Securities: US SEC charges Pinnacle with money laundering control failures

Pinnacle, says the SEC, is a "broker dealer based in Raleigh, North Carolina, with more than 99 per cent of its customers residing outside the United States." The bulk of its business, it is said, is to provide direct access. The SEC says it did not do due diligence properly, and failed to follow the systems it had, itself, put in place.

The Pinnacle case, as reported by the SEC, is that Pinnacle did have in place a due diligence system that was broadly appropriate. However, for a period of six years under review, the company did not follow the system.

"The SEC found that Pinnacle established, documented and maintained a customer identification program (CIP) that specified it would identify and verify the identities of all of its customers. However, during a six-year period, Pinnacle failed to follow the identification and verification procedures set forth in its CIP."

Much of Pinnacle's business came from individuals who held accounts with foreign institutions.

"According to the SEC's order against Pinnacle, many of the firm's foreign entity customers hold omnibus accounts at Pinnacle through which the entities carry sub-accounts for their own corporate or retail customers. Pinnacle treats the sub-account holders of the foreign entity omnibus accounts in the same manner as it does its regular account holders. The vast majority of Pinnacle's regular account holders, as well as the omnibus sub-account holders, use DMA software to enter securities trades directly and instantly through their own computers. As a result, these account holders have direct, unfiltered control over how securities transactions are effected in the accounts. The foreign entity holding the omnibus account does not intermediate these trades. The DMA software allows the omnibus sub-account holders to route their securities transactions directly to the relevant market centers without intermediation."

The order specifically finds that from October 2003 to August 2006, Pinnacle did not verify the identities of 34 out of a sample of 55 corporate account holders. The Commission also finds that from October 2003 through November 2009, Pinnacle did not collect or verify identifying information for the vast majority of the beneficial owners of sub-accounts maintained by Pinnacle's omnibus brokerage accounts. Consequently, the order finds that Pinnacle's documented procedures differed materially from its actual procedures.

Pinnacle agreed to settle the SEC's enforcement action without admitting or denying the allegations, and Pinnacle will pay USD25,000 in financial penalties.

As part of an action taken by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) in February 2010, Pinnacle also has agreed to certain undertakings, including extensive AML training for its employees, as well as the hiring of an independent consultant to review its AML compliance program.

Bookmark and Share
eZ Publish™ copyright © 1999-2012 eZ systems as