Palo Alto, CA | January 13, 2026
California financial advisor Jessica Y. Jung (CRD# 4922155) has accumulated a troubling regulatory and compliance record spanning multiple firms, including a FINRA sanction for falsifying order tickets, termination from LPL Financial for unauthorized trading, a $147,000 settlement over unsuitable alternative investments, and a pending arbitration alleging breach of fiduciary duty involving private placements.
According to FINRA BrokerCheck records, Jung’s disclosure history reveals a pattern of compliance failures and customer disputes that raise serious concerns about her investment practices and adherence to industry regulations. Despite these issues, she continues to operate as a registered representative with Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. in Palo Alto, California, where she began working in June 2025—just months after leaving Aegis Capital Corp under circumstances that led to her current pending complaint.
The combination of regulatory sanctions, employment termination, and customer complaints—spanning from 2021 to present—suggests persistent issues with compliance, suitability analysis, and proper authorization procedures.
BrokerCheck Snapshot
Name: Jessica Y. Jung
CRD #: 4922155
Firm: Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. / Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc.
Location: Palo Alto, CA / Brentwood, TN
Years in Industry: 21
Number of Disclosures: 4 (1 Regulatory Event, 2 Customer Disputes, 1 Termination)
FINRA Regulatory Action: Falsifying Order Tickets
In November 2024, FINRA sanctioned Jung for causing her member firm to maintain inaccurate books and records by mismarking order tickets in the firm’s electronic order entry system. This regulatory action resulted in:
Sanction: One-month suspension (December 2, 2024 – January 1, 2025)
Fine: $5,000 (paid November 28, 2024)
Case Number: 2021071175101
Firm Where Violations Occurred: LPL Financial LLC
Product Type: Speculative securities
The Violations: Circumventing Firm Controls
According to FINRA’s findings, Jung “caused his member firm to maintain inaccurate books and records by mismarking order tickets in the firm’s electronic order entry system for separate customer accounts relating to the purchase and/or sale of a speculative security.”
The key finding: “Had the tickets been marked correctly, the transactions would not have been permitted by the firm.”
This language reveals that Jung deliberately mismarked orders to bypass firm controls designed to prevent unsuitable or unauthorized transactions. By falsifying the order tickets, Jung enabled transactions that the firm’s compliance systems would otherwise have blocked—a serious violation of securities regulations and firm policies.
Why This Matters
Order ticket accuracy is fundamental to:
- Firm supervision – Compliance systems rely on accurate data
- Regulatory oversight – FINRA monitors trading through accurate records
- Investor protection – Controls exist to prevent unsuitable trades
- Market integrity – Accurate books and records are required by law
When brokers falsify order tickets to circumvent controls, they undermine the entire regulatory framework designed to protect investors. One customer lost approximately $300 on a trade and was reimbursed by the firm, though Jung states no other customers complained and she earned no commissions on the trades.
Jung accepted the sanctions through an Acceptance, Waiver & Consent (AWC) agreement without admitting or denying the findings—a common regulatory settlement mechanism.
Termination from LPL Financial: Unauthorized Trading
On March 22, 2021, LPL Financial discharged Jung following allegations that she exceeded her discretionary authority in customer accounts.
Termination Date: March 22, 2021
Allegation: “Representative had discretion to transact certain types of securities in customer accounts but, exceeded that authority by transacting securities not covered by written discretionary authority.”
Product Type: Equity Listed (Common & Preferred Stock)
Understanding Discretionary Authority Violations
Discretionary authority allows brokers to make investment decisions without obtaining specific approval for each transaction. However, this authority is strictly limited by:
- Written authorization – Must be documented and signed by the client
- Scope limitations – Only certain securities or transaction types may be authorized
- Suitability requirements – All trades must still be suitable
- Firm approval – The firm must approve discretionary arrangements
Jung allegedly transacted in securities “not covered by written discretionary authority”—meaning she made investment decisions in areas where clients had not given her permission to act independently. This is a form of unauthorized trading, one of the most serious violations in the securities industry.
The Timeline Problem
The regulatory action for falsifying order tickets involved conduct that occurred while Jung was at LPL Financial—the same firm that terminated her for unauthorized trading. The FINRA case (2021071175101) wasn’t resolved until November 2024, more than three years after her termination.
This timeline suggests:
- The order ticket violations may have been discovered during or after the investigation that led to her termination
- The conduct that led to termination may be related to the regulatory violations
- LPL Financial’s internal investigation uncovered compliance failures serious enough to warrant discharge
Customer Complaint: $147,000 Settlement for Unsuitable Alternative Investments
Between 2011 and 2013—while Jung was with LPL Financial—a customer alleged that she made misrepresentations and unsuitable investment recommendations in various alternative investments that did not match the client’s risk tolerance.
FINRA Case #: 21-01173
Filing Date: May 4, 2021
Products Involved:
- Oil & Gas investments
- Real Estate Securities
- Business Development Companies (BDCs)
Settlement Amount: $147,000
Settlement Date: March 1, 2023
Jung’s Contribution: $0
Jung’s Response: Disputed Damages
In her broker statement, Jung vigorously contested the complaint:
“The former client, who has an MBA, claimed losses he did not incur. We have a signed affidavit by a forensic accountant and expert witness who validated that the former client made more than 250K from his alternative investments. I was not a named party in the arbitration case, nor did I contribute anything towards the settlement. The former client took advantage of a mass arbitrations against LPL and was paid a settlement even though he did not suffer any damages.”
Understanding Settlement Despite Disputed Claims
Jung’s statement raises important points about securities arbitration:
- Firms often settle without naming individual brokers – This protects brokers from personal liability but doesn’t mean the claims lacked merit
- “Mass arbitrations” – Multiple similar complaints filed together, often involving the same products or sales practices
- Business settlements – Firms may settle to avoid litigation costs, negative publicity, or to resolve cases expeditiously—even when they believe they have strong defenses
- The disclosure remains – Regardless of Jung’s objections, the $147,000 settlement is a permanent part of her FINRA record
The Problem with Alternative Investments
The complaint involved three categories of alternative investments—oil & gas, real estate securities, and BDCs—all of which carry significant risks:
Oil & Gas Investments:
- Highly speculative and volatile
- Subject to commodity price swings
- Often illiquid with long holding periods
- Can result in total loss of investment
- Complex tax implications
Real Estate Securities (likely private REITs or partnerships):
- Illiquidity—cannot be easily sold
- Valuation challenges
- Concentration risk in real estate sector
- High fees and commissions
- Limited transparency
Business Development Companies (BDCs):
- High-risk lending to small and mid-sized companies
- Leverage magnifies both gains and losses
- Income distributions may include return of capital
- Complex structures difficult for average investors to understand
- Significant credit and interest rate risk
For a client with limited risk tolerance, these investments would be particularly unsuitable.
Pending Complaint: Private Placement Allegations at Aegis Capital
Jung now faces a pending FINRA arbitration filed in September 2025, alleging multiple violations during her time at Aegis Capital Corp:
FINRA Case #: 25-01901
Filing Date: September 9, 2025
Date Received by Jung: September 10, 2025 (firm report) / October 13, 2025 (broker report)
Product Type: Private Placement
Alleged Damages: Unspecified (estimated above $5,000)
Allegations:
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Unsuitable investments
- Material misrepresentations
- Material omissions
- Breach of FINRA rules
- Breach of contract
Status: Pending
The Significance of Private Placement Allegations
Private placements are among the most problematic investments sold to retail investors. They typically involve:
- No SEC registration – Limited regulatory oversight
- Extreme illiquidity – Cannot be resold easily
- High risk of loss – Many fail entirely
- Opacity – Limited financial disclosure
- High commissions – Creates incentive for brokers to recommend regardless of suitability
- Complexity – Difficult for average investors to evaluate
When combined with allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and material misrepresentations, private placement complaints often involve:
- Failure to disclose risks adequately
- Overstatement of potential returns
- Concealment of conflicts of interest
- Recommendations based on commission rather than client benefit
- Inadequate suitability analysis
Pattern Analysis: Four Disclosure Events Across Three Firms
Jung’s disclosure history reveals troubling patterns:
Pattern #1: Compliance and Authorization Issues
- 2021: Terminated for exceeding discretionary authority
- 2024: FINRA sanction for falsifying order tickets to bypass firm controls
Both events involve circumventing proper procedures and controls—suggesting a willingness to take shortcuts or disregard established compliance requirements.
Pattern #2: Suitability Concerns
- 2011-2013: Alternative investments alleged unsuitable (settled for $147,000)
- 2025: Private placement allegations include unsuitable investments
Both complaints involve high-risk, illiquid alternative investments and allegations of unsuitability—suggesting potential issues with risk assessment and product selection.
Pattern #3: Firm Transitions Following Problems
- March 2021: Terminated from LPL Financial
- April 2021: Joined Aegis Capital Corp (one month later)
- September 2025: Customer complaint filed against Jung at Aegis
- June 2025: Joined Cambridge Investment Research (three months before complaint was filed)
The quick transitions between firms—and the timing of the current complaint shortly after joining a new firm—raise questions about disclosure to new employers and ongoing supervision.
Jessica Jung’s Career Background
According to FINRA records, Jessica Jung has been in the securities industry since 2005, working primarily in California and Tennessee:
Current Firms:
- Cambridge Investment Research, Inc. (June 2025 – Present) – Registered Representative in Palo Alto, CA / Brentwood, TN
- Cambridge Investment Research Advisors, Inc. (June 2025 – Present) – Investment Advisor Representative
Previous Firms:
- Aegis Capital Corp. (April 2021 – July 2025) – Brentwood, TN
- LPL Financial LLC (October 2010 – April 2021) – Palo Alto, CA – TERMINATED
- Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. (February 2007 – September 2010) – Nashville, TN
- AmSouth Investment Services/Management (January 2006 – February 2007) – Memphis/Nashville, TN
- Morgan Stanley (May 2005 – January 2006) – Purchase, NY
Securities Licenses:
- Investment Banking Registered Representative (Series 79TO) – passed January 2023
- General Securities Representative (Series 7) – passed May 2005
- Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) – passed October 2018
- Futures Managed Funds (Series 31) – passed June 2005
- Uniform Combined State Law (Series 66) – passed July 2005
Professional Designations:
- Certified Financial Planner (CFP®)
Other Business Activities: Jung operates or is affiliated with multiple outside business activities:
- Vast Wealth Advisors (Owner/DBA) – Brentwood, TN
- Crump – Wealth Advisor
- Partners Financial – Insurance Agent
- Partners Financial Advisory Board – Board Member
- Vast Medical – President
This extensive network of outside business activities—while not inherently problematic—can create conflicts of interest and complicate supervision if not properly disclosed and managed.
Red Flags: What Investors Should Watch For
Jung’s disclosure history highlights several warning signs that all investors should monitor:
1. Regulatory Actions Involving Falsification
Any broker who has been sanctioned for falsifying records or bypassing controls has demonstrated a willingness to circumvent protections designed to safeguard investors.
2. Employment Termination
Discharge from a major firm like LPL Financial for exceeding discretionary authority is a serious red flag. Firms don’t terminate brokers lightly—the decision typically follows investigation and documentation of serious misconduct.
3. Pattern of Unsuitable Investment Recommendations
Two separate complaints involving high-risk alternative investments suggest potential systemic issues with suitability analysis and product selection.
4. Quick Firm Transitions
Rapid movement between firms—especially following termination or shortly before customer complaints are filed—can indicate attempts to distance oneself from problematic conduct or inadequate vetting by new employers.
5. Multiple Outside Business Activities
While legal and common, extensive outside business interests can create conflicts of interest if compensation or relationships influence investment recommendations.
Can You Recover Losses from Unsuitable Alternative Investments?
If you suffered losses due to unsuitable investments in private placements, oil and gas partnerships, real estate securities, or other alternative investments that were misrepresented or inappropriately recommended, you may be entitled to recover your losses through FINRA arbitration.
Alternative investments and private placements are often unsuitable for:
- Investors with moderate to conservative risk tolerance
- Those who need liquidity or may need access to their funds
- Retirees who cannot afford to lose principal
- Investors who don’t fully understand the complex structures and risks
- Those who are already over-concentrated in alternative investments
- Anyone who was not provided complete and accurate risk disclosures
Patil Law, P.C. represents investors nationwide who have been harmed by unsuitable investment recommendations, unauthorized trading, breach of fiduciary duty, and securities fraud. We have over 15 years of experience in securities law and have recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases.
About FINRA Arbitration
FINRA arbitration is a streamlined dispute resolution process for securities-related claims. It offers a faster, more cost-effective alternative to traditional court litigation. Most cases are resolved within 12-16 months. Claims generally must be filed within six years of the incident.
FINRA arbitration provides key advantages:
- Expert decision-makers who understand securities industry practices
- Discovery rights to obtain documents and testimony from firms and brokers
- Lower costs compared to traditional court litigation
- Faster resolution with most cases concluding in 12-16 months
- Binding awards enforceable in court
- Ability to name multiple parties including brokers, firms, and supervisors
Our Experience with Alternative Investment and Regulatory Violation Cases
Cases involving alternative investments, regulatory violations, and unauthorized trading require attorneys who understand both the legal standards and the complex compliance framework governing broker conduct. Attorney Chetan Patil and our legal team—including attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera—focus exclusively on investor protection and securities law.
We handle cases involving:
- Unsuitable private placement investments
- Oil and gas partnership losses
- Real estate security losses
- Business Development Company (BDC) losses
- Unauthorized trading and discretionary authority violations
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Material misrepresentations and omissions
- Failure to supervise
We work on a contingency fee basis, meaning you pay no attorney fees unless we recover money for you. Your consultation is completely free and confidential.
Time Limits Apply
Securities claims must generally be filed within six years under FINRA rules. However, the calculation of this deadline can be complex and may depend on:
- The date of the investment or transaction
- When you discovered (or should have discovered) the problem
- The date of the last communication or transaction
- Applicable state law variations
If you invested with Jessica Jung during her time at LPL Financial (2010-2021), Aegis Capital (2021-2025), or Cambridge Investment Research (2025-present), don’t assume your claim is too old without consulting an attorney. Time may be running out to protect your rights.
Related Brokers and Firms
If you’ve had concerns with advisors at similar firms or experienced comparable issues, you may want to review:
- LPL Financial Advisors – Complaints & Disclosures
- Unsuitable Investment Claims
- Private Placement Losses
- REIT Losses
- Broker Misconduct
- Unauthorized Trading
- Failure to Supervise
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the complaints and regulatory actions against Jessica Jung?
Jessica Jung has accumulated four disclosure events: (1) A November 2024 FINRA sanction with a one-month suspension and $5,000 fine for falsifying order tickets to bypass firm controls; (2) March 2021 termination from LPL Financial for exceeding discretionary authority; (3) A $147,000 settlement for alleged unsuitable alternative investment recommendations involving oil & gas, real estate securities, and BDCs from 2011-2013; and (4) A pending September 2025 arbitration alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unsuitable private placements, and material misrepresentations.
Can investors recover losses involving alternative investments?
Yes. Investors who suffered losses due to unsuitable alternative investments, private placements, unauthorized trading, or breach of fiduciary duty may be entitled to recover their losses through FINRA arbitration. The fact that Jung has both a regulatory sanction and a significant settlement involving similar allegations may strengthen claims by other investors who experienced similar issues.
What does “unsuitable investment” mean?
An unsuitable investment is one that doesn’t align with an investor’s financial situation, investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, or liquidity needs. Alternative investments like private placements, oil and gas partnerships, and non-traded real estate securities are particularly prone to suitability issues because they carry high risk, lack liquidity, and involve complex structures that many investors don’t fully understand.
How do I look up a broker on BrokerCheck?
Visit FINRA’s BrokerCheck website at brokercheck.finra.org and search by the broker’s name or CRD number. BrokerCheck provides free access to employment history, registrations, qualifications, and disclosure events including customer complaints, regulatory actions, and employment terminations.
What should I do if I suspect broker misconduct?
First, gather all documentation related to your investments, including account statements, trade confirmations, prospectuses, and communications with your broker. File a written complaint with your brokerage firm’s compliance department. Then, consult with a securities attorney who can evaluate whether you have grounds for a FINRA arbitration claim. Time limits apply, so don’t delay seeking legal guidance.
About Patil Law, P.C.
Patil Law, P.C. is a securities litigation firm dedicated to representing investors who have suffered losses due to broker misconduct, unsuitable recommendations, and securities fraud. Founded in 2018 by attorney Chetan Patil, the firm focuses exclusively on FINRA arbitration and investment loss recovery.
With over 15 years of combined experience in securities law, Patil Law has successfully recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases. Attorney Chetan Patil earned his law degree from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera earned their law degrees from University of Miami. The firm handles cases nationwide involving unauthorized trading, churning, unsuitable investments, breach of fiduciary duty, and failure to supervise.
Patil Law works on a contingency fee basis, meaning clients pay no attorney fees unless the firm successfully recovers money on their behalf. All consultations are free and confidential.
Contact Patil Law Today
If you lost money in alternative investments, private placements, or experienced unauthorized trading or other issues with Jessica Jung or any other financial advisor, contact us today for a free, confidential consultation.
Call: 800-950-6553
Email: info@patillaw.com
Website: investmentlosslawyer.com
There is no cost and no obligation. We’re here to help.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is based on FINRA BrokerCheck records, public arbitration filings, and regulatory actions. The pending arbitration involves allegations that are unproven. The settled complaint was resolved without admission of wrongdoing. The regulatory action was resolved through an Acceptance, Waiver & Consent agreement. All investors are entitled to fair treatment under securities laws. This is attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. This communication is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship.
