The Principal Considerations in Determining Sanctions also support the
conclusion that a bar is the appropriate sanction in this case.8
Principal Consideration No. 2 is whether the respondent accepted responsibility
for and acknowledged the misconduct to his employer or a regulator prior to detection
and intervention by the firm or a regulator. Respondent did not. To the contrary,
notwithstanding the opportunity to withdraw the false receipts when questioned by his
office manager, Respondent failed to do so.
Principal Consideration No. 4 is whether the respondent voluntarily and
reasonably attempted, prior to detection and intervention, to pay restitution or otherwise
remedy the misconduct. Respondent did not. Respondent did offer to repay Penn
Mutual, but not until after Penn Mutual had discovered his misconduct and confronted
him with it. (Tr. p. 186).
Principal Consideration No. 13 is whether the respondent’s misconduct was the
result of an intentional act, recklessness, or negligence. Respondent’s misconduct was
admittedly intentional. Respondent intended Penn Mutual to believe, falsely, that he had
traveled to Memphis and incurred expenses. Respondent intended Penn Mutual to
believe, falsely, that the cell phone for which he requested reimbursement was purchased
for his use.
Finally, Principal Consideration No. 17 is whether the respondent’s misconduct
resulted in the potential for his monetary or other gain. Respondent’s misconduct
resulted in his actual gain of $1,144.63.
Id. at 6-7.