SANCTION GUIDELINES
CFP Board's Disciplinary and Ethics Commission and Appeals Commission applies these Sanction Guidelines to a person who has agreed to CFP Board’s Terms and Conditions of Certification and Trademark License (Terms and Conditions) or Pathway to CFP® Certification Agreement (Pathway Agreement) (collectively a “Respondent”).
In the Terms and Conditions, a Respondent makes a commitment to comply with the high standards of competency and ethics set forth in the Code of Ethics and Standards of Conduct and predecessor versions (“Code and Standards”). Respondent’s commitment is to CFP Board, and not a client, and thus there is no guarantee that Respondent will abide by this commitment.
To maintain the integrity of CFP® certification, CFP Board investigates allegations and adjudicates potential misconduct and may sanction a Respondent who violates the Code and Standards. CFP Board intends for a sanction to be meaningful and to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. CFP Board’s sanctions benefit the public, advance the financial planning profession, hold a Respondent accountable for misconduct, educate about conduct that will result in a violation, deter Respondents from committing similar violations in the future, and promote public confidence in CFP® certification.
CFP Board adopted Sanction Guidelines to provide transparency and promote consistent imposition of sanctions for similar offenses, considering the unique facts of each case. The Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (“DEC” or “Commission”) (and on appeal, the Appeals Commission) applies the Sanction Guidelines in resolving a proposed settlement agreement or Complaint that CFP Board Enforcement Counsel has filed pursuant to the Procedural Rules and a Petition for Fitness that a Respondent has filed pursuant to the Procedural Rules and the Fitness Standards. The Sanction Guidelines identify the sanction guideline that applies to a violation of each conduct standard, potential aggravating and mitigating factors, and policy notes. If the Sanction Guidelines does not identify a sanction guideline for a particular violation, then the DEC (and Appeals Commission) should consider the sanction guideline for a comparable violation.
Aggravating and mitigating factors are circumstances which, if present, might warrant a sanction that is higher or lower than the sanction guideline, after weighing all aggravating and mitigating factors together. The general factors identified below, and the specific factors identified in the sanction guideline for each conduct standard, provide guidance for the DEC to consider. The burden is on (a) CFP Board Enforcement Counsel to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any grounds for aggravation and (b) Respondent to establish by a preponderance of the evidence any grounds for mitigation. The DEC has authority to determine the relevancy and application of the general and specific factors, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. The policy notes provide further guidance.
In aggravating or mitigating a sanction, the Commission has discretion to determine how to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors and may aggravate to revocation or mitigate to private censure (or dismiss the case with caution if the DEC finds that the violation does not warrant a sanction).
Amendments to the Sanction Guidelines
The Sanction Guidelines may be amended from time to time. CFP Board will publish for comment any material changes to the Sanction Guidelines prior to implementation.
Please Note: The DEC is not bound by the Sanction Guidelines, which are intended, along with the Case Histories, to guide the DEC in its decision making. When considering the appropriate sanction in a particular case, the DEC may deviate from the sanction guideline if there are aggravating factors that warrant a more severe sanction or mitigating factors that warrant a less severe sanction.