Abstract:The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has imposed significant fines on Investment Network, Inc. (INI) and its CEO, Gary L. Arnold, for a series of regulatory violations connected to the sale of pre-initial public offering (pre-IPO) funds between October 2020 and May 2021.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) has imposed significant fines on Investment Network, Inc. (INI) and its CEO, Gary L. Arnold, for a series of regulatory violations connected to the sale of pre-initial public offering (pre-IPO) funds between October 2020 and May 2021.
Deceptive Business Practices
INI misled investors about its compensation structure, falsely claiming it would only receive a 10% sales commission for its involvement in the private placement offerings. However, INI had secretly agreed to an additional 5% in selling compensation and half of the carried interest from the offerings. This hidden compensation agreement, which was never disclosed to investors, constituted a violation of FINRA Rule 2010 and Section 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933.
Failure to Meet Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI) Requirements
INI also willfully violated Reg BI by failing to meet the standards set forth in its Disclosure and Care Obligations. The firm did not ensure that the offerings were in the best interests of its customers, failing to confirm the existence of pre-IPO shares and the reasonableness of the issuers prices. This negligence violated Exchange Act Rule 15l-1 and FINRA Rule 2010.
Lack of Due Diligence and Supervision
In addition to the deceptive practices, INI failed to establish a reasonable supervisory system to ensure compliance with regulatory obligations. INI and its CEO did not enforce proper written supervisory procedures (WSPs) for private placement offerings. This led to further violations of Reg BIs Compliance Obligation and FINRA Rules 3110 and 2010.
Customer Identification and Filing Failures
INIs violations extended to failures under the Bank Secrecy Act, as the firm lacked an adequate Customer Identification Program (CIP) when opening accounts for the offerings. Furthermore, the company failed to file necessary documentation with FINRA, violating FINRA Rules 3310(b), 5123, and 2010.
Conclusion
FINRAs action against Investment Network and Gary L. Arnold underscores the importance of transparency, due diligence, and adherence to regulatory standards in the financial industry. By failing to disclose compensation agreements, conduct proper due diligence, and establish a supervisory system, INI and its CEO breached their obligations to both investors and regulators, leading to substantial fines and penalties. These violations serve as a reminder that firms must prioritize the best interests of their clients and maintain strong compliance programs to avoid legal and regulatory consequences.


A close look at ZarVista's regulatory status shows major red flags that mark it as a high-risk broker for traders. This analysis goes beyond the company's marketing materials to examine the real substance of its licenses, business structure, and operating history. The main issues we will explore include its dependence on weak offshore regulation, a large number of serious user complaints, and worrying details about its corporate identity. It is also important to note that ZarVista previously operated under the name Zara FX, a detail that provides important background to its history. This article aims to deliver a complete, evidence-based breakdown of the ZarVista license framework and its real-world effects, helping traders understand the serious risks involved before investing.

When traders think about choosing a new broker, two main questions come up: Is ZarVista safe or a scam? And what are the common ZarVista complaints? These questions get to the heart of what matters most—keeping your capital safe. This article gives you a detailed look at ZarVista's reputation using public information, government records, and real experiences from people who used their services. Our research starts with an important fact that shapes this whole review. WikiFX, a website that checks brokers independently, gives ZarVista a trust score of only 2.07 out of 10. This very low rating comes with a clear warning: "Low score, please stay away!" The main reason for this low score is the large number of user complaints. This finding shows that ZarVista might be risky to use. To get the complete picture, we will look at the broker's government approval status, examine the specific complaints from users, check any positive reviews to be fair, and give you a final answer based on fact

Trust has always been a widely discussed topic in the forex industry. When genuine, rational voices are drowned out, market participants struggle to discern which information is trustworthy amid a sea of complex data. This difficulty in establishing trust has placed industry transparency at the forefront of attention.

Before thinking about ZarVista, you need to understand the complete picture. At first glance, ZarVista (which used to be called Zara FX) presents itself as a modern, feature-packed trading company. It advertises appealing trading terms, different account options, and the powerful MetaTrader 5 platform. However, our detailed research shows a completely different reality. This broker has major warning signs, an extremely low trust rating, and a high-risk business model. This ZarVista review will examine the broker's promises, comparing what it advertises with actual evidence. We will explore the ZarVista Pros and Cons by looking at its rules and regulations, platform features, and most importantly, the large number of user complaints that show a troubling pattern. This investigation is based on careful analysis of information from independent verification websites like WikiFX, giving you an objective and fact-based review to help you make a smart decision and protect your capital.