Initiated By
FINRA
Allegations
Pica was named a respondent in a FINRA complaint alleging the he converted and misused $200,000 from an elderly customer. The complaint alleges that the customer gave Pica $200,000 to deposit into the customer's brokerage account at Pica's member firm. Pica directed the customer to write a check for $200,000 to a company wholly owned by Pica. Then, instead of depositing the $200,000 into the customer's brokerage account, as the customer intended, Pica transferred the money to his personal bank account, where he used it to fund the down payment on a home he purchased in his and his wife's name. The complaint also alleges that Pica provided false or misleading information to the customer and to his firm. When the customer asked Pica what had become of his $200,000, Pica told the customer, falsely, that he had put the money back into the customer's brokerage account. When the customer again asked later that same month what had happened to his check, Pica again lied, falsely claiming that he had not cashed the check. Moreover, on numerous occasions, Pica falsely told his supervisor at the firm that he had not taken the customer's money. The complaint further alleges that Pica provided false or misleading information to FINRA during its examination of his firm's branch office. Pica's personal office was locked when FINRA arrived and Pica, the only person with a key to his office, told his firm that he could not come to the branch to grant FINRA access until the following day. However, after FINRA left the firm that evening, Pica surreptitiously returned to the branch and entered his office. The next day, when FINRA returned to the branch, items on Pica's desk had been rearranged and removed. When questioned, Pica lied and told FINRA that he had not entered the firm branch office the day before. In addition, the complaint alleges that Pica provided false or misleading information to FINRA during on-the-record testimony. Pica falsely testified that he had not communicated with anyone from the firm about when FINRA had left the branch office. In truth, Pica asked his supervisor, who arrived at the branch office during FINRA's examination, to call him when FINRA had left for the night. Pica falsely testified that he never told the customer that the $200,000 had been deposited into the customer's firm brokerage account, when, in fact, he made that false claim to the customer. Pica falsely testified that he never told his supervisor that he had returned the customer's money to the customer, when, in fact, he repeatedly made that false claim to his supervisor. Moreover, the complaint alleges that Pica refused to produce documents and information requested by FINRA, including the mortgage application he submitted to the bank in connection with the home he and his wife purchased using the customer's money.
Resolution
Decision
Bar
Bar (Permanent)
Registration Capacities Affected
All capacities
Duration
Indefinite
Start Date
4/6/2020
Sanctions
Restitution
Amount
$200,000.00
Regulator Statement
Default decision rendered March 6, 2020. The sanction was based on findings that Pica converted $200,000 from an elderly customer by depositing the customer's check into his personal bank account, when the customer intended the check to be deposited into his brokerage account at Pica's member firm. The findings also stated that Pica misused and comingled the customer's funds. Pica used the funds to pay the down payment and closing costs for the purchase of a home. The findings also included that Pica provided false and misleading information to the customer about what he had done with the customer's funds. The customer asked Pica what happened to his $200,000 check, and Pica initially responded that he had put the funds back in the customer's IRA account and later that he had not cashed the check. FINRA found that Pica provided similar false and misleading information to the firm. In truth, Pica had deposited the funds into the bank account of a company he controlled, transferred the funds to his personal bank account, and used the funds to purchase the home. FINRA also found that Pica gave false and misleading information to FINRA during an onsite examination of the firm's branch office by falsely representing that he had not entered the branch office or his personal office the previous evening while FINRA was absent. In addition, FINRA determined that Pica provided false and misleading on-the-record testimony on several subjects, including that he had not communicated with anyone from the firm to determine when FINRA left the branch office on the first evening of the onsite examination. Moreover, FINRA found that Pica failed to produce documents and information requested by FINRA including the mortgage application Pica submitted to a mortgage company in connection with a home he and his spouse purchased using the customer's funds.
The decision became final April 6, 2020.
