Without regulation would he have gotten away with it?
By Lauren McNitt
We’ve had a lot of discussion of regulation on ProducersWEB lately. In most cases, the argument has been against all forms of regulation of the insurance industry, but a few members have (bravely, perhaps, given the majority opinion on the site) made the point that regulation in some instances is necessary.
The story below is a great example of what may be one such instance:
According to investigators, in September 2011, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) received complaints that alleged [Frank J.] Conlon had diverted premium funds from numerous clients. The investigation revealed that Conlon had in fact diverted funds without consent or knowledge of his clients.
Conlon allegedly hid the theft of funds by providing the victims with fraudulent documents purporting to be from an insurance company. The false documents, Jones said, were an effort to mislead the victims into believing their money had been sent to the insurance company.
When Conlon was confronted by the victims about the whereabouts of their money, he continued to misrepresent the whereabouts of their respective funds, the department alleges. Two of the victims were 82 years old and 86 years old, respectively, and the money represented a substantial portion of their retirement funds.
Read the entire story.
What do you think of regulation in this instance? Do you even consider this a regulatory matter, or is it merely one of breaking the law? In what ways does this case differ (or not) from the Glenn Neasham case?