| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PAUL ANTHONY MOZICATO * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * |
* * * * * * * * * * * |
CONSENT ORDER No. CO-12-8026-S |
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 Sections 36b-31-2 to 36b-31-33, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies promulgated under the Act (the “Regulations”);
WHEREAS, Paul Anthony Mozicato (“Mozicato”) of Hartford, Connecticut was previously registered under the Act 1) as a broker-dealer agent of Equity Services, Inc. (“ESI”) (CRD number 265) from May 25, 2001 to December 31, 2010 when such registration was not renewed; and 2) as an investment adviser agent of ESI from January 31, 2002 to December 31, 2010 when such registration was not renewed;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner, through the Securities and Business Investments Division (the “Division”) of the Department of Banking, conducted an investigation pursuant to Section 36b-26(a) of the Act into the activities of Mozicato to determine whether he had violated, was violating or was about to violate provisions of the Act or the Regulations (the “Investigation”);
WHEREAS, as a result of the Investigation, the Division obtained evidence that, in or about May 2010, and while registered as a broker-dealer agent and an investment adviser agent of ESI under the Act, Mozicato 1) procured $15,000 from an elderly Connecticut resident for the purported purpose of investing her monies in a higher yielding investment for which she was not suitable; 2) although Mozicato used ESI’s account opening forms in introducing the investment opportunity, and had the investor sign such forms, neither the investor’s name nor information on the transaction was recorded on the books and records of ESI; and 3) rather than investing the investor’s monies as represented, Mozicato converted such sums to his own use;
WHEREAS, as a result of the Investigation, the Division also obtained evidence that 1) ESI had reimbursed the Connecticut investor for the monies invested with Mozicato so as to make the Connecticut investor whole; and 2) Mozicato had repaid ESI the $15,000 Mozicato had procured from the investor;
WHEREAS, the Commissioner has reason to believe that the foregoing conduct violates certain provisions of the Act and Regulations, and would support administrative proceedings for the issuance of an order to cease and desist and an order imposing a fine against Mozicato pursuant to Sections 36b-27(a) and 36b-27(d) of the Act;
WHEREAS, Section 36b-4(a) of the Act provides that:
| (a) | No person shall, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly: (1) Employ any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; (2) make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit 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 (3) engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. |
WHEREAS, Section 36b-4(b) of the Act states that:
| (b) | No person shall, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly engage in any dishonest or unethical practice. |
WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(a) of the Act 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”;
WHEREAS, Section 36b-31(b) of the Act 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”;
WHEREAS, an administrative proceeding initiated under Section 36b-27 of the Act would constitute a “contested case” within the meaning of Section 4-166(2) of the General Statutes of Connecticut;
WHEREAS, Section 4-177(c) of the General Statutes of Connecticut and Section 36a-1-55(a) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provide that a contested case may be resolved by consent order, unless precluded by law;
WHEREAS, without holding a hearing and without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or law, and prior to the initiation of any formal proceeding, the Commissioner and Mozicato reached an agreement, the terms of which are reflected in this Consent Order, in full and final resolution of the matters described herein;
WHEREAS, Mozicato, without admitting or denying any of the Commissioner’s allegations or findings, expressly consents to the Commissioner’s jurisdiction under the Act and to the terms of this Consent Order;
WHEREAS, the issuance of this Consent Order 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 the Act;
AND WHEREAS, Mozicato, through his execution of this Consent Order, specifically assures the Commissioner that none of the violations alleged in this Consent Order shall occur in the future.
WHEREAS, Mozicato, through his execution of this Consent Order, voluntarily waives the following rights:
| 1. | To be afforded notice and an opportunity for a hearing within the meaning of Section 36b-27 of the Act and Section 4-177(a) of the General Statutes of Connecticut; |
| 2. | To present evidence and argument and to otherwise avail himself of Section 36b-27 of the Act and Section 4-177c(a) of the General Statutes of Connecticut; |
| 3. | To present his position in a hearing in which he is represented by counsel; |
| 4. | To have a written record of the hearing made and a written decision issued by a hearing officer; and |
| 5. | To seek judicial review of, or otherwise challenge or contest, the matters described herein, including the validity of this Consent Order. |
III. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ALLEGATIONS
WHEREAS, Mozicato, through his execution of this Consent Order, acknowledges the following allegations of the Commissioner, and admits that sufficient evidence exists for the Commissioner to issue an order to cease and desist and/or an order imposing a maximum administrative fine of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) per violation of the Act, or any regulation, rule or order adopted or issued under the Act:
| 1. | Mozicato violated Section 36b-4(a) of the Act by conducting and participating in the acts or practices herein described; | |
| 2. | Mozicato also violated 36b-4(b) of the Act by conducting and participating in the acts or practices herein described; | |
| 3. | Mozicato’s violations of Sections 36b-4(a) and 36b-4(b) of the Act were wilful; | |
| 4. | The conduct described herein would, if proven, form a basis for the initiation of administrative proceedings against Mozicato pursuant to Sections 36b-27(a) and 36b-27(d) of the Act; |
WHEREAS, the Commissioner would have the authority to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law after granting Mozicato an opportunity for a hearing;
AND WHEREAS, Mozicato acknowledges the possible consequences of an administrative hearing and voluntarily agrees to consent to the entry of the sanctions described below.
WHEREAS, Mozicato, through his execution of this Consent Order, consents to the Commissioner entering an order imposing the following sanctions:
| From the date this Consent Order is entered by the Commissioner, Mozicato, either directly or through any person, organization, entity or other device, shall be PERMANENTLY BARRED from (a) transacting business in or from Connecticut as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser or investment adviser agent, as such terms are defined in the Act, and notwithstanding any definitional exclusion that might otherwise be available under the Act; and (b) from directly or indirectly soliciting or accepting funds for investment purposes from public or private investors in or from Connecticut. |
V. CONSENT ORDER
NOW THEREFORE, the Commissioner enters the following:
| 1. | The Sanctions set forth be and are hereby entered; |
| 2. | Entry of this Consent Order by the Commissioner is without prejudice to the right of the Commissioner to take enforcement action against Mozicato based upon a violation of this Consent Order or the matters underlying its entry if the Commissioner determines that compliance with the terms herein is not being observed; |
| 3. | Nothing in this Consent Order shall be construed as limiting the Commissioner’s ability to take enforcement action against Mozicato based upon evidence of which the Division was unaware on the date hereof relating to a violation of the Act or any regulation or order under the Act; and |
| 4. | This Consent Order shall become final when entered. |
| So ordered at Hartford, Connecticut, | _______/s/____________ | |
| this 21st day of August 2012. | Howard F. Pitkin | |
| Banking Commissioner |
CONSENT TO ENTRY OF ORDER
I, Paul Anthony Mozicato, state that I have read the foregoing Consent Order; that I know and fully understand its contents; that I agree freely and without threat or coercion of any kind to comply with the terms and conditions stated herein; and that I consent to the entry of this Consent Order.
| ______/s/___________ |
| Paul Anthony Mozicato |
State of: Connecticut
On this the 16th day of August 2012, before me, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Paul Anthony Mozicato, known to me (or satisfactorily proven) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
_____/s/___________________________
Notary Public
Date Commission Expires: Oct. 31, 2016