Proposed Report and Order in Matter of Daniel Boyle

FILED
2026 SEPT 24 PM 4:00
PA DEPARTMENT OF
BANKING AND SECURITIES

FILED
2026 SEPT 24 PM 4:00
PA DEPARTMENT OF
BANKING AND SECURITIES

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND SECURITIES
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, :
Department of Banking and Securities, :
Compliance Office, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : Docket No. 250008 (BNK-ORD)
:
Daniel Boyle, :
Respondent :
PROPOSED REPORT
Thomas A. Blackburn
Hearing Examiner
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
OFFICE OF HEARING EXAMINERS
P.O. Box 60130
Harrisburg, PA 17106-0130
FILED
2026 JUNE 26 PM 4:30
PA DEPARTMENT OF
BANKING AND SECURITIES

HISTORY
This matter arose on March 11, 2025, when the Department of Banking and Securities, Compliance Office (“Office”) filed an Order to Show Cause charging Daniel Boyle (“Respondent”) under the Pennsylvania Mortgage Licensing Act1 (“MLA”). The OSC charged that Respondent is subject to imposition of a civil penalty under section 6140(a) of the MLA because he engaged in the business of mortgage lending in this Commonwealth without a license from the Department to do so. On April 2, 2025, Respondent filed an answer to the order to show cause (“Answer”) requesting that the order to show cause be dismissed. By letter dated December 10, 2025, Secretary of Banking and Securities Wendy Spicher (“Secretary”) designated the undersigned hearing examiner as presiding officer in this matter and directed him to conduct proceedings and file a proposed report for review by the Banking and Securities Commission. By order dated January 9, 2026, the presiding officer scheduled a prehearing conference for February 26, 2026, and directed the parties to file prehearing statements. With agreement of the parties, a second conference was scheduled for April 8, 2026. At this conference, the parties agreed that the matter could be adjudicated upon stipulated facts to be filed by the parties. On April 8, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation of facts (“Stip.”), and on April 27, 2026, Respondent submitted an affidavit (“Aff.”). On June 22, 2026, the parties requested that the presiding officer adjudicate this matter based upon the stipulated facts and affidavit and waived filing of briefs. This proposed adjudication and order is now issued in accordance with the Secretary’s letter of December 10, 2025. 1 7 Pa.C.S. §§ 6101-6154.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Department is the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s administrative agency
   authorized and empowered to administer and enforce the MLA. (OSC and Answer ¶ 1)

2. The Office is primarily responsible for administering and enforcing the MLA for
   the Department. (OSC and Answer ¶ 2)

3. The Office operates from the Department’s main office located at 17 North Second
   Street, Suite 1300, Harrisburg, PA 17101. (OSC and Answer ¶ 3)

4. Respondent has addresses at
   . (OSC and
   Answer ¶ 4, Stip. ¶ 1)

5. On January 3, 2024, the Department received information that Respondent may
   have engaged in the mortgage loan business in Pennsylvania. (Stip. ¶ 2)

6. The Department’s records reflect that Respondent is not and never has been
   licensed with the Department pursuant to the MLA as a mortgage broker, mortgage lender, mortgage services, nor mortgage originator. (Stip. ¶ 3, exhibit DoBS-H)

7. Staff of the Department (“Staff”) conducted a search of Dauphin County,
   Pennsylvania property records, which revealed that, from in or about March 2009 until December 2023, Respondent served as the lender in at least 213 residential mortgages recorded in Dauphin County, ranging in the amount of $10,478 to $84,500. (Stip. ¶ 4, exhibits DoBS-A and DoBS-B)

8. On January 17, 2024, Staff contacted Respondent via telephone. (Stip. ¶ 5)

9. During the telephone call, Respondent confirmed to Staff that he made loans to
   individuals in Pennsylvania, and Respondent told staff that the loans were secured by mortgages. (Stip. ¶ 6) Redacted

10. Staff informed Respondent that he was prohibited under the MLA from engaging
    in the mortgage loan business in Pennsylvania without a license from the Department. (Stip. ¶ 7)

11. On January 17, 2024, Staff sent Respondent an email that provided the
    requirements to obtain a mortgage lender license in Pennsylvania. Additionally, Staff included as an attachment to the email a PDF copy of the MLA. (Stip. ¶ 8, exhibit DoBS-C)

12. On January 19, 2024, Respondent left a voice message for Staff. (Stip. ¶ 9, exhibit
    DoBS-D)

13. Respondent has had no further communication with the Office except through his
    counsel. (Stip. ¶ 10)

14. On February 29, 2024, the Office issued an Order, ordering that Respondent
    immediately cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage loan business in Pennsylvania, including but limited to advertising, soliciting, negotiating or offering to make or making mortgage loans, or collecting payments of principal, interest, tax, insurance or other payments under mortgage loans, until such time that he is licensed under the MLA. (OSC and Answer ¶ 24, Stip. ¶ 11)

15. On February 29, 2024, the Department issued an Investigative Subpoena for the
    Production of Documents and Information relating to Respondent’s activity in the mortgage loan business. (OSC and Answer ¶ 25, Stip. ¶ 12, exhibit DoBS-E)

16. On April 23, 2024, legal counsel for Respondent sent a letter titled, “Response to
    Request for Production of Documents and Information,” to the Office. (OSC and Answer ¶ 26, Stip. ¶ 13, exhibit DoBS-F)

17. The letter failed to provide any documents or information as requested in the
    subpoena, asserting “his constitutional privilege against self-incrimination afforded him by Article

1, Section 9 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (OSC and Answer ¶ 27, Stip. ¶ 14, exhibit DoBS-F)
18. Respondent’s counsel later provided a thumb drive which contained the following:
recorded satisfaction pieces, receipts from the Dauphin County Recorder of Deeds, and Respondent’s tax returns. (Stip. ¶ 15)
19. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that to date
Respondent has failed to provide any records that show Respondent has maintained all mortgage loan records as required under section 6135(a)(2) of the MLA. (Stip. ¶ 16)
20. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if the interest rates charged on any of the residential mortgages complied with the law known as the Loan Interest and Protection Law2 (“LIPL”) which are to be calculated in accordance with section 301 of LIPL. (Stip. ¶ 17)
21. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent was displaying a mortgage originator’s unique identifier on all mortgage loan applications as required by section 6121(14) of the MLA. (Stip. ¶ 18)
22. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent has failed to provide any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent was completing and providing a fee disclosure at the time of the mortgage loan application in violation of section 6121(10) of the MLA. (Stip. ¶ 19)
23. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
2 Act of January 30, 1974 (P.L. 13, No. 6), as amended, 41 P.S. §§ 101-605.

Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent ever conducted a review of the mortgage loan applicant’s ability to repay the mortgage loan in violation of MLA Regulation Chapter 46, section 46.2(g)(1). (Stip. ¶ 20)
24. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent prepared and provided a written disclosure form to the consumer within 3 business days of the mortgage loan application as required by MLA Regulation Chapter 46, section 46.2(b). (Stip. ¶ 21)
25. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent prepared and provided all required mortgage loan documents to the borrower as required by MLA Regulation Chapter 46, section 46.2(l). (Stip. ¶ 22)
26. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with section 6121(3) of the MLA which mandates that Mortgage Originators must follow all applicable Federal law, including the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act3 (“RESPA”), the Truth in Lending Act4 (“TILA”), and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act5 (“ECOA”). (Stip. ¶ 23)
27. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if 3 88 Stat. 1724, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. 4 82 Stat. 146, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. 5 88 Stat. 1521, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.

Respondent complied with ECOA, Regulation B (12 CFR 1002.1(b)) by completing a 1003 mortgage loan application with consumers personal and financial information. (Stip. ¶ 24)
28. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with RESPA Regulation X (12 CFR 1024) by providing the consumer with the special information booklet explaining the features of a mortgage loan. (Stip. ¶ 25)
29. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with TILA Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026) section 1026.37 by completing a closing disclosure and providing the consumer with the disclosure outlining all of the estimated terms and conditions of the proposed mortgage. (Stip. ¶ 26)
30. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with TILA Regulation Z (12 CFR 1026) section 1026.38 by completing a closing disclosure and providing the consumer with the disclosure outlining all of the final terms and conditions of the completed mortgage. (Stip. ¶ 27)
31. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with ECOA Regulation B (12 CFR 1026) section 1002.14(a)(2) by completing and providing the consumer a notice that they have a right to receive a copy of an appraisal report. (Stip. ¶ 28)
32. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if

Respondent complied with RESPA Regulation X (12 CFR 1024) section 1024.20(a)(1) by completing and providing the consumer a notice of homeownership counseling organizations to advise the consumer on real estate ownership and financial obligations. (Stip. ¶ 29)
33. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with RESPA Regulation X (12 CFR 1024) section 1024.15(b)(1) by completing and providing the consumer with a notice of any affiliated business arrangements that he dealt with in the closing of the mortgage loan. (Stip. ¶ 30)
34. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with ECOA Regulation B (12 CFR 1002) section 1002.4(d) by completing and providing the consumer with an ECOA notice stating the fair lending requirements and practices of the lending entity. (Stip. ¶ 31)
35. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) Regulation V (12 CFR 1022) by completing and providing the consumer with the FCRA notice stating the entity’s information collecting and reporting practices. (Stip. ¶ 32)
36. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with Federal regulations 31 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter V, 501 which requires that financial institutions develop and implement an Office of Foreign Assets (“OFAC”) screening program that describes the procedures to prevent conducting business with prohibited individuals.

(Stip. ¶ 33)
37. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with the USA Patriot Act, section 326 which requires lenders to verify and document the identity of the mortgage loan applicant. (Stip. ¶ 34)
38. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLS 6131(a)(3) which requires a mortgage lender applicant to demonstrate to the Department that policies and procedures have been developed to receive and process consumer inquiries and grievances promptly and fairly. (Stip. ¶ 35)
39. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLS 6131(c)(2) which requires a mortgage lender to have been approved for and will continue to maintain a line of credit, repurchase agreement or equivalent mortgage funding capability of not less than $1,000,000. (Stip. ¶ 36)
40. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLS 6131(c)(3) which requires a mortgage lender to have an established net worth of $250,000. (Stip. ¶ 37)
41. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLS 6131(c)(4) which requires a mortgage lender to maintain fidelity bond coverage in accordance with the guidelines established by the Federal National Mortgage

Association or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. (Stip. ¶ 38)
42. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLS 6131(c)(5) which requires a mortgage lender to maintain a surety bond in an amount that will provide coverage for all mortgage originators sponsored by the applicant or licensee. (Stip. ¶ 39)
43. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with Federal regulation 31 CFR, Subtitle B, Chapter X, Part 1029.210 which requires financial institutions to develop and implement an anti-money laundering program. (Stip. ¶ 40)
44. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with Federal regulation Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter F, Part 681 which outlines duties regarding the identification and prevention of identity theft. (Stip. ¶ 41)
45. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act Standards for Safeguarding Customer Information Title 16, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Part 314 which requires financial institutions to develop and maintain a written information security plan that describes the program to protect customer information. (Stip. ¶ 42)
46. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if

Respondent complied with MLA section 6131.1 which requires mortgage lenders to complete pre￾licensing education and to pass a written test before licensing. (Stip. ¶ 43)
47. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLA section 6131(f)(1) that requires a mortgage originator to be an employee of a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender. (Stip. ¶ 44)
48. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLA section 6131(f)(2) that requires a mortgage originator to be assigned to and work out of a licensed location. (Stip. ¶ 45)
49. If called to testify, Deputy Secretary Timothy Knopp would testify that because
Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with MLA section 6131(f)(4) that requires a mortgage originator maintain a surety bond that will provide coverage to the mortgage originator from a surety company authorized to do business in the Commonwealth. (Stip. ¶ 46)
50. Beginning in July 1981, Respondent purchased property in Steelton and Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania and acted as a landlord. (Aff. at 1)
51. In 1995, Respondent sold a property to the tenant and secured his interest by
mortgage in the property and continued to do so with other tenants and other buyers. (Aff. at 1-2)
52. Respondent used the services of Community Settlement with its real estate attorney.
(Aff. at 2)
53. From 2010 through 2015 and beyond, Respondent’s business grew as he found
more and more persons looking to buy residential property in Harrisburg neighborhoods with

depressed prices and was able to sell to them and hold the mortgage using forms he developed. (Aff. at 2)
54. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in many more people seeking property in
Harrisburg and property values increased. (Aff. at 3)
55. Respondent typically required a series of 50 monthly payments of $250 for each
$10,000 of financing. Many were paid off much more quickly. (Aff. at 3)
56. Respondent had very few written agreements; almost all sales and agreements of
installment sales were oral. (Aff. at 5)
57. By December 2023, Respondent stopped extending any new mortgage. (Aff. at 3)
58. Respondent has now filed satisfaction pieces for each mortgage. (Aff. at 5)
59. Respondent discarded notes and other records as the buyers paid off the mortgages.
(Aff. at 5)
60. On March 11, 2025, the Office filed an order to show cause against Respondent
under the MLA, and Respondent filed an answer to the order to show cause on April 2, 2025. (Official notice of Department records6 )
61. Respondent received service of the order to show cause, as shown by his filing of
an answer thereto. (Department records; see, answer to order to show cause filed April 2, 2025)
62. On April 8, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation of facts. (Department records; see,
Joint Stipulation of the Parties, filed April 8, 2026)
63. On April 27, 2026, Respondent filed an affidavit. (Department records; see,
Official notice is taken of docket entries in this matter in accordance with the GRAPP rule that an administrative agency may take official notice of its own records. 1 Pa. Code § 35.173; see also, Falasco v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 521 A.2d 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (doctrine of official notice allows an agency to take official notice of facts which are obvious and notorious to an expert in the agency's field and those facts contained in reports and records in the agency's files). All subsequent references are cited as “Department records.”

Affidavit of Daniel Boyle, Respondent, filed April 27, 2026)
64. On June 22, 2026, the parties requested that this matter be adjudicated based upon
the stipulation of facts and affidavit without a hearing and without briefing. (See, Joint Motion for Adjudication Without a Hearing filed June 22, 2026)

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Banking and Securities Commission has jurisdiction in this matter under
   sections 6138 and 6140 of the MLA, 7 Pa.C.S. § 6138, 6140, and section 1122-A of the Department of Banking and Securities Code,7 71 P.S. §§ 733-1122-A. (Findings of Fact Nos. 1-18)
2. Respondent received notice of this proceeding and was afforded an opportunity to
   be heard in accordance with section 4 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 504. (Findings of Fact Nos. 60-64)
3. By serving as the lender in at least 213 mortgages recorded in Dauphin County,
   Pennsylvania ranging in the amount of $10,478 to $84,500, Respondent engaged in the business of mortgage lending without being licensed by the Department to do so in violation of section 6111(a) of the MLA, 7 Pa.C.S. § 6111(a). (Findings of Fact Nos. 1-18)
4. Because Respondent committed 213 violations of section 6111(a) of the MLA by
   engaging in the business of mortgage lending without being licensed by the Department to do so, the Department is authorized by section 6140(a) of the MLA, 7 Pa.C.S. § 6140(a), to impose a fine of up to $10,000 for violation. (Findings of Fact Nos. 1-18) 7 Act of May 15, 1933 (P.L. 565, No. 111), as amended, 71 P.S. §§ 733-1 – 733-1203.

DISCUSSION
The Office charged that Respondent is subject to disciplinary action under section 6140 of the MLA8 because he violated section 6111(a) of the MLA, which provides:
Section 6111. License requirements
(a) General rule.—Except as provided under subsections (b) and (c) and section 6112 (relating to exceptions to license requirements), on and after the effective date of this section, no person shall engage in the mortgage loan business in this Commonwealth without being licensed as a mortgage broker, mortgage lender, mortgage servicer or mortgage originator as provided under this chapter. A mortgage originator may not engage in the mortgage loan business unless the mortgage originator is sponsored in the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry by a licensed mortgage broker, mortgage lender, mortgage servicer or mortgage loan correspondent, person excepted from this chapter or person excepted from licensure under section 6112 and is under the direct supervision and control of the sponsoring licensee or excepted person. (b) Licensed activity exception.-- (1) A mortgage lender may:
(i) Act as a mortgage broker without a separate mortgage broker license. (ii) Act as a mortgage servicer without a separate mortgage servicer license for mortgage loans the mortgage lender has originated, negotiated and owns. (2) Deleted. (3) A person licensed as a mortgage broker may only perform the services of a mortgage broker. (4) A person only licensed as a mortgage servicer may only perform the services of a mortgage servicer. (c) Loans for business or commercial purposes.—This chapter shall not apply to mortgage loans made for business or commercial purposes. 7 Pa.C.S. § 6111 (emphasis supplied). The MLA defines the term “mortgage lender” as a “person 8 Section 6140. Penalties (a) Persons operating without licenses.—A person subject to the provisions of this chapter and not licensed by the department who violates any provision of this chapter or who commits any action which would subject a license to suspension, revocation or nonrenewal under section 6139 (relating to suspension, revocation or refusal) may be fined by the department up to $10,000 for each offense. (b) Violation by licensee.—A person licensed under this chapter or director, officer, owner, partner, employee, mortgage originator or agent of a licensee who violates a provision of this chapter or who commits any action which would subject the licensee to suspension, revocation or nonrenewal under section 6139 may be fined by the department up to $10,000 for each offense. 7 Pa.C.S. § 6140.

who engages in the mortgage loan business by directly or indirectly originating and closing mortgage loans with its own funds in the primary market for consideration.” 7 Pa.C.S. § 6102. The MLA also the term “mortgage loan” as a “first or secondary mortgage loan, or both, a lease purchase agreement or a mortgage loan modification, as the context may require.” 7 Pa.C.S. §
6102. The MLA additionally defines the term “first mortgage loan” as a loan “(1) made primarily
for personal, family or household use, and (2) secured by any first lien mortgage, deed of trust or equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling or on residential real estate” and defines the term “secondary mortgage loan” as a loan “(1) made primarily for personal, family or household use, and (2) secured by any secondary lien mortgage, deed of trust or equivalent consensual security interest on a dwelling or on residential real estate.” 7 Pa.C.S. § 6102. The MLA further defines the term “mortgage loan business” as “(1) advertising, causing to be advertised, soliciting, negotiating or arranging in the ordinary course of business or offering to make or making mortgage loans, or (2) servicing mortgage loans.” 7 Pa.C.S. § 6102. The MLA applies to “[a]ny person who engages in the mortgage loan business in this Commonwealth” regardless of whether that person is licensed or not. 7 Pa.C.S. § 6151(2). As established by the stipulated facts, from in or about March 2009 until December 2023, Respondent served as the lender in at least 213 residential mortgages recorded in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania ranging in the amount of $10,478 to $84,500. Notwithstanding, Respondent is not and never has been licensed with the Department pursuant to the MLA as a mortgage broker, mortgage lender, mortgage services, nor mortgage originator. By serving as lender in residential mortgages in this Commonwealth, Respondent made mortgage loans and engaged in the mortgage loan business. Because he engaged in the mortgage loan business without being licensed by the Department, Respondent violated section 6111(a) of the MLA, as charged in the order to show

cause.
The remaining question is the appropriate sanction. A person subject to the provisions of the MLA and not licensed by the Department who violates any provision of the MLA or who commits any action which would subject a licensee to suspension, revocation or nonrenewal under
section 6139 (relating to suspension, revocation or refusal) may be fined by the Department up to
$10,000 for each offense. Section 6140(a) of the MLA, 7 Pa.C.S. § 6140(a). For his 213 violations of section 6111(a) of the MLA, the Department is authorized to fine Respondent up to $2,130,000. The primary focus of disciplinary sanctions is not punishment but, rather, public protection. See, Galena v. Department of State, 551 A.2d 676, 679-680 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). The Department has a responsibility to protect the public against licensees who place the public at risk by originating mortgage loans or negotiating mortgage loans for others in the primary market without the buffer of appropriate regulation. For almost 15 years Respondent engaged in the business of mortgage lender without licensure as required by law and extended at least 213 residential mortgages ranging from just over $10,000 to under $85,000. These mortgages were typically for terms of less than 5 years and were often paid much more quickly. Only through proper licensure can the Department effectively regulate mortgage bankers and mortgage brokers and verify that the business activities of a licensee are being conducted in accordance with the MLA and other State and Federal laws enforced by the Department. Respondent had little documentation and continued to discard that as each mortgage was satisfied. Because Respondent failed to produce any mortgage loan records, the Department cannot ascertain if Respondent complied with any of those duties owed by law to customers as described in Findings of Fact Nos. 19-49. Though the risk of harm to those to whom Respondent extended mortgage loans cannot be determined specifically, it was immense.

Respondent was a landlord who got into the mortgage lender business by financing the sale of his property to the tenant. Eventually, Respondent was finding residential properties and financing the sale to the buyer. Respondent is no longer involved in the mortgage loan business. Respondent has filed satisfaction pieces for all of the mortgages. Although it does not appear that any customers have filed complaints about Respondent, it cannot be determined whether Respondent followed the law in extending and collecting mortgages or if the customers’ rights were otherwise protected. A penalty must be imposed that will stress upon Respondent the importance of complying with the law while protecting the public from the potential for dishonest and unfair dealings by one not submitting to regulatory oversight. Weighing all of these factors, a fine of $1,000 per violation or a total of $213,000 should be sufficient to discourage Respondent and others from continued violations of this nature and to recognize the importance of compliance with Pennsylvania’s licensure requirements. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing discussion, the following proposed order shall issue:

For the Office: Kurt B. Geishauser, Assistant Counsel Department of Banking and Securities Market Square Plaza 17 North Second Street, Suite 1300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 kugeishaus@pa.gov For Respondent: Frank C. Sluzis, Esquire DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 fsluzis@dplglaw.com Docket Clerk: Ms. Jamie Reed, docket clerk (w/ original) PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND SECURITIES 17 North Second Street, Suite 1300 Harrisburg, PA 17101 RA-BNDocketClerk@pa.gov Date of mailing:

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND SECURITIES
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND :
SECURITIES, COMPLIANCE OFFICE :
v. : Docket No. 250008 (BNK-ORD)
DANIEL BOYLE :
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 2, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the attached Letter and Proposed Report in accordance with the requirements of 1 Pa. Code § 33.31 (relating to service by agency), in the manner indicated below:
By Hand Delivery Mail and Electronic
Mail:
By United States First Class Mail and
Electronic Mail:
Kurt Geishauser
17 North 2nd Street, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17101 kugeishaus@pa.gov
Frank C. Sluzis, Esquire
Dethlef’s-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, P 17011 fsluzis@dplglaw.com
By:
/s/

---

Jamie Reed, Docket Clerk
PA Department of Banking and Securities
17 North Second Street, Suite 1300
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
FILED
2026 JULY 2 AM 8:00
PA DEPARTMENT OF
BANKING AND SECURITIES
Redacted

Dated this 29th day of September, 2026
Eileen Smith, Acting Docket Clerk
PA Banking and Securities Commission
17 N.2 nd St., Suite 1300
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 787-5783
Date Emailed: 9/25/26
Date Mailed: 9/29/26
Redacted