Former Financial Advisor John Winslow Barred by the SEC for Theft

• March 26, 2025
• Edward Jones

John Scott Winslow (CRD#: 3071933) was a previously registered broker and investment advisor.

Broker’s History

He entered the securities industry in 1998 and previously worked with Morgan Stanley DW Inc.; Key Investment Services LLC; UnionBanc Investment Services, LLC; and Edward Jones.

Allegations of Misconduct

According to publicly available records released by the U.S Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in March 2025, the SEC deemed it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted against John S. Winslow (“Respondent”). In anticipation of the institution of these proceedings, Respondent has submitted an Offer of Settlement which the Commission has determined to accept.

The commission finds that On December 6, 2022, a final judgment was entered by consent against Respondent, ordering him to cease and desist from violating RCW 21.20.010, the anti-fraud section of the Securities Act of Washington, as set forth in the judgment entered in the administrative action entitled In the Matter of Determining Whether There Has Been a Violation of the Securities Act of Washington by John Scott Winslow, Order Number S-21-3243-22-CO02 (the “Washington Order”) by the State of Washington Department of Financial Institutions, Securities Division.

The Washington Order found that from 2013 to 2021, Winslow was a securities salesperson and investment adviser representative for a retired senior citizen (the “Client”). It further found that between 2017 and 2020, the Client transferred more than $550,000 to Winslow’s personal bank account and to one of his personal businesses after Winslow told the Client that he needed money to buy a house and that he would repay the Client more than she made on her Edward Jones investments. The Washington Order found that Winslow did not provide the Client with a written agreement for the alleged loan and that Winslow did not repay the Client. The Washington Order also found that Winslow liquidated annuities that were held by the Client and caused the Client to incur nearly $4,000 in surrender charges, and that a resulting $370,000 was paid out of the Client’s account to purchase gold coins through an online account using Winslow’s email address, $360,000 of which were shipped to Winslow’s post office box. Further, the Washington Order found that in connection with the sale of securities in the Client’s accounts, Winslow made false and misleading statements in the Client’s account records regarding certain of the transactions.

The Washington Order barred Winslow from making an application for or being granted a broker-dealer, securities salesperson, investment adviser, and/or investment adviser representative license, based on its finding that Winslow had violated RCW 21.20.010, the antifraud section of the Securities Act of Washington, by employing a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; making an untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; or engaging in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon another person.

As a result, John Winslow was permanently barred from association with a broker, dealer, investment advisor, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or NRSRO.

In addition John Winslow has been the subject of three other disclosures:

• April 2022—“ Without admitting or denying the findings, Winslow consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he refused to produce information and documents requested by FINRA in connection with its investigation into a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration (Form U5) filed by his member firm disclosing that his employment was terminated because he failed to disclose to the firm that he received funds from a client.” As a result, John Winslow was permanently barred by FINRA. For a copy of the disciplinary action details, click here.
• December 2021—Discharged by Edward Jones, “Registered Representative (“RR”) admitted he failed to disclose to the Firm that he received funds from a client. RR also admitted to receipt of gold coins purportedly purchased on behalf of the client in a PO Box controlled by the RR and not disclosed to the Firm. Client alleged RR has not returned any of the funds that were transferred to RR and refuses to do so. Client alleged no memory or awareness of gold coins purportedly purchased on client’s behalf nor have any gold coins been received.”
• December 2021—“ Claimant alleges registered representative (“RR”) stole funds from Claimant. Specifically, Claimant alleges RR advised Claimant to lend funds to the RR that the RR would repay with interest exceeding what Claimant would receive from Claimant’s investments. Claimant alleges RR has not returned any of the funds that were transferred to RR and refuses to do so. Claimant further alleges RR transferred cash and securities from Edward Jones to another firm. Claimant alleges RR controlled Claimant’s account at the other firm and drew checks from the account for the purchase of commodities that have not been received by the Claimant. Relevant period of alleged conduct approximately October 2017 through approximately April 2021.” The damage amount requested was $893,289.93, and the customer dispute settled for $972,389.00.

For a copy of John Winslow’s SEC Advisor Info, click here.

We Help Investors Recover Investment Losses

FINRA Rule 2150 specifically addresses theft and conversion in a customer account, stating “no member or person associated with a member shall make improper use of a customer’s securities or funds.”  This rule includes any “guarantee” that brokers make to customers in relation to losses incurred in a brokerage account.

In addition, FINRA Rule 3240 strictly prohibits a financial advisor from borrowing money from a client absent from unique circumstances, such as a familial relationship between the Financial Advisor and the client.  There is also an exception if the client is a financial institution regularly engaged in the business of lending.  The reason for this prohibition is clear—borrowing money from clients creates an immediate conflict of interest and can potentially lead to theft or conversion of client assets.

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.

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.