Introduction

On February 1, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a complaint alleging a “cherry-picking” scheme by investment adviser representative Steven J. Susoeff and his firm, Steve Susoeff, LLC (doing business as Meritage Financial Group). At first glance, the story seems like just another securities fraud case—an unfortunate blip in the financial world. But a closer look reveals a disturbing and deliberate pattern of allocating trades that favored certain accounts (particularly those belonging to a girlfriend, a business associate, and even the adviser himself) at the expense of the larger client base.

The allegations are quite damning. Over a span of roughly seven months—from January 2021 to July 2021—Susoeff is said to have abused his discretionary authority and exploited the structure of a block-trading platform to assign profitable trades to favored accounts, while shunting losing trades onto the accounts of other unsuspecting clients. These clients, counting on Meritage Financial Group to act with fiduciary care, were blindsided by first-day losses that appear to have been systematically engineered, rather than naturally incurred through ordinary market fluctuations.

The sums involved, though not staggering in the grand scheme of finance, were far from trivial. The legal complaint states that the “disfavored” clients endured over $144,000 in first-day losses, while favored accounts walked away with over $90,000 in ill-gotten gains, plus an additional $54,000 in profits directed to Susoeff’s personal account. The arithmetic of these transactions—particularly the high percentage of losing trades disproportionately allocated to certain clients—speaks to more than mere negligence or incompetence. The SEC contends it was an intentional scheme carried out with full knowledge of the wrongdoing.

Such a scenario poses serious questions about corporate accountability and corporate ethics in the broader context of neoliberal capitalism, where regulatory bodies can be undermined by the constant push to maximize profit. The case stands as another reminder that trust, once broken, can reverberate beyond any single firm. It jeopardizes public faith in the financial system, especially when such wrongdoing—however brazen—often slips through regulatory cracks or is exposed only after heavy losses have been inflicted on everyday investors.

Yet, beyond these specific allegations, a more systemic story emerges. This legal complaint shines a spotlight on how corporate actors, under pressure to increase shareholder value and personal remuneration, can exploit the complexities of financial structures. Indeed, this single case encapsulates a broader pattern: corporations or individuals in the financial sector may find ways to game the system, especially when oversight is insufficient, enforcement is inconsistent, or the corporate culture values growth above all else. The very environment of deregulation and regulatory capture fosters conditions in which unethical actors feel emboldened to push the limits—or ignore them entirely.

This article digs deep into the details of the complaint, enumerating the alleged facts of the case. It also situates the allegations within a much larger discussion of corporate ethics, corporate corruption, the economic fallout borne by unsuspecting clients, and the urgent need for corporate social responsibility. More importantly, it demonstrates how the story of one small-scale investment firm can serve as a chilling microcosm for bigger, systemic questions under late-stage capitalism.

In the sections that follow, we will trace the events spelled out in the complaint, examining the steps taken by the defendants and the resulting harm. We then connect these allegations to well-known broader patterns in finance and discuss how the failure to protect retail investors may be symptomatic of deeper structural faults in our economic systems. Finally, we will explore what these developments imply for the future of consumer advocacy, social justice, and the push for more genuine reform in an age of rampant wealth disparity.

---

Corporate Intent Exposed

So how did a purportedly respectable investment adviser get away with funneling profitable trades into certain accounts while allocating losses to unsuspecting clients for so many months? The SEC’s complaint, which forms the factual backbone of this analysis, paints a picture of deliberate planning and exploitation of trading rules.

Here are the key details:

Discretionary Authority Over Client Accounts

Between January 2021 and July 2021, Meritage Financial Group managed approximately $8 million for around 59 clients. Under normal circumstances, an investment adviser’s discretionary authority allows them to act on behalf of clients—buying and selling stocks based on market conditions. Clients grant this authority precisely because they trust that the adviser will act with their best interest at heart.

Steven J. Susoeff had full authority to make trading decisions for these 59 clients. He allegedly took advantage of a particular mechanism known as a “block trading account,” which he used to place aggregated trades before assigning specific portions of the trade to individual client accounts later in the day. The trades would typically be allocated after the trading day had ended, granting him the opportunity to see whether a purchase (or sale) ended up yielding immediate short-term gains or losses.

The Mechanics of “Cherry-Picking”

In the Securities and Exchange Commission’s complaint, the scheme is described as “cherry-picking.” Essentially, here is how it worked:

1. Single Block Trade: Instead of executing trades separately for each account, Susoeff placed a combined trade on behalf of multiple accounts at once.
2. Waiting for Market Direction: During the course of the day, the price of the stocks purchased in that single block would either rise or fall.
3. Late Allocation: With full knowledge of whether a trade was profitable by the close of that trading day, Susoeff allegedly assigned winners (profitable trades) to accounts he favored. These favored accounts included one belonging to his girlfriend, another to a business associate, and eventually one of his own personal accounts.
4. Unprofitable Trades: Meanwhile, the losing trades—those that went down in price on the same day—ended up in the portfolios of the unsuspecting, disfavored clients.

This mechanism heavily relies on the timing of trade allocation. The complaint emphasizes that final allocations were often not submitted until the end of the trading day, sometimes even after the markets had closed, allowing an unscrupulous adviser to evaluate which trades had made money and which had not. Given the power to decide which account gets which position, an adviser could systematically enrich a select few and disadvantage others—contrary to fiduciary duties.

Broker Warnings

It was not as if the potential for abuse went unnoticed. The block-trading broker, referred to in the complaint as “Broker A,” allegedly flagged the tardy trade allocations. They sent repeated reminders and warnings to Susoeff, cautioning that trades must be allocated in a manner that is “fair and equitable” to all clients, free from systematic favor or disadvantage. These warnings were issued multiple times—on or around December 14, 2020, December 15, 2020, April 12, 2021, April 26, 2021, May 19, 2021, and July 13, 2021. Each reminder stressed that cherry-picking was strictly prohibited.

Yet, the SEC contends that these warnings went unheeded. Meritage Financial’s own policies and procedures manual, including a code of ethics, plainly stated that the firm had a fiduciary duty to clients. That fiduciary duty encompassed loyalty, best execution, and a commitment not to engage in any scheme or artifice to defraud. Despite these formal obligations, the complaint claims that none of those guidelines prevented the alleged misconduct.

The Profits and the Losses

The SEC offers specific examples of how these allocations worked in practice. In one instance on May 7, 2021, Susoeff is said to have purchased shares of Apple, Inc. (AAPL) in the morning, sold them in mid-morning (locking in a small profit), then purchased them again in the early afternoon, all within a single “block trading account.” By the end of the day, after the price had dipped, he assigned the “profitable” portion of the day’s trades to the favored accounts and shunted the less favorable positions to the clients who were in the dark about the entire arrangement.

In numerical terms, the SEC’s analysis found that 89.9% of the trades allocated to the favored accounts were profitable, whereas only 25.5% of the trades allocated to the disfavored accounts made money. Over time, the favored accounts combined for a net positive rate of return (about +0.61%), while the disfavored accounts had a net negative return (about -0.60%).

The difference might sound small in percentage terms, but it translated into a windfall of roughly $90,334 for the favored accounts and $54,232 specifically for Susoeff’s personal account. Meanwhile, the disfavored accounts together suffered roughly $144,566 in first-day losses. This tilt in outcomes—beyond any reasonable measure of random chance—played a key role in building the SEC’s case that this was an intentional, systematically executed scheme.

A Pattern of Disregard

The SEC underscores that these alleged behaviors constitute more than a momentary lapse. They point to repeated actions over many months, all orchestrated by an individual fully aware of what was happening. Each instance of trade allocation reflected a decision made with inside knowledge of how a given trade performed that day. Not only does the SEC characterize these allocations as fraudulent, it also highlights the breach of fiduciary duty.

In short, while many financial professionals—particularly fiduciaries—struggle to beat the market, the SEC suggests that Susoeff discovered a more “reliable” way to profit and share those gains with a select few: by transferring the downside risk onto unwitting clients who believed their financial adviser was acting in their best interests.

---

The Corporations Get Away With It

How did such a scheme slip through the cracks for so long? The answer lies in the intricacies of regulatory oversight, the complexities of deregulation that have shaped modern financial markets, and the cunning with which corporate players can exploit technicalities.

Loopholes in Late Allocations

A crucial element in enabling the alleged wrongdoing was the existence of a block-trading platform that allowed for end-of-day (or after-hours) allocations. In principle, block trading can help investment advisers achieve “best execution,” as it often leads to more efficient trading with reduced transaction costs for clients. The idea is that a single large trade may be executed under more favorable terms than multiple smaller trades.

However, the devil is in the details. One inherent weakness is that the system also creates an opportunity for unethical advisers to see how a trade performed throughout the day before deciding which clients receive which shares. If the price of a stock climbs, a cunning adviser can assign that success to favored accounts. If it dives, they can shift the losses elsewhere. Without strict real-time or preemptive allocation rules, unscrupulous actors might exploit the lull between execution and allocation.

Inadequate Checks by Third-Party Custodians

Although “Broker A” (the clearing broker) in this case repeatedly sent warnings and reminders, it apparently did not take immediate or stronger action—such as restricting the adviser’s block trading privileges—until several months had passed. This is not unusual in a landscape where clearing brokers often handle massive volumes of trades each day. Strict real-time policing might be considered outside their normal scope, especially if the primary responsibility for ensuring fair allocations rests on the registered investment adviser itself.

The SEC reveals a tension: on the one hand, the broker alerts the adviser to potential or actual violations (“late allocations,” “failure to treat clients fairly”), but on the other hand, the broker does not always act decisively to halt questionable conduct—perhaps due to the complexity of verifying actual wrongdoing or fear of losing a paying client. This is a prime example of how regulatory capture and a “customer is always right” mentality can undermine the impetus to clamp down on suspicious activity in real time.

A Culture of Complacency

The case highlights another common factor in corporate environments: “culture eat[s] compliance for breakfast.” Even though Meritage Financial had a code of ethics, a policies and procedures manual, and a chief compliance officer (who was, in fact, the same individual allegedly orchestrating the wrongdoing), these documents did not prevent the misconduct described in the SEC complaint. The mere existence of compliance frameworks—especially if not rigorously enforced—often gives a false sense of security.

Time and again, we have seen that adopting official codes of ethics but failing to enforce them fosters a culture where employees learn that, in practice, profitability can trump compliance. For smaller firms, in particular, there may not be robust internal checks and balances. The lines between management, compliance, and day-to-day trading can blur when a single person fills multiple roles, as the SEC suggests was the case with Susoeff.

The Illusion of Due Diligence

For many of the defrauded clients, the oversight is presumably minimal. Retail investors often pick an investment adviser based on personal recommendation, local advertising, or convenience, assuming that the adviser’s regulatory credentials guarantee ethical practices. Even savvy clients typically do not have direct insight into how block trades are allocated in real time. They see only their daily or monthly statements, from which it can be challenging to detect a pattern of subtle daily losses—especially if those losses can be attributed to normal market volatility.

Thus, the concept of “due diligence” can become an illusion. Clients are told about the adviser’s fiduciary duty, see the official disclaimers and ethics statements, and trust that the system has checks in place to prevent exploitation. In reality, the complexities of financial instruments, combined with delayed reporting, provide cover for unscrupulous actors to mask their behavior.

A Wider Pattern in Financial Services

While the precise details of the alleged scheme are unique to Meritage Financial and Susoeff’s control of block trades, the underlying approach—gaming the timing or structure of trades to favor certain accounts—is not new. There is a history of “front-running,” “late trading,” and other manipulative schemes in various corners of the finance industry. Regulators have long known about these practices. But given resource constraints and the labyrinthine structures of many investment firms, enforcement often lags well behind the wrongdoing.

Moreover, the incentives to cheat remain high. Even a moderate success in misappropriating trades can yield windfalls at the expense of unsuspecting clients. When the firm is small and the principal can personally benefit, the lure of extra income—whether in fees, realized capital gains, or intangible personal advantages—can overshadow the fear of getting caught.

In short, it is dangerously easy for unscrupulous financial professionals to exploit cracks in the system. And while many do not, enough do that it periodically shakes public confidence in the entire framework of investment advisory services.

---

The Cost of Doing Business

One of the more sobering insights from this case is the ease with which profit-maximization can overshadow ethics and accountability. In any corporate environment—big or small—immediate financial incentives often reign supreme, and any moral or fiduciary duty is pitted against the perceived “opportunities” for enhanced personal enrichment. When advisers place their own interests above those of their clients, we see an archetypal instance of corporate greed.

Bottom-Line Pressures and Hidden Motives

For an investment advisory firm, fees typically hinge on the total assets under management (AUM). Meritage Financial, like many similar outfits, billed clients based on a percentage of the AUM. While that fee structure naturally incentivizes the adviser to grow the overall pie (presumably in the client’s best interest), it may also create hidden motivations:

• Opportunity for Personal Gain: The SEC highlights that Susoeff personally made about $54,232 through these trades. That’s in addition to the intangible benefit of favoring individuals who could, in turn, reward him with loyalty or other perks.
• Reduced Accountability: Because the performance fees or standard asset-based fees are not typically subject to daily scrutiny, unethical practitioners may assume they can siphon gains without immediate detection.

Although $54,232 may sound modest in comparison to the fortunes often discussed in high-finance scandal headlines, the sum is not insignificant for a single adviser working within a small firm. From the vantage point of the alleged wrongdoer, that might be viewed as a direct, private windfall—much easier to achieve than expanding business ethically or outperforming the market.

The Bigger Economic Fallout

When trust erodes in investment advisers, the ripple effect is enormous. Retail investors, local communities, and entire industries can feel the negative impacts:

1. Investor Caution: Widespread reporting of such incidents can deter potential investors or cause them to pull back from entrusting their funds to smaller advisory practices. This can limit the flow of capital into local or regional projects and even hamper the broader economy.
2. Regulatory Burden: Each high-profile fraud accelerates calls for stricter rules. While more robust regulations are generally positive for corporate accountability, they also raise compliance costs across the board. Smaller or newer firms that lack resources for rigorous compliance frameworks may struggle and either shut down or consolidate.
3. Insurance and Contingency: Firms often carry errors-and-omissions (E&O) insurance or other protective measures. As fraudulent events occur, premiums might rise for everyone. While this might not weigh heavily on a giant corporation, it can be crushing for a small or mid-sized adviser, potentially reducing the pool of honest competition.
4. Public Skepticism of the System: Over time, repeated misconduct stories solidify cynicism about the financial sector. Individuals lose faith in corporate social responsibility claims or marketing assurances of “transparent management.” This can prompt a range of societal consequences, from underinvestment in the stock market to populist calls for overhauling the entire financial system.

Thus, the “cost of doing business” in an environment riddled with fraudulent activities is far greater than the sum stolen in any single instance. It fosters a climate where no investor truly feels secure, ironically punishing even the honest advisers who now grapple with heightened suspicion and compliance overheads.

The Feedback Loop of Profit at Any Cost

The case also illustrates a vicious cycle: maximize profits → exploit loopholes → intensify short-term gains → eventually face regulatory action. By the time regulators catch on, many victims have lost money, and the damage to the system’s credibility is done. Although the SEC is seeking disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus civil penalties, the process is slow. Victims may wait years for restitution, if they receive any at all.

Financial punishments, while crucial, often end up being a fraction of what was gained, or they come too late to have a strong deterrent effect on other would-be violators. Some corporate leaders might see such fines merely as the “cost of doing business” under neoliberal capitalism, where the rules are seen as malleable so long as one can pay for the occasional misstep.

Small Scale, Large Implications

Although Meritage Financial and the sums in question may be modest relative to mammoth corporate scandals, the principle remains the same. In fact, smaller firms might have an easier time hiding manipulations given fewer internal checks. The alleged misconduct by a single adviser playing multiple roles—owner, chief compliance officer, portfolio manager—demonstrates how limited oversight in a lean organizational structure can open the door to fraud.

From an economic fallout perspective, each dollar lost by unsuspecting clients translates into real-life impacts on families, retirees, and individuals saving for their children’s education or personal emergencies. The intangible social and emotional toll must be weighed alongside purely financial losses. That is the deeper cost: the break in trust, the forfeited security of knowing one’s hard-earned savings were in honest hands, and the overshadowing anxiety that might deter future investing.

---

Systemic Failures

At its core, this case reflects a failure of multiple elements—regulatory oversight, internal compliance, and the broader ecosystem that tolerates or overlooks the red flags. One cannot merely condemn a single rogue actor. Instead, a more holistic perspective reveals how the conditions and incentives of neoliberal capitalism enable—if not encourage—schemes like cherry-picking.

Deregulation and Regulatory Capture

Over the past several decades, a wave of deregulation has often reduced the ability of agencies like the SEC to monitor suspicious behavior effectively, especially in near real-time. While the SEC still enforces the law, its resources can be stretched thin across a vast financial landscape. Regulatory capture, a phenomenon where agencies are influenced or dominated by the industries they are meant to regulate, can also undercut rigorous enforcement. Lobbying by industry groups, budget constraints, and the revolving door between regulators and private firms can weaken oversight.

In such an environment, unscrupulous actors may rationalize that regulators have bigger fish to fry—extensive stock-manipulation rings, insider trading by major players, or sweeping Ponzi schemes. A smaller player engaging in illicit trade allocations might slip under the radar for quite some time, as the complaint suggests happened here.

Failed Internal Governance

Where was the compliance department? The code of ethics? The answer lies in the fact that Meritage Financial’s compliance structure was, in practice, a single person: the same person placing the trades. With the owner as the firm’s chief compliance officer (CCO), any oversight was effectively left to self-scrutiny. The SEC emphasizes that even repeated warnings from the broker did not result in changes to allocation practices. This underscores how a formal structure on paper is no guarantee of actual oversight if the firm’s culture or resource distribution does not prioritize independent compliance checks.

The Bigger Problem of Shortcuts Over Integrity

From a macro perspective, the alleged wrongdoing reveals how certain corners of the finance industry have normalized a mentality that cutting corners—or in this case, systematically deceiving clients—can be just another route to success. For every flamboyant story of corporate corruption or a massive scandal, there are countless smaller cases that rarely make mainstream headlines. Each instance, in isolation, might seem contained. Yet collectively, they create an undercurrent of distrust and exploitation that the system struggles to shake.

In an era marked by staggering wealth disparity, each manipulation in favor of insiders or connected parties further skews the distribution of gains. While individuals with close ties to the adviser might gain, ordinary clients foot the bill. This scenario aligns with the broader critique of the “1%” benefiting from networks, technical knowledge, and control over resources—further marginalizing everyday people who lack those connections.

Weak Accountability for Wrongdoers

Another systemic failing is the insufficient accountability that corporate entities and individuals often face. Even if the SEC’s enforcement action is ultimately successful, real deterrence remains questionable if the penalties do not outweigh the potential profits. A particularly cynical reading of these events would say: If one can siphon tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars unnoticed for months, or even years, then the threat of eventually paying a penalty might seem inconsequential—especially if the penalty is just a fraction of the ill-gotten gains or arrives long after the fact.

Granted, more severe penalties, including criminal referrals, can occur in some fraud cases. But the system is also slow and reliant on complicated legal processes. By the time an investor sees restitution, their financial stability or retirement prospects could already be irreversibly harmed.

The Imperative of Structural Changes

When we step back from the specific allegations and place them within the bigger economic system, it becomes clear that patchwork reforms—like issuing new guidelines or stepping up the frequency of compliance audits—might not be enough. The problem is partly structural: so long as professional gatekeepers (brokers, clearing firms, self-regulatory organizations) face incentives not to crack down too hard on paying clients and so long as unscrupulous actors operate in an environment of limited real-time oversight, schemes like cherry-picking can persist.

Moreover, genuine reform requires a rethinking of how financial advisers are paid, how investor protections are enforced, and the extent of continuous oversight. Without that, the story told in this complaint will not be the last of its kind.

---

This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Any observer might wonder: Is this brand of exploitation an exception, or does it represent something more pervasive? From the vantage point of critics of late-stage capitalism, the alleged scheme by Meritage Financial underscores deeper structural issues in how the financial system is constructed. These go beyond mere weaknesses of governance or moral failings of a single individual.

Profit-Driven Strategy Over Client Well-Being

At the center of the legal complaint is a betrayal of the duty of loyalty. In theory, a fiduciary relationship is based on the idea that the adviser places the client’s interests above everything else. Yet in many corners of modern finance, the reality can be reversed: the adviser’s self-interest looms largest, and the client’s well-being becomes secondary—or even a convenient afterthought.

This “profit at all costs” mindset is not an accident; it is the logical outcome of an economic system that places shareholder value and personal enrichment as top priorities. In environments dominated by corporate greed, unscrupulous participants can see regulation as an obstacle to be circumvented, rather than a public good to be upheld.

A Case Reflecting a Larger Corporate Mindset

While the complaint focuses on a small-scale operation, the underlying logic can be found in much larger corporate scandals. Whether it’s big banks manipulating interest-rate benchmarks, pharmaceutical giants hiding adverse studies, or industrial firms downplaying pollution, the pattern is similar: a willingness to cut ethical corners to maintain or boost profits. The difference here is that the scale is smaller and the blow to the broader economy is presumably less catastrophic. Still, the fundamental ethos— a willingness to harm others financially for personal or corporate gain—remains consistent with larger episodes of corporate corruption.

In short, these allegations are not an isolated fluke. They exemplify how opportunists exploit the structural possibilities of the market system. The consistent reemergence of such tactics, across industries and time periods, suggests that the system itself tacitly enables them. The so-called “bad apples” are often produced by the very barrel in which they reside.

The Illusion of the Market’s Self-Correcting Nature

A cornerstone of neoliberal capitalism is the belief that markets will self-correct if left to their own devices. Fraudsters, under this logic, should be weeded out by competition or rational consumer choice. However, the complaint’s narrative dispels this notion by showing that most clients remained unaware of the cherry-picking. Without inside information or advanced data analytics, how could they possibly detect that their adviser was systematically placing them on the losing side of trades?

Competition does not spontaneously reveal fraud. If anything, the difficulty of verifying wrongdoing can reward cunning actors who create the appearance of success for a chosen few, while quietly siphoning away wealth from others.

Normalizing Exploitation

Another subtle implication is how repeated small-scale frauds, or borderline unethical practices, can normalize exploitation within the industry. If an adviser sees that some competitors might be quietly rewarding themselves via “aggressive trade allocations,” they may fear losing ground by not following suit. Over time, unethical or borderline practices can become an entrenched “industry standard,” turning honest advisers into outliers who run the risk of underperforming in the eyes of profit-hungry clients or shareholders.

Ultimately, it becomes increasingly challenging to maintain truly ethical, client-first services when the market itself exerts pressure to deliver high returns by any means necessary. This is how a pattern of predation can become a “feature” of the system rather than a “bug.”

---

The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Corporate entities—and individuals operating within corporate frameworks—often respond to legal action and reputational threats using a well-honed public relations strategy. While Meritage Financial and Steven Susoeff have not, to date, issued the kind of extensive PR statements one might see in a Fortune 500 scandal, the broader PR playbook often includes:

1. Minimizing the Issue: Painting the allegations as a one-off error, blaming the complexities of the trading system, or describing it as a misunderstanding or a bookkeeping mistake.
2. Deflection and Denial: Suggesting the problem arises from “rogue employees” or a “clerical oversight,” even when the complaint alleges direct involvement of top leadership.
3. Partial Admission: Sometimes, once evidence becomes insurmountable, an accused party may acknowledge minor mistakes but vigorously deny major wrongdoing. They might settle charges without admitting fault, paying a fine in exchange for a cessation of litigation.
4. Emphasizing Remedial Measures: Companies may quickly announce the adoption of new compliance systems, the hiring of a respected consultant or third-party monitor, and updated internal policies to prevent a recurrence.

In the event a firm tries to salvage its brand name, these actions all aim at preserving whatever remains of public trust, especially among current clients. While such steps can be constructive, they often do not address the root causes—the incentive structures that make cutting corners so profitable in the first place. Moreover, they do little to rectify the devastation faced by the victims, who have seen their finances affected by these unscrupulous trading practices.

The Role of Contrition

Cynics often point out that any contrition is a practical matter of strategy. Corporate or individual apologies might come not from a genuine shift in mindset, but from reputation management. If the public or clients perceive contrition, they may remain more loyal or be more forgiving. The real test lies in what changes after a settlement or a legal ruling: Are the same executives still in charge? Does the firm’s business model change, or do they simply adopt a more opaque method of continuing questionable practices?

Potential Messaging Tactics

If a public statement were to emerge from the accused parties here, it might follow a well-trodden script:

• “We are cooperating fully with regulators.”
• “We are committed to acting in our clients’ best interests and take these allegations seriously.”
• “We have updated our compliance procedures to prevent any similar issues in the future.”

Without meaningful structural changes, however, these statements can ring hollow. Given that the allegations revolve around the very person who was supposed to be ensuring compliance—the chief compliance officer—the notion that the firm would spontaneously self-regulate after being caught seems questionable.

Damage to Wider Industry Reputation

One of the less-discussed victims of such wrongdoing is the broader financial advisory community. Most advisers genuinely strive to serve their clients well, and their reputations can suffer collateral damage each time a scandal surfaces. Media coverage may paint the sector with a broad brush, leaving investors to wonder if their adviser might also be quietly misallocating trades or engaging in other unethical practices.

As such, honest firms often have to double down on transparency, showing prospective clients exactly how trades are executed and allocated. They might adopt real-time or next-day allocation protocols with rigorous external audits to restore faith. While beneficial to the industry and the public, these measures can impose higher costs on honest operators—another instance of how wrongdoing by a few imposes a systemic burden.

---

Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

“Corporate power vs. public interest” encapsulates a critical tension in this story: the financial system is intended to enable individuals and institutions to invest, build wealth, and spur economic development. Yet in this and countless other instances, the system can be wielded by those with power—whether that be specialized knowledge, capital, or the ability to manipulate the system—to exploit rather than enhance the well-being of the broader public.

Fiduciary Duty as a Shield or a Sword?

The concept of fiduciary duty is meant to be a protective shield for the client—an assurance that the adviser holds the client’s best interests as paramount. But the SEC suggests that in this case, it was ironically employed as a veneer; the official disclaimers were there, but the substance was absent.

A robust marketplace requires public trust that advisers are truly investing on behalf of their clients. Once that trust is broken, people begin to see the system as rigged. This fosters public disillusionment, which can undermine the entire financial infrastructure.

When Regulation Lacks Muscle

The SEC’s action here illustrates that, yes, there is a mechanism in place to pursue alleged fraudsters. But the SEC also shows that the wrongdoing persisted for several months, and it took repeated warnings and eventual removal from the broker’s trading platform before the scheme was effectively halted. By the time the legal complaint was filed, the damage to the disfavored clients—over $144,000 in first-day losses—had already materialized.

Such post-facto enforcement is important, but it does not necessarily rectify the immediate harm felt by victims. Also, the protracted nature of legal processes means that the public only learns about these cases after the fact.

The Systemic Nature of Exploitation

In a more socially responsible form of capitalism, one might expect rigorous real-time oversight or at least frequent, independent audits of block trading allocations. However, implementing such systems can be resource-intensive. In a profit-maximizing climate, diverting funds to robust oversight is often seen as a cost center rather than a profit center. Thus, accountability frameworks can be starved for resources or be forced to rely on voluntary self-policing, which fails precisely because unscrupulous actors have a strong incentive not to self-police.

The Erosion of Public Health and Well-Being?

One might question the relevance of public health when the scandal revolves around securities trading. However, financial stability is intrinsically tied to community health and well-being. Retirement funds, educational savings, and general household prosperity are cornerstones of societal health. When these are eroded—especially by unethical practices—stress, mental health issues, and social strains can escalate, ultimately affecting community well-being.

Moreover, the parallels to other industries are striking: whether it’s a company polluting the environment, neglecting public health standards, or systematically underpaying workers, the underlying pattern is a disregard for the externalities shouldered by the public. Here, the externality is monetary—clients bearing losses that should never have been thrust upon them. But the systemic impact can manifest in job losses, reduced community investment, and diminished quality of life.

In essence, the broader moral of the story is that when corporate incentives are aligned toward private gain, absent robust oversight and accountability, the “public interest” can be trampled underfoot.

---

The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

While much of the discussion has focused on legal and technical details, it is vital to remember the human toll that emerges from cases of investment fraud. When unscrupulous advisers manipulate trades for personal profit, the direct victims are often ordinary people who entrust their life savings to these professionals.

Impact on Individual Clients

Clients come from diverse backgrounds. Some might be retirees depending on stable returns to maintain their standard of living. Others might be middle-aged individuals saving diligently for their children’s education. There may even be younger professionals setting aside funds for a first home purchase. The alleged wrongdoing in this SEC means that real individuals saw day-trade losses they should not have endured. While $144,566 in aggregate might sound modest compared to large-scale corporate fiascos, for the clients involved, each share’s loss can be crushing.

1. Retirement Insecurity: Especially for older clients, short-term losses can jeopardize their ability to retire comfortably. They may be forced to delay retirement, consider part-time work, or curtail necessary expenses—harmful outcomes that extend beyond the purely financial realm.
2. Emotional Distress: Realizing that your trusted adviser deceived you can cause stress, anger, and anxiety. This emotional burden can linger for years, affecting overall mental health.
3. Loss of Opportunity: Funds that evaporate through fraudulent trade allocations are funds that could have been invested elsewhere. Individuals may miss out on compounding returns that might have been critical for building a secure future.

Ripple Effects in Local Economies

Although the SEC does not delve into specific community impacts, it is reasonable to infer broader economic fallout from such financial misconduct. Victims might curb spending in their local area or hold back on property improvements, new business ventures, or charitable donations. In this sense, fraudulent practices can drain resources from local economies, widening wealth disparity within a community.

Moreover, the intangible damage done to trust in financial services can reverberate for years. New entrepreneurs may hesitate to seek capital from local advisers, or older residents might shun retirement planning altogether, hoarding their wealth in cash or less efficient investment vehicles. Over time, this caution can stifle local economic vibrancy and hamper job growth.

Workers Within the Firm

Even within the investment advisory firm itself, employees—ranging from junior analysts to administrative staff—could face repercussions. If the firm is penalized or forced to shut down, employees lose their jobs and potentially face reputational harm. Colleagues who were unaware of the wrongdoing may suffer guilt, suspicion, or embarrassment by association. Those trying to maintain professional standards in such a workplace may have felt intimidated into silence or dismissed as troublemakers if they spoke up.

While the SEC focuses on the actions of the owners and top officers, the ramifications for lower-level workers who rarely have control over such schemes deserve attention in the broader narrative. They can be thrust into unemployment or industry blacklisting, even though they neither orchestrated nor benefited from the wrongdoing.

Social Justice Angle

From a social justice perspective, the ability to invest and grow wealth is key to bridging inequality gaps. When fraudulent conduct targets or disproportionately harms smaller clients—who may have less recourse to legal representation or a financial safety net—the result is an acceleration of wealth disparity. On the other hand, the favored accounts (including, allegedly, the adviser’s personal and acquaintances’ accounts) grow wealthier, exacerbating the gap. This dynamic highlights how unethical practices can perpetuate cycles of economic disenfranchisement and vulnerability.

---

Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

This SEC offers yet another reminder that corporate accountability is a global challenge. Fraudulent conduct in financial advising, corporate corruption in supply chains, and environmental abuses by industrial conglomerates all stem from a similar driver: the pursuit of profit with insufficient checks on unethical behavior.

Rise of International Regulatory Collaboration

In recent years, regulatory bodies around the world have increased collaboration, sharing data and strategies to spot cross-border fraud. Though the Meritage Financial case appears confined to the United States, it reflects a universal pattern: once the basic triggers of profit, loopholes, and insufficient oversight are in place, unscrupulous individuals or entities can flourish.

Numerous high-profile scandals—from European money laundering schemes to Asian stock manipulation rings—illustrate the difficulty regulators face in policing complex, transnational networks. The free flow of capital, while beneficial in many respects, can also enable fraudsters to move funds, obscure ownership, and dodge local regulations. Efforts by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and similar organizations aim to unify standards, but they face significant hurdles, including political pressures and uneven enforcement from country to country.

Neoliberal Capitalism and Global Pressures

The neoliberal approach—characterized by reduced state intervention and increased reliance on market forces—has shaped financial markets worldwide. It has delivered certain efficiencies and spurred growth, but it has also given rise to regulatory arbitrage, where corporations or advisers shift operations to jurisdictions with laxer oversight. In smaller or understaffed regulatory environments, the potential for unscrupulous behavior grows.

Even in large markets with well-established agencies like the SEC, resource constraints and elaborate legal processes can hamper timely intervention. Multiply these challenges across multiple jurisdictions, and it becomes clear how easily a determined bad actor can exploit the system.

Calls for Tighter Global Standards

Yet, the tide may be slowly turning, as public demand for corporate ethics intensifies. International watchdog organizations and activist groups call for more rigorous standards on transparency, real-time reporting, and independent audits. Some have championed a push toward environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria, hoping that a new wave of conscientious investing will force companies to prioritize more than just profit.

However, ESG itself is not a panacea. Just as compliance manuals can be ignored, ESG principles can be turned into window dressing unless they are enforced by credible mechanisms. The crucial question is whether the industry can develop robust, institutional forms of accountability that transcend short-term profit goals.

The Challenge of Sustaining Momentum

A high-profile case can spark temporary public outcry and lead to short-lived reforms. Over the long term, sustaining accountability requires continuous vigilance. If the global economic system continues to reward those who bend rules in their favor, while punishing transparency with higher operational costs, then each new scandal is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

In effect, global corporate accountability measures remain a work in progress. Stories like the Meritage Financial complaint demonstrate that localized wrongdoing is part of a broader, planetary pattern. Whether big or small, each case should amplify the urgency for cross-border, cross-industry cooperation in the quest for genuine corporate social responsibility.

---

Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

The SEC’s legal action against Meritage Financial Group and Steven Susoeff underscores how easily corporate corruption can take hold when oversight is insufficient and when profit maximization stands as a paramount goal, overshadowing ethical obligations. While the SEC aims to punish and correct the wrongdoing, deeper structural fixes are required to prevent similar schemes in the future. Below are potential pathways for a more equitable and transparent investment landscape.

1. Strengthening Regulatory Frameworks

• Real-Time Allocation Monitoring: Regulators could mandate that investment advisers allocate trades immediately or within a narrow time window to eliminate the chance of selecting winners and losers after seeing intraday price movements.
• Heightened Broker Oversight: Clearing brokers, like “Broker A” in this case, might be required to flag unusually high intraday allocation disparities automatically. This would trigger a quick investigation before large-scale damage accrues.
• Increased Funding for Regulators: Agencies like the SEC need robust budgets to proactively audit and investigate potential fraud. Underfunded regulators struggle to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated schemes.

2. Independent Compliance Structures

• Mandatory Separation of Roles: A single individual should not serve as both chief compliance officer and primary trader. Splitting compliance from executive roles ensures that compliance officers have the autonomy and authority to challenge suspicious activity.
• Third-Party Audits: At regular intervals, external auditors could review block trading records to verify fair allocations. Such audits would not rely on the firm’s internal data alone but would also access broker feeds for cross-referencing.
• Whistleblower Protections: Strengthening legal protection and incentives for insiders or employees to report wrongdoing can serve as a powerful deterrent against insider-led fraud.

3. Educating and Empowering Investors

• Transparent Reporting: Advisers should provide more granular, frequent reports showing how block trades were allocated. This might mean monthly or quarterly disclosures detailing the exact share price at allocation.
• Investing in Financial Literacy: Many investors remain unaware of red flags in trade allocation or how to spot suspicious patterns in their statements. Improved access to education could prompt earlier detection and reporting of irregularities.
• Consumer Advocacy Groups: Nonprofit organizations or industry watchdogs could publish unbiased reviews and ratings of financial advisers’ compliance records, encouraging better behavior through reputational incentives.

4. Reforming Incentive Structures

• Alternative Fee Models: Instead of purely asset-based or performance-based fees, some have proposed “client-first” or “success-sharing” structures that penalize advisers if client accounts underperform a relevant benchmark. This approach disincentivizes unethical behavior aimed at manipulating short-term trade results.
• Cultural Shifts: Firms can reorient their corporate culture to prioritize corporate social responsibility over short-term gains. This is easier said than done, but consistent training, leadership from the top, and emphasis on client well-being can reduce the impetus to cut corners.

5. Legal Reforms and Access to Justice

• Streamlined Class Actions: Enabling swift class-action lawsuits for victims of block trading fraud may deter potential wrongdoers. If advisers know that even moderate, isolated misconduct could lead to substantial group litigation, the risk might outweigh potential gains.
• Criminal Penalties for Clear Intent: Civil penalties, while important, can sometimes be seen as a “cost of doing business.” Strict criminal liability for deliberate, large-scale misallocation can elevate the sense of personal risk for would-be fraudsters.

6. Building a Culture of Accountability

Finally, no reform agenda is complete without an overarching cultural shift. Industry leaders, educators, and policymakers must emphasize that the public interest—from retirees counting on stable portfolios to the broader economic system—takes precedence over private gain. This means celebrating and rewarding ethical behavior and shining a light on abuses quickly and transparently.

True consumer advocacy demands not only the punishment of offenders but also a preventative framework that spares future investors from similar manipulations. Although some critics doubt that large corporations or small advisories will radically change in a neoliberal capitalist environment—where the impetus to maximize returns remains overwhelming—public pressure can recalibrate at least some incentives. When enough investors demand accountability, transparency, and fairness, it becomes economically rewarding for financial advisers to adopt these practices.

---

Complaint PDF from the SEC’s website: https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/complaints/2025/comp26239.pdf