The alleged stock broker fraud case involving Martin Wegener offers insight into what investors can do to avoid becoming victims of investment scams. On June 14, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Wegener and his companies – Wealth Resources, Inc. and Wealth Resources, LLC – with defrauding investors out of at least $6.5 million.

According to the SEC, Wegener was not a registered broker or investment adviser yet told his clients he would invest their money through Wealth Resources. He would then provide investors with purported “brokerage account” statements from Wealth Resources – statements that falsely represented a variety of investments courtesy of Wegener’s “financial acumen.”

Wegener never used his customers’ money for those investments, however. Instead, the SEC says he took clients’ money for his personal use, paid business expenses and made investments on his own behalf in entities where he had an ownership interest. Those companies included WU Ventures, LLC, Secura Technology, LLC, and Trailblazer Learning, Inc., as well as Wealth Resources. Investors’ funds also were transferred to Wegener’s former wife, Kristin Wegener.

The SEC further says that during the course of the alleged scam, Wegener used money from investors to make Ponzi-like payments to clients who wanted a portion or all of their investment returned.

The Wegener case offers several lessons for investors. First, before investing money with any financial professional, take time to verify that the person is a registered stock broker or financial advisor. Is the individual a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)? Does the person have any customer complaints, disciplinary actions, fines, suspensions or other sanctions by FINRA, the SEC or other federal or state regulatory agencies listed on FINRA’s BrokerCheck Web site?

In addition, be leery of sales pitches that make exaggerated claims about the expected profitability of an investment, such as it will double in value in six months. The bottom line, if it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

At least 12 broker/dealers that sold private placements issued by Provident Royalties LLC are now either out of business or no longer sanctioned by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). As reported June 30 by Investment News, the 12 firms in question sold $56.7 million of Provident offerings.

In July 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a lawsuit against Provident Royalties, charging the company and its founders with fraud. From 2006 to 2009, Provident sold $485 million of private placements through a number of broker/dealers throughout the country.

Those same broker/dealers are now facing a slew of arbitration claims and lawsuits from investors who lost millions of dollars on the Provident deals, as well as on other private-placement offerings, including those from Medical Capital Holdings.

Last month, the trustee in the Provident case, Milo H. Segner Jr., filed a complaint against 49 broker/dealers, alleging they “failed miserably in upholding their fiduciary obligations” when selling a series of Provident Royalties private placements. In total, the lawsuit lists 61 firms that sold investment offerings in Provident.

Investment News provided a list of broker/dealers with problems connected to sales of Provident private placements. Among the broker/dealers on the list:

• AFA Financial Group LLC – AFA sold $2.5 million of Provident private placements; in April, the broker/dealer said it was closing its business due to overwhelming legal and insurance costs.

• Barron Moore Inc. – The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) expelled Barron Moore in June 2008 over penny stock sales. The company sold $205,000 in Provident private placements.

• Community Bankers Securities LLC – Community Bankers ceased its affiliation with FINRA in December 2009. It sold $2.8 million in Provident private placements.

• Empire Financial Group Inc. – FINRA expelled Empire in March 2009 for failing to pay unknown fines and/or costs. Empire sold $2.8 million in Provident placements.

• Empire Securities Corp. – FINRA suspended Empire Securities in May 2010 for failing to pay arbitration fees. Empire Securities sold $205,000 in Provident private placements.

• ePlanning Securities Inc. – The company withdrew from FINRA in February 2009. It sold $3.8 million in Provident placements.

• GunnAllen Financial Inc. – GunnAllen was shut down in March 2010 when it failed to meet FINRA’s net-capital requirements. It sold $22.3 million in Provident private placements.

• Jesup & Lamont Securities Corp. – The broker/dealer closed its doors in June 2010 after failing to meet FINRA’s net-capital requirements. It sold $100,000 in Provident private placements.

• Main Street Securities LLC – The firm withdrew its registration from FINRA in November 2009. It sold $205,000 in Provident private placements to investors.

• Okoboji Financial Services – In May 2010, Okoboji filed forms with both FINRA and the SEC to withdraw its registration as a broker/dealer. Okoboji sold $21.9 million in Provident private placements.

• Private Asset Group Inc. – FINRA suspended Private Asset Group in May 2010 for failing to pay arbitration fees of $2 million.

• Provident Asset Management – On March 18, FINRA expelled Dallas-based Provident Asset Management for marketing a series of fraudulent private placements offered by its affiliate, Provident Royalties, in a massive Ponzi scheme. Provident Asset sold $50,000 in Provident private placements.

Forty-nine broker/dealers have been named in a lawsuit involving sales of Provident Royalties private placements. The lawsuit, which was filed June 21 by the trustee now overseeing Provident – Milo H. Segner Jr. – charges the broker/dealers of failing to uphold their fiduciary obligations when selling a series of Provident Royalties LLC private placements.

The lawsuit hopes to recover $285 million in claims and commissions from the firms named in the lawsuit. As reported June 29 by Investment News, the leading sellers of the private placements in Provident Royalties were Capital Financial Services, with $33.7 million in sales; Next Financial Group, with $33.5 million; and QA3 Financial Corp., with $32.6 million.

Investment News provides a complete list of the broker/dealers named in the lawsuit, as well as the commissions they collected.

“The commissions, fees and payments received from Provident Royalties encouraged and played a substantial role in the negligent and/or grossly negligent conduct of the broker-dealers,” according to the lawsuit.

In July 2009, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a fraud lawsuit against Provident Royalties and several high-ranking executives for running an alleged $485 million Ponzi scheme tied to fake oil-and-gas investments. From June 2006 to January 2009, many independent broker/dealers sold private placements in Provident to some 7,700 investors.

A June 11 blog by the Wall Street Journal illustrates a growing trend on Wall Street – the sophisticated investor defense. The premise is simple: If the complex financial products that Wall Street markets and sells go south, it’s the investor’s problem. After all, the products are geared to those who are financially savvy. They should have therefore known the risks involved.

In reality, even the most sophisticated investor may be unaware of the complexities and risks surrounding some of today’s investments. Moreover, even the “average” investor gets burned in these deals, usually through pension funds that participate in the investments.

A recent case involving Merrill Lynch and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) is a perfect example. Merrill Lynch’s CDO deals were sold to institutional and retail investors. In other words, so-called sophisticated and less-than-sophisticated investors were part of the sales pitch. It also apparently was common fare for Merrill Lynch to sell retail investors the lowest-rated CDO slices of the deals.

Investors like the Slomacks ultimately paid the price, according to the WSJ article. The Slomacks invested $2.65 million in several Merrill-issued CDOs, losing all but $16,500. They have since filed an arbitration claim against Merrill Lynch with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

Another investment firm looking to employ the “sophisticated investor” defense over CDO deals gone bad is Goldman Sachs. For more than a year, Goldman has faced intense questioning by the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations about its CDO dealings, while investors contend Goldman used deceptive sales practices to market billions of dollars’ worth of the products. To date, the probes have cost Goldman $25 billion in market capitalization, according to a June 14 article by Reuters.

In April, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil fraud lawsuit against Goldman Sachs over a CDO called Abacus 2007. The Abacus transactions were synthetic collateralized debt obligations – financial products that many financial analysts say were largely responsible for the worst collapse in financial markets since the Great Depression.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has issued a Regulatory Notice on a proposed rule to improve oversight of broker/dealers’ back-office operations. Specifically, the new rule would expand registration requirements to individuals who engage or supervise activities related to sales, trading support and/or handling of customer assets.

Previously, FINRA’s registration requirements only applied to brokers, investment bankers, traders or other financial professionals who gave advice to customers and handled securities transactions. Individuals who could be required to register under the new proposed rule include those who develop and approve valuation models; manage trade confirmations, account statements, trade settlement and margin; or oversee stock loan/securities lending, prime brokerage, receipt and delivery of securities, and/or financial regulatory reporting.

According to a statement from FINRA, the proposal is designed to provide “reasonable assurance” that these individuals understand their professional responsibilities, including key regulatory and control themes, as well as the importance of identifying and escalating red flags that may harm a firm, its customers, or the integrity of the marketplace or the public.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) must approve the rule change before it becomes effective.

Investment firm Piper Jaffray & Co. has been fined $700,000 by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) for email retention violations, related disclosure issues and supervisory and reporting violations.

According to a statement issued by FINRA, Piper Jaffray failed to retain approximately 4.3 million emails from November 2002 through December 2008. The company also failed to inform FINRA of its email retention and retrieval issues.

This isn’t the first time Piper Jaffray has been cited for email retention deficiencies. Information on FINRA’s Web site reports that the company was sanctioned in November 2002 in a joint action by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the New York Stock Exchange Regulation and NASD following investigations tied to conflicts of interest between Piper’s investment banking and research departments. As part of that settlement, Piper Jaffray was required to review its systems and certify that it had established systems and procedures designed to preserve electronic mail communications.

In settling the latest matter with FINRA, Piper Jaffray neither admitted nor denied the findings.

Read FINRA’s action against Piper Jaffray here.

Investments deals involving CDOs have come back to haunt Morgan Stanley. Federal prosecutors apparently are investigating whether the investment bank intentionally misled investors about various synthetic collateralized debt obligations that it helped design and sometimes bet against. The story was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on May 11.

According to the story, Morgan Stanley marketed and sold the CDOs in question to investors and then subsequently placed bets that their value would fall. Among other things, investigators want to know whether the bank disclosed certain facts to investors, as well as its role in the deals themselves.

In April, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged another investment firm – Goldman Sachs – with fraud in connection to sales of synthetic CDOs.

According to the SEC’s complaint, Goldman Sachs failed to tell investors certain details regarding the financial products, including the fact that a major hedge fund not only selected the securities held by the CDO but also bet against them to fail.

Meanwhile, the probe into Morgan Stanley’s CDO is at a preliminary stage.

The Senate investigation into Goldman Sachs unveils undeniable evidence about the risks of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and how Wall Street’s repackaging of the products produced not only billions of dollars in losses for investors, but also fueled a financial tsunami across the globe.

A May 2 story in the Wall Street Journal details the multiplier effect of what happened when Wall Street banks replicated certain toxic bonds into numerous securities, or CDOs. The article highlights one $38 million mortgage-related bond that was created in June 2006 and ended up in more than 30 debt pools. According to the article, that one bond ultimately caused “$280 million in losses to investors by the time the bond’s principal was wiped out in 2008.”

Goldman Sachs has spent the past week responding to questions and accusations from the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on whether the firm and several employees helped inflate the housing bubble and then profited when the market collapsed.

On April 16, Goldman Sachs was named in civil fraud lawsuit by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC accused Goldman of creating and selling a mortgage investment that was secretly intended to fail. The SEC’s lawsuit also names Goldman Vice President Fabrice Tourre, who helped create and sell the investment at the center of the SEC’s fraud allegations.

Investor complaints regarding private placements – including those linked to Medical Capital Holdings – have prompted several state and federal investigations into the private placement sales practices of broker/dealers across the country. In many instances, the investigations have revealed a significant lack of regulatory compliance.

In response, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has published new guidance for FINRA-registered firms about their obligations when it comes to customer suitability, disclosures and other requirements for selling private placements to customers. Specifically, FINRA Regulatory Notice 10-22 reinforces and details a broker/dealer’s obligation to conduct a reasonable investigation of an issuer and the securities that are recommended in its offerings.

The Notice also highlights private placement red flags and supervisory requirements, and suggests practices to help ensure that firms adequately investigate the private placements that they recommend.

Private placements under Regulation D are usually sold to “accredited” investors and a limited number of non-accredited investors. While accredited investors must meet certain income or asset tests, the Notice emphasizes that a broker/dealer’s suitability obligations require it to conduct a reasonable investigation whenever it makes a recommendation in a private placement under Regulation D.

“An increase in investor complaints regarding private placements, as well as SEC actions halting sales of certain private placement offerings, led FINRA to launch a nationwide initiative that involves active examinations and investigations of broker-dealers engaged in retail sales of private placement interests,” said FINRA Chairman and CEO Rick Ketchum, in a statement.

“That initiative has uncovered misconduct, including fraud and sales practice abuses. While several enforcement actions have been taken and additional investigations are underway, FINRA is taking this opportunity to remind firms of their substantial duties when engaging in the sale of private placement offerings,” he said.

FINRA has brought three enforcement actions in recent months involving private placement offering violations. The actions include a complaint charging McGinn, Smith & Co. and its president with securities fraud in the sales of tens of millions of dollars in unregistered securities; the expulsion of Dallas-based Provident Asset Management for marketing a series of fraudulent private placement offered by an affiliate in a massive Ponzi scheme; and fines totaling $750,000 against Pacific Cornerstone Capital and its former CEO for failing to include complete information in private placement offering documents and marketing material, as well as for advertising violations and supervisory failures.

As predicted, Goldman Sachs announced hefty first-quarter profits of $3.5 billion. The news, which comes amid fraud charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that Goldman knowingly duped investors, may be good for the bank but could lend further credence to the notion of Wall Street making profits at the expense of investors.

“Their reputation is at stake. Ironically, if there was a day that Goldman Sachs wishes that their results were not so good, it’d probably be today,” said Suzy Welch, business and economic issues contributor for ABC News, during an April 20 appearance on Good Morning America. “What makes people mad in the first place is the fact that Goldman makes so much money and perhaps profited off of other people’s suffering, and here they are making more money. Could it get more outrageous?”

On the April 20 earnings call, Goldman Sachs said it was “surprised” by the charges filed by the SEC on April 16. The focus of the SEC’s claims center on a risky mortgage product called Abacus that Goldman Sachs sold to investors but allegedly did not disclose details about another client, Paulson & Company, that helped selected the underlying securities in Abacus and then bet against it to fail.

The SEC claims that Paulson & Company made $1 billion from the deal, while investors lost billions. Goldman Sachs received $15 million as the “middleman” of the transaction.

Also named in the SEC’s lawsuit is Goldman Sachs Vice President Fabrice Tourre. Tourre is alleged to have created and sold the product in question while knowing its risks but keeping them to himself. In a 2007 e-mail, Tourre writes the following:

“More and more leverage in the system, the whole building is about to collapse anytime now. “Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab … standing the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implications of those monstrosities!!!”

In addition to the SEC’s charges, the UK’s regulatory agency also plans to begin a formal enforcement investigation into another alleged fraud scheme by the Goldman Sachs that may have cost the Royal Bank of Scotland millions of dollars.