Lee Dana Weiss Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

Lee Dana Weiss  – and the firm that employs him or her – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

If you are like most people, before you go out to dinner at a new restaurant, you probably take a quick look at the reviews. This makes sense; you are going to pay for an expensive dinner, and you need to be sure that you are getting a good value.

Yet, when choosing a financial advisor, many people fail to conduct this same level of due diligence. Before turning over access to your money, you need to be sure that you have found a financial advisor that you can trust. Here, our audit report, including details of allegations, complaints, and sanctions will help you decide whether or not to invest with Lee Dana Weiss.

BrokerComplaints.com is currently investigating allegations related to Lee Dana Weiss. We provide a free platform for investors to help them in their claims against negligent brokers and brokerage firms.

About Lee Weiss

Lee Dana Weiss is an Investment Adviser. Lee Dana Weiss’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 2270372 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2270372.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Lee Dana Weiss.

Lee Dana Weiss has previously been reprimanded and has disclosures and/or client dispute(s) listed at FINRA BrokerCheck.

Accusations and Disclosures

You can find below, a quick snapshot of Lee Dana Weiss’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.

DISCLOSURE 1 – 

• Event Date: 6/29/2016
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
• Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Allegations: SEC Admin Release 34-78197, IA Release 40-4442, June 29, 2016: The Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) against Lee D. Weiss ( espondent). On June 20, 2016, a final judgment (Final Judgment) was entered by consent against Weiss, permanently enjoining him from future violations, or knowingly providing substantial assistance to future violations, of (i) Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. u00a7 77q(a); (ii) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [15 U.S.C. u00a7 78j(b) and 17 C.F.R. u00a7 240.10b-5; (iii) Sections 206(1), 206(2), 206(3), and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act) and Rules 206(4)-2 and 206(4)-8 thereunder [15 U.S.C. u00a7 80b-6(1)-(4) and 17 C.F.R. u00a7u00a7 275.206(4)-2, 275.206(4)-8; (iv) Section 204(a) of the Advisers Act and Rule 204-1 thereunder [15 U.S.C. u00a7 80b-4(a) and 17 C.F.R. u00a7 275.204-1, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Lee D. Weiss, et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-13460-IT, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Action).
• Resolution: Order
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Bar (Permanent)
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: association with a broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 6/29/2016 Registration Capacities Affected: participating in any offering of a penny stock
• Duration: Indefinite
• Start Date: 6/29/2016
• Sanctions: undertakings

DISCLOSURE 2 – 

• Event Date: 9/29/2015
• Disclosure Type: Civil
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: Initiated By: UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
• Allegations: SEC Litigation Release 23370/September 29, 2015: The Securities and Exchange Commission announced fraud charges against a registered investment adviser (RIA) and its owner, Lee Weiss, for allegedly engaging in self-dealing and failing to disclose material facts to clients regarding conflicts of interest, use of investor funds, and the risks of the investments they recommended. The SEC alleges that the RIA and Weiss urged their clients to invest more than $40 million in illiquid securities issued by several related companies without disclosing that Weiss had an ownership interest in the parent company of these entities and received payments from these entities. In addition, the SEC’s complaint alleges that the RIA and Weiss recommended that their clients invest in entities that Weiss owned and controlled without disclosing that the investments would be used primarily to benefit the RIA. The RIA and Weiss also allegedly advised clients to invest in a consumer loan portfolio while concealing that Weiss himself would secretly pocket half of the clients’ profits from these investments. The complaint alleges that Weiss violated Sections 17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, Sections 204(b)(5), 206(1), 206(2), 206(3) and 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rules 204-1(a)(1) and 206(4)-8 thereunder. Weiss aided and abetted the RIA’s violations of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Rule 206(4)-2 thereunder.
• Resolution: Judgment Rendered
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s) Sanctions: Disgorgement
• Sanction Details :: Amount: $8,436,766.00 Sanctions: Monetary Penalty other than Fines Sanctions: Injunction

DISCLOSURE 3 – 

• Event Date: 5/6/2015
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Pending
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: DISPUTE OVER A LOAN TO FEP
• Damage Amount Requested: $1,200,000.00
• Arbitration Docket Number:

DISCLOSURE 4 – 

• Event Date: 9/18/2014
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Pending
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THAT DEFENDANTS BREACHED THEIR FIDUCIARY DUTY AND THEIR CONTRACT, COMMITTED FRAUD AND CONVERSION, AND CONDUCTED UNFAIR PRACTICES WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN INVESTMENTS MADE THROUGHOUT THEIR INVESTMENT ADVISORY RELATIONSHIP.
• Broker Comment: FEP DENIES ANY AND ALL WRONGDOING IN THIS MATTER. THE CLIENTS’ CLAIM IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.

DISCLOSURE 5 – 

• Event Date: 6/5/2014
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Pending
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLAIMANTS ALLEGE THAT RESPONDENTS BREACHED THEIR CONTRACTUAL AND FIDUCIARY DUTIES AND ACTED NEGLIGENTLY BY THEIR MISREPRESENTATIONS, MATERIAL OMISSIONS, FAILURES TO PERFORM ADEQUATE DUE DILIGENCE AND SELF-DEALING
• Damage Amount Requested: $5,500,000.00
• Broker Comment: FEP DENIES ANY AND ALL WRONGDOING IN THIS MATTER. THE CLIENTS’ CLAIM IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.

DISCLOSURE 6 – 

• Event Date: 7/17/2013
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Pending
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: IN LATE 2009/EARLY 2010 CLAIMANTS INVESTED WITH THE RESPONDENTS. CLAIMANTS CLAIM THAT RESPONDENTS MISMANAGED ASSETS AND BREACHED ITS FIDUCIARY DUTY BY HIGHLY CONCENTRATING CLAIMANTS’ ASSETS IN RISKY PRIVATE INCOME/EQUITY AND DEBT INVESTMENTS CONTRARY TO STATED OBJECTIVES, NOT FULLY DISCLOSING ALL RELEVANT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THOSE ASSOCIATED INVESTMENTS, AND FAILING TO CONDUCT DUE DILIGENCE ON INVESTMENTS PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE CLAIMANTS’ ASSETS.
• Damage Amount Requested: $20,000,000.00
• Broker Comment: FEP DENIES ANY AND ALL WRONGDOING IN THIS MATTER. THE CLIENT’S CLAIM IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.

DISCLOSURE 7 – 

• Event Date: 6/3/2002
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Closed-No Action
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENT ALLEGES THAT THEY WERE NOT AWARE THE MUTUAL FUNDS PURCHASED IN 1997 HAD CONTINGENT DEFERRED SALES CHARGES. DAMAGES NOT SPECIFIED.
• Broker Comment: THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DENIED AND DEEMED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.

DISCLOSURE 8 – 

• Event Date: 7/25/2001
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Denied
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENTS ALLEGE THEY INCURRED BACKEND FEES UPON THE SALE OF MUTUAL FUNDS AND WERE TOLD THERE WOULD BE NO FEE.
• Damage Amount Requested: $38,853.00
• Broker Comment: MERRILL LYNCH AND MR. WEISS DENY ANY AND ALL WRONGDOING IN THIS MATTER. THE CLIENT’S CLAIM IS WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT. THE CLIENT WAS PROPERLY INFORMED AS TO ALL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUTUAL FUND INVESTMENTS.

DISCLOSURE 9 – 

• Event Date: 1/31/2001
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Closed-No Action
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: THE CUSTOMER ALLEGED THAT MR. WEISS PURCHASED SINGER CORPORATE BONDS IN APRIL 1997 WITHOUT HIS AUTHORIZATION.
• Damage Amount Requested: $38,359.00
• Broker Comment: THE CUSTOMER AUTHORIZED AND RATIFIED THE PURCHASE OF SINGER CORPORATE BONDS IN APRIL 1997. MERRILL LYNCH FOUND THE CUSTOMER’S CLAIM TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.

According to a study prepared for the FINRA Investor Education Foundation, 80 percent of American investors report that they have been solicited to participate in a fraud scheme, while 11 percent of American investors report that they personally lost money as a result of fraud.

FINRA notes that the rate of investment fraud is most likely much higher than it is reported. This is because many victims of financial advisor scams are too ashamed to come forward. Further, the study also found that a significant number of investors do not know how to spot common red flags of investment fraud. The least you should do is share your experience with other potential victims of investment scams.

Previous Associations

Under federal securities law and securities industry regulations, registered investment firms have a legal duty to supervise their financial advisors. Section 15(b)(4)(E) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 makes a securities firm liable for the conduct of representatives.

• MIP GLOBAL, INC. (CRD#: 164640) :: 1/3/2014 – 2/26/2016 :: SAN JUAN, PR
• STILLPOINT CAPITAL, LLC (CRD#: 133146) :: 3/1/2011 – 8/24/2015 :: TAMPA, FL
• FEP INVESTMENTS LLC (CRD#: 147152) :: 1/8/2009 – 3/30/2009 :: BOSTON, MA
• FIDELITY BROKERAGE SERVICES LLC (CRD#: 7784) :: 1/5/2004 – 9/5/2007 :: BOSTON, MA
• MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED (CRD#: 7691) :: 10/11/1992 – 11/12/2003 :: NEW YORK, NY

The duty to supervise securities representatives is a strong legal requirement. Registered investment firms must take many different steps to ensure that they are protecting their customers from irresponsible and criminal financial advisors.

Legit or Not?

Unfortunately, stockbroker fraud is more common than many investors would like to think. And yes, stockbrokers (including Lee Dana Weiss, but not limited to)  can (and do) steal money from their clients. While it’s rare that a broker will literally steal his client’s money (though that does happen), typically the “theft” of investment funds comes in the form of other fraudulent violations of securities law and FINRA rules which leads to significant investment losses.

Investors generally understand that there are risks associated with buying and selling securities. The market can go up, and the market can go down. No matter how skilled of an investor you are, there are always risks. With that being said, sometimes investment losses cannot be blamed on simple back luck.

There are 10 major types of complaints we receive against Investment Brokers –

• Outright Theft (Conversion of Funds)
• Unauthorized Trading
• Misrepresentation or Omission of Material Facts
• Excessive Trading (Churning)
• Lack of Diversification
• Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
• Failure to Disclose a Personal Conflict of Interest
• Front Running of Transactions
• Breakpoint Sale Violations
• Negligent Portfolio Management

Do your due diligence before investing. Public records are available for everybody to review and decide on the safest bet. 

How to Protect Yourself

We, as citizens, place a great deal of trust in the financial advisors who are tasked with helping us achieve and maintain financial security. Most of the time financial advisors and stockbrokers are honest folks who work diligently in their client’s best interests. However, on occasion financial advisors and the brokerage firms who employ them mess up and cause serious financial harm to their clients. Sometimes these losses are caused by simple negligence. Other times fraud or other serious misconduct is to blame.

Here are 5 signs that your broker needs to be reported –

• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, certain investment professionals, known as registered investment advisors (RIAs), owe fiduciary obligations to their customers. Your investment broker must always look out for your best interests. If you lost money because of your broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, you may be entitled to compensation for the full value of your damages.
• Unsuitable Investments: Many financial advisors are not fiduciaries. Instead, they are held to the suitability standard. These stockbrokers and financial advisors can only sell and recommend financial products that are appropriate for a customer’s unique investment profile. If you lost money in unsuitable investments, you should consider reporting them.
• Material Misrepresentations or Omissions: Brokers have a duty to make fair and honest representations to their clients. If they fail to do so, and an investor loses money due to a misrepresentation or a material omission, the broker may be liable for the investor’s losses.
• Lack of Diversification: Brokers must also act with the appropriate level of professional skill. Pushing a customer into over-concentrated investments is highly risky. Brokers can be held liable for losses sustained because of an investor’s inappropriate lack of diversification.
• Excessive Trading (Churning): Stockbrokers and financial advisors must have a well-grounded, reasonable basis to execute all trades. Unfortunately, there are cases in which brokers will frequently trade on a customer’s account, simply to increase their own fees. This unlawful practice is known as churning.
• Unauthorized Trading: Brokers must have the proper legal authority to make transactions on behalf of a client. If you lost money because your broker made trades that you never approved of, you may have been the victim of unauthorized trading. You should consult with an experienced attorney.

Report Lee Weiss

In order to prevail in an investment fraud lawsuit or FINRA arbitration cases, you must be able to assert a viable ‘cause of action’.

Lee Dana Weiss – and the firm that employs this broker – is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA provides an online form to allow investors to file a formal complaint against their financial advisor, stockbroker, or brokerage firm.

Click here to go to FINRA’s Online Complaint Form →

This form will ask you for specific information related to your complaint. Be prepared by gathering the following:

• Name and symbol for the investment product in question.
• The CRD number (2270372) for the broker – Lee Dana Weiss
• Your complete contact information.

Remember, it is advised to report your broker to FINRA, only after you have exhausted all of your other remedies and carefully prepared a compelling complaint.  Once you file a complaint against your broker at FINRA, your case will be bound by FINRA’s rules and the arbitration panel’s eventual decision. The time clock will start, and your complaint will be served on your broker or broker-dealer.

The views and opinions expressed in these articles are those of the source BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM and do not necessarily reflect the official position of ‘ComplaintsBoard,’ which shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies presented. The information provided within this article is for general informational purposes only. While we try to keep the information up-to-date and correct, there are no representations or warranties, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability of the information in this article for any purpose.

This article is syndicated automatically through a third-party agency from BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM.

To view the original article at BROKERCOMPLAINTS.COM, you can visit https://brokercomplaints.com/report/lee-dana-weiss/.