The Department of Banking News Bulletin 

Bulletin # 2138
Week Ending February 11, 2005

This bulletin constitutes the only official notification you will receive from this office concerning any of the following applications. Any observations you may have are solicited. Any comments should be in writing to John P. Burke, Banking Commissioner, at the Connecticut Department of Banking, 260 Constitution Plaza, Hartford, CT 06103-1800 or via E-mail to john.burke@ct.gov. Written comments will be considered only if they are received within ten days from the date of this bulletin.

BRANCH ACTIVITY
State Bank Activity

Section 36a-145 of the Connecticut General Statutes requires that each application for a branch, or for a limited branch at which loans will be made, be accompanied by a plan detailing how adequate services to meet the banking needs of all community residents will be provided. Plans are submitted when such applications are filed and are available for public inspection and comment at this Department for a period of 30 days. Questions concerning branch activity should be directed to the Financial Institutions Division, (860) 240-8180.

On February 8, 2005, pursuant to the provisions of Section 36a-70 of the Connecticut General Statutes, an application was filed by the organizers of The Bank of Greenwich for the establishment of a bank and trust company to be located in Greenwich, Connecticut. The organizers are James E. Calkins, John J. Fareri, Anthony J. Melillo, Jr., Robert J. Oca, Richard M. Sontag, Thomas A. Steene, and Stephen C. Thurlow. Spokesperson: Robert Oca, (203) 552-9297.

CREDIT UNION ACTIVITY
Field of Membership

On February 2, 2005, pursuant to Section 36a-438a(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes, Hartford Healthcare Credit Union, Inc. filed a request for approval to expand its field of membership in the State of Connecticut to include persons in the healthcare industry and members of the families of such persons in accordance with the Trade, Industry and Profession designation in the following counties: Fairfield, Hartford, Middlesex, New Haven and New London.

SECURITIES AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DIVISION ACTIVITY
Florida Man Fined $20,000 for Unregistered Broker-dealer Agent Activity;
Unregistered Securities Offering

On February 7, 2005, the Commissioner entered an Order Imposing Fine against Anthony John Catinella of 3097 NW 72nd Avenue, Margate, Florida. The action had been preceded by a December 2, 2004 Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing. Since the respondent did not contest the Order to Cease and Desist, the Order to Cease and Desist had become permanent on January 11, 2005. In fining the respondent $20,000, the Commissioner found that the respondent committed one violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by offering unregistered non-exempt securities of Care Concepts, Inc. to at least one Connecticut person; and committed one violation of Section 36b-6(a) of the Act by transacting business as an unregistered broker-dealer agent of Richmark Capital Corporation. The respondent did not contest the imposition of the fine.

Broker-dealer Fined $50,000; Broker-dealer Registration Revoked

On January 12, 2005, the Banking Commissioner entered an Order revoking the broker-dealer registration of Richmark Capital Corporation of 5525 North MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 615, Irving, Texas. The order had been preceded by a December 2, 2004 Notice of Intent to Revoke Registration as Broker-dealer, Notice of Intent to Fine and Notice of Right to Hearing. In revoking the firm's registration, the Commissioner found that the respondent 1) wilfully violated Section 36b-6(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act by employing at least two unregistered broker-dealer agents; 2) engaged in dishonest or unethical practices in the securities business by executing transactions on behalf of customers without authority to do so, and exercising discretionary power in effecting customer transactions without first obtaining written discretionary authority from the customers; 3) wilfully violated Section 36b-16 of the Act by offering and selling an unregistered security; 4) violated Section 36b-31-14a(a) of the Regulations under the Act by maintaining untrue and inaccurate books and records; and 5) wilfully violated Section 36b-31-6f(b) of the Regulations under the Act by failing to establish, enforce and maintain an adequate supervisory system. The respondent did not contest the revocation of its broker-dealer registration.

The respondent also did not contest the December 2, 2004 Notice of Intent to Fine. On February 7, 2005, the Commissioner entered an Order fining the respondent $50,000 based upon a determination that the respondent had committed two violations of Section 36b-6(b) of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act; one violation of Section 36b-16 of the Act; one violation of Section 36b-31-14a(a) of the Regulations under the Act; and one violation of Section 36b-31-6f(b) of the Regulations.

Weston, CT Man Fined $3,000, Ordered to Pay $165,000 in Restitution
in Connection With Unregistered Promissory Note Sales

On January 24, 2005, the Commissioner issued a Consent Order with respect to Charles Michael Ameer of 69 Old Farm Road, Weston, Connecticut. The Consent Order followed a March 29, 2004 Order to Cease and Desist and Notice of Intent to Fine alleging that 1) from July 1996 forward, the respondent sold unregistered securities in the form of promissory notes to Connecticut investors in violation of Section 36b-16 of the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act; and 2) the respondent violated the fraud prohibition in Section 36b-4 of the Act by failing to place investor funds in safe, conservative investments as promised; representing to investors that he was a Certified Public Accountant when the Connecticut Board of Accountancy had revoked his license on March 3, 1998; and failing to return investor funds as promised. Since the respondent had not requested a hearing on the Order to Cease and Desist within the time prescribed, the Order to Cease and Desist had become permanent on April 17, 2004. Subsequent to April 17, 2004, the respondent appealed the entry of the permanent cease and desist order to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of New Britain, contesting the underlying allegations and claiming lack of notice. The Consent Order resolved both the matter under appeal and the allegations in the Notice of Intent to Fine.

The Consent Order 1) barred the respondent from acting as a broker-dealer, agent, investment adviser, investment adviser agent or agent of issuer in Connecticut for five years, with leave to reapply after three years had elapsed; 2) directed the respondent to pay the affected investor $165,000 no later than the date the Consent Order was signed by the Commissioner; and 3) fined the respondent $3,000. The Consent Order also rescinded the Commissioner's March 29, 2004 Order to Cease and Desist and withdrew the related Notice of Intent to Fine. The Consent Order also recited that the respondent would withdraw his appeal no later than five business days following the issuance of the Consent Order.