Investment Fraud

Subscribe to Investment Fraud via RSS

Vancouver resident Rashida Samji, 60, was arrested after an investigation by RCMP Federal Serious and Organized Crime Unit and Vancouver Police uncovered a scheme potentially stretching back to 2003. She earned the nickname “magic lady”…
Continue Reading ‘Magic Lady’ in British Columbia faces criminal charges related to alleged ponzi scheme

SA Capital Growth Corp. v. Mander Estate dealt with the thorny issue of whether a court-appointed officer, in this case a Receiver appointed to sell the assets of an insolvent entity, had a legal obligation to disclose information that it had obtained to an individual who was facing serious allegations under Ontario’s Securities Act. Justice Pattillo of the Ontario Superior Court decided that a receiver is generally not required to produce the details of its investigations or the documents in its possession to parties that are inside or outside of the receivership. However, since the accused has the right under s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to make full answer and defence to a criminal allegation, this right entitled him solely to information that is “likely relevant” to the criminal charges against him.

The Ontario Court of Appeal found that it was inappropriate for the Superior Court to make what amounted to an interim procedural order in relation to a proceeding pending before the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). As a result, it was left for the OSC to decide whether third party production was appropriate.
Continue Reading Documents uncovered during fraud investigations

In Century Services Inc. v. New World Engineering Corp., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that defendants – found liable for having bilked investors out of $20 million – could not claim contribution and indemnity from their lawyers and the lenders in their scheme.  This, despite the fact that the Court concluded that the lenders – and at least a few of the solicitors involved – failed to carry out their due diligence responsibilities.
Continue Reading Club promotors found liable for fraud cannot claim indemnities from third parties

In Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp v. Gray (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp v. Gray, 2013 ONSC 1986), the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”), the insurer of mortgages, attempted to block the release of a mortgage debt from a bankrupted individual who was a victim of a fraudulent scheme, but in CMCH’s view, was either aware of the scheme or that he was reckless and/or willfully blind to the scheme.
Continue Reading When would silence or non-disclosure of material facts amount to fraudulent misrepresentation?

Dividing up a shortfall from a Ponzi scheme was first posed before the United States Supreme Court in 1924. The infamous case of Cunningham v. Brown dealt with the original Ponzi scheme of Charles Ponzi and distributing remaining funds back to victims when his investment scheme was finally unravelled, but left victims with only a fraction of their original investments. Unraveling a Ponzi scheme to return a shortfall of money back among its victims is akin to untangling the noodles in a half-eaten bowl of spaghetti at a buffet and trying to determine who cooked each strand. Where multiple chefs (all using the same recipe) all had their spaghetti thrown in one giant pot, it would be a seemingly impossible task to untangle the half-eaten bowl to see which chefs’ spaghetti was still in that bowl.
Continue Reading How should a Court divide a shortfall of money among victims of a Ponzi Scheme