1. Disciplinary sanctions are remedial in nature and should be designed to deter future misconduct and to improve overall business standards in the securities industry.

The overall purposes of FINRA’s disciplinary process and FINRA’s responsibility in imposing sanctions are to remediate misconduct by preventing the recurrence of misconduct, improving overall standards in the industry, and protecting the investing public. Toward this end, Adjudicators should design sanctions that are significant enough to prevent and discourage future misconduct by a respondent, to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, and to modify and improve business practices. Depending on the seriousness of the violations, Adjudicators should impose sanctions that are significant enough to ensure effective deterrence. When necessary to achieve this goal, Adjudicators should impose sanctions that exceed the range recommended in the applicable guideline. When applying these principles and crafting appropriately remedial sanctions, Adjudicators also should consider firm size1 with a view toward ensuring that the sanctions imposed are not punitive but are sufficiently remedial to achieve deterrence. (Also see General Principle No. 8 regarding ability to pay.)

2. Disciplinary sanctions should be more severe for recidivists.

An important objective of the disciplinary process is to deter and prevent future misconduct by imposing progressively escalating sanctions on recidivists beyond those outlined in these guidelines, up to and including barring registered persons and expelling firms. Adjudicators should always consider a respondent’s disciplinary history in determining sanctions. Adjudicators should consider imposing more severe sanctions when a respondent’s disciplinary history includes (a) past misconduct similar to that at issue; or (b) past misconduct that evidences disregard for regulatory requirements, investor protection, or commercial integrity. Even if a respondent has no history of relevant misconduct, however, the misconduct at issue may be so serious as to justify sanctions beyond the range contemplated in the guidelines; i.e., an isolated act of egregious misconduct could justify sanctions significantly above or different from those recommended in the guidelines. Certain regulatory incidents are not relevant to the determination of sanctions. Arbitration proceedings, whether pending, settled or litigated to conclusion, are not “disciplinary” actions. Similarly, pending investigations or the existence of ongoing regulatory proceedings prior to a final decision are not relevant. In certain cases, particularly those involving quality-of-markets issues, these guidelines recommend increasingly severe monetary sanctions for second and subsequent disciplinary actions. This escalation is consistent with the concept that repeated acts of misconduct call for increasingly severe sanctions.

Sanctions in disciplinary proceedings are intended to be remedial and to prevent the recurrence of misconduct. Adjudicators therefore should impose sanctions tailored to address the misconduct involved in each particular case. Section 15A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and NASD Procedural Rule 8310 provide that FINRA may enforce compliance with its rules by: limitation or modification of a respondent’s business activities, functions and operations; fine; censure; suspension (of an individual from functioning in any or all capacities, or of a firm from engaging in any or all activities or functions, for a defined period or contingent on the performance of a particular act); bar (permanent expulsion of an individual from associating with a firm in any or all capacities); expulsion (of a firm from FINRA membership and, consequently, from the securities industry); or any other fitting sanction. To address the misconduct effectively in any given case, Adjudicators may design sanctions other than those specified in these guidelines. For example, to achieve deterrence and remediate misconduct, Adjudicators may impose sanctions that: (a) require a respondent firm to retain a qualified independent consultant to design and/or implement procedures for improved future compliance with regulatory requirements; (b) suspend or bar a respondent firm from engaging in a particular line of business; (c) require an individual or member firm respondent, prior to conducting future business, to disclose certain information to new and/or existing clients, including disclosure of disciplinary history; (d) require a respondent firm to implement heightened supervision of certain individuals or departments in the firm; (e) require an individual or member firm respondent to obtain an FINRA staff letter stating that a proposed communication with the public is consistent with FINRA standards prior to disseminating that communication to the public; (f) limit the number of securities in which a respondent firm may make a market; (g) limit the activities of a respondent firm; or (h) require a respondent firm to institute tape recording procedures. This list is illustrative, not exhaustive, and is included to provide examples of the types of sanctions that Adjudicators may design to address specific misconduct and to achieve deterrence. Adjudicators may craft other sanctions specifically designed to prevent the recurrence of misconduct. The recommended ranges in these guidelines are not absolute. The guidelines suggest, but do not mandate, the range and types of sanctions to be applied. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, Adjudicators may determine that no remedial purpose is served by imposing a sanction within the range recommended in the applicable guideline; i.e., that a sanction below the recommended range, or no sanction at all, is appropriate. Conversely, Adjudicators may determine that egregious misconduct requires the imposition of sanctions above or otherwise outside of a recommended range. For instance, in an egregious case, Adjudicators may consider barring an individual respondent and/or expelling a respondent member firm, regardless of whether the individual guidelines applicable to the case recommend a bar and/or expulsion or other less severe sanctions. Adjudicators must always exercise judgment and discretion and consider appropriate aggravating and mitigating factors in determining remedial sanctions in each case. In addition, whether the sanctions are within or outside of the recommended range, Adjudicators must identify the basis for the sanctions imposed.

4. Aggregation or “batching” of violations may be appropriate for purposes of determining sanctions in disciplinary proceedings.

The range of monetary sanctions in each case may be applied in the aggregate for similar types of violations rather than per individual violation. For example, it may be appropriate to aggregate similar violations if: (a) the violative conduct was unintentional or negligent (i.e., did not involve manipulative, fraudulent or deceptive intent); (b) the conduct did not result in injury to public investors or, in cases involving injury to the public, if restitution was made; or (c) the violations resulted from a single systemic problem or cause that has been corrected. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, however, multiple violations may be treated individually such that a sanction is imposed for each violation. In addition, numerous, similar violations may warrant higher sanctions, since the existence of multiple violations may be treated as an aggravating factor.

Restitution is a traditional remedy used to restore the status quo ante where a victim otherwise would unjustly suffer loss. Adjudicators may determine that restitution is an appropriate sanction where necessary to remediate misconduct. Adjudicators may order restitution when an identifiable person, member firm or other party has suffered a quantifiable loss as a result of a respondent’s misconduct, particularly where a respondent has benefitted from the misconduct. Adjudicators should calculate orders of restitution based on the actual amount of the loss sustained by a person, member firm or other party, as demonstrated by the evidence. Orders of restitution may exceed the amount of the respondent’s ill-gotten gain. Restitution orders must include a description of the Adjudicator’s method of calculation. When a member firm has compensated a customer or other party for losses caused by an individual respondent’s misconduct, Adjudicators may order that the individual respondent pay restitution to the firm. Where appropriate, Adjudicators may order that a respondent offer rescission to an injured party.

6. Where appropriate to remediate misconduct, Adjudicators should consider a respondent’s ill-gotten gain when determining the amount of a fine.

In cases in which the record demonstrates that the respondent obtained a financial benefit from his or her misconduct, where appropriate to remediate misconduct, Adjudicators may require the disgorgement of such ill-gotten gain by fining away the amount of some or all of the financial benefit derived, directly or indirectly. “Financial benefit” includes any commissions, concessions, revenues, profits, gains, compensation, income, fees, other remuneration, or other benefits received by the respondent, directly or indirectly, as a result of the misconduct.

The remedial purpose of disciplinary sanctions may be served by requiring an individual respondent to requalify by examination as a condition of continued employment in the securities industry. Such a sanction may be imposed when Adjudicators find that a respondent’s actions have demonstrated a lack of knowledge or familiarity with the rules and laws governing the securities industry.

Adjudicators are required to consider a respondent’s bona fide inability to pay when imposing a fine or ordering restitution. The burden is on the respondent to raise the issue of inability to pay and to provide evidence thereof.5 If a respondent does not raise the issue of inability to pay during the initial consideration of a matter before “trial-level” Adjudicators, Adjudicators considering the matter on appeal generally will presume the issue of inability to pay to have been waived (unless the inability to pay is alleged to have resulted from a subsequent change in circumstances). Adjudicators should require respondents who raise the issue of inability to pay to document their financial status through the use of standard documents that can be provided by FINRA staff. Proof of inability to pay need not result in a reduction or waiver of a fine, restitution or disgorgement order, but could instead result in the imposition of an installment payment plan or another alternate payment option. In cases in which Adjudicators modify a monetary sanction based on a bona fide inability to pay, the written decision should so indicate. Although Adjudicators must consider a respondent’s bona fide inability to pay when the issue is raised by a respondent, monetary sanctions imposed on member firms need not be related to or limited by the firm’s required minimum net capital.

1.The respondent’s relevant disciplinary history.

2. Whether an individual or member firm respondent accepted responsibility for and acknowledged the misconduct to his or her employer (in the case of an individual) or a regulator prior to detection and intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or a regulator.

3. Whether an individual or member firm respondent voluntarily employed subsequent corrective measures, prior to detection or intervention by the firm (in the case of an individual) or by a regulator, to revise general and/or specific procedures to avoid recurrence of misconduct.

4. Whether the respondent voluntarily and reasonably attempted, prior to detection and intervention, to pay restitution or otherwise remedy the misconduct.

5. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed reasonable supervisory, operational and/or technical procedures or controls that were properly implemented.

6. Whether, at the time of the violation, the respondent member firm had developed adequate training and educational initiatives.

7. Whether the respondent demonstrated reasonable reliance on competent legal or accounting advice.

8. Whether the respondent engaged in numerous acts and/or a pattern of misconduct.

9. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct over an extended period of time.

10. Whether the respondent attempted to conceal his or her misconduct or to lull into inactivity, mislead, deceive or intimidate a customer, regulatory authorities or, in the case of an individual respondent, the member firm with which he or she is/was associated. 11. With respect to other parties, including the investing public, the member firm with which an individual respondent is associated, and/or other market participants, (a) whether the respondent’s misconduct resulted directly or indirectly in injury to such other parties, and (b) the nature and extent of the injury.

12. Whether the respondent provided substantial assistance to FINRA in its examination and/or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or whether the respondent attempted to delay FINRA’s investigation, to conceal information from FINRA, or to provide inaccurate or misleading testimony or documentary information to FINRA.

13. Whether the respondent’s misconduct was the result of an intentional act, recklessness or negligence.

14. Whether the member firm with which an individual respondent is/was associated disciplined respondent for the misconduct at issue prior to regulatory detection.

15. Whether the respondent engaged in the misconduct at issue notwithstanding prior warnings from FINRA, another regulator or a supervisor (in the case of an individual respondent) that the conduct violated FINRA rules or applicable securities laws or regulations.

16. Whether the respondent member firm can demonstrate that the misconduct at issue was aberrant or not otherwise reflective of the firm’s historical compliance record.

17. Whether the respondent’s misconduct resulted in the potential for respondent’s monetary or other gain.

18. The number, size and character of the transactions at issue.

19. The level of sophistication of the injured or affected customer.

Calculation of days of suspension. As was the case in prior versions of the FINRA Sanction Guidelines, recommendations for the imposition of suspensions contained herein distinguish between suspensions for 30 or fewer days and 31 or more days. In these guidelines, the NAC recommends that a suspension of 30 or fewer days be measured in business days, while a suspension of 31 or more days be measured in calendar days.

Censures. These guidelines do not specifically recommend whether or not Adjudicators should impose censures under any of the individual sanction guidelines for particular violations. In the following two instances, however, Adjudicators generally should not impose censures: 1) in cases in which the total monetary sanction (fines, disgorgement, and restitution) is $5,000 or less and the disciplinary action (regardless of the number of violations alleged) involves the violations indicated in Schedule A to these guidelines; and 2) in cases in which an Adjudicator imposes a bar, expulsion or suspension. Adjudicators should impose censures in cases in which fines above $5,000 are reduced or eliminated due to a respondent’s inability to pay or bankruptcy. Adjudicators also may impose censures in cases in which this policy would suggest no censure if the Adjudicator determines that extraordinary circumstances exist.

Monetary Sanctions – Imposition and Collection of Monetary Sanctions. FINRA has identified the circumstances under which Adjudicators generally will impose and the FINRA generally will collect monetary sanctions. In that the overriding purpose of all disciplinary sanctions is to remedy misconduct, deter future misconduct, and protect the investing public, Adjudicators may exercise their discretion in applying FINRA’s policy on the imposition and collection of monetary sanctions as necessary to achieve FINRA’s regulatory purposes. The following lists of violations may not be exhaustive and these recommendations also may be appropriate for other types of cases.

_ Adjudicators generally should not impose a fine if an individual is barred and there is no customer loss in cases involving the following types of misconduct: • failure to respond under Rule 8210; • exam cheating; and • private securities transactions (if the Adjudicator does not order disgorgement or restitution). _ Adjudicators generally should not impose a fine if an individual is barred and the Adjudicator has ordered restitution or disgorgement of ill-gotten gains as appropriate to remediate the misconduct in cases involving the following types of misconduct: • conversion or improper use of funds or securities; • forgery; and • sales practice and private securities transaction cases (if only one or a small number of customers are harmed).

Adjudicators generally should impose a fine and require payment of restitution and disgorgement even if an individual is barred in all sales practice cases if: • the case involves widespread, significant and identifiable customer harm; or • the respondent has retained substantial ill-gotten gains.

_ In all cases, Adjudicators may exercise their discretion and, if a bar is imposed, refrain from imposing a fine, but require proof of payment of an order of restitution when a respondent files an application for re-entry into the securities industry.8 Adjudicators also may, in their discretion, impose a suspension and a fine, but require proof of payment of the fine when the respondent re-enters the securities industry. In this regard, Adjudicators should consider the following factors: • whether the respondent is suspended or otherwise not in the securities industry when the sanction is imposed; and • the number of customers harmed. Respondents may charge fines and costs to credit cards. Additionally, respondents may be permitted to pay fines and costs through an installment payment plan. Installment payment plans generally will be limited to two years (although in extraordinary cases, installment payment plans may be extended to not more than five years). Respondents who are allowed to utilize an installment payment plan will be required to execute promissory notes that track the installment payment plan. Organization. These guidelines are organized into 11 subject-matter categories and arranged alphabetically by name in each category. In addition, the index lists all the guidelines alphabetically by name.

Restitution – Payment of interest. When ordering restitution, Adjudicators may consider requiring the payment of interest on the base amount. Generally, interest runs from the date(s) of the violative conduct and should be calculated at the rate established for the underpayment of federal income tax in Section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. Section 6621(a)(2). If appropriate, Adjudicators may order payment to a state escheat fund of any amount that a respondent is not able to pay in restitution because he or she is unable, after reasonable and documented efforts, to locate a customer or other party to whom payment is owed.

Suspensions, bars and expulsions. These guidelines recommend suspensions that do not exceed two years. This upper limit is recommended because of the NAC’s sense that, absent extraordinary circumstances, any misconduct so serious as to merit a suspension of more than two years probably should warrant a bar (of an individual) or expulsion (of a member firm) from the securities industry. Notwithstanding the NAC’s recommendation in these guidelines to impose suspensions that do not exceed two years, under FINRA’s rules, an Adjudicator may suspend the membership of a member or the registration of a person associated with a member for a definite period that may exceed two years or for an indefinite period with a termination contingent on the performance of a particular act. It should be noted that an individual who is barred from associating with a member firm in any capacity generally may not re-enter the industry. Although a barred individual may seek special permission to re-enter the industry via FINRA’s eligibility process, to date, the NAC has disfavored applications for re-entry.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS

FAQ - FINRA HEARINGS

PUNISHMENT CONSIDERATIONS

FINRA FINES POLICY