Working in the Finanical Industry

[anoninnyc]

New York State.

Hi All,
I'm attempting to break into the financial industry, but want to know if it's worth it, as I do have a minor criminal history.
In 2010, I was convicted of 1 misdemeanor- fraud which amounted in the loss of $100. At the time of the crime, I was 19 years of age. I was sentenced to "time served" in jail (which was about 8 hours in booking the day I was arrested), and payed fines less than $500. Also, I was put on probation for a little under a year.

Less than one year after conviction, the conviction was expunged and probation ended. The commissioner who expunged the conviction stated that the conviction cannot be used against me for the purposes of employment. While the crime is not view-able to most employers running background checks, it is view-able to FDIC, FINRA, SEC, FBI, etc. Also, considering the fact that most financial institutions conduct VERY thorough background checks, I don't doubt that a prospective employer in the financial industry would be able to uncover the original conviction.

Now, I understand that breaking into the financial industry, as an Institutional trader or Investment banker, etc..., requires various forms of licensing. I also understand that, in order to work as an institutional trader or investment banker, I would have to file an application/ waiver form with various govt. licensing committees (given that my crime pertained to dishonesty).

My question is as follows:
Given my criminal background and situation, do you think I would, after submitting any pertinent applications/waivers, be able to obtain licensing needed to work as a Institutional trader or Investment Banker?


Thanks!,
Anon in NYC

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Without digging into all segments of the industry, this is the easiest one. You can't even be a bank teller.


http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html

 

[RedemptionMan]

Without digging into all segments of the industry, this is the easiest one. You can't even be a bank teller.


http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-1300.html

did you actually read that which you posted and did you actually feel like you answered this persons question? for if you did then you would know this

B. Standards for Determining Whether an Application Is Required

Except as indicated in paragraph (5), below, an application must be filed where there is present a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for a covered offense by any adult or minor treated as an adult, or where such person has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program regarding that offense.

(1) Convictions. There must be present a conviction of record. Section 19 does not cover arrests, pending cases not brought to trial, acquittals, or any conviction which has been reversed on appeal. A conviction with regard to which an appeal is pending will require an application until or unless reversed. A conviction for which a pardon has been granted will require an application. A conviction which has been completely expunged is not considered a conviction of record and will not require an application. For an expungement to be considered complete, no one, including law enforcement, can be permitted access to the record even by court order under the state or federal law which was the basis of the expungement.


So it appears your answer to this question would be that as long as it has been expunged then you need not provide a wavier application (Section 19) for this procedure.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Any questions RedemptionMan? They were canning 25 year plus employees over this reg when it came out.

For an expungement to be considered complete, no one, including law enforcement, can be permitted access to the record even by court order under the state or federal law which was the basis of the expungement.

While the crime is not view-able to most employers running background checks, it is view-able to FDIC, FINRA, SEC, FBI, etc.

did you actually read that which you posted and did you actually feel like you answered this persons question? for if you did then you would know this

B. Standards for Determining Whether an Application Is Required

Except as indicated in paragraph (5), below, an application must be filed where there is present a conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction for a covered offense by any adult or minor treated as an adult, or where such person has entered a pretrial diversion or similar program regarding that offense.

(1) Convictions. There must be present a conviction of record. Section 19 does not cover arrests, pending cases not brought to trial, acquittals, or any conviction which has been reversed on appeal. A conviction with regard to which an appeal is pending will require an application until or unless reversed. A conviction for which a pardon has been granted will require an application. A conviction which has been completely expunged is not considered a conviction of record and will not require an application. For an expungement to be considered complete, no one, including law enforcement, can be permitted access to the record even by court order under the state or federal law which was the basis of the expungement.


So it appears your answer to this question would be that as long as it has been expunged then you need not provide a wavier application (Section 19) for this procedure.

 

[RedemptionMan]

Any questions RedemptionMan?

1. For an expungement to be considered complete, no one, including law enforcement, can be permitted access to the record even by court order under the state or federal law which was the basis of the expungement.

2. While the crime is not view-able to most employers running background checks, it is view-able to FDIC, FINRA, SEC, FBI, etc.


1. that is what an expungement does

2. no application is required for a Section 19, so in that legal sub section they can not use an expunged conviction regardless of whether or not they find it or have access to it. No wavier application is required.


so before you think, you got one over. I suspect you need to review all that which you posted. True certain infamous misdemeanors (Bill Clinton law) and things that involve breech and trust can certainly be used against a person and a felony expungement does not remove the civil penalties associated with that felony conviction, it still has guidelines that they go by. So, I would go with what his lawyer told him and he need not disclose it, the FDIC is not going to care as long as it does not go outside those guidelines which it does not. Similar to expungements dealing with teachers and certain crimes meeting a certain standard. The teacher statutes detail what would and would not be considered regardless of whether the crime was expunged or not.

the law is a funny thing, I have taken the LSAT once. You all make me want to go and try again and become an ambulance chaser.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

What do teacher statutes have to do with the financial industry?

 

[davew128]

I think the problem here is that almost no expungement of a conviction I've ever heard of prevents law enforcement from seeing the conviction.

 

[RedemptionMan]

What do teacher statutes have to do with the financial industry?

I used it as an example,

for example someone who has a felony or misdemeanor conviction involving a child; molestation, kidnapping, endangerment etc. etc. can not get a license regardless of whether the charge has been expunged or not. Usually they will not allow felony theft or white collar crimes on the federal level be expunged anyway. Those people get pardons usually political in nature and thus why it is in those Section 19 provisions. They exclude the ones that would be on a serious enough level to not allow for the ability to practice that profession. The funny part is though that government use to not be so much tied to the financial industry. The Secretary of Treasury of the United Sates of America is one of the players from the industry.They tell the SEC what to do these days so they no longer have to fear prison like they did in the 1980s or early 1990s. Bill Clinton did away with those antiquated banking laws, which saved our freaking country so long, and it just got worse with each succeeding administration.


enough of the high horse, preaching.

 

[RedemptionMan]

I think the problem here is that almost no expungement of a conviction I've ever heard of prevents law enforcement from seeing the conviction.

I read that too, law enforcement does have access to it but in order for it to used against the person if they were to get into trouble again then they would have to get an order unsealing the documents in order to discover the particulars of the case.


law enforcement can see it, it also can be used against the person in subsequent prosecutions. Is he applying to the FBI, CIA or FDIC?

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Among others, here is a high level banking official fired over a 13 year old omelet dispute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/paul-boudwin-fired-from-b_n_2044447.html

 

[RedemptionMan]

Among others, here is a high level banking official fired over a 13 year old omelet dispute.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/30/paul-boudwin-fired-from-b_n_2044447.html

that looks like a great opportunity for a lawyer to make a percentage off his reinstatement. I know people in this quasi- iniquitous banking industry that make 800 grand a year. They definitely are under a lot of eyes and scrutiny, I would not want the pressure and I have never had any issues with crimes of moral turpitude. Some things you just are not cut out to do and the pressures that come along with making a million or two a year within the banking industry is not worth it to me.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Apparently you and the victims have differing opinions. Personally, I think it is more an issue of the people at the top wanting to eliminate mid level graft so they get a bigger cut.