Vincent Au Audit (2023) – A Scam or Legit Broker?

Vincent Au  – 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 Vincent Au.

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

About Vincent Au

Vincent Au is an Investment Adviser. Vincent Au’s Central Registration Depository (CRD) number is 2005219 and the FINRA Profile can be found at – https://brokercheck.finra.org/individual/summary/2005219.

Click here to download a Detailed Audit Report for Vincent Au.

Vincent Au 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 Vincent Au’s regulatory actions, arbitrations, and complaints.

DISCLOSURE 1 – 

• Event Date: 12/3/2013
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA:
• Initiated By: MICHIGAN
• Allegations: ORDER SUSPENDING SECURITIES AGENT REGISTRATION DATED 12/3/2013, FILE 321844. CONTACT AGENCY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
• Resolution: Order
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Suspension
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: SECURITIES AGENT REGISTRATION
• Duration: 45 DAYS
• Start Date: 1/2/2014
• End Date: 2/17/2014

DISCLOSURE 2 – 

• Event Date: 4/30/2013
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: 2009016312701
• DocketNumberAAO: 2009016312701
• Initiated By: FINRA
• Allegations: SECTION 5 OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, ARTICLE III, SECTION 3(B) OF THE FINRA BY-LAWS, FINRA RULE 2010 AND NASD RULES 2110, 3011(A), 3070: AU FAILED TO ENFORCE HIS MEMBER FIRM’S PROCEDURES BY FAILING TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE FIRM’S ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING (AML) PROGRAM WAS ALSO INADEQUATE WHEN AU PERMITTED HIS ROLE AS THE FIRM’S AML COMPLIANCE OFFICER (AMLCO) TO BECOME COMPROMISED BY HIS ROLE AS REPRESENTATIVE HANDLING ACCOUNTS ENGAGING IN LARGE VOLUMES OF TRANSACTIONS THROUGH WHICH LOW PRICED STOCKS WERE RECEIVED INTO AND SOLD IN ACCOUNTS AT THE FIRM. WHEN THE CLEARING FIRM BROUGHT RED FLAGS OF SUSPICIOUS CUSTOMER ACTIVITY TO AU’S ATTENTION, AU IGNORED THE RED FLAGS AND DID NOT TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO INVESTIGATE, AND IF NECESSARY, REPORT THE ACTIVITY. INSTEAD, AU ACTED ESSENTIALLY AS AN ADVOCATE FOR HIS CUSTOMER AND ATTEMPTED TO CONVINCE THE CLEARING FIRM TO CLEAR THE TRADES. THE CLEARING FIRM DETERMINED TO TERMINATE ITS CLEARING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE FIRM, CITING CONCERNS ABOUT SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY IN A CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNT. THE CLEARING FIRM’S TERMINATION OF THE CLEARING ARRANGEMENT DID NOT CAUSE AU TO TAKE ANY STEPS TO INVESTIGATE OR DETERMINE WHETHER SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY OCCURRED IN THE CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNT. AS THE FIRM’S AMLCO AND THE BROKER OF TWO CUSTOMER’S ACCOUNTS, AU SHOULD HAVE INVESTIGATED THE RED FLAGS OF SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY AND, IF NECESSARY, REPORTED ANY SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR. AU KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THE CUSTOMER’S QUESTIONABLE BACKGROUND AND SHOULD HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO INVESTIGATE THE SECURITIES THAT WERE DEPOSITED INTO THE ACCOUNT AND, IF NECESSARY, REPORT ANY SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY. THE WEAKNESSES OF THE FIRM’S AML PROGRAM ARE HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FIRM’S FAILURE TO RESPOND TO RED FLAGS BROUGHT TO AU’S ATTENTION BY THE CLEARING FIRM. INSTEAD OF CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE CLEARING FIRM’S CONCERNS AND, IF NECESSARY, REPORTING SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY, AU ACTED AS AN ADVOCATE IN ARGUING TO THE CLEARING FIRM THAT THE CUSTOMER’S BUSINESS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ALL THESE FACTS SHOW HOW THE FIRM’S AML PROGRAM WAS INADEQUATE AND HOW AU, AS THE FIRM’S AMLCO WAS RESPONSIBLE. AU SOLD 50 MILLION UNREGISTERED SHARES OF SUB-PENNY STOCK INTO THE OPEN MARKET FOR A FIRM PROPRIETARY ACCOUNT. AU OBTAINED A SINGLE CERTIFICATE FOR 50 MILLION SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM FROM THE ISSUER. AU THEN CAUSED THE SHARES TO BE DEPOSITED INTO A BROKERAGE ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM’S NAME AND LIQUIDATED THE OPEN MARKET EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NEITHER A REGISTRATION STATEMENT IN EFFECT FOR THE SECURITIES NOR AN APPLICABLE EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION. AU EITHER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT WHEN HE DEPOSITED AND LIQUIDATED THE SHARES IN THE FIRM’S NAME THAT THE SHARES WERE NOT REGISTERED AND WERE NOT SUBJECT TO AN EXEMPTION FROM REGISTRATION. AU HAD SEPARATELY ACQUIRED A SHARE CERTIFICATE FOR FIVE MILLION SHARES OF SUB-PENNY STOCK IN HIS OWN NAME THAT HE HAD ATTEMPTED TO DEPOSIT IN AN ACCOUNT THAT HE HELD AT THE FIRM THAT CLEARED THROUGH THE CLEARING FIRM. WHEN AU ATTEMPTED TO DEPOSIT THOSE SHARES, THE CLEARING FIRM WOULD NOT ACCEPT THE SHARES FOR DEPOSIT AFTER MAKING AN INQUIRY TO AU WITH RESPECT TO THE SHARES’ REGISTRATION STATUS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH HE ACQUIRED THE SHARES. AU COULD HAVE, BUT DECLINED, TO ASCERTAIN FACTS NECESSARY UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SHARES WERE EXEMPT FROM THE REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS OF THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933. AU PERMITTED A STATUTORILY DISQUALIFIED PERSON TO ASSOCIATE WITH THE FIRM AND IMPROPERLY ENGAGE IN VARIOUS ACTIVITIES AT THE FIRM REQUIRING REGISTRATION. AU CAUSED HIS FIRM TO FAIL TO REPORT STATISTICAL AND SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR COMPLAINTS RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS THAT HE WAS THE BROKER HANDLING THE ACCOUNTS. AU IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILURES TO MAKE THE RULE 3070 FILINGS BASED ON HIS ROLE AS THE FIRM’S CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER.
• Resolution: Decision & Order of Offer of Settlement
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Civil and Administrative Penalty(ies)/Fine(s)
• Sanction Details :: Amount: $20,000.00 Sanctions: Suspension
• Sanction Details :: Registration Capacities Affected: ANY CAPACITY
• Duration: 30 DAYS
• Start Date: 8/19/2013
• End Date: 9/17/2013 Registration Capacities Affected: ANY PRINCIPAL CAPACITY
• Duration: FIVE MONTHS
• Start Date: 9/18/2013
• End Date: 2/17/2014
• Regulator Statement: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING THE ALLEGATIONS, AU CONSENTED TO THE DESCRIBED SANCTIONS AND TO THE ENTRY OF FINDINGS, THEREFORE HE IS FINED $20,000, SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY CAPACITY FOR 30 DAYS, AND SUSPENDED FROM ASSOCIATION WITH ANY FINRA MEMBER IN ANY PRINCIPAL CAPACITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE MONTHS. THE SUSPENSION IN ANY CAPACITY IS IN EFFECT AUGUST 19, 2013, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 17, 2013. THE SUSPENSION IN ANY PRINCIPAL CAPACITY IS IN EFFECT SEPTEMBER 18, 2013 THROUGH FEBRUARY 17, 2014. FINE PAID IN FULL ON DECEMBER 26, 2013.
• Broker Comment: WITHOUT ADMITTING OR DENYING LIABILITY OR THE ALLEGATIONS, MR. AU ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT TO AVOID A COSTLY AND PROTRACTED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF A 2009 EXAMINATION OF HIS FORMER BROKER-DEALER, AVALON PARTNERS, INC. (AVALON). MR. AU REASONABLY BELIEVED, BASED ON MATERIALS AND INFORMATION THAT HE HAD AT THAT TIME, THAT HIS ACTIONS WERE BONA FIDE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECURITIES LAWS AND RULES, AND NO AVALON CUSTOMERS WERE HARMED.

DISCLOSURE 3 – 

• Event Date: 2/6/2001
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Award / Judgment
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: CLIENTS DAUGHTER ALLEGE THAT VINCENT AU HAD CONDUCTED UNAUTHORIZED TRADES. THE BROKER DISPUTED THIS AND REFUSED TO SETTLE WITH THE DAUGHTER. THERE WAS AN ARBITRATION BOUGHT ON BY THE DAUGHTER. THE FIRM LOST AND PAID 48,000 IN AWRADS.
• Damage Amount Requested: $66,206.89
• Damages Granted: $48,000.00
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 01-00628
• Arbitration Docket Number:

DISCLOSURE 4 – 

• Event Date: 9/9/1998
• Disclosure Type: Regulatory
• Disclosure Resolution: Final
• Disclosure Detail :: DocketNumberFDA: C10980048
• DocketNumberAAO: 10980048
• Initiated By: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SECURITIES DEALERS, INC.
• Resolution: Order
• Sanction Details :: Sanctions: Monetary/Fine
• Sanction Details :: Amount: $5,000.00 Sanctions: Censure Sanctions: Suspension
• Broker Comment: THE NASD WAS INVESTIGATING AN ALLEGATION THAT I SETTLED AWAY WITH A CLIENT.

DISCLOSURE 5 – 

• Event Date: 2/12/1997
• Disclosure Type: Customer Dispute
• Disclosure Resolution: Settled
• Disclosure Detail :: Allegations: UNAUTHORIZED TRADING,ALLEGED DAMAGES OF $105,000.00
• Damage Amount Requested: $110,117.65
• Settlement Amount: $50,000.00
• Arbitration Claim File Detail: 97-02869
• Broker Comment: CLIENT DROPPED SUIT AGAINST BROKER. BROKER WAS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. CLIENT SETTLED WITH BROKER/DEALER THE CLIENT COMMENCED AN ACTION ALLEGING UNAUTHORIZED TRADING. THE CLAIMS WERE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DISCLOSURE 6 – 

• Event Date: 2/12/1997
• Disclosure Type: Employment Separation After Allegations
• Disclosure Resolution:
• Disclosure Detail :: Firm Name: PRIME CHARTER LIMITED
• Termination Type: Discharged
• Allegations: N/A THE ALLEGATIONS WERE ALLEGEDLY SETTLING AWAY WITH A CLIENT
• Broker Comment: TERMINATION A CLIENT THREATENED TO COMMENCE AN ACTION IN ARBITRATION AND RUINED ME IF I DID NOT REIMBURSE HER FOR LOSSES SHE SUSTAINED ON A TRANSACTION. I FOOLISHLY DID NOT CONSULT WITH EITHER MY COMPLIANCE OFFICER OR MY ATTORNEY AND PANICKED. I WIRED THE CLIENT THE MONEY WHEN MY FIRM WAS NOTIFIED I WAS TERMINATED.

DISCLOSURE 7 – 

• Event Date: 12/16/1993
• Disclosure Type: Employment Separation After Allegations
• Disclosure Resolution:
• Disclosure Detail :: Firm Name: GRUNTAL & CO
• Termination Type: Permitted to Resign
• Allegations: Not Provided THE FIRM ALLEGED THAT I FFRIED TO KEEP A TRADE.
• Broker Comment: I WAS TERMIANTED BY GRUNTAL. I WENT AWAY ON VACATION TO GEORGIA. UPON COMING BACK ON TV ESDAY 12/15/1993. I NOTICE A TRADE IN A CLIENTS ACCOUNT, WHICH INITIATED A HOUSE CALL. I CALLED THE CLIENT BUT FAILED TO REACH HIM. MEANWHILE, THE FIRM WATED TO BREAK THE TRADE. I ARGUED WITH THEM ON THE FACT THAT IF THE TRADE IS CANCELLED, THE CLIENT WILL GET UPSET BECAUSE THE TRADE WAS PROFITABLE. AFTER TAKING TO THE MANAGER AND THE TRADE TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY THING WE COULD DO AND THEY BOTH SAID, NO, I COULDN’T KEEP THE TRADE.

DISCLOSURE 8 – 

• Event Date: 8/27/1990
• Disclosure Type: Employment Separation After Allegations
• Disclosure Resolution:
• Disclosure Detail :: Firm Name: D. H. BLAIR & COMPANY
• Termination Type: Discharged
• Allegations: N/A TAKING OF LEAD CARDS
• Broker Comment: TERMINATION WHILE I WAS A YOUNG ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE AT DH BLAIRE AND CO. I WOULD TAKE LEAD CARDS FROM A BOX IN THE HALLWAY. THE LEADS WERE INTENDED FOR ALL ROOKIE BROKERS LIKE MYSELF. ONE DAY I UNKNOWINGLY TOOK A BATCH OF LEAD’S FROM THE BOX THAT WAS PURCHASED BY A BROKER AT THE FIRM. HE ACCUSED ME OF STEALING AND THE FIRM TERMINATED ME EVEN THOUGH I OFFERED TO PAY FOR THE LEADS. I BELIEVED I WAS FIRED BECAUSE I WAS NOT PRODUCING ENOUGH COMMISSIONS FOR THE FIRM.

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.

• JOHN CARRIS INVESTMENTS LLC (CRD#: 145767) :: 6/27/2012 – 11/25/2013 :: HOBOKEN, NJ
• AEGIS CAPITAL CORP. (CRD#: 15007) :: 8/4/2011 – 7/18/2012 :: NEW YORK, NY
• AXIOM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC. (CRD#: 26580) :: 6/25/2012 – 6/27/2012 :: NEW YORK, NY
• AVALON PARTNERS, INC. (CRD#: 41357) :: 10/5/1998 – 8/3/2011 :: NEW YORK, NY
• U.S. FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS, INC. (CRD#: 120804) :: 2/6/2003 – 4/16/2003 :: NEW YORK, NY
• ISG SOLID CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC (CRD#: 39375) :: 6/30/1997 – 9/18/1998 :: NEW YORK, NY
• PRIME CHARTER LTD. (CRD#: 25668) :: 3/28/1996 – 4/1/1997 :: NEW YORK, NY
• JOSEPHTHAL LYON & ROSS INCORPORATED (CRD#: 3227) :: 10/12/1994 – 4/3/1996 :: NEW YORK, NY
• D. BLECH & COMPANY, INCORPORATED (CRD#: 26063) :: 1/25/1994 – 10/26/1994 :: NEW YORK, NY
• GRUNTAL & CO. INCORPORATED (CRD#: 372) :: 2/25/1993 – 12/21/1993 :: NEW YORK, NY
• BUTTONWOOD SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 18420) :: 6/24/1991 – 2/8/1993 :: NEW YORK, NY
• SUNPOINT SECURITIES, INC. (CRD#: 25442) :: 10/26/1990 – 6/18/1991 :: LONGVIEW, TX
• D. H. BLAIR & CO., INC. (CRD#: 6833) :: 1/23/1990 – 9/10/1990 :: 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 Vincent Au, 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 Vincent Au

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

Vincent Au – 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 (2005219) for the broker – Vincent Au
• 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/vincent-au/.