A disciplinary hearing in the matter of Conrad Arthur Nunweiler concluded recently in Vancouver, British Columbia, before a three-person hearing panel of the MFDA’s Pacific Regional Council.

After hearing submissions from staff of the MFDA, the hearing panel found that the following allegations, made by staff in its notice of hearing dated October 5, 2010, had been established:

Allegation #1: Between May 2006 and December 12, 2008, the respondent borrowed monies from at least two clients totaling approximately $56,300, thereby giving rise to an actual or potential conflict of interest which the respondent failed to address by the exercise of responsible business judgment influenced only by the best interests of the clients, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.1.4 and 2.1.1.

Allegation #2: Between May 2006 and December 12, 2008, the respondent failed to comply with the policies and procedures of the member in respect of conflicts of interest and borrowing from clients by borrowing monies from at least two clients and personally guaranteeing at least one of the loans, contrary to MFDA Rules 1.1.2 and 2.5.1, and MFDA Rule 2.1.1.

Allegation #3: On October 31, 2008, the respondent misled the member by representing to the member that he had not borrowed from clients when he knew that to be an incorrect statement at the time and in the circumstances when he made it, thereby interfering with the ability of the member to conduct a reasonable supervisory investigation of the respondent’s activities and failing to observe high standards of ethics and conduct in the transaction of business, contrary to MFDA Rules 1.1.2 and 2.5.1, and MFDA Rule 2.1.1.

Allegation #4: Commencing March 19, 2009, the respondent has failed or refused to provide documents, information, and a written statement to the MFDA and to attend an interview requested by the MFDA during the course of an investigation, contrary to s. 22.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1.

The hearing panel consequently made the following orders at the conclusion of the hearing:

  • The respondent is permanently prohibited from conducting securities related business in any capacity while in the employ of or associated with any member of the MFDA;
  • The respondent shall pay a fine of $250,000; and
  • The respondent shall pay costs to the MFDA in the amount of $15,000.

The hearing panel advised that it will issue written reasons for its decision in due course.

Read the notice of hearing.