Thomas Tirrell Riquier of Danvers Massachusetts a stockbroker formerly registered with United Planners Financial Services of America is the subject of an Administrative Complaint brought by the Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth in which Riquier is alleged to have engaged in fraudulent business practices. In the Matter of Thomas T. Riquier et al. Docket No. E-2017-0105 (Feb. 14, 2018).

According to the Complaint, Riquier concocted a real property investment scheme starting in the 1990s, wherein he received loans from investors that were never repaid. Apparently, Riquier defrauded customers of at least $1,000,000.00 in the course of committing a fraud that spanned twenty-six years.

The Complaint stated that one of Riquier’s schemes involved thirty customers’ investments in Rowley Land Appreciation Fund, LP, which was purportedly created to buy and sell real property located in Rowley, Massachusetts. Apparently, most of the investors that lent funds to Riquier were his own customers which were defrauded during the period in which Riquier was associated with United Planners.

The Complaint alleged that unbeknownst to investors, property acquired by the Rowley Land Appreciation Fund had already been owned by Rowley beforehand; he previously acquired about ninety acres through the TTR Realty Trust. The Complaint alleged that the Rowley Land Appreciation Fund essentially acquired the real property from Riquier, enabling him to rake in $730,000.00 in profits.

The Complaint further alleged that investors were solicited by Riquier to invest in the Rowley Land Appreciation Fund at a time when Riquier made omissions of important facts and false statements concerning the investments. That is, investors were apparently informed by Riquier that their investments would be protected within the Rowley Fund, where the investors would be provided their principal and a return on their investment in no later than eight years. Yet, twenty-six years passed since the investment transactions were consummated and investors have not received any return on their investments.

The Complaint further alleged that United Planners was responsible for supervising Riquier to ensure that he was acting in the best interests of his customers and complying with the law; however, United Planners failed to supervise Riquier in that regard. The Complaint stated that the firm neglected to conduct any due diligence which would have alerted the firm to Riquier’s fraudulent scheme. Worse yet, the firm reportedly delegated its responsibility to supervise Riquier to Riquier’s son-in-law, who failed to adequately assess the extent of Riquier’s outside business activities.

The Enforcement Section of the Massachusetts Securities Division of the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth alleged that Riquier’s conduct was violative of Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 110A, §§ 101, 102, 104, 204 and 301; and Mass. Code Regs. Section 12.204(2), 12.204(1)(b) and 12.205(9)(6). Moreover, the Enforcement Section alleged that Untied Planners’ supervisory failures were violative of Mass. Gen. Laws. Ch. 110A, § 204(a)(2)(J).

FINRA Public Disclosure confirms that Riquier has been referenced in five customer initiated investment related disputes that pertain to accusations of Riquier’s violative conduct while employed with United Planners Financial Services of America. Particularly, between March 12, 2009 and March 21, 2009, two customer initiated investment related complaints regarding Riquier’s activities were resolved for a total of $85,640.00 in damages founded on allegations that trades were not timely placed in the customers’ variable annuity accounts.

On July 14, 2009, another customer initiated investment related complaint pertaining to Riquier’s activities was settled for $218,987.41 in damages based upon accusations that the customer’s variable annuity investment instructions were not followed by Riquier. Then, on June 17, 2011, a customer filed an investment related complaint concerning Riquier’s activities where the customer sought $50,000.00 in damages supported by allegations that Riquier churned the customer’s investment advisory account and failed to inform the customer about fees for investing.

Moreover, on November 14, 2016, a customer filed an investment related complaint regarding Riquier’s conduct in which the customer requested $30,000.00 in damages founded on accusations that the customer’s funds had been stolen and the customer’s investment account had been poorly managed.

Riquier was terminated by United Planners Financial Services of America on March 30, 2018 based upon allegations that he borrowed a customer’s funds in violation of FINRA Rule 3240.

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

To learn more about FINRA Securities Arbitration, and the legal process, please visit us at

Tags: , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Email (will not be published) (required)