Melville, NY | January 23, 2026
Salvatore Anthony LaRocca (CRD# 1742689), a financial advisor with Voya Financial Advisors, Inc., was suspended for one month and fined $12,500 in 2024-2025 for having another person complete his required continuing education courses and then falsely certifying he had personally completed them. The regulatory actions by FINRA and the New York State Department of Financial Services represent serious violations of professional ethics and industry standards.
LaRocca, who has been in the securities industry since 1987, also has two denied customer complaints on his record alleging inadequate fee disclosure and unauthorized transfers involving variable annuities, with combined alleged damages of $98,363.
BrokerCheck Snapshot
Name: Salvatore Anthony LaRocca
CRD #: 1742689
Current Firm: Voya Financial Advisors, Inc.
Location: Melville, New York
Years in Industry: 38 (since 1987)
Number of Disclosures: 4 (2 regulatory events, 2 customer disputes)
FINRA Suspension and Fine: Continuing Education Fraud
In February 2024, FINRA issued an Acceptance, Waiver and Consent (AWC) order against LaRocca for violating FINRA Rule 2010 by falsely certifying that he had personally completed required continuing education.
The Violation:
In February 2022, another person completed 15 hours of insurance continuing education credits on LaRocca’s behalf. Despite this, LaRocca certified to the State of New York that he had personally completed the required continuing education courses.
FINRA’s Findings:
Without admitting or denying the findings, LaRocca consented to sanctions based on FINRA’s allegations that he:
- Had another person complete 15 hours of required continuing education on his behalf
- Falsely certified to New York State that he had personally completed the courses
- Violated FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade)
Sanctions Imposed:
- Fine: $5,000 (paid February 20, 2024)
- Suspension: 30 days in all capacities (March 4 – April 3, 2024)
- Case Number: 2023079740001
LaRocca neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the AWC, a standard provision in consent agreements that allows brokers to resolve matters without a formal hearing.
New York State Fine: False Application Information
In November 2025, the New York State Department of Financial Services imposed additional sanctions against LaRocca related to the same continuing education fraud.
The Allegations:
The State alleged that LaRocca violated Section 2103(a) of the Insurance Law in connection with his renewal application certified and submitted on or about February 18, 2022. The State further alleged that the application contained false and/or inaccurate information in violation of Section 2132(g) of the Insurance Law.
Sanctions Imposed:
- Monetary Penalty: $7,500 (paid November 7, 2025)
- Resolution: Stipulation and Consent
- Case Number: 2025-0323-S
- Order Type: Final order based on violations of laws prohibiting fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive conduct
This order represents a finding that LaRocca’s conduct violated laws prohibiting fraudulent or deceptive conduct—a serious designation that appears permanently on his regulatory record.
The Significance of Continuing Education Requirements
Continuing education (CE) requirements exist to ensure that financial professionals remain current on:
- Changes in securities laws and regulations
- New products and investment strategies
- Evolving industry standards and best practices
- Ethics and professional responsibility
- Consumer protection requirements
Why CE Fraud Matters:
When brokers bypass continuing education requirements, they may lack current knowledge of:
- Regulatory changes that protect investors
- New product risks and disclosure requirements
- Updated suitability and best interest standards
- Emerging fraud schemes and red flags
- Current market conditions and investment strategies
This knowledge gap can directly harm clients through outdated advice, failure to recognize unsuitable products, or ignorance of new investor protection requirements.
The Pattern of Shortcuts:
Regulators view CE fraud seriously because it suggests a willingness to take shortcuts and deceive regulators—traits that may extend to client interactions. If a broker will lie to state regulators about completing education, questions arise about their honesty in other professional contexts.
Customer Complaints: Variable Annuity Issues
Denied Complaint #1: September 2025 – $90,000
Filed in August 2025, this complaint alleged that LaRocca prepared paperwork in April 2025 that caused a transfer of assets into a fixed account that exceeded the amount the complainant wished to transfer. The complainant alleged this resulted in approximately $90,000 in lost earnings.
Product Type: Variable Annuity
Alleged Damages: $90,000
Status: Denied (September 23, 2025)
LaRocca’s Response: “The paperwork that the complainant signed in April of 2025 directed all assets in the account to be re-allocated to the fixed account. The complainant received a confirmation of the transfer of assets and did not question the transaction until the complaint filed in August of 2025.”
This case highlights a common dispute in variable annuity transactions: whether the paperwork accurately reflected the client’s intentions, and whether the advisor adequately explained the consequences of the transaction.
Denied Complaint #2: April 2018 – $8,363
Filed in March 2018, this complaint alleged that LaRocca did not adequately disclose the fees and/or deferred sales charges associated with the client’s variable annuity account.
Product Type: Variable Annuity
Alleged Damages: $8,363.75
Status: Denied (April 20, 2018)
Both denied complaints involve variable annuities—complex insurance products that often carry substantial fees, surrender charges, and restrictions that investors may not fully understand.
Understanding Variable Annuities and Disclosure Requirements
Variable annuities are insurance contracts that combine investment features with insurance benefits. They are among the most complex—and expensive—products in the securities industry.
Common Variable Annuity Costs:
Mortality and Expense Risk Charges: Typically 1-1.5% annually, charged to cover insurance features and administrative costs.
Investment Management Fees: Usually 0.5-1% annually for the underlying investment options.
Surrender Charges: Often 7-10% in the first year, declining over a 7-10 year surrender period. Investors who need their money back early can lose substantial amounts.
Rider Fees: Additional charges for death benefits, living benefits, or guaranteed withdrawal features—often another 0.5-1.5% annually.
Total Annual Costs: Frequently 2-4% per year, significantly higher than mutual funds or ETFs.
Disclosure Requirements:
Brokers selling variable annuities must:
- Provide a prospectus explaining all fees, risks, and features
- Ensure the product is suitable for the client’s needs and financial situation
- Explain surrender charges and the long-term nature of the commitment
- Disclose alternatives that may be less expensive or more suitable
- Obtain signed acknowledgments that the client understands the product
Failure to adequately disclose fees can constitute broker misconduct, particularly when clients later discover unexpected charges or restrictions.
LaRocca’s Career History
LaRocca has been in the securities industry for 38 years, working for several major firms:
Current Firm:
- Voya Financial Advisors, Inc. (January 2011 – Present) – 14 years
Previous Firms:
- ING Financial Advisers, LLC (October 1993 – January 2011) – 17 years
- Equico Securities, Inc. (January 1990 – January 1995) – 5 years
- The Equitable Life Assurance Society (January 1990 – January 1995) – 5 years
- Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company (February 1990 – October 1993) – 3 years
- Pruco Securities Corporation (October 1987 – January 1990) – 2 years
LaRocca has shown relative stability in his career, spending 17 years at ING Financial Advisers before it became Voya Financial Advisors (the firms are related through corporate restructuring).
Current Registrations:
- General Securities Representative (Series 7)
- Investment Company/Variable Contracts Representative (Series 6)
Licenses: LaRocca is currently licensed in 7 U.S. states: Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.
Outside Business Activities
LaRocca operates as an independent insurance agent under his own name, selling fixed insurance products. This is a common arrangement for financial advisors, but it creates potential conflicts of interest:
- Higher commissions on insurance products may incentivize recommendations of annuities over other investments
- Dual roles as securities representative and insurance agent can blur the lines between investment advice and insurance sales
- Clients may not fully understand which “hat” the advisor is wearing in any given recommendation
These conflicts must be properly disclosed and managed to ensure client interests come first.
Red Flags for Variable Annuity Investors
The complaints against LaRocca were denied. The below highlight warning signs investors should watch for:
- Inadequate Fee Disclosure
Variable annuities can have total annual costs of 3-4% or more. If your advisor didn’t clearly explain all fees—including surrender charges, mortality and expense charges, investment fees, and rider costs—this may constitute inadequate disclosure.
- Unclear Transaction Paperwork
If you’re uncertain what you’re signing or what will happen to your assets, don’t sign. Insist on clear explanations in writing.
- High-Pressure Sales Tactics
Variable annuities are long-term commitments with significant surrender charges. Legitimate advisors give clients time to review prospectuses, consider alternatives, and ask questions. Pressure to sign quickly is a major red flag.
- Unsuitable for Your Situation
Variable annuities may be inappropriate for:
- Investors who already have annuities inside retirement accounts (creating unnecessary fees)
- Those who may need access to funds within 7-10 years
- Elderly investors who may not live long enough to benefit from long-term features
- Conservative investors uncomfortable with market risk
- Lack of Alternatives Discussion
Before recommending a variable annuity, advisors should discuss lower-cost alternatives like mutual funds, ETFs, or other investment options that might better serve your needs.
Can Investors Recover Losses from Variable Annuity Misconduct?
If you suffered losses due to inadequate disclosure of variable annuity fees, unsuitable recommendations, or misrepresentation of product features, you may be entitled to recover your losses through FINRA arbitration.
Successful claims often involve:
- Failure to disclose surrender charges, fees, or restrictions
- Unsuitable recommendations for elderly or conservative investors
- Replacing one annuity with another (unnecessary “switching”)
- Misrepresentation of liquidity, safety, or guarantees
- Placing annuities inside IRAs where tax deferral is redundant
Patil Law, P.C. has over 15 years of experience representing investors in securities arbitration cases involving variable annuities and broker misconduct. We have successfully recovered more than $25 million for clients across 1,000+ cases.
Our Experience with Variable Annuity Cases
Attorney Chetan Patil and our legal team—including attorneys Gabriela Dubrocq and Patricia Herrera—understand the complexities of variable annuity products and the disclosure requirements that protect investors.
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
What makes continuing education fraud a serious regulatory violation?
Continuing education fraud demonstrates a willingness to deceive regulators and take shortcuts on professional obligations. Regulators view this as a character issue that raises questions about the broker’s integrity in all professional dealings. When a broker lies about completing required education, they may lack current knowledge of investor protection rules, new product risks, or regulatory changes—potentially harming clients through outdated or inadequate advice. The violation also suggests the broker prioritizes convenience over compliance.
Can a broker’s regulatory violations affect whether I can recover investment losses?
Yes, regulatory violations can strengthen your case in FINRA arbitration. LaRocca’s sanctions for continuing education fraud demonstrate a pattern of cutting corners and potentially lacking current knowledge of industry standards. While the CE fraud itself doesn’t prove misconduct toward clients, it provides important context about the broker’s approach to professional obligations. Arbitrators may view regulatory violations as evidence of a broader pattern of disregarding rules and professional standards.
How can I tell if I’m paying too much in variable annuity fees?
Review your annual statements and prospectus to identify all fees: mortality and expense charges (usually 1-1.5%), investment management fees (0.5-1%), and any rider fees for guaranteed benefits (0.5-1.5% or more). Total annual costs of 2.5-4% are common. Compare these to mutual fund expense ratios (often 0.5-1%) or ETFs (often 0.1-0.5%). If your annuity costs 3% annually and you’re earning 7% returns, fees consume nearly half your gains. Also check surrender charges—7-10% penalties in early years can trap you in an expensive product.
What is an annuity “switch” and why is it often unsuitable?
An annuity switch (or “1035 exchange”) occurs when an advisor recommends surrendering one annuity to purchase another. This is often unsuitable because: you may pay surrender charges on the old annuity (7-10% of your account value); the new annuity starts a new surrender charge period, locking up your money for another 7-10 years; the advisor earns a new commission (5-8% of the purchase amount); and you may lose valuable features from the old annuity. Switches are rarely in the client’s best interest unless the new product offers substantially better benefits that outweigh these costs.
If a complaint was denied, does that mean the broker did nothing wrong?
Not necessarily. “Denied” means the firm rejected the complaint—it doesn’t mean an independent investigation found no wrongdoing. Firms deny many complaints for business reasons, and many legitimate claims are initially denied before being resolved through arbitration. In LaRocca’s case, both complaints were denied by the firm, but the allegations—inadequate fee disclosure and unauthorized transfers—represent serious concerns that deserve investigation. Denied complaints remain on BrokerCheck records because regulators believe investors should know about all allegations, regardless of the firm’s internal decision.
What should I do if I think my financial advisor didn’t adequately disclose variable annuity fees?
First, gather all documents: the annuity prospectus, account statements showing fees charged, trade confirmations, and any communications with your advisor about the purchase. Calculate your total annual fees as a percentage of your account value. Review what you were told about fees versus what the documents actually say. If you discover fees or surrender charges you weren’t aware of, or if the annuity is unsuitable for your needs, consult with a securities attorney who can evaluate whether you have a viable claim for inadequate disclosure or unsuitability.
Take Action to Protect Your Rights
If you invested in variable annuities with Salvatore LaRocca at Voya Financial Advisors, or if you have concerns about inadequate fee disclosure, unsuitable recommendations, or misrepresentation involving any broker, contact Patil Law, P.C. today for a free, confidential consultation.
Call: 800-950-6553
Email: info@patillaw.com
Website: investmentlosslawyer.com
There is no cost and no obligation. Our experienced securities attorneys are here to help you understand your rights and options.
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.
Disclaimer: The information in this post is based on FINRA BrokerCheck records and public filings. Allegations described are pending or unproven and may be contested. 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.