Financial Advisor Justin Deiter Suspended by FINRA for Allegedly Violating Regulation Best Interest

• March 26, 2025
• Spartan Capital

Justin Ray Deiter (CRD#: 5225102) was a previously registered broker.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 2007 and previously worked with Prestige Financial Center, Inc. (FINRA expelled the firm in 2011); Global Arena Capital Corp. (FINRA expelled the firm in 2016); Aegis Capital Corp.; Allied Millenial Partners, LLC; and Spartan Capital Securities, LLC.

Allegations of Misconduct

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in February 2025, without admitting or denying the findings, Deiter consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he willfully violated Reg BI by recommending to two retail customers a series of trades that were excessive and not in the best interest of the customers, one of whom was an 89-year-old retiree. The findings stated that Deiter’s trading resulted in high turnover rates and cost-to-equity ratios that exceeded the traditional guideposts of six and 20 percent. Deiter’s recommended transactions in the first customer’s account generated $19,792 in commissions and caused $25,291 in realized losses. The trading in the elderly customer’s account generated $28,264 in commissions and caused $33,363 in realized losses.

Based on the foregoing, Deiter willfully violated Exchange Act Rule 15/-l(a)(l) and violated FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010. Respondent consented to the imposition of the following sanctions:

• a six-month suspension from associating with any FINRA member in all capacities.

For a copy of the FINRA Disciplinary Action Details, click here.

In addition, Justin Deiter has been the subject of five other FINRA Disclosures:

• February 2022—“ Time Frame: April 2013 through March 2018; Claimant alleges: Unsuitable investment recommendations, breach of fiduciary duty.” The customer dispute settled for $30,846.51.
• October 2021—“ Time Frame: Unspecified. Allegations: Unsuitability, Breach of Contract, Breach of Fiduciary Duty.” The customer dispute settled for $37,747.89.
• January 2020—“ Claimant alleged that the investment strategy implemented by the registered rep was unsuitable and that the transaction costs were high. Claimant further alleged without any specificity that certain transactions were executed without claimants prior express consent.” The customer dispute settled for $14,000.00.
• May 2018—“Time Frame: Unspecified. Claimants allege unsuitable investment recommendations.” The customer dispute settled for $365,000.00.
• March 2017—“ February 28,2014 – July 16, 2014. Client Alleges unauthorized trading & unsuitable investment recommendations.” The damage amount requested was $65,617.00 and the customer dispute was closed-no action.

For a copy of Justin Deiter’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.

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.

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.