本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛唐炜臻的太太萧虹因骗q钱受处分，被停牌10年。 各位可到IDA网站查看骗子们受处分的原件。这些都是公众信息。 萧虹是卖共同基金的，靠赚回扣生活。 举个她骗q钱的例子---她把顾客的$50000变成了$11000。 她帮一位女士投资，人家给了她五万加元，她装自己腰包$25258的佣金。 她的贪t婪使人家损失$39000，五万块钱还剩下$11000。 这个女人骗起钱来真是太心x狠s手d毒了。 原件见：IDA的3315号文件。
http://www.ida.ca/Files/BulletinsNotices/Bulletins/B3315_en.pdf
萧虹的买卖执照是2004年7月被取消的
无执照经营是犯法的。她以为华人都不知道她的恶行，还想继续骗q钱。
按IDA规定，无牌照者不能买卖共同基金以赚取佣金；不能给顾客提出建议。
理财顾问骗q钱是非常普遍的，可是受害人一般都自认倒霉，不报案。
只有5%的受害人报案，报案也是报到理财顾问的自我保护组织IDA。IDA会竭尽全力保护被告。
被告的理财顾问只有5%受到处罚，一般是IDA实在找不出保护她的理由才不得不作作样子。
5% x 5% = 0.25%。
也就是说，在100000个骗z子中，只有25个受到应有的处罚。
这就是为什么永远不要把你的血汗钱给理财顾问。
萧虹受处分的原件:
http://www.ida.ca/Files/BulletinsNotices/Bulletins/B3315_en.pdf
Contact: For distribution to relevant parties within your firm
Leigh Ann Gillies
Enforcement Counsel BULLETIN #3315
416-943-5891 July 28, 2004
Discipline
Discipline Penalties Imposed on Hong Xiao
– Violations of By-law 29.1
Person Disciplined
The Ontario District Council has imposed penalties on Hong Xiao, at the relevant time a Registered Representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc. (subsequently Westminster Securities Inc., currently Argosy Securities Inc.)
By-laws,Regulations,Policies Violated
On July 19, 2004, the Ontario District Council considered, reviewed and accepted aSettlement Agreement that had been negotiated between Hong Xiao and Association Staff.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Ms Xiao acknowledged that:
(1) Between February and October 1999 inclusive she engaged in conduct
unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest by churning the account of her client YZ in that she employed a strategy of excessive trading which she knew or ought to have known was contrary to, or which was in willful or reckless disregard of, her client’s best interests and/or instructions, contrary to By-law 29.1; and
(2) In October 1999 she engaged in conduct unbecoming or detrimental to the
public interest by agreeing to compensate her client YZ in an amount equal to
YZ’s initial investment, and by delivering an amount in partial satisfaction of that agreement, which agreement and payment were made without the
knowledge, consent or authorization of the Respondent’s Member firm,
contrary to By-law 29.1.
Penalty Assessed
Discipline penalties assessed against Ms Xiao are:
1. For violation (1), a fine in the amount of $35,000
2. For violation (1), disgorgement of commissions in the amount of $5,051.50
3. For violation (2), a fine in the amount of $10,000;
4. A prohibition on receiving registration approval with any Member Firm of theAssociation for a period of ten (10) years, commencing on the effective date of this Settlement Agreement;
5. Strict supervision for a period of two years upon any subsequent registration approval with a Member Firm of the Association;
6. As a condition of re-approval, write and pass the examination based on the
Conduct and Practices Handbook for Securities Industry Professionals; and
7. As a condition of any subsequent term of re-approval by the Association in any capacity, that the Respondent does not work directly, indirectly, or in
conjunction with WT (see Facts) in any manner whatsoever within the
securities industry.
Ms Xiao is also required to pay $25,000 toward the costs of the investigation.
Summary of Facts
In late February 1999, while a registered representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc, the Respondent opened an account for her client YZ.
YZ deposited $50,000 for investmenton March 1. At that time she was 42 years old, employed as a hotel housekeeper with an annual income of $20,000.
The Respondent had known YZ for a few years, during which time YZ had been a client of the Respondent’s husband, WT.
YZ signed three documents when she opened her Gorinsen account: a New Client Application Form, a Trading Authorization and a Margin Agreement. All the forms were in English. Her investment knowledge was rated as sophisticated, her investment objectives were shown as 80% short term, 20% medium term and risk factors were shown as 50% medium and 50% high. Although not approved for registration with the Association, WT was given trading authorization over the account; however, unbeknownst to YZ this authorization was revoked in May at the direction of the Member firm. Throughout the period her account was active, YZ relied on both the Respondent and WT to provide advice and conduct appropriate trading on her behalf. YZ signed the documents without fully understanding them because her ability to function in English - either verbally or in written form - was extremely limited. She and the Respondent only ever communicated in Chinese. Due to the language barrier
and except for the personal information section, the Respondent filled out all the forms without YZ’s assistance. YZ indicated that the Respondent never discussed or explained objectives or risk factors to her. Moreover, YZ’s only investment experience had been in mutual funds at banking institutions as a client of WT.
Over the next eight months the following activity took place in the client’s account:
?356 trades (178 purchases and 178 sales);
?Purchases of approximately $8.2 million;
?Commissions charged of $25,258, this being more than half the client’s
original investment;
?Account losses of approximately $39,000;
?Turnover ratio of over 247, where a ratio of 6 is normally indicative of
excessive trading;
?Cost equity ratio of 83% this being the return required just to break even;
?Holding periods for most securities of 5 days or less with 80 securities being sold the same day as they were purchased.
At various times throughout this period the client indicated that the trading in her account was excessive and that she could not afford the commissions being charged.
However, the trading pattern continued unchanged and losses rapidly continued to accumulate. Consequently, in October 1999 the client had the Respondent removed as registered representative over the account.
Around this time the Respondent agreed to compensate YZ for an amount which would restore the account to its original balance of $50,000. To this end the Respondent delivered a cheque for $10,000 to YZ in partial satisfaction of this agreement but did not deliver any further amounts.
Staff determined that the short-term holding strategy coupled with the excessive number of trades and accompanying commissions made it impossible for YZ to procure a profit. The activities were furthermore conducted in willful and/or reckless disregard of YZ’s best interests and/or instructions in relation to the account over which the Respondent bore responsibility.
In addition, the Respondent’s role in arranging compensation for YZ and delivering an amount in partial satisfaction of this agreement, without the knowledge or consent of her Member firm was conduct unbecoming a registered representative and detrimental to the public interest.
Kenneth A. Nason
Association Secretary更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
http://www.ida.ca/Files/BulletinsNotices/Bulletins/B3315_en.pdf
萧虹的买卖执照是2004年7月被取消的
无执照经营是犯法的。她以为华人都不知道她的恶行，还想继续骗q钱。
按IDA规定，无牌照者不能买卖共同基金以赚取佣金；不能给顾客提出建议。
理财顾问骗q钱是非常普遍的，可是受害人一般都自认倒霉，不报案。
只有5%的受害人报案，报案也是报到理财顾问的自我保护组织IDA。IDA会竭尽全力保护被告。
被告的理财顾问只有5%受到处罚，一般是IDA实在找不出保护她的理由才不得不作作样子。
5% x 5% = 0.25%。
也就是说，在100000个骗z子中，只有25个受到应有的处罚。
这就是为什么永远不要把你的血汗钱给理财顾问。
萧虹受处分的原件:
http://www.ida.ca/Files/BulletinsNotices/Bulletins/B3315_en.pdf
Contact: For distribution to relevant parties within your firm
Leigh Ann Gillies
Enforcement Counsel BULLETIN #3315
416-943-5891 July 28, 2004
Discipline
Discipline Penalties Imposed on Hong Xiao
– Violations of By-law 29.1
Person Disciplined
The Ontario District Council has imposed penalties on Hong Xiao, at the relevant time a Registered Representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc. (subsequently Westminster Securities Inc., currently Argosy Securities Inc.)
By-laws,Regulations,Policies Violated
On July 19, 2004, the Ontario District Council considered, reviewed and accepted aSettlement Agreement that had been negotiated between Hong Xiao and Association Staff.
Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Ms Xiao acknowledged that:
(1) Between February and October 1999 inclusive she engaged in conduct
unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest by churning the account of her client YZ in that she employed a strategy of excessive trading which she knew or ought to have known was contrary to, or which was in willful or reckless disregard of, her client’s best interests and/or instructions, contrary to By-law 29.1; and
(2) In October 1999 she engaged in conduct unbecoming or detrimental to the
public interest by agreeing to compensate her client YZ in an amount equal to
YZ’s initial investment, and by delivering an amount in partial satisfaction of that agreement, which agreement and payment were made without the
knowledge, consent or authorization of the Respondent’s Member firm,
contrary to By-law 29.1.
Penalty Assessed
Discipline penalties assessed against Ms Xiao are:
1. For violation (1), a fine in the amount of $35,000
2. For violation (1), disgorgement of commissions in the amount of $5,051.50
3. For violation (2), a fine in the amount of $10,000;
4. A prohibition on receiving registration approval with any Member Firm of theAssociation for a period of ten (10) years, commencing on the effective date of this Settlement Agreement;
5. Strict supervision for a period of two years upon any subsequent registration approval with a Member Firm of the Association;
6. As a condition of re-approval, write and pass the examination based on the
Conduct and Practices Handbook for Securities Industry Professionals; and
7. As a condition of any subsequent term of re-approval by the Association in any capacity, that the Respondent does not work directly, indirectly, or in
conjunction with WT (see Facts) in any manner whatsoever within the
securities industry.
Ms Xiao is also required to pay $25,000 toward the costs of the investigation.
Summary of Facts
In late February 1999, while a registered representative at Gorinsen Capital Inc, the Respondent opened an account for her client YZ.
YZ deposited $50,000 for investmenton March 1. At that time she was 42 years old, employed as a hotel housekeeper with an annual income of $20,000.
The Respondent had known YZ for a few years, during which time YZ had been a client of the Respondent’s husband, WT.
YZ signed three documents when she opened her Gorinsen account: a New Client Application Form, a Trading Authorization and a Margin Agreement. All the forms were in English. Her investment knowledge was rated as sophisticated, her investment objectives were shown as 80% short term, 20% medium term and risk factors were shown as 50% medium and 50% high. Although not approved for registration with the Association, WT was given trading authorization over the account; however, unbeknownst to YZ this authorization was revoked in May at the direction of the Member firm. Throughout the period her account was active, YZ relied on both the Respondent and WT to provide advice and conduct appropriate trading on her behalf. YZ signed the documents without fully understanding them because her ability to function in English - either verbally or in written form - was extremely limited. She and the Respondent only ever communicated in Chinese. Due to the language barrier
and except for the personal information section, the Respondent filled out all the forms without YZ’s assistance. YZ indicated that the Respondent never discussed or explained objectives or risk factors to her. Moreover, YZ’s only investment experience had been in mutual funds at banking institutions as a client of WT.
Over the next eight months the following activity took place in the client’s account:
?356 trades (178 purchases and 178 sales);
?Purchases of approximately $8.2 million;
?Commissions charged of $25,258, this being more than half the client’s
original investment;
?Account losses of approximately $39,000;
?Turnover ratio of over 247, where a ratio of 6 is normally indicative of
excessive trading;
?Cost equity ratio of 83% this being the return required just to break even;
?Holding periods for most securities of 5 days or less with 80 securities being sold the same day as they were purchased.
At various times throughout this period the client indicated that the trading in her account was excessive and that she could not afford the commissions being charged.
However, the trading pattern continued unchanged and losses rapidly continued to accumulate. Consequently, in October 1999 the client had the Respondent removed as registered representative over the account.
Around this time the Respondent agreed to compensate YZ for an amount which would restore the account to its original balance of $50,000. To this end the Respondent delivered a cheque for $10,000 to YZ in partial satisfaction of this agreement but did not deliver any further amounts.
Staff determined that the short-term holding strategy coupled with the excessive number of trades and accompanying commissions made it impossible for YZ to procure a profit. The activities were furthermore conducted in willful and/or reckless disregard of YZ’s best interests and/or instructions in relation to the account over which the Respondent bore responsibility.
In addition, the Respondent’s role in arranging compensation for YZ and delivering an amount in partial satisfaction of this agreement, without the knowledge or consent of her Member firm was conduct unbecoming a registered representative and detrimental to the public interest.
Kenneth A. Nason
Association Secretary更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net