Investors Sue Trustmont For Failure To Supervise
Peter Rajinder Kohli of Leesport Pennsylvania a stockbroker formerly registered with Trustmont Financial Group is the subject of a customer initiated investment related arbitration claim in which the customer requested $373,023.00 in damages based upon allegations that Trustmont failed to supervise Kohli’s securities transactions in the customer’s account which resulted in losses. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Arbitration No. 20-01996 (June 25, 2020).
FINRA Public Disclosure reveals that Kohli has been identified in six additional customer initiated investment related disputes concerning accusations of his misconduct when he was employed by Trustmont Financial Group. Kohli is the subject of a customer initiated investment related arbitration claim which was resolved for $75,000.00 in damages based upon accusations that the customer was inappropriately advised regarding promissory notes during the time that Kohli was associated with Trustmont. FINRA Arbitration No. 18-03079 (Dec. 17, 2019).
On December 30, 2019, another customer filed an investment related arbitration claim concerning Kohli’s activities where the customer sought $254,807.00 in damages founded on accusations of the failure to supervise the stockbroker’s transactions causing the customer losses. FINRA Arbitration No. 19-03770. Kohli has also been identified in a customer initiated investment related arbitration claim where the customer sought $130,566.62 in damages founded on accusations that the customer was placed into fraudulent mutual funds as well as bad variable annuity and promissory note products by the stockbroker when he was employed by Trustmont. FINRA Arbitration No. 20-00019 (Mar. 5, 2020).
Kohli is referenced in another customer initiated investment related arbitration claim in which the customer requested $70,000.00 in damages supported by allegations of Kohli’s inappropriate sale of promissory notes to the Trustmont customer. FINRA Arbitration No. 20-00019 (Mar. 5, 2020).
A judgement was also entered against Kohli in which he was required to pay a civil penalty of $160,000.00 and had been permanently enjoined from committing fraudulent activities in violation of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5, Securities Act of 1933 Section 17(a) and Investment Advisers Act Section 206 and Rule 206(4)-8. Case No. 5:16-cv-5413 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2017).
According to the SEC Complaint, Kohli defrauded investors and misappropriated their funds. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Peter R. Kohli et al. Case No. 5:16-cv-05143-JLS (Sept. 26, 2016). According to the Complaint, Marshad Capital Group, DMS Advisors Inc. and Kohli took part in a scheme to accumulate $3,200,000.00 from 120 individuals who invested in companies owned and managed by Kohli.
SEC alleged that DMS Funds consisted of four emerging markets mutual fund series which were established by Kohli in 2012. Customers had allegedly been solicited directly by Kohli to invest in DMS Funds. The Complaint stated that Kohli handed investors documentation in which risks were omitted and misrepresentations had been made concerning the nature of DMS Funds. SEC indicated that customers were deprived of information about possible non-payment of DMS Funds’ expenses without additional funds.
SEC stated that Kohli’s fraudulent activities were evident in three ways. Warrants to buy Marshad stock – a company that was operated by Kohli – had allegedly been misrepresented by the stockbroker. The Complaint also alleges that funds provided to Kohl from investors had been misappropriated. Investors had allegedly been lied to by Kohli to at the time in which he was attempting to prevent the failure of one of these funds. SEC also indicated that holders of Marshad promissory notes were told lies by Kohli so that he could accumulate more funds to pay expenses. According to the Complaint, Kohli’s conduct was violative of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Section 10(b), SEC Rule 10b-5 and Securities Act of 1933 Section 17(a).