X hits on this document

41 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

9 / 11

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.

8

Id. at 6-7.

9

Document info
Document views41
Page views41
Page last viewedSun Jan 22 17:08:13 UTC 2017
Pages11
Paragraphs230
Words2641

Comments