Financial Advisor Joseph Eschleman Subject of Customer Complaint Involving the Recommendation of DSTs

• October 7, 2025
• Purshe Kaplan Sterling

Joseph Frederick Eschleman (CRD#: 3237843) is a registered broke and investment advisor with Purshe Kaplan Sterling Investments in Sacramenta, CA.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 1999 and previously worked with Prudential Securities Incorporated; and Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in September 2025, Joseph Eschleman became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “the recommendation to effect a 1031 exchange into two DSTs: Campus Walk DST and 4th & J DST were unsuitable.” The damage amount being requested is $1,175,140.23 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition Joseph Eschleman has been the subject of four other FINRA disclosures:

• August 2018—“ Without admitting or denying the findings, Eschleman consented to the sanctions and to the entry of findings that he exercised discretion in customers’ accounts without first obtaining either written authority from his customers or his member firm’s acceptance of the accounts as discretionary. The findings stated that FINRA began its investigation when the firm filed a Form U5 terminating Eschleman’s registration. FINRA’s investigation found that Eschleman exercised discretion without written authority when he sold a security in the individual retirement account (IRA) of a customer in order to fund a required minimum distribution. Eschleman again exercised discretion without written authority when he sold securities from a trust account maintained by this customer and his wife. However, these customers gave Eschleman verbal authority to exercise discretion in the IRA account and in the trust account.” Joseph Eschleman was sanctioned with a $5,000 fine and a 10-day suspension.
• April 2017—Discharged by Wells Fargo Clearing Services ,LLC. “ Former employer alleges that the individual input trades and instructed team member to process required minimum retirement distribution indicating he had spoken to the client. Former employer further alleges that individual revised notes to reflect client previously verbally authorized individual to utilize trading discretion and issue an RMD. FA, acting in the best interest of his client and with prior verbal authorization from the client, input trades when same day authorization was required. No client complaints.”
• April 2014—“ CUSTOMERS ALLEGED FA MISREPRESENTED THE SERVICES HE WAS COMFORTABLE OFFERING AND THAT HE DID NOT CONDUCT ACTIVE MANAGEMENT, BUT CHARGED FULL ADVISORY FEES. (7/1/2012-12/15/2013)” The damage amount requested was $18,620.19 and the customer dispute settled for $11,488.14.
• February 2003—“ SEE #24.” The customer dispute was closed-no action.

For a copy of Joseph Eschleman’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

What is a DST?

A Delaware Statutory Trust (DST) is a legally recognized trust that is created for a specific business purpose.  Traditionally, DSTs are utilized to provide a governing agreement by which real estate can be purchased, held, managed and administered among a pool of investors who own participation interests in the DST.  The DST allows an investor the opportunity to own an interest in the underlying real estate without the responsibility of managing the property.  A trustee is appointed to manage the property on behalf of the investor pool.  A Tenant-in-Common or TIC investment offering is similar to a DST in that both investment vehicles pool investor capital toward the purchase of underlying real estate but the legal ownership structure is different.  DST and TIC investments are commonly used as a mechanism through which real estate owners can facilitate a 1031 exchange, which refers to a section of the Internal Revenue Code that allows a seller of real estate to defer paying capital gains taxes if the sale proceeds are reinvested in qualified real estate within a designated period of time.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

Financial advisors have a legal and regulatory obligation to recommend only suitable investments that are appropriate for their clients’ needs and objectives. Their employing brokerage firm has a legal and regulatory obligation to supervise the Financial Advisors’ sales practices and dealings with clients. To the extent any of these duties are breached, the customer may be entitled to a recovery of his or her investment losses.

Reasonable basis suitability requires that a recommended investment or investment strategy be suitable or appropriate for at least some investors. Reasonable basis suitability requires an advisor to conduct adequate due diligence so that he or she can determine the risks and rewards of the investment or investment strategy.

Quantitative suitability requires a brokerage firm or financial advisor with actual or de facto control over a customer’s account to have a reasonable basis for believing that a series of recommended transactions – even if suitable when viewed in isolation – is not excessive and unsuitable for the customer when taken together in light of the customer’s investment profile. No single test defines excessive activity, but factors such as the turnover rate, the cost-equity ratio, and the use of in-and-out trading in a customer’s account may provide a basis for a finding that a member or associated person has violated the quantitative suitability obligation.

Customer-specific suitability requires that a member or associated person have a reasonable basis to believe that the recommendation is suitable for a particular customer based on that customer’s investment profile. Among the criteria that a financial advisor must evaluate to satisfy his or her customer-specific suitability obligations include the investor’s age, tax status, time horizon, liquidity needs, and risk tolerance; a client’s other investments, financial situation and needs, investment objectives, and any other information disclosed by the customer should also be considered.

FINRA regulations require that a customer’s written authorization is required before a broker-dealer can carry out transactions in the customer’s account. In addition, the broker-dealer’s member firm needs to approve the broker-dealer’s authorization. These measures are intended to protect the customer. Discretionary trading allows the broker-dealer to unilaterally decide to buy or sell securities at any price and not have to check with the client first. Exercising discretion without authorization can be costly to investors, and broker-dealers and their member firms, too.

The Wolper Law Firm represents investors nationwide in securities litigation and arbitration on a contingency fee basis. Matt Wolper, the Managing Principal of the Wolper Law Firm, is a trial lawyer who has handled hundreds of securities cases during his career involving a wide range of products, strategies and securities. Prior to representing investors, he was a partner with a national law firm, where he represented some of the largest banks and brokerage firms in the world in securities matters. We can be reached at (800) 931-8452 or by email at mwolper@wolperlawfirm.com.