Elias Moses Hakimian (also known as Elias Moses Lopez-Hakimian) of Seal Beach California a stockbroker formerly registered with LPL Financial LLC has been fined $5,000.00 and suspended for three months from associating with any Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) member in any capacity founded on findings that he borrowed an LPL Financial customer’s funds in violation of the securities broker dealer’s policy and then lied about it on compliance questionnaires. Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent No. 2019062902601 (Apr. 21, 2021).

According to the AWC, a total of $120,000.00 had been borrowed by Hakimian from a customer of LPL Financial. Hakimian told that customer that he would pay them back over a two-year period, and agreed to pay ten percent interest per year. Hakimian failed to make whole on the original loan arrangement as he restructured it multiple times.

During the period that he was associated with LPL Financial, he was forbidden from borrowing funds from customers unless a certain exception applied. But no exception applied in his case. The stockbroker failed to notify the securities broker dealer about his arrangement with the customer.

Between 2011 and 2018, he was issued eight annual compliance questionnaires which required him to disclose the loan. Hakimian falsely represented to LPL Financial that he did not borrow the customer’s funds. It was not until the customer lodged a complaint that LPL Financial found out.

FINRA determined that the stockbroker violated FINRA Rules 2010 and 3240.

FINRA Public Disclosure reveals that on October 11, 2019, a customer initiated investment related complaint concerning Hakimian’s conduct was resolved for $275,000.00 in damages based upon allegations that the customer’s accounts had been churned by the stockbroker at LPL Financial. The complaint also alleges that personal loans had been taken from the customer and that their money was invested in speculative ventures.

Hakimian was terminated by LPL Financial as of May 17, 2019 supported by accusations of his churning of the customer’s account and for having invested the customer’s assets in speculative investments that conflicted with their risk tolerance and investment objectives.

Tags: ,

Comments are closed.