintained in the ordinary course of business by Respondent David Kury and the Corporation. (See Section 517.121, Florida Statutes, and Rule 3E- 600.014, Florida Administrative Code). During approximately the last 13 years, Respondent David Kury has utilized the proceeds of the personal and corporate notes to pay business expenses for himself and the corporations he controls, as well as certain personal expenses, including the financing of his home (at a cost of approximately $1,000,000). The Respondents have sold or offered for sale the notes, both personal and corporate, without having them registered with the Department, which is required if they are deemed securities. The Respondents did not provide the purchasers of these notes a prospectus for purposes of Section 517.07, Florida Statutes. Group has engaged in the offer and sale of these notes to the note- holders or investors without being registered with the Department to engage in such activities, as required by law, if it be deemed that these notes indeed are securities. Respondent David Kury, in his individual capacity, and on behalf of Group, has engaged in the offer or sale of the notes without being registered with the Department to engage in such activities, either in his individual capacity or on behalf of Group, if the notes are deemed securities. Kury and the Corporation engaged in the business of "investment advisor" prior to lawful registration of that corporation with the Department to engage in such activity. Kury and the Corporation have rendered investment advice since at least September 18, 1987, notwithstanding the fact that the Corporation did not obtain lawful registration with the Department to engage in such activities until March 2, 1988. David Kury was the branch office manager for the registered branch office of American. He failed to establish, maintain and preserve certain books and records required by Florida law for registered branch offices of brokerage firms. In particular, he failed to establish and maintain the purchase and sales blotter reflecting all equity securities sold by American through Kury's branch office. Additionally, as branch office manager for a registered branch office of American, he failed to maintain and preserve a "securities received and delivered blotter." The Corporation, and Kury acting on its behalf, has failed to maintain a current trial balance indicating proof of current money balances in the corporate accounts. Respondent Kury, in his individual capacity and on behalf of Group, sold securities and/or investments (the notes) without making disclosures as to certain material facts, which disclosures were necessary in order for the purchasers or investors not to be misled. Statements were made in conjunction with the sales to the investors under circumstances, such that the omitted material facts, which were not disclosed, were necessary in order to prevent these investors or purchasers from being misled. See Section 517.081, Florida Statutes. Specifically, Kury and Group omitted to inform the investors of the following material facts: Information about the risks to the purchasers of the notes, including his and the Group's ability or inability to repay the notes generally and provision for repayment in the event of Kury's death. Information as to the use to be made of the proceeds of the notes, which in fact were used to finance business operating losses, business operating expenses and to repay personal debts of Kury, and to assist in the financing of personal living expenses of Respondent Kury. (d) Information concerning approximately $4,000,000 in liabilities and outstanding indebtedness of Respondent Kury individually and/or the Corporation and/or the Group. The $2.3 million negative net worth of Kury and/or the Corporation and/or the Group. The fact that Kury's previous employment with E. F. Hutton and Company had been terminated in 1984, partially because of his borrowing money from investors, in violation of Hutton's internal policies and NASD rules. In fact, Respondent Kury had borrowed an aggregate sum of approximately $327,172 from approximately 17 different clients by the time of his termination by Hutton. The fact that Kury's previous employment with Associated Planners Securities Corporation had been terminated in 1987 due to his borrowing money from investors in violation of that company's internal policies and NASD rules. The fact that Kury's personal and group life insurance policies were inadequate to pay the total indebtedness represented by the subject notes, in the event of Kury's death. The fact that Kury's representations concerning his abilities to borrow from banks and other financial institutions were predicated in part on inaccurate financial statements which under- estimated liabilities and overstated net worth without including on those statements the aggregate indebtedness represented by the outstanding personal and corporate notes. The fact that he had submitted an inaccurate financial statement to the Florida Comptroller's Office in connection with the charter application of American Bank and Trust Company during the Summer and Fall of 1985 in the process of becoming an organizer and founding director of that bank. The fact that he was using the money generated from the sale of the promissory notes, at least in part, to repay principal and interest payments due on other, earlier promissory notes. The fact that Kury failed to relate to the note-holders and investors how the promised rate of interest on the notes was reasonably related, if at all, to the risk associated with the investment involved and how it might be related to any other factor commonly known to influence interest rates. Witnesses Catone, Engelman and Boyd, testifying as Respondent's witnesses, in part established that the appropriate disclosures referenced above were not made. Additionally, Kury's explanation for submitting the false financial statements to lending institutions and to the Comptroller was to the effect that he did not wish to violate the confidentiality of the note sales transactions with the note-holders or investors. This rationale is illogical and self-serving, however, and is not accepted. Disclosing accurate financial information, required by law, to banks would have only required, at most, that Kury list the aggregate indebtedness he owed, the type of indebtedness owed, as well as information concerning principal balances, interest rates and repayment terms. Such information required on these financial statements would not have involved divulging the note-holders names or any confidential information pertaining to the note-holders, including the amounts of their individual notes. Law Professor Stuart Cohn was accepted as an expert in state and federal securities laws and corporate finance. It has thus been established that Kury and the Group sold approximately $2.4 million worth of personal and corporate promissory notes which are established to be securities and investments, as discussed infra., to at least 50 investors. This constituted, in effect, the borrowing of money from clients or customers, which is a prohibited business practice for a registered "associated person," investment advisor and financial planner. See Rule 3E-600.013(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and Article III, Section 2, NASD Rules of Fair Practice. Kury also effected securities transactions with customers which were not recorded on the regular books and records at American Capital Equities, for whom he was functioning and registered as an "associated person." In particular, he engaged in, sales and offers to sell securities in his capacity as an associated person of American, the Corporation and the Group and failed to record those transactions on the books of American. This is a prohibited business practice. See Rule 3E-600.13(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code. He engaged in private securities transactions without notifying his principal, American. See also Article III, Section 40, NASD Rules of Fair Practice. The Respondents' activities, largely ongoing at the time of the investigation, posed an immediate, serious threat to investors or potential investors because the Respondent's activities constituted, at least in part, the operation of a "pyramid" or "ponzi" scheme. This occurs when funds from new investors, in this case the more recent purchasers of the notes, are used to satisfy interest and principal obligations coming due to earlier investors or note purchasers. Therefore, as time progresses, and more of such notes or securities are sold, then more and more investors will be subject to losing their investments and suffer financial hardship. This occurred in the instant situation through the practice engaged in by the Respondent of "note rollovers" or renewals when due without paying principal and interest owed, or all of it, as well as by making new note sales and using the proceeds, or some of them, to pay earlier investors in spite of the above-described adverse consequences. The threat to the public welfare, as described above, is also represented by the fact that Kury and the Group have undergone an obligation to the note purchasers in excess of $2.8 million as of June 15, 1988, with ultimate liability on the notes of more than $3.1 million, at the respective maturity dates, in the aggregate. The $2.4 million to $3.1 million liability to these investors vastly exceeds the assets available to the Respondents to satisfy the note obligations. Kury admitted that the Respondents are insolvent and currently unable to meet the total financial obligations represented by the notes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Banking and Finance finding the, Respondents guilty as charged, and in the above particulars, and that the registrations of the Respondents as associated person and investment advisors be revoked, provided however, that such revocation should be suspended and held in abeyance contingent on the Respondent David John Kury, under the close supervision and direction of the Department, embarking upon a plan whereby, by continued practice under his registrations, he will repay the principal and interest due all the investors involved in this proceeding within a time certain, as directed by the Department. That plan should include creation of an escrow or trust account, managed by an independent escrow agent, such as a bank, into which, pursuant to an approved plan and schedule, a substantial portion of revenues earned by Kury in the practice as an associated person, investment advisor and any other registration pursuant to the regulation of the Department, shall be deposited for the use and benefit of the subject investors. This arrangement should continue until the investors have been fully repaid principal and interest due them. Should the Respondents, David John Kury and Kury Investment Advisory Corporation, refuse to accept such an arrangement or violate its terms and conditions, their registrations should be immediately revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3419 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3. Accepted. 4. Rejected as not constituting a Finding of Fact. 5-19. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter and to some extent not supported by the evidence of record. Accepted. Accepted in part but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact on this subject matter. 23-26. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-8. Accepted. 9-14. Constitute statements of issues presented and recitation of evidence presented and are not Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Reginald R. Garcia, Esquire Charles E. Scarlett, Esquire Office of Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Philip J. Snyderburn, Esquire SNYDERBURN, RISHOI & SWANN Suite 240 280 West Canton Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Donald A. Rett, Esquire MANG, RETT & COLLETTE, P.A. Post Office Box 11127 Tallahassee, Florida, 32302-3127 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 61J2-14.010(1) and section 475.25(1)(e) and (k), Florida Statutes, by failing to place immediately into escrow a security deposit of $5482; violated section 475.25(1)(u) by not being involved with the daily operations of Advantage International Realty, Inc. (AIR), by being hired to qualify AIR and receiving payment from AIR, and failing to direct, control or manage Jennifer Briceno, a sales associate employed by Respondent, while she provided real estate services to two individuals; and violated section 475.25(1)(d)1. by failing to refund $5308 upon demand by Mr. Mansour and Ms. Haddad on December 20, 2011. If so, an additional issue is the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been a licensed real estate broker, holding license numbers 69234 and 3093422. He has never been disciplined. Licensed as a sales associate since 2000, Respondent served as a sales associate with three brokers. Licensed as a real estate broker in 2002, Respondent served as a broker associate with two brokers until, in August 2002, Respondent served as the broker for his first real estate brokerage. He served as a broker for two brokerages, much of the time simultaneously, from 2002-05 and 2007-09. For the last five months of 2008, Respondent worked as a broker sales associate for a third brokerage, and, from 2009-11, Respondent was registered as a sole proprietorship broker. From November 14, 2011, through January 6, 2012, Respondent served as the broker for AIR. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. AIR became licensed as a Florida real estate brokerage on November 14, 2011, holding license number 104302. Respondent was the qualifying broker of AIR from November 14, 2011, to January 6, 2012. No longer a brokerage after Respondent resigned as its qualifying broker, AIR resumed operations as a brokerage on March 1, 2012, when Jennifer Briceno served as the qualifying broker. She served in this capacity until March 4, 2013, at which point Petitioner suspended the licenses of AIR and Ms. Briceno by separate emergency orders. Ms. Briceno was first licensed as a sales associate in 2008. She served as a sales associate with an unrelated corporation in Tamarac, Florida from May 28, 2008, to October 24, 2011. Her license was inactive until November 14, 2011, on which date she became a sales associate with AIR. On February 17, 2012, she became licensed as a broker and served as a broker associate with AIR until March 1, 2012, at which time she served as its qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph four, from January 6 to March 1, 2012, AIR's brokerage license became invalid due to the lack of a qualifying broker. As noted in paragraph five, Ms. Briceno served at AIR as a sales associate from January 6, 2012, and then as a broker associate from February 17, 2012, until March 1, 2012--an eight-week period during which AIR's brokerage license was invalid due to its lack of a qualifying broker. On November 7, 2011, Respondent was listed as a director of AIR with the Department of State, Division of Corporations. At no time was Respondent ever a signatory on the operating account of AIR. Jackie and Sam Haddad and Morris Mansour are residents of Canada and friends. They decided that they wanted to enter into a lease of a residence in Fort Lauderdale for a vacation during the winter of 2011-12. They agreed that Mr. and Ms. Haddad would occupy the residence for two months, and Mr. Mansour would occupy the residence for the ensuing two months. For the sake of simplicity, they agreed that Mr. Mansour would take in his name the lease for the entire four months, which was to run from December 15, 2011, through April 15, 2012. Ms. Haddad found the subject property on the Internet and got in touch with Ms. Briceno at an unspecified point in time. At some point, Ms. Briceno sent to Mr. Mansour a blank Agreement to Enter into a Lease and asked him to complete, sign, and return the form to her with a check for the entire rent. Mr. Mansour objected to paying the entire rent and asked that he be allowed to pay half at that time and half upon occupancy. Ms. Briceno agreed. Accordingly, on November 12, 2011, Mr. Mansour wired $5500 to AIR and faxed to Ms. Briceno a completed Agreement to Enter into a Lease. AIR did not have an escrow account. Although there was a listing broker for the rental property, Ms. Briceno did not give the deposit check to her. Nor did Ms. Briceno present the funds to AIR's qualifying broker. It appears that Ms. Briceno conducted this real estate business and received the funds prior to AIR's obtaining a qualifying broker. In any event, it appears that Ms. Briceno deposited the funds in AIR's operating account. However, on November 12, 2011, Ms. Briceno faxed the signed Agreement to Enter into a Lease to a sales associate of the listing broker. The net of $5482 posted on AIR's general operating account on November 16. On the same day, AIR's bank statement shows a "counter debit" of $5010. From November 16 through the end of January 2012, this account never had sufficient funds to repay the $5500 or net $5482. After receiving the offer to lease from Ms. Briceno, the sales associate of the listing broker spoke with the owner and learned that the cost of short-term insurance precluded a lease for less than one year. By email dated December 1, the sales associate informed Ms. Briceno that the owner would not accept the offer. After not hearing from Ms. Briceno for some time, Ms. Haddad and Mr. Mansour tried to reach Ms. Briceno, but repeated calls to her business and cellphone numbers went unreturned. Mr. Mansour, who intended to occupy the subject property first, finally contacted the sales associate of the listing broker and learned that the offer had not been accepted. At some point, Darwin Briceno, Ms. Briceno's husband, became involved. By email to Ms. Mansour dated November 29, 2011, Mr. Briceno sent a release covering a refund of $5308, net wire fees and an application fee. On December 8, Ms. Haddad sent an email to someone at AIR stating that they were still waiting for their refund of $5308. Getting no response and having learned Respondent's name in the interim Ms. Haddad re- sent the December 8 email to the administrator of AIR-- attention: Respondent--and warned that they would retain counsel if they did not hear from Respondent within 24 hours. No one heard from Respondent, who cashed AIR checks on January 31 and May 1 in the amounts of $1610 and $3225, respectively. On February 24, 2012, Mr. Briceno sent Mr. Mansour an AIR check in the amount of $5308, but it bounced. The Haddads and Mr. Mansour have never recovered any of their deposit. During the investigation, Respondent admitted to Petitioner's investigator that he was not involved with the day- to-day operation of AIR, and he did not know anything about how AIR had handled the money that Mr. Mansour had sent. Respondent specifically admitted that he was a "broker for hire" at AIR, meaning that he had rented his broker's license to qualify AIR as a real estate brokerage. Respondent's lack of involvement in the business of AIR is confirmed by Karrell Brett, whom Mr. Briceno hired, on behalf of AIR, as a sales associate, as of December 9, 2011, Ms. Brett interviewed with Mr. Briceno, not Respondent. While employed by AIR, Ms. Brett did not know Respondent and believed her broker was Mr. Briceno. Although Ms. Brett decided on her own to advise her clients to deposit any escrow funds with a title company, she never received any instruction from Respondent to deposit escrow funds with a title company. Respondent never made any attempt to supervise any sales associate or other employee of AIR in the conduct of real estate business on behalf of the corporation that Respondent had qualified as a real estate brokerage. Respondent had been the qualifying broker for two days when the deposit was posted to AIR's account; he was responsible for AIR's failure to account for this money from the point of deposit forward until his resignation. Likewise, Respondent had been the qualifying broker for about six weeks when he received the latter of Ms. Haddad's emails demanding a refund of the deposit. Respondent did not ensure that AIR refunded the deposit at that time.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of Counts 2, 3, and 4, dismissing Count 1 as duplicative of Count 2, and revoking Respondent's real estate broker's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Pico Campiglia, Esquire Your Towne Law, P.A. 5465 Lake Jessamine Drive Orlando, Florida 32839 Daniel Brackett, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Darla Furst, Chair Real Estate Commission Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street, N801 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent Carolyn Cutler ("Cutler"), was a licensed real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, license #0319031. The most recent license issued to Cutler was as a non-active salesperson residing at Post Office Box 1315, Clyde, North Carolina 28721. The Petitioner is the state agency with statutory responsibility for licensure and regulation of real estate salespersons including the prosecution of Administrative Complaints against such persons. Immediately prior to September 24, 1990, Virginia Gregory responded to a newspaper advertisement offering a three bedroom house for sale with "easy financing". When she called the number set forth in the advertisement, she spoke to Cutler. Ms. Gregory and Cutler met sometime thereafter, at which time, Cutler agreed to assist Ms. Gregory in clearing a poor credit record and in purchasing a home. According to an agreement signed by Ms. Gregory on September 24, 1990, Ms. Gregory agreed to pay Cutler $350 for a credit report and for "SERVICES RENDERED IN ADVISING ME ON MY CREDIT REPORT." The agreement states that "CAROLYN CUTLER IS NOT ACTING AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT OR COMPANY. ACTING ONLY IN AN ADVISORY COMPASSADY (sic)". The agreement continues as follows: "I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE FEE IN WHICH I AM BEING CHARGED IS NOT REFUNDABLE. I AGREE TO PAY CONSULTING FEE OF $5,000. (TOTAL) TO PROFESSIONAL MKT. FOR CREDIT SERVICE." Although the agreement states that Cutler is not acting as a real estate agent, Ms. Gregory decided to rely upon Cutler's expertise and counsel because she was a licensed real estate salesperson. By her check numbered 179 and dated October 15, 1990, Ms. Gregory paid $350 to "C & S Consultant & Marketing". By her check numbered 242 and dated November 19, 1990, Ms. Gregory paid $2,000 to "Professional Marketing". Ms. Gregory subsequently had difficulty in contacting Cutler, and so notified the bank to stop payment on this check. By her check numbered 261 and dated December 5, 1990, Ms. Gregory again paid $2,000 to "Professional Marketing". On or before January 20, 1991, Cutler solicited and obtained an offer from Ms. Gregory to purchase a house owned by Beverly Dibble. The Dibble house was offered for sale pursuant to a listing agreement with another realtor. Cutler represented Ms. Gregory in the transaction and completed a standard Florida Association of Realtors Contract for Sale and Purchase to purchase the Dibble house for $74,000. The contract provides that a $2,000 deposit will be held in trust by "Professional Marketing." An addendum to the sales contract provides that of the $74,000, Ms. Dibble would pay a "consulting fee" to "Professional Marketing" in the amount of $3,000. There is no evidence that Ms. Gregory provided "consulting" services to Ms. Dibble. Ms. Gregory did not obtain financing for the purchase of the Dibble house and the transaction did not close. Although the contract states that deposit funds were placed with "Professional Marketing", there is no evidence that such designated funds were paid by Ms. Gregory. In any event, no funds were returned to Ms. Gregory. On or about February 7, 1991, Ms. Gregory, without Cutler, viewed a home offered for sale by David Godfrey and Rodney Troyer, and signed a contract to purchase the house for $84,500. The contract provided that a $5,000 deposit would be held in escrow by "Executive Title Co." The Godfrey/Troyer sales contract further provided that the purchase was conditioned on Ms. Gregory being able to obtain financing of $65,000 at an initial interest rate not to exceed 10.5 per cent for a 30 year term. After making the offer, Ms. Gregory brought Cutler into the house to inspect the property. Although the escrow deposit check was rendered to Executive Title Services, Inc., for some reason the check was never deposited into an escrow account. By her check numbered 383 and dated February 8, 1991, Ms. Gregory paid $1,500 to Cutler as payment for services in connection with obtaining a mortgage on the Godfrey/Troyer property. Cutler contacted a representative of Norwest Mortgage Company to discuss obtaining financing for Ms. Gregory's purchase of the Godfrey/Troyer house. Initially, Cutler met directly with the Norwest representative and provided information including a completed loan application to Norwest. Ms. Gregory subsequently met with the Norwest representative at Cutler's home. Cutler assisted Ms. Gregory in responding to the Norwest officer's questions and, using the Norwest application form, prepared a second application for financing. By her check numbered 394 and dated February 15, 1991, Ms. Gregory paid $300 to Norwest Mortgage as payment for services in connection with processing the mortgage application. The application for financing completed by Cutler indicated that Ms. Gregory was employed part-time as a "router" for "Routing Services", a business allegedly involving transportation of "large items". The application completed by Cutler stated that Ms. Gregory's annual income was approximately $36,000. Ms. Gregory did not work for and was not employed by any business entity identified as "Routing Services". Norwest was unable to corroborate Ms. Gregory's income level as identified on the mortgage application and requested additional information. On or about March 3, 1991, Cutler provided to Ms. Gregory a billing statement allegedly from "Professional Marketing" showing a balance due of $1,500. The statement provides as follows: "MRS. GREGORY-DUE TO THE FACT WE ARE NOT ON THE CONTRACT, WE MUST HAVE BALANCE PAID BEFORE YOUR INCOME VERICATION (sic) ARE SENT TO MORTGAGE. PLEASE ISSUE A CASHIERS CHECK FOR $1,500.00 PAYABLE TO PROFESSIONAL MKT. IF MORTGAGE IS DECLINED, PROFESSIONAL WILL REFUND $1,500.00 IMMEDIATELY." Ms. Gregory made a cash payment of $1,500 to Cutler on or about March 5, 1991. Thereafter, Cutler provided additional paperwork to Norwest in an attempt to substantiate an income level for Ms. Gregory. Cutler provided to Norwest, additional materials containing false information which indicated that Ms. Gregory was an employee of "Routing Service" with an income level of approximately $36,000. The materials included a 1990 tax return, and an IRS form 1099-MISC (statement for recipients of miscellaneous income) for tax year 1990. Norwest attempted to contact "Routing Services" to verify the employment and income information set forth on the loan application. In response to the inquiry, Norwest received the following statement: "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: WAGE AND INCOME VARICATION (sic), V. GREGORY, MRS. GREGORY GETS PAID WEEKLY, OF APP. 650. PER WEEK, FOR WORK SHE PERFORMS. WE DO NOT USE CHECKS WITH PAY STUBS, SO SHE CAN NOT PRODUCE A PAY STUB. (PAYROLL PAY STUB) IN 1990, SHE MADE (GROSS) APP. 36,000. SHE WORKS A LOT OF HOURS ON THE ROAD." The statement was signed by Mary Lou Leeds, who identified herself as "MANGER (sic)" of "Routing Services". There is no evidence that any person named Mary Lou Leeds was employed by "Routing Services". Norwest was subsequently provided two checks supposedly demonstrating salary paid to Ms. Gregory. Check #96 has an issue date of 2-13-91 and shows a payment of $1,335 identified as "TWO WEEKS WAGES". Check #97 has an issue date of 2-27-91 and shows a payment of $700 identified as "1 wk. wages." Norwest declined to finance Gregory's purchase of the Godfrey/Troyer property because the Norwest representative was unable to obtain reliable corroboration for the information set forth by Cutler on Ms. Gregory's loan application. On or about April 6, 1992, Cutler provided to Ms. Gregory a billing statement allegedly from "Professional Market & Counseling (sic)" showing payments made totaling $5,000, and a balance due of $45. The statement provides as follows: "THERE ARE TWO MORTGAGE BROKERS, WHO ARE WILLING TO GET YOU A MORTGAGE, WITH A BIT HIGHER INTEREST RATE, YOU CHOSE NOT TO ACCEPT, SO THERE FOR (sic) YOU OWE A BALANCE TO THIS OFFICE OF $45. YOUR FILE WILL BE CLOSED, AS WE ARE MOVING OUR OFFICE TO THE NORTHERN STATES." During the transactions between Cutler and Ms. Gregory, Cutler stated that she worked for a company variously identified as "Professional Marketing", "C & S Consultant & Marketing", or "Professional Market & Counseling". There is no evidence that any of the business entities, if they exist at all, provided any legitimate services to Ms. Gregory or that persons other than Cutler were involved in the operation of the entities. The statements issued by Cutler on behalf of the various business entities indicated that the company operated from Post Office Box 9426 in Clearwater, Florida. There is no such box number in Clearwater. In the materials provided to Norwest, Cutler had identified the "Routing Service" address as Box 150114, Cape Coral, Florida 33915. According to the records of the postal service, Box 150114, Cape Coral, Florida 33915 is assigned to the physical location 5128 York Court, wherein Kurt Liebegott has resided at all times material to this case. Mr. Liebegott does not receive his mail at a post office box, has never met Cutler and has no knowledge of her activities. During the period of time Cutler was attempting to obtain financing on behalf of Ms. Gregory from Norwest Mortgage, Cutler provided a telephone number, 813-338-6398, to the Norwest representative and identified the number as that of "Routing Service", the alleged employer of Ms. Gregory. According to records of the telephone company, the number had been previously assigned to Cutler and was disconnected on April 2, 1991. Ms. Gregory has received no refunds of any kind from Cutler or from any of the business entities Cutler allegedly operated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, enter a Final Order determining B. Carolyn Cutler guilty of the violations set forth herein and revoking her license as a real estate salesperson. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the Petitioner. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Rejected, not supported by cited exhibit which establishes that the Respondent's most recent address of record is as set forth in Finding of Fact #1. Rejected, unnecessary. Rejected. There is no direct evidence that Cutler placed the ad although she was the person who responded to calls. 5-6. Rejected, unnecessary. 9. Rejected, not supported by the document Ms. Gregory signed on September 24, 1990, which clearly states that she acknowledges that she will not receive a refund. Ms. Gregory's testimony to the contrary is rejected as not credible. 15. Rejected, contrary to evidence. The check cited in the proposed finding as constituting the deposit of the purchase of the Dibble home is dated December 5, 1990. The contract for purchase is dated January 20, 1991. 20-21. Rejected, unnecessary. 25-26. The statement is dated March 1, 1991. 32. Rejected, cumulative. 42-45. Rejected, unnecessary. 46-47. Rejected, cumulative. 48. Rejected, subordinate. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, unnecessary. 52-54. Rejected, cumulative. 65. Rejected, unnecessary. 67-69. Rejected, unnecessary. 76. Rejected. There is no credible handwriting evidence which establishes that the letter was indeed written and signed by Cutler. 77-78. Rejected. Neither the common misspelling nor the apparent similarity of type establish that Cutler wrote both letters. COPIES FURNISHED: Darlene F. Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Hurston North Tower 400 W. Robinson Street P.O. Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Janine B. Myrick, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, FL 32802 B. Carolyn Cutler Post Office Box 1315 Clyde, NC 28721-1315 B. Carolyn Cutler Post Office Box 300601 Fern Park, Florida 32730-0601
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1980, petitioner, as president and chief executive officer of Crown Financial Services was fined $500 and censured by NASD for violating SEC, NASD and Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board regulations. Crown Financial, a holding company under the direction and control of Petitioner, became a member of the NASD in 1977. At the time Crown Financial employed the services of a large accounting firm, knowledgeable of NASD regulations, to set up their accounts so as to comply with NASD regulations. During the first audit of crown Financial by NASD in 1979-80 it was noted that Crown was including accounts receivable from subsidiaries as cash which was contrary to NASD regulations and Crown and Petitioner were fined and censured for this infraction. Crediting such receivables as cash was the procedure established by the accounting firm hired by Crown Financial Services. On December 30, 1982 the Massachusetts Securities Division issued a Summary Order Denying Exemption from Registration and a temporary Cease and Desist Order naming Petitioner and others based upon the offering of limited partnerships in Energy Exchange Corporation which had been founded by Petitioner. Although Petitioner founded Energy Exchange in February 1981 and was its president and chief operations officer, he resigned from these positions in November 30, 1982 shortly after Energy Exchange went public. Thereafter, Swain remained an outside director and was unaware of management decisions, one of which involved the issuance of questionable (or fraudulent) securities in December 1982, which led to the actions taken by the Massachusetts Securities Division. Petitioner was unaware these securities were issued until he read of the Massachusetts Securities Division's actions in the newspaper and he had nothing to do with their issuance. On April 23, 1983, NASD fined and censured Swain in the amount of $12, 000 as a result of limited partnerships set up by Crown Financial Corporation of which Swain was Chief Operations Officer and principal owner. The violation alleged Crown Financial was engaged in a continuous and integrated offering in connection with the development of four condominiums were built (and to which limited partnerships were sold) he was unaware any other parcel of property nearby was or would be for sale, and that each of these developments was independent of the other and in no wise integrated alleged. An investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission disclosed no integrated operation. Petitioner concluded it was prudent to enter into a consent order without admitting any violation and pay the fine rather than go to the expense of defending against the allegations. Civil actions alleged to have been brought against Petitioner and which were listed as another basis for denying registration were contained in paragraph 5 of the Exhibit 21. At the hearing Respondent stipulated to a dismissal of these grounds as a basis for denying registration. Despite the charges by NASD Petitioner' s registration with NASD remains in good standing. Petitioner produce one witness who is registered with Respondent and with NASD who testified that fines and censures for violation of NASD regulations are an every day occurrence with NASD. This witness ,was recently found in violation of NASD regulations because he had included accounts receivable for more than 30 days as assets. According to NASD regulations these accounts receivable or more than 30 days cannot be included as an asset although the vast majority will be paid.
