SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Rel. No. 46127 / June 26, 2002

Admin. Proc. File No. 3-9570

In the Matter of

GEORGE J. KOLAR
1058 Maplecliff Drive
Lakewood, Ohio 44107

:
:
:
:
:
:

ORDER IMPOSING REMEDIAL SANCTIONS

On the basis of the Commission's opinion issued this day, it is

ORDERED that George J. Kolar be, and he hereby is, suspended from association in a supervisory capacity with any registered broker or dealer for a period of six months, effective at the opening of business on July 15, 2002, and it is further

ORDERED that, within 30 days of the entry of this order, Kolar shall pay a civil money penalty in the amount of $20,000. Payment shall be (a) made by United States postal money order, certified check, bank cashier's check, or bank money order made payable to the Securities and Exchange Commission; (b) hand-delivered or mailed to the Comptroller, Securities and Exchange Commission, 6432 General Green Way, Suite B, Mail Stop 0-3, Alexandria, Virginia 22312; and (c) submitted under a cover letter that identifies Kolar as a respondent in this proceeding and the file number of this proceeding. Copies of the cover letter and check shall be sent to Peter K. M. Chan, counsel for the Division of Enforcement, Securities and Exchange Commission, 175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 900, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

By the Commission.

Jonathan G. Katz
Secretary

_____________________________

1 The law judge found that Turner willfully violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder (15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a), 77e(c), 77q(a), and 78j(b), and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5). He also found that Turner willfully violated Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. § 78o) by failing to register as a broker-dealer, and as such willfully violated Section 15(c)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 15c1-2 thereunder (15 U.S.C. § 78o and 17 C.F.R. § 240.15c1-2). The law judge concluded that Turner's failure to register as a broker-dealer was not a basis for sanctioning Kolar. Although the Division of Enforcement objects to that conclusion, it did not seek review of the law judge's decision. Thus, the issue is notbefore us on appeal.
2 494 U.S. 56 (1990).
3 Section 15b(4)(E) of the Exchange Act empowers us to discipline supervisors who fail "reasonably to supervise, with a view to preventing violations of the (securities laws)," persons subject to their supervision who violate those laws (emphasis supplied). See Louis R. Trujillo, 49 S.E.C. 1106, 1110 (1989).
4 See Consolidated Inv. Servs., Inc. ("Consolidated"), 52 S.E.C. 582, 588 (1996), and the cases cited in note 27 thereof.
5 See, e.g., Quest Capital Strategies, Inc., Securities Exchange Act Rel. No. 44935 (Oct. 15, 2001), 76 SEC Docket 131 (violation of firm policies); Consolidated, supra, 52 S.E.C. at 587-589 (NASD complaint not involving securities violations, violation of firm policy).
6 50 S.E.C. 524, 530 (1991).
7 51 S.E.C. 93 (1992).
8 Id. at 113.
9 See Carl L. Shipley, 45 S.E.C. 589, 591-592 n.6 (1974).
10 See Kirk Montgomery, Exchange Act Rel. No. 45161 (December 18, 2001), 76 SEC Docket 1394, 1402, 1408; Patricia Ann Bellows, Exchange Act Rel. No. 40411 (September 8, 1998), 67 SEC Docket 2910, 2912; Conrad C. Lysiak, 51 S.E.C. 841, 844 n.13 (1993), aff'd, 47 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 1995)(Table).
11 49 S.E.C. 1106 (1989).
12 In addition, the Huff concurrence was not an authoritative expression of the Commission's views.
13 49 S.E.C. at 1107.
14 See Kirk Montgomery, supra, 76 SEC Docket at 1408; James J. Pasztor, Exchange Act Rel. No. 42008 (Oct. 14, 1999), 70 SEC Docket 2611, 2621 n.28; Robert J. Check, 49 S.E.C. 1004, 1008 (1988).
15 See, e.g., John H. Gutfreund, supra, 51 S.E.C. at 108; Michael H. Hume, 52 S.E.C. 243, 248 (1995).
16 Cf. Consolidated, supra; 52 S.E.C. at 587 (1996) (Questionnaires filled out by registered representatives not a substitute for adequate supervision).
17 See, e.g., Quest Capital Strategies, Inc., supra, 76 SEC Docket at 140; James Harvey Thornton, 53 S.E.C. 1210, 1213 (1999); Consolidated, supra; Michael H. Hume, 52 S.E.C. 243, 247-248 (1995); Albert Vincent O'Neal, 51 S.E.C. 1128, 1132-1135 (1994).
18 As noted above, Turner told Kolar and Basile at the August 18 interview that he was an investor in LEF. As Kolar admitted, such an investment would have required Dean Witter's prior approval. However, Kolar made no effort to ascertain whether such approval had ever been given.
19 Contrary to Kolar's assertions, the record supports this figure, and the law judge did not find otherwise. The law judge merely determined that the evidence did not support a conclusion that Turner's customers alone suffered losses amounting to $10 million.
20 Consolidated, supra, 52 S.E.C. at 590.
21 We have considered all of the parties' contentions. We have rejected or accepted them to the extent that they are inconsistent or in accord with the views expressed in this opinion.