CFP Board Enforcement Process: The Investigation

Posted on June 25th, 2020 at 3:56 PM
CFP Board Enforcement Process: The Investigation

From the Desk of Jim Eccleston at Eccleston Law LLC:

This is the first of several posts detailing the CFP Board Enforcement process. 

An enforcement proceeding by the CFP Board will usually start with a written notice of investigation sent to a CFP professional (known as the “Respondent”).  The CFP professional who receives a written notice of investigation is required to provide acknowledgement of receipt of the notice of investigation to CFP Board Counsel within 30 days of delivery.  Failure to acknowledge receipt of the investigation notice will result in a second notice being sent, and could eventually lead to the respondent being in default. 

Once the investigation has commenced, the CFP Board Counsel may request documents or information from the CFP professional. The CFP Board may also send requests for admission, in which the respondent must either admit or deny the truth of matters asserted by CFP Board.  Unless otherwise specified, the respondent has 30 days to respond to the CFP Board requests. In the event that the CFP Board issues subsequent requests, the respondent will have 14 days to respond. Throughout the investigation, CFP professionals have a duty to cooperate. A failure to cooperate can be grounds for sanctions. 

Following written requests for information, a CFP Board investigation may also include an oral examination.  Should this occur, the respondent will be provided notice at least 14 calendar days in advance.  These oral examinations may be conducted in person, telephonically or by video conference. The CFP Board limits who may attend the oral examination, however, respondents are allowed to have an attorney present. 

Once the investigation has been completed, there are a couple possible results. If the CFP Board Counsel does not find probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, it will dismiss the investigation.  If the CFP Board Counsel does find probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, it could still issue a Letter of Dismissal if it does not believe sanctions are warranted.  If the CFP Board finds probable cause to believe a violation has occurred and that sanctions are warranted, it will present a settlement offer to Respondent and/or deliver a complaint against respondent. 

CFP professionals who are the subject of a CFP Board investigation should contact the professional at Eccleston Law for a free consultation.

The attorneys of Eccleston Law LLC represent investors and advisors nationwide in securities and employment matters. The securities lawyers at Eccleston Law also practice a variety of other areas of practice for financial investors and advisors including Securities FraudCompliance ProtectionBreach of Fiduciary DutyFINRA Matters, and much more. Our attorneys draw on a combined experience of nearly 65 years in delivering the highest quality legal services. If you are in need of legal services, contact us to schedule a one-on-one consultation today.

Related Attorneys: James J. Eccleston

Tags: eccleston law, eccleston, eccleston law, cfp board, cfp board enforcement

Return to Archive

TESTIMONIALS

Previous
Next

Fantastic news!!!!  Your professionalism, support and expertise were greatly appreciated.  You made a difficult situation much more bearable.

Marci M.

LATEST NEWS AND ARTICLES

March 17, 2025
FINRA Disciplinary Actions Rise for the First Time Since 2016

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) increased its enforcement actions in 2024, marking the first rise in disciplinary cases since 2016, as reported by AdvisorHub.

March 14, 2025
Apex Clearing to Pay $3.2 Million in FINRA Settlement Over Securities Lending Violations

Apex Clearing, the clearing arm of Apex Fintech Solutions, has agreed to pay $3.2 million to settle FINRA allegations that it failed to ensure customers received compensation for lending their securities.

March 13, 2025
Congress Considers Expanding the Accredited Investor Definition

A recent congressional hearing examined potential reforms to the accredited investor definition, a critical threshold determining who can participate in private market investments.