* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *   IN THE MATTER OF: DANIEL CHARLES ALLEGRINI CRD NO. 2962754     ("Respondent") * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

ORDER IMPOSING FINE DOCKET NO. CF-2009-7603-S

WHEREAS, the Banking Commissioner (“Commissioner”) is charged with the administration of Chapter 672a of the Connecticut General Statutes, the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act (“Act”), and Sections 36b-31-2 to 36b-31-33, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (“Regulations”) promulgated under the Act;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division of the Department of Banking (“Department”), conducted an investigation into the activities of Respondent, pursuant to Section 36b-26(a) of the Act, to determine if Respondent had violated, was violating or was about to violate provisions of the Act or Regulations;

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2009, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Sections 36b-27(a) and 36b-27(d) of the Act, issued an Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”), Notice of Intent to Fine (“Fine Notice”) and Notice of Right to Hearing against Respondent (collectively “Notice”), which Notice is incorporated by reference herein;

WHEREAS, the Fine Notice stated that the Commissioner intended to impose a fine against Respondent, that a hearing would be held on the matters alleged in the Fine Notice on September 24, 2009 (“Fine Hearing”), and that if Respondent failed to appear at the Fine Hearing, the Commissioner may order that a maximum fine of Four Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($430,000) be imposed upon Respondent;

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2009, the Notice was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent (registered mail no. RB028020725US);

WHEREAS, on August 27, 2009, Respondent received the Notice, and no request for a hearing was received by the Commissioner;

WHEREAS, on September 11, 2009, the Order issued against Respondent became permanent;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent, in violation of Section 36b 6(c)(1) of the Act, engaged in the business of advising others as to the value of securities and as to the advisability of investing in securities within Connecticut absent registration as an investment adviser in Connecticut, which forms a basis for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act in effect prior to October 1, 2003, and Section 36b-27(d) of the Act as it existed on the date of the Notice;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent, in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act, offered and sold at least four securities to at least one Connecticut investor, which securities were not registered in Connecticut under the Act.  Such offer and sale of unregistered securities forms a basis for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act in effect prior to October 1, 2003, and Section 36b-27(d) of the Act as it existed on the date of the Notice;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that in connection with Respondent’s conduct described above, Respondent failed to disclose, inter alia, any risk factors of the investment, any financial information about Respondent or the fact that Respondent had personally filed for bankruptcy, which constituted, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, employing devices, schemes or artifices to defraud, making untrue statements of material facts or omitting to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or engaging in acts, practices or courses of business which operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person in violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act, as amended by Public Act 09-174.  Such conduct forms a basis for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act in effect prior to October 1, 2003, and Section 36b-27(d) of the Act as it existed on the date of the Notice;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent, through his sale of at least four securities, participated in private securities transactions without providing prior written notice to his employing broker-dealer describing in detail the proposed transactions and his proposed role therein and stating whether he has received or may receive selling compensation in connection with such transactions, in violation of Section 36b-31-6(e) [sic] of the Regulations.  Such violations form a basis for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the Act in effect prior to October 1, 2003, and Section 36b-27(d) of the Act as it existed on the date of the Notice;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner found in the Notice, with respect to the activity described therein, that Respondent committed at least four violations of Section 36b-6 of the Act prior to October 1, 2003, at least three violations of Section 36b-16 of the Act prior to October 1, 2003, at least one violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act subsequent to October 1, 2003, at least three violations of Section 36b-4 of the Act prior to October 1, 2003, at least one violation of Section 36b-4 of the Act subsequent to October 1, 2003, at least three violations of Section 36b-31-6e of the Regulations prior to October 1, 2003, and at least one violation of Section 36b-31-6e of the Regulations subsequent to October 1, 2003;

WHEREAS, Attorney Doniel Kitt was appointed Hearing Officer for the Fine Hearing;

WHEREAS, Attorney Jesse B. Silverman represented the Department at the Fine Hearing;

WHEREAS, on September 24, 2009, Respondent failed to appear at the Fine Hearing;

WHEREAS, Section 36a-1-31(b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provided, in pertinent part, that “[w]hen a party fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, the allegations against the party may be deemed admitted.  Without further proceedings or notice to the party, the presiding officer shall submit to the commissioner a proposed final decision containing the relief sought in the notice, provided the presiding officer may, if deemed necessary, receive evidence from the department, as part of the record, concerning the appropriateness of the amount of any . . . fine . . . sought in the notice”;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-27(d)(2) of the Act prior to October 1, 2003, provided, in pertinent part, that “[i]f such person or persons fail to appear at the hearing, the commissioner may, as the facts require, order that a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars per violation be imposed upon such person or persons”;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-27(d)(2) of the Act as it existed on the date of the Notice provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f such person fails to appear at the hearing, the commissioner may, as the facts require, order that a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars per violation be imposed upon such person”;

WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(a) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he commissioner may from time to time make . . . such . . . orders as are necessary to carry out the provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-33, inclusive”;

AND WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(b) of the Act provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o . . . order may be made . . . unless the commissioner finds that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of sections 36b-2 to 36b-33, inclusive.”

---