Person

Trevor Michael Saliba

Regulator action

United States. Named in 2 sanctions listings.

Screen this subject

Sanctions and listings2

  • Official designation

    Financial Industry Regulatory AuthorityUS FINRA Enforcement ActionsUnited States

    10/06/2022: BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant, vs. Trevor Michael Saliba Beverly Hills, CA, Respondent. DECISION Complaint No. 2013037522501r Dated: October 6, 2022 On remand from the Securities and Exchange Commission for clarification of findings and reconsideration of sanctions. Held, findings and sanctions modified. Appearances For the Complainant: Richard Chin, Esq., Jennifer Crawford, Esq., Megan Davis, Esq.,

    04/11/2024: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 99940 / April 11, 2024 Admin. Proc. File No. 3-18989r In the Matter of the Application of Trevor Michael Saliba For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by FINRA OPINION OF THE COMMISSION REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION—REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING On partial remand for clarification of findings and reconsideration of sanctions, FINRA found that owner of former FINRA member firm knowingly provided false memos to FINRA staff on two occasions and barred him for that conduct. FINRA also imposed a separate bar for owner’s false testimony at an on-the-record interview and failure to produce all computers used for firm business in response to a request for them. Held, FINRA’s findings of violation and sanctions are sustained. APPEARANCES: Alan M. Wolper and Heidi VonderHeide of Ulmer & Berne LLP, for Trevor Michael Saliba. Alan Lawhead, Jennifer Brooks, and Celia L. Passaro, for FINRA.

    Reference 2013037522501rdata-portal.finra.orgfinra.orgdata-portal.finra.org

  • Official designation

    Financial Industry Regulatory AuthorityUS FINRA Enforcement ActionsUnited States

    03/24/2016: FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS Department of Enforcement, Complainant, V. Trevor Michael Saliba (CRD No. 2692057), Sperry Randall Younger (CRD No. 2771029), Richard Daniel Tabizon (CRD No. 2601208), and Arthur Mansourian (CRD No. 5252154), Respondents. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING No. 2013037522501 HEARING OFFICER: COMPLAINT The Department of Enforcement alleges: SUMMARY 1. Shortly after filing a Continuing Membership Application ("CMA") in mid-2012, NMS Capital

    04/09/2021: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Release No. 91527 / April 9, 2021 Admin. Proc. File Nos. 3-18989, 3-18990 In the Matter of Applications of TREVOR MICHAEL SALIBA and ARTHUR MANSOURIAN For Review of Disciplinary Action Taken by FINRA OPINION OF THE COMMISSION REGISTERED SECURITIES ASSOCIATION-REVIEW OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING FINRA found that the owner of former member firm violated its rules by causing firm to

    12/15/2017: FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OFFICE OF HEARING OFFICERS DEPARTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT Complainant, v. TREVOR MICHAEL SALIBA (CRD No. 2692057), SPERRY RANDAL YOUNGER (CRD No. 2771029), RICHARD DANIEL TABIZON (CRD No. 2601208), RICHARD DANIEL TABIZON (CRD No. 261208), and ARTHUR MANSOURIAN (CRD No. 5252154), Respondents. Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2013037522501 Hearing Officer-DMF EXTENDED HEARING PANEL DECISION December 15, 2017

    01/08/2019: BEFORE THE NATIONAL ADJUDICATORY COUNCIL FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY In the Matter of Department of Enforcement, Complainant, vs. Trevor Michael Saliba Beverly Hills, CA, Sperry Randall Younger New York, NY, Richard Daniel Tabizon Beverly Hills, CA, and Arthur Mansourian Beverly Hills, CA, Respondents. DECISION Complaint No. 2013037522501 Dated: January 8, 2019 Registered principal: (1) caused his firm to violate restrictions imposed by FINRA

    Reference 2013037522501data-portal.finra.orgdata-portal.finra.orgdata-portal.finra.orgdata-portal.finra.orgfinra.org

Identifiers1

IdentifierNumber
ID number2692057

This page shows the public record as its publishers state it. A name here is not by itself a finding: whether a record refers to a particular person or company is what screening decides. Read the full notice.