- By Notice of Hearing dated July 19, 2017, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“MFDA”) commenced a disciplinary proceeding against Paul Singh Gill (“Respondent”) pursuant to ss. 20 and 24 of MFDA By-law No. 1.
- The Notice of Hearing set out the following allegations:
Allegation #1: On December 19, 2015, the Respondent falsified the signatures of 3 clients on 2 KYC forms and on 1 account form, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1.
Allegation #2: On December 19, 2015, the Respondent failed to use due diligence to learn the essential facts of the client when he completed the information on 2 KYC forms without having met or discussed the information with the clients, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.
Allegation #3: On December 19, 2015, the Respondent falsely represented to his branch manager that he had contacted clients and obtained their signatures on account forms, when he knew this to be incorrect, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1
II. IN PUBLIC/ IN CAMERA
- The Respondent and Staff of the MFDA (“Staff”) agree that this matter should be heard in public pursuant to Rule 1.8 of the MFDA Rules of Procedure.
III. ADMISSIONS AND ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED
- The Respondent has reviewed this Agreed Statement of Facts and admits the facts set out in Part IV herein. The Respondent admits that the facts in Part IV constitute misconduct for which the Respondent may be penalized on the exercise of the discretion of a Hearing Panel pursuant to s. 24.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.
- Subject to the determination of the Hearing Panel, Staff submits, and the Respondent does not oppose, that the appropriate penalty to impose on the Respondent is that:
- the Respondent shall be prohibited from conducting securities related business in any capacity while in the employ or associated with an MFDA Member for a period of one year beginning from the date of this Order, pursuant to s. 24.1.1(e) of MFDA By-law No. 1;
- the Respondent shall pay a fine of $5,000 pursuant to Section 24.1.1(b) of MFDA Bylaw No. 1; and
- the Respondent shall pay costs in the amount of $2,500, pursuant to section 24.2 of Bylaw No. 1.
IV. AGREED FACTS
- Staff and the Respondent agree that submissions made with respect to the appropriate penalty are based only on the agreed facts in Part IV and no other facts or documents. In the event the Hearing Panel advises one or both of Staff and the Respondent of any additional facts it considers necessary to determine the issues before it, Staff and the Respondent agree that such additional facts shall be provided to the Hearing Panel only with the consent of both Staff and the Respondent. If the Respondent is not present at the hearing, Staff may disclose additional relevant facts, at the request of the Hearing Panel.
- Nothing in this Part IV is intended to restrict the Respondent from making full answer and defence to any civil or other proceedings against him.
- The Respondent became registered in the securities industry in 2009.
- Between December 20, 2013 and January 8, 2016, the Respondent was registered in British Columbia as a mutual fund salesperson (now known as a Dealing Representative) with TD Investment Services Inc. (“TD”), a Member of the MFDA.
- Between June 10, 2010 and October 12, 2010, the Respondent was registered in British Columbia as a mutual fund salesperson with Investia Financial Services Inc., a Member of the MFDA.
- Between September 28, 2009 and April 23, 2010, the Respondent was registered in British Columbia as a mutual fund salesperson with Investor Group Financial Services Inc., a Member of the MFDA.
- The Respondent is not currently registered in the securities industry in any capacity.
- At all material times, the Respondent carried on business in the Surrey, British Columbia area.
Contravention #1 and #2 – The Respondent Signed Client Signatures and Failed to use Due Diligence to Learn Essential Facts Relative to Clients
- At all material times, TD’s policies and procedures prohibited its Approved Persons from falsifying client signatures.
- On December 18, 2015, the Respondent’s branch manager asked the Respondent to contact 3 clients to have them attend the branch in order to update their client account information, in preparation for a branch audit.
- The Respondent was required to meet with the clients in order to discuss their Know-Your-Client (“KYC”) information, complete the forms with the clients, and obtain their signatures on the forms.
- Rather than meet with the clients as directed by the branch manager, on December 19, 2015, the Respondent signed the signatures of the 3 clients on a total of 2 KYC forms (the “KYC forms”) and on 1 account form.
- The Respondent used previous KYC information on file for 2 of the clients when completing the KYC forms and did not contact the clients to determine if the information was accurate.
Contravention #3 – False Representations to the Member
- On December 19, 2015, the Respondent advised his branch manager that he had contacted the clients and obtained their signatures on the account forms described above at paragraph 17, when the Respondent knew this to be untrue.
- On December 21, 2015, the Respondent’s branch manager became aware that the Respondent had submitted a KYC form for the wrong RESP account for one of the clients. The branch manager subsequently contacted the client, who informed him that he and one of the other clients (his spouse) had not met with the Respondent to update their account information.
- On December 21, 2015, the branch manager advised the Respondent that he had been advised that 2 of the clients had not met with the Respondent to update their KYC information. The Respondent then admitted to the branch manager that he signed the signatures of the 3 clients described above at paragraph 17.
- By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respondent admits that he:
- on December 19, 2015, signed the signatures of 3 clients on 2 KYC forms and on 1 account form, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1;
- on December 19, 2015, failed to use due diligence to learn the essential facts of the client when he completed the information on 2 KYC forms without having met or discussed the information with the clients, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.2.1 and 2.1.1; and
- on December 19, 2015, falsely represented to his branch manager that he had contacted clients and obtained their signatures on account forms, when he knew this to be incorrect, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1.
Execution of Agreed Statement of Facts
- This Agreed Statement of Facts may be signed in one or more counterparts which together shall constitute a binding agreement.
- A facsimile copy of any signature shall be effective as an original signature.
Paul Singh GillPaul Singh Gill
Staff of the MFDA
Per: Shaun Devlin
Member Regulation – Enforcement