Former Financial Advisor Julie Anne Darrah Subject of a Customer Dispute

• July 29, 2025
• Mutual Securities

Julie Anne Darrah (CRD#: 2102014) was a previously registered broker and investment advisor.

Broker’s Background

She entered the securities industry in 2001, and has previously worked for Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services, LLC; Vivid Financial Management, Inc.; Mutual Securities, Inc.; and National Planning Corporation.

Allegations of Misconduct

According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in July 2025, Julie Darrah became the subject of a customer dispute alleging, “that more than $150,000 of Claimant’s investment funds were unconscionably lost.” The damage amount requested is $150,000.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.

In addition, Julie Anne Darrah has been the subject of four other disclosures:

• March 2025—“ Client alleges that the representative sold virtually all of the securities in held in client’s brokerage/investment advisory accounts and misappropriated $749,200 from the client.” The damage amount requested is $749,200.00 and the customer dispute is still pending.
• December 2023—“ Client alleges that during the period between June 28, 2013, and January 4, 2022, the representative sold nearly all of the securities held in client’s accounts and transferred the proceeds from the sale of the securities to client’s bank accounts, which she controlled. The RR later stole $702,647.97 from the client’s bank accounts.” The damage amount requested was $702,647.97 and the customer dispute settled for $275,000.00.
• October 2023—“ On October 20, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Western Division issued this Complaint as to Defendant Julie Anne Darrah and others. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) alleges: The Court has jurisdiction over this action. Defendants have, directly or indirectly, made use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange in connection with the transactions, acts, practices and courses of business alleged in this complaint. This emergency action concerns Darrah’s scheme to misappropriate millions of dollars from the bank and brokerage accounts of her clients and spend those funds on herself and on relief defendant PC&J Joint Ventures, LLC, an ailing restaurant company that Darrah co-owns. In doing so, Darrah abused her position as an investment adviser to the clients that she stole from, and violated the fiduciary duties she owed those advisory clients. Darrah’s misconduct is ongoing because she still retains control of certain client assets and has been actively selling and dissipating the ill-gotten proceeds of her misappropriation. The scheme began in at least November 2016, if not earlier, while Darrah was still working for Vivid Financial Management, Inc, which was at the time an SEC-registered investment adviser partially owned by Darrah and where she served as its president and chief compliance officer. Darrah primarily targeted elderly female advisory clients for the scheme, many of whom had come to rely on Darrah for their financial well-being (“the defrauded clients”). Indeed, in addition to giving Darrah discretionary authority over their brokerage accounts, many of the defrauded clients appointed Darrah to serve as a trustee over the trusts they had established for themselves, while others gave Darrah power of attorney to handle their financial affairs. Instead of honoring the fiduciary duty that she owed as an investment adviser to act in the best interest of the defrauded clients, Darrah began stealing from them by funneling money out of the defrauded clients’ brokerage and bank accounts and taking those funds for herself and relief defendant PC&J. In total, between November 2016 and July 2023, Darah misappropriated approximately $2.25 million in funds from the accounts of nine defrauded clients who hired VFM and Darrah as their investment adviser. In addition, the Forms ADV and Client Brochures that Darrah submitted to the SEC on behalf of VFM during the scheme contained false and misleading statements regarding VFM’s custody of its clients’ assets. By engaging in this conduct, Darrah violated Section 17(a)(1) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder, and Sections 207 and 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act aided and abetted VFM’s violation of Section 206(4) of the Advisers Act and Rules 206(4)-2 and 206(4)-7 thereunder.” Julie Darrah was sanctioned with civil, administrative, and monetary fines as well as an injunction and undertakings.
• September 2023—“ The reported individual was terminated during an internal review for fraud, wrongful/unauthorized taking of client property, and for violations of investment-related securities law (including those related to custody of client assets), firm policies and expected industry and professional standards, including failure to cooperate with the firm’s internal review.” Julie Anne Darrah was discharged from Wealth Enhancement Advisory Services.

For a copy of Julie Anne Darrah’s FINRA BrokerCheck, 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.

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.