Financial Advisor Victor Sibilla Has 8 Disclosed Customer Complaints

• October 10, 2025
• WestPark Capital

Victor Carmine Sibilla (CRD#: 1783361) is a registered broker with Westpark Capital, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 1988 and previously worked with The Stuart-James Company, Incorporated; RAF Financial Corporation; VTR Capital, Inc., (FINRA Expelled this firm in 2001); Joseph Charles & Assoc., Inc.; Sterling Financial Investment Group, Inc., (FINRA expelled this firm in 2008); Newbridge Securities; Scottsdale Capital Advisors; and Source Capital Group, Inc.

Current and Past Allegations of Conduct Leading to Investment Loss

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in July 2025, Victor Sibilla became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “professional negligence, failure to comply with Best Interest & Suitability, failure to supervise, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, Arizona Securities Fraud, Arizona Control Person Liability, respondeat superior and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as it relates to the handling of his account.” The damage amount requested is $100,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Victor Sibilla has been the subject of 9 other FINRA Disclosures which include:

• November 2022—“ Claimants opened a joint account at WestPark in December 2017 with the sole purpose of investing in CLS Holdings and potentially other private placements. They now claim the investment was unsuitable, negligent and negligent supervision.” The damage amount requested was $100,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $25,000.00.
• May 2017—“ Client alleges that the broker transacted business in a state which he was not licensed in.” The damage amount requested was $108,400.00 and the customer dispute settled for $127,000.00
• June 2013—“ CLIENT ALLEGES THAT REP STEVE PHELPS AND VICTOR SIBILLA MISREPRESENTED ABOUT PENDING CONTRACTS THAT WOULD CAUSE STUDIO ONE MEDIA TO REACH THE $5.00 – $6.00 RANGE. ALSO CLAIMS BROKER MISREPRESENTED THAT HIS STOCK WOULD DOUBLE.” The damage amount requested was $175,000.00 and the customer dispute was closed-no action.
• September 2012—“ CLIENT ALLEGED OFFERING UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS, EXCESSIVE TRADING AND MISUSE OF MARGIN.” The damage amount requested was $300,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $30,000.00.
• April 2012—Civil Judgment/Lien $8,545.11.
• February 2004—“ CLIENT ALLEGES CHURNING, UNSUITABLE INVESTMENTS.” The damage amount requested was $437,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $55,000.00.
• November 1998— “ FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, UNAUTHORIZED TRADING, UNSUITABLE SECURITIES RECOMMENDATIONS, EXCESSIVE TRADING, FAILURE TO EXECUTE ORDERS, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES OF THE NASD.” The damage amount requested was $515,000.00 and the customer dispute settled for $180,000.00.
• September 1998—“ SUITABILITY, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY AND MISREPRESENTATION. DAMAGES CLAIMED WERE $237,000 PLUS FEES & COSTS.” The damage amount requested $230,000.00 and the damages awarded were $210,000.00.
• April 1998—NASD sanctions in the form of monetary fine in the amount of $12,500.00, disgorgement/restitution, censure, and suspension.

For a copy of Victor Sibilla’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.

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.

Excessive trading often occurs when a Financial Advisor puts his or her interests ahead of the clients and makes transactions solely for the purpose of generating commissions. Financial Advisors have a regulatory duty to recommend suitable investment strategies. One of the components of the suitability analysis is quantitative suitability.

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. 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.

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.