Sonn Law Group tracks FINRA’s enforcement docket so investors don’t have to. Sanctions for wrongdoing include fines, suspensions, and, in cases of serious misconduct, bars from FINRA membership. FINRA states that it acts to identify misconduct, stop fraud, obtain restitution for harmed investors, and remove bad actors from membership.

Below are ten financial professionals named in recent FINRA disciplinary actions.

1. Christopher Ziogas — CRD #1110989 (Bristol, Connecticut)

Action: Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) Sanction: Permanent bar in all capacities Allegations: Ziogas was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities after consenting, without admitting or denying the findings, to findings that he refused to provide documents and information requested by FINRA in connection with an investigation concerning, among other things, the allegations in a felony indictment filed against him. Case: FINRA Case #2025085310001

A Rule 8210 refusal ends a career – but it does not end an investor’s claim. The underlying conduct remains actionable.

2. D. Allen Blankenship – CRD #2842335 (King of Prussia, Pennsylvania)

Action: Office of Hearing Officers decision, appealed to the National Adjudicatory Council Sanction: Bar in all capacities — not in effect pending review Allegations: Blankenship was barred based on findings that he engaged in a pattern of unsuitable trading in Class A mutual fund shares, selling shares held a year or less, and engaging in mutual fund switching — using proceeds from the sale of one mutual fund to switch to a fund in a different family, thereby imposing a new sales load. The supervision angle: Findings stated he facilitated the unsuitable trading by circumventing his firm’s supervision, breaking up almost all mutual fund purchases into multiple consecutive transactions of less than $20,000 — below the threshold that triggered the firm’s automated review system. Case: FINRA Case #2019064333401

Structuring trades to stay under a firm’s surveillance threshold is a classic supervisory-failure fact pattern.

3. Peter James Fetherston – CRD #2108610 (Garden City, New York)

Action: Remanded OHO decision, appealed to the NAC Sanction: Bar in all capacities Allegations: Fetherston was barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for providing a partial but incomplete response in connection with FINRA’s inquiry.

4. Ronald G. Smith – CRD #6038062 (Stamford, Connecticut)

Action: AWC Sanction: Permanent bar in all capacities Allegations: Smith consented, without admitting or denying the findings, to findings that he refused to provide information and documents requested by FINRA.

5. Luis S. Jean-Bart – CRD #5472965 (Keyport, New Jersey)

Action: AWC Sanction: $5,000 deferred fine and a 10-month suspension in all capacities Allegations: Jean-Bart consented to findings that he failed to timely respond to FINRA’s requests for information and documents in connection with its investigation into his alleged involvement in investments involving crypto assets away from his member firm. FINRA sent additional requests after his initial response did not provide all the requested information, and he failed to provide everything by the deadline.

Crypto plus selling away is a combination regulators are watching closely.

6. John Timothy Rice Sr. – CRD #375297 (Folsom, Louisiana)

Action: AWC Sanction: $10,000 deferred fine, an 18-month suspension in all capacities, and deferred disgorgement of $127,549 in commissions, plus interest Allegations: Rice consented to findings that he shared material nonpublic information about imminent block order transactions with two institutional customers, who then submitted orders to the firm for execution in the same security.

In plain terms: front-running allegations involving institutional block flow.

7. Michael Cheng Ning – CRD #1229733 (Torrance, California)

Action: FINRA disciplinary complaint — unadjudicated Allegations: Ning was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging conduct in his capacity as President, CEO, and custodian of record. Required context: Issuance of a disciplinary complaint represents the initiation of a formal proceeding in which findings as to the allegations have not been made, and does not represent a decision as to any of the allegations.

8. Dennis Daniel Herrera — Reg BI Excessive Trading – Broker CRD #4618370

Sanction: Suspension in all capacities Allegations: Herrera consented to findings that he willfully violated Reg BI by recommending to two customers, one of whom was a senior, a series of trades that were excessive, unsuitable, and not in the customers’ best interest. One customer routinely followed his recommendations, and as a result Herrera exercised de facto control over the account. The trading generated $158,500 in commissions and caused $358,979 in realized losses.

The math investors should see: $158,500 to the broker. $358,979 out of the customers’ pockets.

9. Joseph Warner Rozof – CRD #5274784

Action: AWC (August 2025) Sanction: $10,000 fine and a 45-calendar-day suspension in all capacities. The suspension was in effect from September 2, 2025, through October 16, 2025, and has since expired. Allegations: Without admitting or denying the findings, Rozof consented to findings that he placed over 250 discretionary trades in the brokerage accounts of two customers without written authorization — discussing his strategy generally but not speaking with customers about the specific trades on the dates of the transactions. His firm had not accepted the accounts as discretionary. Recordkeeping overlay: Findings also stated that Rozof prevented his firm from preserving messages by using a personal cell phone to exchange business-related messages with customers, including the two customers in whose accounts he placed discretionary trades. Registration history: Rozof entered the securities industry in 2007 and previously worked with Laidlaw & Company (UK) Ltd.; National Securities Corporation; Aegis Capital Corp; Rever Securities LLC; and Harley Capital LLC. He is not currently registered.

10. Mack Leon Miller — Senior Investor Reg BI Violation – CRD # 2822317

Sanction: A nine-month suspension in all capacities, in effect from September 2, 2025, through June 1, 2026. In light of Miller’s financial status, no monetary sanctions were imposed. Allegations: Miller consented to findings that he willfully violated Reg BI when he recommended a series of trades that were excessive, unsuitable, and not in two senior customers’ best interests, generating $32,230 in commissions and $71,022 in losses — and exercised de facto control over one customer’s account.

The Pattern Behind These Ten FINRA Actions

Four of these matters involve refusing or failing to cooperate with FINRA investigations. Three involve Regulation Best Interest and excessive trading. One involves crypto assets sold away from the firm. One involves off-channel communications on a personal device.

This is not random — it reflects exactly where the regulator is aiming. Under its 2025–2027 strategic plan, FINRA committed to stronger enforcement around suitability, Regulation Best Interest, and protections for senior investors.

Can a FINRA Enforcement Action Help Your Investment Loss Claim?

A FINRA bar removes a broker from the industry but does not return money to investors. To recover losses, investors must generally file a FINRA arbitration claim against the broker and the brokerage firm responsible for supervising them.

FINRA Enforcement orders restitution to harmed customers whenever possible — but “whenever possible” leaves a great many investors uncompensated.

A published enforcement action may serve as evidence of a pattern or practice, support claims of supervisory failure, and provide meaningful leverage in settlement negotiations. Look for actions involving the same product types you were sold and the same violation types — churning, unauthorized trading, or Reg BI violations.

Watch the clock. FINRA arbitration claims generally must be filed within six years of the event under FINRA Rule 12206 — but state statutes of limitation may be shorter, often two to four years.

Brokerage Firm Liability Under FINRA Rule 3110

Brokerage firms have a non-delegable duty under FINRA Rule 3110 to establish, maintain, and enforce a supervisory system reasonably designed to protect customer accounts.

When a representative churns an account, structures trades to evade surveillance thresholds, texts clients off-channel to defeat recordkeeping, or sells crypto products away from the firm, the broker-dealer may be liable for the resulting losses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does it mean when FINRA bars a broker? A bar permanently prohibits a person from associating with any FINRA member firm in any capacity. It ends the broker’s securities career — but it does not compensate the investors who lost money. Recovery typically requires a separate FINRA arbitration claim.

What is a FINRA AWC? A Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent is a settlement in which the respondent accepts sanctions without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings. AWCs resolve a large share of FINRA disciplinary matters.

Can I still sue a broker who has already been barred? Yes. A regulatory bar and a private investor claim are separate proceedings. Investors generally pursue losses through FINRA arbitration against the broker and, frequently, the brokerage firm that supervised them.

Does a FINRA enforcement action prove my case? Not automatically. But it can support claims of a pattern or practice, bolster supervisory-failure arguments, and add leverage in settlement discussions.

How long do I have to file a FINRA arbitration claim? FINRA Rule 12206 generally sets a six-year eligibility window from the event giving rise to the dispute. State statutes of limitation may be considerably shorter — often two to four years.

What is a Regulation Best Interest violation? Reg BI requires brokers to act in the retail customer’s best interest when making a recommendation. Excessive trading, unsuitable recommendations, and conflicted advice that puts the broker’s compensation ahead of the client can all form the basis of a Reg BI claim.

  • A pending FINRA complaint is an allegation, not a finding. Because such complaints are unadjudicated, readers may wish to contact the respondents before drawing any conclusions.
  • The existence of a complaint does not mean the investment professional did anything wrong.
  • In AWC settlements, respondents consent to sanctions without admitting or denying FINRA’s findings.
  • Where FINRA entered a final bar, that is stated expressly above.

Speak With a FINRA Arbitration Attorney

Sonn Law Group represents individual and institutional investors nationwide in FINRA arbitration and securities litigation. Led by Jeffrey Sonn, Esq., our legal team has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of defrauded investors across the country.

Call 1-844-689-5754 for a free, confidential, no-obligation consultation. We work on a contingency fee basis – no recovery, no fee.