Thomas Edward Andrews—Investment Fraud

investment fraud attorney ClevelandThomas Edward Andrews, a Former LPL Financial Representative, Allegedly Convinced 23 Investors to Put Savings and Retirement Funds into Two Investments, “the Jackson Trust” and “the Lincoln”; Most Investors Were from a Small Utah Community

Thomas Edward Andrews, from 2010 through the autumn of 2015, allegedly convinced 23 investors to Put Savings and Retirement Funds into Two Investments, “the Jackson Trust” and “the Lincoln”, according to an SEC complaint currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities practice lawyers are investigating investment recovery options on behalf of investors in issues related to Thomas Edward Andrews’ alleged investment fraud.

Investors who believe they may have lost money in activity related to Thomas Edward Andrews’ alleged investment fraud are encouraged to contact attorneys Alan Rosca or James Booker with any useful information or for a free, no obligation discussion about their options.

Thomas Edward Andrews, a former LPL Financial representative who was employed as an independent contractor by Gary A. York & Associates of Salt Lake City, an office of supervisory jurisdiction of LPL Financial, allegedly targeted financially unsophisticated residents of a small rural Utah community, according to the aforementioned SEC Complaint.

The majority of Andrews’ alleged victims were individuals he had previously known while growing up in Nephi, Utah, and many people had first been clients of a tax, accounting and bookkeeping business run by Andrews’ father, the SEC notes.

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers are currently investigating Thomas Edward Andrews’ alleged investment fraud.

Thomas Edward Andrews Allegedly Guaranteed Investors that the “Jackson Trust” would bring an Annual Return of 6 to 8.5 Percent and that the “Lincoln” investments would Purportedly Bring in 5 Percent or the Quarterly S&P Index, Whichever was Higher

Thomas Edward Andrews allegedly told investors that the “Jackson Trust” was good for guaranteed annual returns of 6 to 8.5 percent and that the “Lincoln” investments would generate a return equal to 5 percent, or the quarterly S&P index return, whichever number was higher, according to the aforementioned SEC Complaint currently under review by attorneys Alan Rosca and James Booker.

Andrews allegedly set up bank accounts for the fictitious entities at a local credit union, with himself as trustee and sole signatory, the Complaint reports.

Andrews allegedly deposited investors’ checks into said accounts and eventually transferred the funds to his own account at the same credit union, all purportedly without the knowledge of his investors, the Complaint states.

Securities Lawyers Investigating

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf securities lawyers often represent investors who lose money as a result of investment fraud and are currently investigating Thomas Edward Andrews’ alleged investment fraud. They take most cases of this type on a contingency fee basis and advance the case costs, and only get paid for their fees and costs out of money they recover for their clients.

Investors who believe they lost money as a result of Thomas Edward Andrews’ alleged investment fraud may contact the securities lawyers at Peiffer Rosca Wolf, Alan Rosca or James Booker, for a free no-obligation evaluation of their recovery options, at 888-998-0520 or via e-mail at arosca@prwlegal.com or jbooker@prwlegal.com.

Alan Rosca (1234 Posts)

Alan is a securities lawyer. He also teaches Securities Regulation at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He focuses his legal practice on complex commercial and financial litigation and arbitration, particularly in the areas of securities and investment fraud. His office is in Cleveland, Ohio.


In our legal system, every person is innocent until and unless found guilty by a court of law or a tribunal. Whenever we reference “allegations” or charges that are “alleged,” such allegations or charges have not been proven, and are merely accusations, not findings of fault, as of the date of the blog. We do not have, nor do we undertake, a duty to continue to monitor or follow cases about which we report, and/or to publish subsequent blogs regarding various developments that may occur in such cases. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research regarding any such cases and any developments that may or may not have occurred in such cases.