Our firm is investigating J.P. Morgan Securities LLC financial advisor Candace Johnson (CRD# 6013848) of Las Vegas, Nevada for potential investment-related misconduct.
Financial Advisor’s Career History
According to FINRA BrokerCheck records, Candace Johnson has been associated with multiple firms in the securities industry, including:
- Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. (registered/associated 2012 – 2017)
- Wells Fargo Advisors / Wells Fargo Clearing Services, LLC (registered/associated 2018 – 2019)
- J.P. Morgan Securities LLC / JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (associated 2019 – Present), including roles reported as Financial Advisor and Private Client Advisor in Las Vegas, Nevada
Candace Johnson Fraud Allegations and Investor Complaints Explained
FINRA BrokerCheck reflects one disclosed customer dispute involving Candace Johnson. The complaint’s reported details include specific dates, the product at issue, and the claimed damages.
Customer Dispute (Written Complaint) — Variable Annuity — Denied
- Allegations: Customer alleged misrepresentation regarding a variable annuity investment.
- Activity date(s): 11/28/2022 – 11/28/2022
- Date complaint received: 11/18/2024
- Product type: Annuity – Variable
- Alleged damages: $26,652.00
- Employing firm when activity allegedly occurred: J.P. Morgan Securities LLC
- Status / disposition: Denied (status date 12/10/2024)
- Complaint pending?: No
Disclosure list (for context):
- Customer Dispute (written complaint) — Alleged misrepresentation re: variable annuity — Denied — $26,652 alleged damages — Complaint received 11/18/2024 — Status date 12/10/2024
To obtain a copy of Candace Johnson’s FINRA BrokerCheck report, visit this link.
Robert Wayne Pearce Is Committed to Recovering Your Investment Losses
Candace Johnson’s disclosed customer complaint alleging misrepresentation involving a variable annuity raises suitability and disclosure issues commonly analyzed under FINRA conduct standards. In that context, FINRA Rule 2111 (Suitability) is relevant because a recommendation should align with the investor’s profile—such as risk tolerance, time horizon, liquidity needs, and financial objectives—so a product that is pitched one way but functions another way can signal a mismatch between the recommendation and the customer’s needs.
FINRA’s variable annuity rule framework also matters in disputes like this because FINRA Rule 2330 (Members’ Responsibilities Regarding Deferred Variable Annuities) focuses on how firms and registered representatives must handle variable annuity recommendations, including review, supervision, and the investor-specific factors that can make a variable annuity inappropriate. When a customer alleges misrepresentation tied to a variable annuity transaction, the rule context helps evaluate whether the annuity was recommended and documented in a way that reasonably protected the investor.
Finally, FINRA Rule 2010 (Standards of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade) is often cited in misrepresentation cases because it broadly requires ethical conduct in the securities business. When an investor claims they were misled about what a variable annuity would do (or what it would cost), Rule 2010 becomes relevant as a baseline conduct standard for truthful, fair dealing and the avoidance of deceptive sales practices.
For over 45 years, Robert Wayne Pearce has helped investors recover losses caused by broker fraud, negligence, and unsuitable recommendations. His firm, The Law Offices of Robert Wayne Pearce, P.A., represents clients nationwide on a no-recovery, no-fee basis. Call (800) 732-2889 or email pearce@rwpearce.com for a free case review with an experienced securities attorney.