here's some more... The fact is ( and I'm not making excuses for anyone) that if you look hard enough this kind of stuff doesn't surprise me. Mud tends to stick. You have to deal with it and draw your own conclusions.
In the Matter of Jose O. Vianna, Jr.
On November 9, the Commission issued an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Jose O. Vianna, Jr.
The Order finds that from October 2002 until April 2008, Vianna was a registered representative associated with Maxim Group, LLC, a broker-dealer registered with the Commission. The Order finds that on Sept. 27, 2010, a judgment was entered by consent against Vianna in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jose O. Vianna, Jr., et al., 10 Civ. 1842 (GBD), in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, permanently enjoining Vianna from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and permanently enjoining him from future violations, or from aiding and abetting any violation, of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 17a-3 thereunder. The Commission's complaint in the civil injunctive action alleged that Vianna, while a registered representative associated with Maxim, participated in a fraudulent scheme to divert dozens of profitable stock trades and millions of dollars of trading profits from one of his customers to another customer. The complaint also alleged that as part of the scheme Vianna falsified Maxim's records.
Based on the above, the Order bars Vianna from association with any broker or dealer. Vianna consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the findings except that he admitted the entry of the judgment. (Rel. 34-63289; File No. 3-14117)