Agent Arrested and Convicted for Selling an Annuity.
- Thread starter Crabcake Johnny
- Start date
-
- Tags
- annuity
- 11,280
Any of us could have did it but would we? How hard can it be to sell someone an annuity that has dementia? I'm sure Rick could even get that sale...
- 2,584
You might if you weren't told she had dementia like Glenn tells us. Especially if no other person has a POA and if the people that should know like the boyfriend and son, don't tell you.
selling to elderly consumers unsuitable products that have high commissions, high surrender charges, long surrender periods, with misrepresentations of the return.
- 8,707
Mr_Ed said:
I would agree.....However I have yet to see a single thing in writing about the sale being unsuitable. The sale was unsound under the theory the customer did not have the legal/mental compacity to agree to the transaction.
I would like to see come out of this some procedure were the agent completes the requirements and he is removed from any future charges of the client having alzheimers.
That is incorrect.
the calif law under which he was prosecuted has nothing to do with legal/mental capacity.
It was financial elder abuse because she was deprived of the use of her money.
that is why i posted a long time ago, if he'd sold her a policy with a 5 to 7 year surrender penalty period and put less in it (leaving a lot more money in cash holdings like c.d.'s and money markets) this case would not have been prosecuted.
- 8,707
That is incorrect.
the calif law under which he was prosecuted has nothing to do with legal/mental capacity.
It was financial elder abuse because she was deprived of the use of her money.
that is why i posted a long time ago, if he'd sold her a policy with a 5 to 7 year surrender penalty period and put less in it (leaving a lot more money in cash holdings like c.d.'s and money markets) this case would not have been prosecuted.
Prove it....The law says deprived of use of money it does NOT state deprived of use of money as long as it is for less than x number of years and for less than a certain percentage of assets.
That is incorrect.
the calif law under which he was prosecuted has nothing to do with legal/mental capacity.
It was financial elder abuse because she was deprived of the use of her money.
that is why i posted a long time ago, if he'd sold her a policy with a 5 to 7 year surrender penalty period and put less in it (leaving a lot more money in cash holdings like c.d.'s and money markets) this case would not have been prosecuted.
While I agree it was not in best judgement to recommend that annuity, there was nothing illegal about it. If CA calls that putting an "elder" in an annuity like that illegal, and will prosecute if it is done, then why did the CA DOI approve it for sale to those ages?
Maybe there should be stricter age ranges for products like that, but until those are imposed its ridiculous to prosecute the sale of an annuity the state has approved for that age.
- 325
Nobody misrepresented anything. The product is the one the client wanted. A similar plan to the one her boyfriend had. A FIA. He earned 10% the year before on his, and she wanted a similar plan with a similar crediting strategy.Your recommendation would of been nothing but a tradional fixed annuity.Eaning 3%, and that's not the type of plan Fran wanted. She was already earning that on her CD at the time.
It was an average commission product for the type of FIA.It passed suitability as she had 100K in liquidity.Home free and clear, and plenty of income.
I had over 20 years experience before recommending this product, and at the time it was the #1 selling FIA in the country with the best crediting strategy with alot of benefits.
It's a product she probably would of never touched, unless she went into a nursing home.
Ten agents would all make different recommendations.Why do you think yours would of been the correct one??
You are so judgemental.
Bottomline, Glenn pissed someone off, and they put him on the litigation train. And he was swallowed up by the court system. If the DOI found he shouldn't have sold the policy, then he should have had his license suspended or revoked, and fined. Not jailed!
Last edited:
