FINRA

DELL'OLIO WAS NAMED A RESPONDENT IN A FINRA COMPLAINT ALLEGING THAT IN CONNECTION WITH AN INVESTIGATION CONCERNING POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS AND/OR FINRA RULES, FINRA REQUESTED THAT DELL'OLIO APPEAR FOR ON-THE-RECORD TESTIMONY. DELL'OLIO HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO FINRA'S REQUEST AND HAS FAILED TO APPEAR FOR ON-THE-RECORD TESTIMONY, AS REQUESTED. THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT DELL'OLIO'S FAILURE TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY AS REQUESTED IMPEDED FINRA'S INVESTIGATION, AND PREVENTED FINRA FROM COMPLETING ITS REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES TO FULLY INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL RULE VIOLATIONS.

Decision

Bar (Permanent)

All Capacities

6/1/2015

DEFAULT DECISION RENDERED MAY 4, 2015. THE SANCTION WAS BASED ON FINDINGS THAT DELL'OLIO FAILED TO APPEAR AND PROVIDE FINRA-REQUESTED ON-THE-RECORD TESTIMONY INVOLVING AN INVESTIGATION INTO FINDINGS BY THE OFFICE OF SECURITIES FOR THE STATE OF MAINE THAT DELL'OLIO HAD ENGAGED IN DISHONEST AND UNETHICAL PRACTICES, INCLUDING BORROWING FROM A CLIENT, MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS, AND FORGING DOCUMENTS. THE DECISION BECAME FINAL JUNE 1, 2015.

MAINE OFFICE OF SECURITIES

IT IS ALLEGED THAT MICHAEL J. DELL'OLIO ENGAGED IN UNLAWFUL, UNETHICAL, AND DISHONEST PRACTICES BY BORROWING MONEY FROM A CLIENT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE BROKER-DEALER'S WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES DID NOT PERMIT BORROWING IN VIOLATION OF MAINE OFFICE SECURITIES RULE CH. 504, NASD RULE 2370 (EFF. PRIOR TO 6/14/10); BY BORROWING MONEY FROM A CLIENT IN VIOLATION OF MAINE OFFICE OF SECURITIES RULE CH. 515; BORROWING MONEY FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF PURCHASING A BUILDING AND THEN USING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS FOR OTHER PURPOSES; CREATING AND SUBMITTING LETTERS OF AUTHORIZATION BEARING FALSE SIGNATURES; AND MAKING FALSE STATEMENTS TO THE MAINE OFFICE OF SECURITIES STAFF.

Order

Revocation

DESPITE WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS FROM MY MOTHER-IN-LAW, WHO IS A CUSTOMER OF MY FIRM, ATTESTING THAT VARIOUS LOANS WERE AUTHORIZED AND/OR DIRECTED BY HER THE MAINE OFFICE OF SECURITIES IS CLAIMING THAT SUCH LOANS WERE UNAUTHORIZED AND VIOLATED WRITTEN SUPERVISORY PROCEDURES. MY FIRM'S PROCEDURES PERMIT LOANS ARRANGED WITH CLOSE FAMILY MEMBERS WHO ARE CUSTOMERS. I HAVE RECENTLY INSTITUTED BOTH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING IN MAINE AND A U.S. DISTRICT COURT INJUNCTION ACTION TO COMPEL MAINE TO CONDUCT A FAIR HEARING ON THE CHARGES, USING AN IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER. AN PETITION FOR REVIEW OF FINAL AGENCY ACTION & MOTION FOR STAY WAS FILED ON FEB 9, 2012 IN THE KENNEBEC SUPERIOR COURT, ALONG WITH A MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER. THE CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS OF LAW OF THE MOS AND [ADMINISTRATOR] VIOLATED CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISIONS, IN EXCESS IF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE AGENCY, MADE UNLAWFUL PROCEDURES, AFFECTED BY BASIS OR ERROR OF LAW, UNSUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE WHOLE RECORD, AND ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS OR CHARACTERIZED BY ABUSE OF DISCRETION. IN THE FINAL NOTICE, [ADMINISTRATOR] MADE A NUMBER OF SHARPLY WORDED, ONE-SIDED STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PETITIONERS. CHARACTER AND TRUSTWORTHINESS, REPEATEDLY CHARGING PETITIONS, WITH "UNLAWFUL, DISHONEST, OR UNETHICAL PRACTICES". THE HEARING CONFIRMED [ADMINISTRATOR'S] BIAS IN THIS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED HEARING. THE HEARING EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATED A MUCH DEEPER INVESTIGATORY INVOLVEMENT BY ADMINISTRATOR [ADMINISTRATOR] THAN KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-HEARING STAY MOTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, THE EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT A) [ADMINISTRATOR] WAS FULLY AWARE THAT [FAMILY MEMBER], A JEALOUS BROTHER-IN-LAW WAS THE COMPLAINANT, B) [ADMINISTRATOR] REPEATEDLY PARTICIPATED IN THE OFFICE'S INVESTIGATORY MEETINGS AND DIRECTED THE OFFICE'S STAFF AS TO ITS INTERVIEW OF [CUSTOMER] (MICHAEL'S MOTHER-IN-LAW) AND C) EVEN PREPARED A DECEPTIVE LETTER LETTER MISSTATING FACTS TO [CUSTOMER] AS TO HER INTERVIEW. [ADMINISTRATOR] REFUSE TO ACCEPT THREE AFFIDAVITS FROM [CUSTOMER] (MICHAEL'S MOTHER-IN-LAW) OF THE VICTIM IN THIS MATTER, WHICH AFFIDAVITS WERE PREPARED BY THE VICTIMS OWN INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY, ESTABLISHED BIAS AND ARE ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION. [ADMINISTRATOR] MADE FALSE CLAIMS AND FINDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN A NEFARIOUS, DECEPTIVE, UNETHICAL, AND DISHONEST MANNER. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER 2 1/2 YEARS AND THE SUPPOSED VICTIM (MICHAEL'S MOTHER-IN-LAW) HAS MADE NO COMPLAINTS AGAINST ME OUR MY FIRMS, AND HAD HERE OWN TOTALLY INDEPENDENT ATTORNEY. AS STATED IN NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS, [THIRD PARTY] AND [ ADMINISTRATOR'S] AGENDA WAS TO "PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS" POLITICAL MOTIVATION OF MY BROTHER-IN-LAW, [FAMILY MEMBER]. DESPITE MY SPOTLESS RECORD, THEIR POSITION WAS TO RUIN ME AND MY FAMILY.