Pokorski Rosemarie Findings Order

Small-owned Businesses: Join us for a “Meet the Bankers” event on Wednesday, May 8th at 5:30 p.m. at CT Community College Housatonic in Bridgeport. Click here for more information. Pequeñas empresas: Participe con nosotros en el evento “Conozca a los Banqueros” el miércoles 8 de mayo a las 5:30 p.m. en CT Community College Housatonic en Bridgeport. Presione aquí para más información.

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

IN THE MATTER OF:

ROSEMARIE POKORSKI

d/b/a SECOND IMPRESSION

("Pokorski")

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

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

AND

ORDER

DOCKET NO. CRF-15-8179-S

INTRODUCTION

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 promulgated under the Act.

The above-referenced matter was initiated upon charges brought by the Commissioner to issue an order to cease and desist, an order to make restitution, and an order imposing fine on Respondent. On February 26, 2015, the Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing ("Notice"). The Notice was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. On March 27, 2015, Respondent requested a hearing on the Notice.

On April 1, 2015, the Commissioner issued a Notification of Hearing and Designation of Hearing Officer stating that the hearing would be held on April 22, 2015, and appointing Attorney Stacey Serrano as Hearing Officer. At Respondent's request, the hearing was continued to May 20, 2015 at 10 a.m. On May 20, 2015, a hearing ("Hearing") was held at the Department of Banking ("Department"). Attorney Elena Zweifler represented the Department at the Hearing and Respondent failed to appear at the Hearing. The Hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 54 of the Connecticut General Statutes, the "Uniform Administrative Procedure Act", and the Department's contested case regulations, Section 36a-1-19 to 36a-1-57, inclusive, of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

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

When 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 ... receive evidence from the department ... concerning the appropriateness of the amount of any ... fine ... sought in the notice.

Having read the entire record, including testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence, I make the following findings of fact and conclusions of law based on the preponderance of evidence in the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Pokorski is an individual whose mailing address last known to the Commissioner is 49 Briar Patch Road, Stonington, Connecticut 06378. Pokorski is not and has not been registered in any capacity under the Act. From approximately February 1, 2012 to approximately February 1, 2013, Pokorski did business as Second Impression. (HO Ex. 1; HO Ex. 3; Tr. at 5.)

2. From approximately February 1, 2012 to approximately February 1, 2013, Pokorski entered into investment agreements ("Agreements") with at least four individuals ("Investors"), all of whom were and are residents of Connecticut. In return, the Investors gave Pokorski approximately twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) in the aggregate to invest. Each Agreement, on its face, indicated that Pokorski was in the business of purchasing antiques and collectibles in bulk ("Collateral") from estates and other sources, and that the Investors' money would be used to purchase Collateral. In soliciting the Investors, Pokorski represented to them that Pokorski would purchase Collateral, sell it and then divide the profits between herself and each Investor based on the percentage of each Investor's investment. The investors relied on Pokorski's representations concerning profit in making their investment decision. (HO Ex. 1; Dept. Ex. 1; Tr. at 10.)

3.
Despite her representations to the Investors, Pokorski did not use the investment proceeds to purchase Collateral, but rather she spent most, if not all, of the investment proceeds on personal expenses. (HO Ex. 1.)

4. Pokorski admitted to taking Investors' monies and not using the funds properly. (HO Ex. 3.)

5.
The Agreements are securities within the meaning of Section 36b-3(19) of the Act, which securities were not registered in Connecticut under Section 36b-16 of the Act, nor were they exempt from registration under Section 36b-21 of the Act, nor were they the subject of a filed exemption claim or claim of covered security status. (HO Ex. 1.)

6. As of the date of the Hearing, Pokorski had not repaid any of the monies to the Investors, but had paid some restitution monies to court. (Tr. at 11; HO Ex. 3.)

7. At the Hearing, the Department requested that a fine of $5,000 be imposed on Pokorski. (Tr. at 12.)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Pursuant to Section 36a-1-31(b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the allegations made in the Notice against Respondent are deemed admitted.

2. Respondent offered and sold unregistered securities in or from Connecticut, in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act and for the imposition of a fine upon Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act.

3. The conduct of Respondent constitutes, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly 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 or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, an order to make restitution against Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(b) of the Act and for the imposition of a fine upon Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act.

4. The Notice, Hearing and this Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order comply with Sections 36b-31(b), 36b-27(a), 36b-27(b) and 36b-27(d) of the Act and Section 4-177 of the Connecticut General Statutes.

5. The issuance of an order to cease and desist, order to make restitution and order imposing a fine is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and 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, of the Act.

ORDER

Having read the record, I hereby ORDER that:

1.	Pursuant to Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, the Order to Cease and Desist issued against Rosemarie Pokorski d/b/a Second Impression on February 26, 2015, be and is hereby made PERMANENT with respect to violations of Sections 36b-16 and 36b-4(a) of the Act;

2.	Pursuant to Section 36b-27(b) of the Act, the Order to Make Restitution issued against Rosemarie Pokorski d/b/a Second Impression on February 26, 2015, be and is hereby made PERMANENT with respect to a violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act;

3.	Pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act, a FINE of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) be imposed on Rosemarie Pokorski d/b/a Second Impression, to be remitted to the Department of Banking by cashier's check, certified check or money order, made payable to "Treasurer, State of Connecticut", no later than forty-five (45) days from the date this Order is mailed; and

4.	This Order shall become effective when mailed.

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut, _____/s/____________

this 6th day of October 2015. Jorge L. Perez

Banking Commissioner

This Order was sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Rosemarie Pokorski d/b/a Second Impression, and hand delivered to Elena Zweifler, Esq., on October 6, 2015.

Rosemarie Pokorski d/b/a Second Impression

49 Briar Patch Road

Stonington, CT 06378

Certified Mail No. 7013 3020 0000 4226 9913

Administrative Orders and Settlements

1.	Pokorski is an individual whose mailing address last known to the Commissioner is 49 Briar Patch Road, Stonington, Connecticut 06378. Pokorski is not and has not been registered in any capacity under the Act. From approximately February 1, 2012 to approximately February 1, 2013, Pokorski did business as Second Impression. (HO Ex. 1; HO Ex. 3; Tr. at 5.)
2.	From approximately February 1, 2012 to approximately February 1, 2013, Pokorski entered into investment agreements ("Agreements") with at least four individuals ("Investors"), all of whom were and are residents of Connecticut. In return, the Investors gave Pokorski approximately twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000) in the aggregate to invest. Each Agreement, on its face, indicated that Pokorski was in the business of purchasing antiques and collectibles in bulk ("Collateral") from estates and other sources, and that the Investors' money would be used to purchase Collateral. In soliciting the Investors, Pokorski represented to them that Pokorski would purchase Collateral, sell it and then divide the profits between herself and each Investor based on the percentage of each Investor's investment. The investors relied on Pokorski's representations concerning profit in making their investment decision. (HO Ex. 1; Dept. Ex. 1; Tr. at 10.)
3.	Despite her representations to the Investors, Pokorski did not use the investment proceeds to purchase Collateral, but rather she spent most, if not all, of the investment proceeds on personal expenses. (HO Ex. 1.)
4.	Pokorski admitted to taking Investors' monies and not using the funds properly. (HO Ex. 3.)
5.	The Agreements are securities within the meaning of Section 36b-3(19) of the Act, which securities were not registered in Connecticut under Section 36b-16 of the Act, nor were they exempt from registration under Section 36b-21 of the Act, nor were they the subject of a filed exemption claim or claim of covered security status. (HO Ex. 1.)
6.	As of the date of the Hearing, Pokorski had not repaid any of the monies to the Investors, but had paid some restitution monies to court. (Tr. at 11; HO Ex. 3.)
7.	At the Hearing, the Department requested that a fine of $5,000 be imposed on Pokorski. (Tr. at 12.)

1.	Pursuant to Section 36a-1-31(b) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the allegations made in the Notice against Respondent are deemed admitted.
2.	Respondent offered and sold unregistered securities in or from Connecticut, in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act and for the imposition of a fine upon Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act.
3.	The conduct of Respondent constitutes, in connection with the offer, sale or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly 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 or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. Such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 36b-4(a) of the Act, which forms a basis for an order to cease and desist to be issued against Respondent under Section 36b-27(a) of the Act, an order to make restitution against Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(b) of the Act and for the imposition of a fine upon Respondent pursuant to Section 36b-27(d) of the Act.
4.	The Notice, Hearing and this Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order comply with Sections 36b-31(b), 36b-27(a), 36b-27(b) and 36b-27(d) of the Act and Section 4-177 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
5.	The issuance of an order to cease and desist, order to make restitution and order imposing a fine is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and 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, of the Act.

Dated at Hartford, Connecticut,		_____/s/____________
this 6th day of October 2015.	Jorge L. Perez
Banking Commissioner

State of Connecticut Department of Banking