FINRA Puts The Pedal To The Metal In Truck Sale Gone Bad
April 3, 2015
On March 3,2015, during the course of an investigation into allegations that Taylor took possession of a truck from a Firm customer without paying for it, FINRA requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, that Taylor appear and provide testimony on March 10, 2015. Pursuant to an email from Taylor's counsel to FINRA staff dated March 6, 2015, and by this agreement, Taylor acknowledges that he received FINRA's request and that he will not appear for on-the-record testimony at any time. By refusing to appear for on-the-record testimony as requested pursuant to FINRA Rule 8210, Taylor violates FINRA Rules 8210 and 2010.
In accordance with the terms of the AWC, FINRA imposed upon Taylor a Bar from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity.
Bill Singer's Comment
Ummm . . . lemme see here, FINRA has jurisdiction as a Wall Street regulator over a matter in which a registered representative allegedly "took possession of a truck from a Firm customer without paying for it"?
Yeah, yeah, sure, I get the jurisdiction thing about the OTR and FINRA Rule 8210 and all, but, keep in mind that the whole dust-up over Taylor's testimony was apparently predicated upon questions that FINRA wanted to ask him about his non-payment and driving-away-with an alleged customer's truck. Too bad Bernie Madoff didn't drive off without paying for a truck -- if he had, maybe FINRA would have nailed him ten years earlier!
Last I looked, virtually every state in the Union has Grand Theft Auto laws that often come with a felony charge. Not a word is mentioned in the AWC as to whether the customer filed criminal charges against Taylor. Given the stark allegation in the AWC, a reader of the FINRA regulatory document could infer that Taylor "stole" the truck when he drove it away without payment. In fact, such an inference may be way off base because the transaction at issue may simply involve a seller conveying a truck to a buyer but there's a misunderstanding about the terms and timing of payment. That latter scenario may result in allegations by the seller of breach of contract or various torts but not necessarily any criminal prosecution.
Frankly, I don't know what the hell was involved with the truck; and, more to the point, I really don't give a crap. FINRA, on the other hand, should give a damn because the self-regulatory organization is not only making a serious allegation against Taylor but it sort of has an obligation to inform the public as to whether or not there were any criminal charges filed and whether the seller and buyer subsequently came to an understanding -- or not.
When all is said and done, you'd sort of think that Wall Street's self-regulator would have far more important things on its plate and far worse desperados to pursue than a registered rep who appears to have gotten himself embroiled in the disputed purchase of a truck. I just hope that the diligent cops walkin' the Wall Street beat at FINRA aren't planning on investigating stockbrokers who are driving the "Liberator" monster truck in the "Grand Theft Auto" video game.