FINRA Bars Avinesh Shankar of Pruco Securities Over Forgery and Conversion Findings

If you are a current or former customer of Avinesh K. Shankar (CRD #6232970), formerly a registered representative with Pruco Securities, LLC. in Roseville, California, you should know that FINRA has barred Shankar from association with any FINRA member in all capacities, following findings that he forged 64 customers’ signatures on 115 annuity applications and converted $511,609.74 in advanced commissions to which he was not entitled.

Findings

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the Complaint, Shankar consented to findings and sanctions under FINRA Rule 9270(e) by submitting an Offer of Settlement dated March 13, 2026, which the National Adjudicatory Council accepted; the Order was issued on March 19, 2026 in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2024081563501.

According to the Order, the Relevant Period was November 2022 through January 2024, during which Shankar was registered with member firm Pruco Securities, LLC. The Order finds that during the Relevant Period, Shankar forged 64 customers’ signatures on 115 annuity applications without the customers’ prior knowledge or consent; for each application, he signed the customers’ names using electronic signature software; none of the customers had given Shankar permission to submit the applications or sign their names; Pruco paid Shankar advanced commissions after receipt of 114 of the 115 applications, totaling $511,609.74 in advanced commissions to which he was not entitled; the annuities were never funded; and when the annuity distributor contacted Shankar about the delay in funding, Shankar provided false explanations.

As examples, between November 21, 2022 and December 20, 2023, Shankar forged Customer 1’s signature on six variable annuity applications and received $29,714.20 in advanced commissions; between March 21, 2023 and June 21, 2023, Shankar forged Customer 2’s signature on five variable annuity applications and received $20,613.30 in advanced commissions; and between December 2022 and January 2024, Shankar forged Customers 3 through 64’s signatures on an additional 104 annuity applications and received an additional $461,282.24 in advanced commissions.

The Order also finds that when each of the 115 annuities remained unfunded for 90 days, Pruco attempted to recoup the advanced commissions through paycheck deductions, and at the time of Shankar’s termination he owed the firm $163,910.71 for unearned commissions; in January 2024, the firm confronted Shankar about some of the forged annuity applications, and Shankar admitted to the firm that he had forged customer signatures and did so to earn commissions; Pruco terminated Shankar on February 20, 2024.

The Order enters findings on two causes of action. The First Cause of Action finds that Shankar’s intentional and unauthorized taking of $511,609.74 in advanced commissions to which he was not entitled constituted conversion, in violation of FINRA Rule 2010. The Second Cause of Action finds that Shankar’s signing of 64 customer names without the customers’ permission on 115 annuity applications constituted forgery, also in violation of FINRA Rule 2010.

Background

A FINRA bar for conversion and forgery on annuity applications describes some of the most serious conduct that can appear in a representative’s record. Conversion, in the FINRA context, means an intentional and unauthorized taking of money or property by a person who neither owns it nor is entitled to possess it. Forgery occurs when one person signs another person’s name on a document without that person’s prior permission. Both are inconsistent with the high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade that FINRA Rule 2010 requires, and FINRA treats them as some of the clearest forms of broker misconduct.

Annuity sales generate substantial up-front commissions. Many issuers pay representatives an advance against future commission earnings as soon as an application is submitted, before the annuity is actually funded. The advance can run into tens of thousands of dollars per contract, as the Customer 1 and Customer 2 figures in the Shankar Order illustrate. When applications are submitted without the customer’s knowledge, and the underlying annuity is never funded, the advance is paid out on a transaction that never generated real business, and the firm has to claw back the money from the representative through paycheck deductions or other recovery mechanisms. The customer whose signature was forged may never realize anything happened, because the application looks like an internal firm transaction and the annuity never gets funded. Customers who applied for variable annuities through their financial professional, or who received account-opening paperwork they did not recognize, may want to confirm with the issuing carrier whether any applications bearing their signature were submitted on their behalf.

When a forged application produces real money for the broker, that money is conversion: the broker has taken funds he was not entitled to receive. The customer’s identity has also been used without permission, even if the customer never lost a dollar of their own. The Order against Shankar does not state the ages of the customers whose signatures were forged; if any of them were age 65 or older at the time of the conduct, additional state-law remedies for senior investors may also be available.

Warning Signs

Things to watch for: unfamiliar account-opening or annuity-application confirmations from a carrier you did not authorize; calls or letters from an annuity issuer asking why you have not funded a policy you do not remember applying for; unexpected 1099 forms or tax documents referencing carriers you do not recognize; or, after a financial professional leaves a firm, any communication from the new firm or successor advisor referencing applications you cannot place. If your former financial professional handled multiple annuity applications for you, ask the carrier directly for copies of every application bearing your signature. If any of these patterns apply to your account, a free consultation with a securities law attorney can help you understand whether you have a potential claim for damages.

Sanctions

Under the Order, Shankar is barred from association with any FINRA member in all capacities, and is subject to statutory disqualification under Section 3(a)(39) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The bar is effective upon approval or acceptance of the Order.

Steps to Take Right Now

1. Gather your account statements, trade confirmations, and any correspondence with your broker or firm, including emails, texts, and written materials about the investments.
2. Look up your broker on FINRA BrokerCheck at brokercheck.finra.org to review their full disclosure record.
3. Contact a securities arbitration attorney for a consultation to evaluate your options.

If your name appears on an annuity application submitted by Avinesh K. Shankar during the November 2022 to January 2024 period, or if you ever received Pruco paperwork for an annuity you do not remember authorizing, contact us. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents retail investors in FINRA arbitration proceedings involving investment fraud and unauthorized transactions submitted in customers’ names. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a free and confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.

Sources

The information in this post comes from FINRA’s public records and BrokerCheck database. You can view the full detailed report (CRD# 6232970) here.

You can view the full March 19, 2026 Order Accepting Offer of Settlement in Disciplinary Proceeding No. 2024081563501 here.