Former Ameriprise Financial Services Advisor Murray Petersen Barred by FINRA After Allegations of Selling Away Leading to Investment Loss
Murray Petersen (CRD#: 1311730), also known as Todd Petersen, is a previously registered Broker and previously registered Investment Advisor.
He entered the securities industry in 1984 and previously worked for Ameriprise Financial Services, LLC; SCF Securities, Inc.; WFG Investments, Inc.; Commonwealth Financial Network; and Financial Network Investment Corporation.
Current And Past Allegations Of Conduct Leading To Investment Loss
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in November 2021, FINRA sanctioned Murray Petersen, barring him from all capacities indefinitely beginning November 22, 2021. The FINRA sanction states, “Without admitting or denying the findings, Petersen consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he engaged in an unapproved outside business activity (OBA) by selling jewelry for investment purposes and receiving commissions for the sales. The findings stated that Petersen’s member firm initially approved the OBA but later withdrew its approval. Petersen, however, continued to participate in the OBA and received approximately $115,900 in jewelry sales commissions during this period. The findings also stated that Petersen participated in two undisclosed private securities transactions while associated with a different member firm. Petersen introduced two customers to an investment offered by the jewelry company and helped facilitate their investments. Each investor signed a contract for the investments that stated that the investment would be used to fund the manufacture of diamond jewelry for sale to retail stores in China and other Asian markets. The contract stated that the jewelry company would handle all jewelry sales to these markets and would make periodic payments to investors for one year, however the customers only received a portion of the total payments. Thereafter, the customers did not receive any additional payments from the company. In addition, the contract entitled the investors to a percentage of the profits obtained by the jewelry company from the jewelry sales, but the customers did not receive any distribution of profits. The company also never returned any of the principal amount of the customers’ investments. Petersen did not provide written notice to the firm and did not obtain written permission from the firm for his participation in these private securities transactions. Although these transactions were outside the scope of Petersen’s employment with the firm, he inaccurately stated in annual compliance questionnaires that he had not engaged in any private securities transactions.”
For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.
In addition, Murray Petersen has been the subject of more than 10 customer complaints, including one that remains pending, including the following:
- November 2020–”Claimant alleges fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold him via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $77,500.
- June 2020–”Claimants allege fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold them via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $351,205.
- June 2020–”Claimant alleges fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold them via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $9,800.
- March 2020–”Claimant alleges fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold him via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $45,000.
- March 2020–”Claimant alleges fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold him via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $46,305.
- March 2020–”Please see complainant statement of claim filed as part of Arbitration Number 20-00553. Complainant was never a customer of SCF Securities, Inc.” The customer dispute was settled for $49,000.
- March 2020–”Claimant alleges fraud and breach of duty related to the purchase of diamonds Petersen sold him via an outside business activity.” The customer dispute was settled for $52,920.
- February 2020–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $74,476.50 was levied against Murray Petersen.
- February 2020–”Not available at this time, to be provided when allegation information is provided.” A customer dispute is pending against Murray Petersen.
- October 2019–”Advisor misstated and/or omitted material facts and circumstances regarding an outside business activity.” Murray Petersen was discharged by SCF Securities, Inc. after allegations.
- January 2017–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $67,550.92 was levied against Murray Petersen.
- January 2015–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $42,279.39 was levied against Murray Petersen.
- June 2014–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $9,219.03 was levied against Murray Petersen.
- July 2013–A tax judgment/lien in the amount of $164,863.83 was levied against Murray Petersen.
- April 2010–”CUSTOMER ALLEGES FAILURE TO DISCLOSE ADVISORY FEES DESPITE EXECUTING WRITTEN AGREEMENT FOR SAME.” Damages of $12,000 were requested. The customer dispute was denied.
- March 2002–”CLIENT ALLEGES PETERSEN FAILED TO DISCLOSE 10% PENALTY FOR A VARIABLE ANNUITY PURCHASED ON 09/23/1992.” Damages of $6,000 were requested. The customer dispute was closed with no action.
- December 2000–”CLIENT ALLEGED THE NON-COMMISSION INTERCOMPANY EXCHANGE WAS UNAUTHORIZED 1-25-00 MET WITH [CUSTOMERS] TO REVIEW ACCOUNTS. EXPRESSED DESIRE TO CONSOLIDATE IRA S. ALSO DISCUSSED ASSET ALLOCATION OF NON-QUALIFIED ACCOUNT AND POTENTIAL TAX CONSEQUENCES. 2/28/00 SENT ILLUSTRATION OF PROPOSED PORTFOLIO AND PROSPECTUS-NO RESPONSE FROM CLIENT. 5-15-00 PHONE CONVERSATION AUTHORIZING RE-ALLOCATION.” The customer dispute was denied.
For a copy of Murray Petersen’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses
Alternative investments are not regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and are often subject to fraud and other schemes. Examples include commodities, hedge funds, real estate, derivatives contracts, private equity, managed futures, and venture capital. They are not typically regulated by the SEC, nor are they usually liquid or easy to value, which makes them risky investments. In addition, alternative investments are often open only to accredited investors with an income of $200,000 or more or a net worth in excess of $1M; they also require high up-front minimums. When these opportunities are opened to non-accredited investors, it may be because of unsuitability, fraud, selling away or misrepresentation, and the investor may incur 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.
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 email@example.com.