FINRA

Respondent Vogel failed to respond to FINRA request for information.

Letter

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

Indefinite

11/25/2016

Pursuant to FINRA Rule 9552(h) and in accordance with FINRA's Notice of Suspension and Suspension from Association letters dated August 22, 2016 and September 15, 2016, respectively, on November 25, 2016, Vogel is barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity. Respondent failed to request termination of his suspension within three months of the date of the Notice of Suspension; therefore, he is automatically barred from association with any FINRA member in any capacity.

IFS Securities, Inc

Discharged

FINRA has determined that Mr. Vogel is subject to a disqualification as defined in Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The disqualification arises from the Final Determination and Order issued by the State of New York Insurance Department dated November 4, 2010, Docket No. 2009-0039-C, which revoked all licenses issued by the Insurance Department to Mr. Vogel

$844,082.00

Tax

Currently being settled by an Order In compromise

$9,213.11

Civil

$24,878.00

Tax

Being settled by an Order in Compromise

$59,580.00

Tax

Being settled by an Order in Compromise

New York State Insurance Department

The Dept. Alleges rep violated cross-border selling regulations by having client sign papers outside of state.

Order

Revocation

On November 24, 2010 my New York State Insurance License was revoked by the department after conducting an investigation into alleged cross-border selling. It was alleged that I had sold non-New York contracts to NY residents. I was in fact properly licensed in both New York and Florida at the time these contracts were placed. These contracts were far superior to New York contracts. The fact is the great majority of insurance companies in America elect NOT to do business in New York State as a result of the difficulties in offering competitive products for the consumer. It was alleged by the department that out of 82 contracts sold, 10 were signed in New York not Florida as stated on the application. There were NO customer complaints alleged and no one thou offered the opportunity surrendered their contract. There was not a single penny lost from the sale of these contracts. In fact the placement of these contracts preserved these clients life savings during the most significant financial crisis in modern times. The entire investigation was a result of the departments anger over not receiving premium tax on Non-New York contracts that offered superior benefits. The department also alleged that I violated regulation 60 rules for the replacement of New York contracts. This is absolutely false. These were Florida policies. Florida has no Reg 60 requirements. The state alleged that I failed to disclose a administrative action taken against me by the Alabama Insurance Department. The action was simply that I failed to change my address in 10 days as is required. I paid a $50.00 fine for the oversight. The state alleged that I was delinquent on my New York State income tax in 2008. This was in effect true at the time but I had entered into a repayment agreement with New York State which I honored. The State of Florida insurance department investigated the exact same matter and issued a letter on 9/23/2008 stating that as a result of mitigating factors the case was closed without action. The State of New York spent 2 years and countless thousands of dollars investigating a matter in which there were no customer complaints, clients were given the opportunity to purchase superior products with substantially better benefits and were fortunate enough to work with an advisor that preserved their life savings during the most significant financial crisis in modern times. The departments witch hunt against me was result of an on-going feud between the department and the insurance company where I placed the business, the state's anger over the loss of premium tax and my refusal to be intimidated by the states's actions.

$12,000.00

Civil

BUSINESS PARTNER VANISHED WITH RENT OUTSTANDING. UNPAID RENT WITH PENDING DISPOSITION 10/1/2012.

CLIENT'S DAUGHTER FEELS A PORTFOLIO WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND EXCESSIVE TRADING OCCURED IN PORTFOLIO. ALSO INSURANCE INVESTMENTS WERE INAPPROPRIATE.

CUSTOMER DID NOT SPECIFY EXACT AMOUNT OF ALLEGED DAMAGES, HOWEVER, A GOOD FAITH DETERMINATION ASSUMES ALLEGED DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF $5000.