Former Trustmont Financial Group Investment Advisor Ryan Tarjanyi Indefinitely Barred After Allegations of Forgery and Falsification of Information
Ryan Tarjanyi (CRD#: 6065805) is an Investment Advisor who worked at Trustmont Financial Group, Inc., in Greensburg, PA. He entered the securities industry in 2012 and previously worked for Proequities, Inc.
According to publicly available records released by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), in March 2021, FINRA sanctioned Ryan Tarjanyi, indefinitely barring him from all capacities, effective March 3, 2021. The FINRA sanction states, “Without admitting or denying the findings, Tarjanyi consented to the sanction and to the entry of findings that he provided inaccurate information regarding a customer’s execution of an annuity partial withdrawal form during on-the-record testimony taken by FINRA after it opened an examination of his sales practices. The findings stated that at that time, Tarjanyi’s member firm had reported that customers complained about him, alleging, among other things, forgery and falsification of information on an insurance application and annuity withdrawal forms.”
For a copy of the FINRA sanction, click here.
In addition, Ryan Tarjanyi has been the subject of six customer complaints, including the following:
● September 2020 “On July 12, 2018 BLC received a written complaint alleging that the client did not sign up for a Limited Convalescent Care Policy with BLC in July 2017 and ask to have the policy cancelled. BLC did not categorize this as a complaint and canceled the policy pursuant to the policyholder’s request. A document was requested in the course of a FINRA Cause Exam relating to the financial representative who sold the BLC policy to the client. As part to BLC’s investigation of the complaint, it was discovered the check used to fund the Limited Convalescent Care Policy was endorsed by a different client and a separate check related to another client was also inaccurately endorsed. The Special Investigative Unit (SIU) of BLC did a independent review of possible forgery and determined that the signatures appearing on the checks were not consistent with the client’s signatures on file. SIU reported this as possible fraud to the Ohio Department of Insurance. BLC determined this matter should be categorized as a customer complaint. The Client’s paid premium plus interest was refunded on May 28, 2020 in the amount of $3056.00. Although the Limited Convalescent Care Policy is not a Security it is reported as possible forgery.” The customer complaint was settled for $3,056.
● February 2019 “Clients stated that they purchased five annuities issued by BLC in October and November of 2017. The client alleged that one of the annuities was to be purchased in a tax-free exchange, resulted in a sizable tax liability. The client further alleged that the remaining four annuities were unsuitable as each had a ten-year surrender schedule and maturity dates inappropriate for their needs and living expenses. The client alleged that the Long-Term policy (LTC) purchased did no offer them benefits that approached its costs. The client requested the termination of all five annuities and the LTC plan without incurrence of surrender fees. The client alleged that the Registered Representative misrepresented the characteristics and advantages of the annuities and that over two-thirds of their liquid net worth were invested in the five annuities.
● Clients stated that they purchased five annuities issued by BLC in October and November of 2017. The client alleged that one of the annuities was to be purchased in a tax-free exchange, resulted in a sizable tax liability. The client further alleged that the remaining four annuities were unsuitable as each had a ten-year surrender schedule and maturity dates inappropriate for their needs and living expenses. The client alleged that the Long-Term policy (LTC) purchased did no offer them benefits that approached its costs. The client requested the termination of all five annuities and the LTC plan without incurrence of surrender fees. The client alleged that the Registered Representative misrepresented the characteristics and advantages of the annuities and that over two-thirds of their liquid net worth were invested in the five annuities.” The customer dispute was settled for $141,275.75.
● January 2019 “The client alleged that the signature used to open an annuity at Banker’s Life was forged on the application. The client alleged that he did not want an annuity and BLC did not have his authority to issue the annuity in his name. The client requested to be compensated in the amount of $20,000.00.” The customer dispute was denied.
● October 2018 “In a written complaint that was dated October 12, 2018, approx. $3,000.00 was stolen from one of her accounts at BLC in order to fund a BLC life Insurance policy. She alleged that she did not authorize the partial withdrawal to fund this policy nor did she authorize an ACH debit from her bank account to fund the policy. She further alleges the policy was fraudulently created and her signature was forged on policy documents.” The customer dispute was settled for $32,500.
● June 2018 “Client alleged that she purchased an annuity from Bankers Life and Casualty (BLC), an Affiliated Insurance Co, June 29, 2016. Client stated that after she submitted an initial payment of $9,900.00, Registered Representative Ryan Tarjani told her the policy would be paid in full. Client stated she later received an annual statement in 2017, Which showed she owed an additional premium on the BLC annuity. Client stated she then called Mr. Tarjanyi and was again told that the BLC policy was paid up and not to worry about it. Source of funds came from the liquidation of securities. Determination was made that the client was disclosed with the terms of the policy including the expected annual premiums. The complaint is closed-DENIED.”
● March 2018 “Not being truthful during internal investigation.” Ryan Tarjanyi was discharged from Bankers Life & Casualty.
● January 2018 “[Redacted] (POA) allege that RR, Ryan Tarjanyi, forged [Redacted] signature on an index annuity surrender document dated June 14, 2017. [Redacted] alleged that she last met with RR 1-2 years ago. [Redacted] is seeking damages of $35000.” The customer complaint was settled for $120,000.
For a copy of Ryan Tarjanyi’s FINRA BrokerCheck, click here.
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.
FINRA has defined the standards in which investment recommendations made by brokerage firms and registered financial advisors are evaluated. The FINRA suitability rule focuses on three fundamental concepts: (1) reasonable basis suitability, (2) quantitative suitability, and (3) customer-specific suitability.
● 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, other investments, financial situation and needs, tax status, and investment objectives. Other considerations include the customer’s time horizon, liquidity needs, risk tolerance, and any other information disclosed by the customer.
Failure by a financial advisor to adhere to these requirements is evidence of negligence or, worse, investment fraud. If you as the investor can establish, at a minimum, negligent misconduct, you may be entitled to recover your 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.