FINRA suspends Antonio Molinos of Spartan Capital Securities for excessive trading that cost a retired customer $87,920 in losses

If you invested with a broker who made frequent recommendations without your explicit direction, and those trades resulted in significant losses, you’re not alone. Antonio Molinos, a former registered representative with Spartan Capital Securities, was recently suspended by FINRA for exactly this conduct. BrokerCheck records show that Molinos (CRD# 2764977), who was registered in Ronkonkoma, New York, had disciplinary action taken against him involving unsuitable trading practices that cost a retired customer tens of thousands of dollars.

The Excessive and Unsuitable Trading: What FINRA Found

According to FINRA’s October 2025 disciplinary actions report, an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) was issued on August 22, 2025, in which Molinos was suspended from association with any FINRA member in all capacities for three months, effective September 15, 2025, through December 14, 2025. The AWC resolved FINRA Case #2018056490333.

Without admitting or denying the findings, Molinos consented to sanctions and findings that he willfully violated Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) by recommending a series of trades that were excessive, unsuitable, and not in a customer’s best interest. The findings detailed that the customer, who was retired, relied on Molinos’ advice and routinely followed his recommendations. As a result, Molinos exercised de facto control over the accounts, meaning he made trading decisions with effectively no independent judgment on the customer’s part.

The trading activity in Molinos’ customer’s accounts generated $91,617 in commissions and caused $87,920 in realized losses. This is a classic illustration of the harm that excessive trading can cause: the broker made money from commissions on each trade, while the customer lost money on the actual positions.

De Facto Control and Excessive Trading: How Brokers Harm Retired Investors

Molinos’ conduct reflects a pattern that regulators and arbitrators see repeatedly: a broker who exercises de facto control over an account without the customer’s explicit authorization to do so. Retired investors are particularly vulnerable because many rely heavily on professional guidance and may not closely monitor account activity or trading frequency. When a broker recommends trade after trade without the customer initiating those requests, the broker has effectively taken over the account’s investment decisions.

De facto control becomes problematic when it is paired with excessive trading. FINRA defines excessive trading as recommendation of transactions that are excessive in size, frequency, or both, in light of the customer’s financial situation, investment objectives, and the character of the account. The more frequently a broker trades, the higher the commission the broker collects—creating an incentive misalignment. Reg BI, which took effect in June 2020, requires brokers to recommend securities that are in the customer’s best interest, not in the broker’s commission interest.

For a retired customer on a fixed income, realized losses of this magnitude can be devastating. Unlike working-age investors who may recover losses through continued earnings and growth, retired investors have a limited time horizon and depend on their savings to fund living expenses.

Legal Framework: Regulation Best Interest, FINRA Rules 2111 and 2010

Molinos’ violation involved Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), codified at SEC Rule 17 CFR 240.15l-1(a)(1). Reg BI, which became effective on June 30, 2020, requires brokers to recommend securities and investment strategies in the customer’s best interest and to prioritize the customer’s interests over the broker’s own compensation interests.

Even before Reg BI, brokers were required to recommend only suitable investments under FINRA Rule 2111. However, Reg BI raised the standard: it is no longer sufficient that an investment is “suitable” for the customer’s profile. The broker must affirmatively recommend only what is in the customer’s best interest, taking into account the customer’s financial situation, investment objectives, and time horizon.

Additionally, FINRA Rule 2010 requires all brokers to observe high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade. Excessive trading and de facto control of an account without clear customer authorization violate both Reg BI and Rule 2010, as they reflect a failure to prioritize the customer’s financial interests.

For customers who relied on brokers to make trading decisions (as Molinos’ customer did), the potential damages theory includes both actual losses and the foregone gains the account would have earned if it had been properly managed.

What Investors Should Know About Recovery Options

If you invested with Molinos and experienced similar treatment, there are two main avenues for recovery: FINRA arbitration and litigation. FINRA arbitration is a private dispute resolution process that is mandatory for most brokerage disputes. The rules allow recovery for out-of-pocket losses (the difference between what was paid and what was recovered) and, in appropriate cases, benefit-of-the-bargain damages (the difference between what was promised and what was actually received).

FINRA Rule 12206 sets deadlines for filing claims, so time is a critical factor. Additionally, many brokerage firms require that disputes be resolved through arbitration, which means customers typically cannot sue in court but instead must go through FINRA’s process.

In California, if the customer was age 65 or older at the time of the conduct, elder financial abuse laws may apply, opening the door to treble (triple) damages and attorney fee recovery under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 15610.30 and 15657.5.

Steps to Take Right Now

1. Gather all account statements, trade confirmations, prospectuses, and correspondence from the time period when you invested with Molinos. This documentation is essential to establish the pattern of trading and damages.
2. Write down what you remember being told by Molinos about your account. Did he promise specific returns? Did he say he would manage the account for you? What did you authorize him to do?
3. Look up Molinos on FINRA’s BrokerCheck database using his CRD number 2764977 to review the complete disciplinary record and his employment history.
4. Calculate your losses as precisely as possible, including both realized losses and any unrealized losses remaining in the account.
5. Contact a securities arbitration attorney for a free and confidential consultation to discuss whether you have a claim and what recovery may be available.

Rosenberger + Kawabata represents retail investors in FINRA arbitration proceedings involving unsuitable trading, excessive trading, de facto control, and Reg BI violations. If you invested with Molinos at Spartan Capital or any other firm and experienced similar conduct, contact Rosenberger + Kawabata for a free and confidential consultation.

The information in this post comes from FINRA’s public BrokerCheck database. You can view the full detailed report (CRD# 2764977) here.

You can view the full October 2025 FINRA disciplinary actions report here.