FINRA Takes Wells Fargo Stockbroker Outback to a Bar

she wanted to pay for the membership with a check in 2016 because she had exhausted her 2015 marketing budget. Mellon gave the Director of Sales her credit card information to secure her membership. However, because Mellon did not have an existing relationship with the Outback Bowl, the Outback Bowl also asked RL to personally guarantee Mellon's payment, and RL did . . .  

[O]n January 27, the Director of Sales asked Mellon if a check was on the way, noting that the Outback Bowl was about to close its books for 2015. Mellon told him he would get a check shortly but said he had earlier agreed to hold off depositing it until late February. The Director of Sales disputed that he had agreed to hold onto the check, saying that the Outback Bowl deposits checks soon after it receives them. Additionally, Mellon complained to him that she was disappointed by the business networking opportunities at the game because she had met no one at the event. . . .

[M]ellon instructed Maraman to submit $1,000 in expenses to Concur and the remaining $2,800 to her FAEMS account, as Stuhlsatz had directed. Maraman did so and included copies of the front and back of the $3,800 check with both expense reports. Mellon approved her $2,800 expense submission a few minutes after Maraman entered it into FAEMS. Mellon never told Maraman, or anyone else at Wells Fargo, that her check to the Outback Bowl had bounced. 

Stuhlsatz approved payment of the expenses on April 20. Wells Fargo transferred $1,000 to Mellon's joint account from the Concur system on April 21. The Firm also  transferred $2,800 from Mellon's FAEMS account to the joint account between April 25 and June 3. Mellon was thus "reimbursed" $3,800 for expenses she had not actually paid.

[S]he "may not have been aware of the ... full allocation of the expense, that the [$3,800] expense had been eaten up." Mellon said Maraman was responsible for tracking all her expenses because "he held them in queue" and therefore was the one responsible for knowing whether the $3,800 expense already had been submitted and paid by Wells Fargo. When Mellon asked Maraman to submit the $500 expense report, she knew that her check had bounced. 

Including the payment of $500 in July 2016, Wells Fargo transferred $4,300 to Mellon for the expenses she claimed to have incurred for attending the Outback Bowl. 

In mid-July 2016, the Outback Bowl charged RL's credit card $3,800. RL emailed Mellon that the Director of Sales's job "was on the line" as a result of the missing payment and that RL's relationship with the Outback Bowl had suffered "irreparable harm." In her email, RL also stated, "I should not have been placed in this position." RL warned Mellon that if she did not pay her within two weeks she would have to take legal action. 

Within minutes, Mellon responded to RL's email. She told RL to stop using her Firm email address to communicate with her because the Outback Bowl expense "ha[d] nothing to do with work" and Wells Fargo "did not provide [her] any support or marketing funds." Mellon added, "I have enough on my plate .... I will do what I can when I can." Mellon never told RL that Wells Fargo had already paid her $4,300 for the Outback Bowl expense reports. 

On August 2, 2016, RL filed a civil complaint against Mellon in Hillsborough County, Florida, seeking repayment of the $3,800 that she had paid to the Outback Bowl on Mellon's behalf.   

[M]ellon told the bank, "I need your help. Either a letter deny[ing] the documents or the docs." In a subsequent email later in the day, she asked, "Wouldn't it be illegal for [FINRA] to demand [the information] since it is a joint account and [my husband] would not want our laundry aired? [W]ould not that be an appropriate answer by Bank?"

Mellon responded to FINRA's Rule 8210 request by email on January 12, 2018. She

provided a copy of the receipt from the Outback Bowl confirming her payment of $3,800 by credit card in December 2016, but she did not provide copies of monthly bank statements, an explanation of the steps she took to try to get the statements, or correspondence she had with the Bank of Tampa. Rather, Mellon told FINRA that because she did not use a check to pay the Outback Bowl, "the banking document requests seem a bit broad of scope." The bank statements were unavailable, Mellon said in her email, because "[she] no longer [had] online access, nor ... copies of statements." Mellon provided no evidence of her efforts to obtain the documents FINRA requested, even though the staff had given her instructions to do so. 

asked the Bank of Tampa to provide a letter stating whether it would provide Mellon copies of statements for the joint account and detailing communications it had with her about obtaining account statements. The same day, the bank's commercial banking officer wrote to FINRA that the bank would provide either account holder of the joint account with copies of bank statements and canceled checks. Therefore, according to the bank, if Mellon asked for "any documentation" about her accounts, it "would provide her with any/all information requested." It added that the bank "ha[d] not received any requests for account information" from Mellon. The commercial banking officer wrote that Mellon wanted a letter from the bank stating that it could not produce the statements FINRA requested. In response, according to the bank's letter, the commercial banking officer told Mellon that she should consult an attorney. 

[B]ecause she had incurred other business expenses, which offset the amount she was reimbursed for the Outback Bowl, she did not receive more than she was entitled to. The other business expenses, she claims, exceeded the amount of her $20,000 FAEMS account and the $2,000 branch allowance. She also argues that money from the FAEMS account actually belonged to her because it was funded with contributions from her Wells Fargo compensation. However, an employee forfeits unused FAEMS funds at the end of the year. Even if the Panel were to credit this argument, Mellon also obtained $1,500 of the $4,300 that Wells Fargo paid her from the Concur system, which was funded directly by the branch, not Mellon's compensation. And even if Mellon incurred other reimbursable expenses, she submitted false reimbursement requests for an expense she did not incur, and she obtained money to which she was not entitled. 

Mellon also argues that she made an "administrative error" involving an "over allocation of an expense," which "clearly should have been allowed to be corrected internally," and that she did not act with intent. The Panel disagrees. Mellon acted intentionally when she submitted each of the expense reports. There is no evidence that the reimbursements resulted from the "mis-allocation of expenses" or "administrative errors" caused by Concur, FAEMS, Maraman, or anyone else at Wells Fargo. Mellon made a deliberate decision to deceive Wells Fargo. She knowingly submitted an expense report in January 2016 using a check she had not sent to the Outback Bowl. She again acted deliberately when she submitted two separate expense reports in April 2016-one to Concur (for $1,000) and one to FAEMS (for $2,800)-even though she knew that her check to the Outback Bowl had bounced. She acted intentionally in July 2016 when she asked Maraman to allocate the $500 quarterly branch allowance to the Outback Bowl, an expense she knew she had not paid. 

The Panel also rejects Mellon's argument that the Firm was intent on getting rid of her, which created an environment of "ill will and toxicity" that prevented her from fixing the expense report "errors." Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, Wells Fargo was engaged in appropriate supervision of Mellon. In any event, any possible friction between Mellon and Wells Fargo does not excuse her deliberately submitting false expense reports.

No mitigating circumstances exist that would warrant any sanction less than a bar. Instead, the Panel is troubled by many aggravating factors. Mellon repeatedly tried to conceal her actions from Wells Fargo. She also caused RL to pay the Outback Bowl even though Mellon had already been reimbursed by Wells Fargo. Mellon submitted four false expense reports over a period of six months. She has not acknowledged her misconduct, choosing instead to blame others, including her assistant, for supposed administrative failings. She downplays her actions, noting that the "amount of the error is not one that changed [her] life style." Mellon construes the problem as a clerical error that could easily have been rectified by re-allocating the expenses had the negative atmosphere in the office not prevented her from approaching her superiors. The Panel rejects her arguments and determines that Mellon acted deliberately.

[T]he Panel member finds it mitigating that Mellon ultimately gave FINRA staff her written permission to obtain the requested records from the Bank of Tampa. Therefore, the more appropriate sanction, the dissenting Panelist finds, is the one the Guidelines provide for a failure to respond in a timely manner to requests for information. For failing to respond in a timely manner, the Guidelines tell adjudicators to consider a fine between $2,500 and $39,000 and to suspend an individual in any or all capacities for up to two years. Guidelines at 33. After considering all the circumstances, the dissenting Panelist finds it appropriately remedial to impose a sanction at the lower end of the ranges suggested by the Guidelines: a $2,500 fine and a six-month suspension from associating with any member firm in any capacity.

• FINRA
• Wells Fargo
• Rule 8210
• Expenses
• Business Expenses
• BrokeAndBroker
• Bill Singer