Jasper Eugene Boykin Jr of Atlanta Georgia is a stockbroker formerly employed with MetLife Securities Inc. who has been has been barred from associating with any Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) member in any capacity according to a FINRA Office of Hearing Officers Default Decision containing findings that Boykin obstructed a FINRA investigation into accusations of his improper conduct relating to outside business activities. Department of Enforcement v. Jasper E. Boykin Jr. Case No. 2016049508602 (Feb. 12 2018).
According to the Decision, Boykin was fired by MetLife on March 22, 2016 based upon allegations that he violated MetLife’s policies concerning outside business activities. Once FINRA became aware of Boykin’s termination, it opened an investigation into Boykin’s activities. Apparently, between April 12, 2016 and July 14, 2016, FINRA requested on three occasions that Boykin provide documentation and information to the regulator in regard to his outside business activities. Apparently, Boykin neglected to provide FINRA with a response to those requests until November 16, 2016, but by this time Boykin’s response was seven months past due. Evidently, Boykin only responded to FINRA personnel after a suspension was sought by the regulator. FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers found that Boykin’s neglect and delay of honoring FINRA’s request was violative of FINRA Rules 2010 and 8210.
The Decision revealed that Boykin ultimately failed to respond to FINRA after it renewed the investigation into his non-disclosure of outside business activities that he engaged in while with the firm. Apparently, three requests for Boykin’s documentation and information were submitted to him by FINRA between March 28, 2017 and June 29, 2017. The Decision revealed that Boykin first stalled FINRA’s investigation, informing the regulator that he understood what FINRA requested but that the documents requested by FINRA needed to be ordered by Boykin before they could be handed over. Boykin then reportedly failed to confirm when FINRA should reasonably expect to receive his information.
Evidently, FINRA made future requests by mail, attempting to notify Boykin at his address and six other mailing addresses but to no avail. The Decision stated that Boykin was also notified of FINRA’s requests by e-mail, but no response was rendered. The Decision further revealed that Boykin never responded to FINRA’s requests, nor did Boykin answer FINRA’s Complaint that followed. Consequently, FINRA’s Office of Hearing Officers found Boykin’s failure to cooperate with FINRA’s request to be violative of FINRA Rules 2010 and 8210.
The information contained herein has been obtained from reliable sources however may not be accurate and is not guaranteed by us. Readers are encouraged to undertake their own independent investigation and evaluation of the relevant facts. All claims and allegations are subject to adjudication, decisions may be subject to appeal, and no inference is intended, nor should any inference be made from any information contained herein from any source.
This posting and the information on our website is for general information purposes only. This content should be not considered legal advice, and any responses, comments, e-mails, other communications do not form any attorney client relationship. Attorney Advertisement. See Important Disclaimer
Guiliano Law Group
Our practice is limited to the representation of investors. We accept representation on a contingent fee basis, meaning there is no cost to you unless we make a recovery for you. There is never any charge for a consultation or an evaluation of your claim. For more information, contact us at (877) SEC-ATTY.
For more information concerning common claims against stockbrokers and investment professionals, please visit us at securitiesarbitrations.com
To learn more about FINRA Securities Arbitration, and the legal process, please visit us at securitiesarbitrations.com
