Peter James Fetherston: FINRA Examines Allegations of Fund Diversion

On May 3, 2022, Peter James Fetherston from Garden City, New York, became a respondent in a FINRA complaint, accused of unlawfully using and diverting customer funds. The complaint asserts that Fetherston persuaded a married couple, his clients, to issue three checks totaling $89,000. Falsely claiming they owed him commissions, he assured them he would invest the funds in their account at his firm.

Contrary to his representations, the clients didn’t owe commissions, and Fetherston never made any investments. Instead, he deposited the checks into his bank account, utilizing the money for personal expenses, including settling significant debts.

Allegations of False Information

The complaint also alleges that Fetherston provided false information, documents, and testimony to FINRA. When questioned about the $89,000, he falsely asserted that the clients gave him the funds to cover medical bills. He submitted a handwritten note supposedly from the clients, stating they provided the money for his medical expenses, which was fabricated. Moreover, Fetherston gave misleading testimony, asserting the clients wrote and signed the note, which they did not.

Furthermore, Fetherston neglected to comply with FINRA’s information requests fully. While he provided a partial response, it was incomplete as he failed to disclose the specific medical expenses covered by the funds acquired from the clients.

Review Process by the National Adjudicatory Council (NAC)

The NAC (National Adjudicatory Council) has the authority to review the Decision within 45 days after it has been served, as per Rule 9312. If a review is requested, a written notice specifying the aspects of the Decision to be examined will be sent to all parties involved. In case of a review, FINRA’s Office of General Counsel will inform every FINRA member firm associated with an individual respondent about the decision being under review.

Allegations as per the documents (Peter James Fetherston)

In the realm of financial scrutiny, Fetherston finds himself entangled in a web of allegations outlined in a FINRA complaint. The complaint unfolds a narrative wherein he stands accused of appropriating and manipulating customer funds to serve his interests. It posits that Fetherston adeptly persuaded a wedded duo to issue three checks amounting to $89,000, cunningly asserting fictitious obligations owed to him as commissions.

A promise to judiciously invest these funds on their behalf. However, the purported investments turned out to be a charade, as Fetherston allegedly redirected the funds into his coffers, channeling them towards personal expenditures and settling outstanding debts.

Expanding the labyrinth of accusations, Fetherston is also implicated in the forgery of a handwritten missive attributed to the disgruntled customers. The fabricated note claims the funds were earmarked for medical expenses. Contrarily, the clients vehemently disavow any connection to the note, denying both its composition and their signatures. Fetherston’s alleged fabrication extends to providing misleading testimony reinforcing the dubious medical expense narrative.

Adding another layer of complexity to the narrative, the complaint contends that Fetherston exhibited reluctance in fully complying with FINRA’s information request. Notably, he omitted the specific delineation of the medical expenses purportedly covered by the funds procured from the unsuspecting customers.

Key Points

• Peter Fetherston, a financial advisor, took $89,000 from two of his clients without their permission.
• When cross-questioned by financial regulators, Fetherston lied about why he took the money. He said it was for medical bills, but this was not true. He even created a fake document to support his lie.
• Fetherston broke several rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). These rules are in place to protect investors and ensure that financial advisors act honestly and ethically.
• When FINRA asked Fetherston for more information about how he spent the money, he refused to answer their questions.
• Fetherston’s actions were a betrayal of trust. As a financial advisor, he had a responsibility to act in the best interests of his clients. Instead, he stole from them and lied to them.

Conclusion

In summation, the instance involving Peter James Fetherston brings to light a disconcerting transgression of reliance and ethical benchmarks within the domain of financial counsel. Fetherston, tasked with the fiscal welfare of his patrons, purportedly abused their trust by illicitly diverting $89,000 for personal utilization, camouflaging it under the veneer of spurious commissions and investments.

The gravity of the accusations is compounded by Fetherston’s alleged concoction of details, comprising a falsified document and deceptive testimony, in a bid to obscure his deeds. This not only underscores a flagrant disregard for veracity and openness but also manifests a flagrant breach of the standards delineated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).

The review process by the National Adjudicatory Council accentuates the seriousness of Fetherston’s deeds, presenting a formal route for examination. Should culpability be established, the ramifications might extend beyond pecuniary penalties, conceivably influencing Fetherston’s stature within the financial sector.

In essence, the purported misconduct by Fetherston functions as a vivid reminder of the necessity to uphold ethical benchmarks in financial advisory. The consequences reach further than mere fiscal detriment, encompassing the corrosion of reliance between patrons and their advisors.