I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

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

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 it had violated, was violating or was about to violate provisions of the Act or Regulations (“Investigation”);

WHEREAS, as a result of the Investigation, on June 3, 2010, the Commissioner, acting pursuant to Sections 36b-15, 36b-27(a) and 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement to the General Statutes (“2010 Supplement”) and Section 4-182(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut, issued an Order to Cease and Desist (“Order”), Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration as Broker-dealer, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing against Respondent (collectively “Notice”), which Notice is incorporated by reference herein;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that the conduct of Respondent constituted, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, employing a device, scheme or artifice to defraud, making an untrue statement of a material fact or omitting to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or engaging in an act, practice or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any person.  Such conduct constituted a wilful violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the 2010 Supplement, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the 2010 Supplement, the revocation of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Section 36b-15(a)(2)(B) of the 2010 Supplement, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that the conduct of Respondent constituted, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly engaging in a dishonest or unethical practice.  Such conduct constituted a wilful violation of Section 36b-4(b) of the 2010 Supplement, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the 2010 Supplement, the revocation of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Sections 36b-15(a)(2)(B) and 36b-15(a)(2)(H) of the 2010 Supplement, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that the conduct of Respondent is conduct proscribed by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (formerly NASD) Conduct Rules 2210 and 2440.  Such conduct constituted a dishonest or unethical practice in the securities business within the meaning of Section 36b-31-15a(b) of the Regulations, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the 2010 Supplement, and for the revocation of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Section 36b-15(a)(2)(H) of the 2010 Supplement;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent’s employment of at least five unregistered agents constituted a wilful violation of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(a) of the 2010 Supplement, the revocation of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Section 36b-15(a)(2)(B) of the 2010 Supplement, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent under Section 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner alleged in the Notice that Respondent’s failure to monitor the use of scripts by individuals directly under its supervision to ensure that they were in compliance with all regulatory requirements, and that no scripts were utilized contrary to the requirements of the Respondent’s written supervisory policies and procedures manual constituted a wilful violation of Section 36b-31-6f of the Regulations, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(a) of the 2010 Supplement, the revocation of Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut pursuant to Sections 36b-15(a)(2)(B) and 36b-15(a)(2)(K) of the 2010 Supplement, and for the imposition of a fine against Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement;

WHEREAS, as a result of the Investigation, the Commissioner finds that, with respect to the activity described herein, Respondent has committed at least one violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the 2010 Supplement, at least one violation of Section 36b-4(b) of the 2010 Supplement, at least five violations of Section 36b-6(b) of the Act, and at least one violation of Section 36b-31-6f of the Regulations;

WHEREAS, the Commissioner has reason to believe that Respondent has engaged in acts or conduct that, pursuant to Section 36b-15 of the 2010 Supplement, constitute grounds for revoking Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated that Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut shall be revoked, subject to Respondent’s right to request a hearing on the allegations;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated that the Commissioner intended to impose a maximum fine not to exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) per violation on Respondent;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated that Respondent would be afforded an opportunity for a hearing on the allegations if a written request for a hearing was received by the Department within fourteen (14) days following Respondent’s receipt of the Notice;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated that the Commissioner shall issue an order revoking Respondent’s registration as a broker-dealer in Connecticut if Respondent failed to request a hearing within the prescribed time period or failed to appear at any such hearing;

WHEREAS, the Notice stated that the Commissioner may order that the maximum fine be imposed upon Respondent if Respondent failed to request a hearing within the prescribed time period or failed to appear at any such hearing;

WHEREAS, on June 3, 2010, the Notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent;

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2010, the Notice was returned to the Department of Banking marked “Return To Sender – Unclaimed – Unable to Forward”;

WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the Notice was served on the Commissioner, and on July 8, 2010, in accordance with 36b-33(g) of the Act, as amended by Public Act 10-141, Notice of Service on the Banking Commissioner In the Matter of:  Itradedirect.com Corp., dated July 8, 2010 (“Notice of Service”), was sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to Respondent;

WHEREAS, Respondent has failed to request a hearing on the matters set forth in the Notice within 14 days of the date of the Notice of Service;

WHEREAS, on August 20, 2010, a Certification was issued rendering the Order permanent as of July 23, 2010, which Certification is incorporated by reference herein;

WHEREAS, Section 36a-1-31(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides, in pertinent part, that:

WHEREAS, Section 36b-15 of the 2010 Supplement, as amended by Public Act 10-141, provides, in pertinent part, that:

WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(a) of the Act, as amended by Public Act 10-141, provides, in relevant 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-34, inclusive”;

AND WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(b) of the Act, as amended by Public Act 10-141, provides, in relevant 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-34, inclusive.”

II.  FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

III.  ORDER

Having read the record, I hereby ORDER, pursuant to Sections 36b-15 and 36b-27(d) of the 2010 Supplement, as amended by Public Act 10-141, that:

This Order was mailed by certified mail,
return receipt requested, to
Respondent on August 24, 2010.

Itradedirect.com Corp. 
1600 NW Boca Raton Boulevard, Suite 22
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Certified Mail No. 7010 0290 0002 7489 7785                          

Administrative Orders and Settlements