Securities Industry Crime Unit

[admin]

It must be child's play, to imagine "best practices". That is the only reason I can come up with as to why I think I can imagine some of them. It is just too easy to know that one should not let foxes guard our financial henhouses. But actually getting grown (but not grown up) men to follow best practices against their instincts run wild, instincts that shout "ME, MINE, MORE", is another matter. This might be the most difficult of tasks, and should only be left to the best of minds.

Diane Urquhart has such a mind. Not only trained and professional, but mature beyond a self seeking, self serving sandbox level of maturity. She (and others) are proposing a specialized securites crime investigation unit, and it deserves it's own category in this flogg. Although it is part of the topic on RCMP, and SOLUTIONS, BEST PRACTICES, it is of such value to stand on it's own.

Imagine if Canada had a specialized crime unit that was able to operate at the same speed and understanding as the best white collar crooks. What would that be like. Just for the record, and to state my conflicts up front (part of best practices), I would love to be a part of such a unit. I myself have just grown up slightly beyond the ME, MINE, MORE mentality of the financial playground, but not grown up enough to have forgotten, nor to have lost my imagination for best practices.

[admin]

Jones case brings calls for national 'securities crime' unit

Financial analyst Urquhart; 'Only police can administer criminal code'

BY PAUL DELEAN, THE GAZETTEJULY 21, 2009 7:58 AM




At the Holiday Inn in Pointe Claire on Friday, former clients of missing money manager Earl Jones were given advice on how to proceed.
Photograph by: DAVE SIDAWAY, THE GAZETTE, The Gazette
The carnage left by fugitive (and unlicensed) money manager Earl Jones underscores again the need for a specialized federal-provincial "securities crime" unit in Canada to investigate and act on clients' criminal complaints, financial commentator Diane Urquhart says.
It's too much to expect regulatory agencies like Quebec's Autorité des marchés financiers to ferret out suspected fraud, a criminal-code offence, said Urquhart, a former managing director of research for Scotia Capital who now works as an independent financial analyst in Mississauga, Ont. "Only police can administer the criminal code."
The RCMP actually has a capital-markets unit called the Integrated Market Enforcement Team, but Urquhart isn't impressed. "There seems to be a lack of public accountability there, with few securities cases investigated and prosecution taking over 10 years to complete."
The national "securities crime" unit she envisions would designate and involve local police in the investigations.
Although she favours a national securities commission, which Quebec opposes, Urquhart said that's a separate issue. The AMF actually stacks up well nationally in terms of regulatory enforcement, she said. "They got (Vincent) Lacroix (the former head of insolvent mutual-fund company Norbourg) in jail."
While additional police resources might help curtail future financial exploitation, investors also have a role to play.
"You're your first line of defence," said Taylor Train, chief operating officer of the Financial Advisors Association of Canada.
"Folks have to be proactive. They've got to research, verify and question. When you think of investing your money with an individual rather than an organization per se, make sure they're licensed. Do they have the appropriate designations and errors-and-omissions insurance? The consumer's got to take some sort of accountability."
A simple verification with the AMF won't guarantee you aren't dealing with a rogue, but at least you'll know they're one of the 40,000 financial professionals in Quebec accredited to do specific tasks, and you could be eligible for compensation if funds disappear.
Incredibly for somebody entrusted with millions of other people's dollars, Jones had no official credentials.
Being unable to produce his AMF permit should have been a warning sign, if only he'd been asked, said AMF spokesman Sylvain Théberge.
Jones also should also have been challenged on guaranteed returns significantly higher than what banks were offering.
"If it's higher," Urquhart said, "there's risk. And it may not be real at all."
Daniel Thompson, president of Montreal-based investment firm MacDougall, MacDougall & MacTier Inc., said protecting yourself from fraud or criminal activity is never easy, "but there are rules of common sense which apply. Never give your financial adviser power of attorney or the ability to act alone in making withdrawals from your account without proof of adequate supervision or your own written approval. Don't make your financial adviser the sole signing officer of your investment holding company or the sole trustee of your trust. Make sure two independent people are required to authorize disbursements.
"Check your statements carefully and, if in doubt, ask questions."
pdelean@thegazette.canwest.com

[admin]

By the way, I "imagine" that the cost of such a unit could be totally funded by a fraction of the "proceeds of crime" collected from the crooks who would fuel this unit.

Imagine, a fully functioning police unit, with little or no cost to anyone except the crooks. Kind of like Miami vice without the babes, the boats, the ferarris, and the good looking investigators........although I have been called "Tubbs" at times.

[admin]

McCarty case: What is honest services fraud?

Palm Beach Post Staff Report

Thursday, January 08, 2009

County Commissioner Mary McCarty said in her resignation letter that she would plead guilty to "committing an honest services fraud."

What is the honest services law? A 28-word addendum to the federal mail and wire fraud law enacted in 1988 that has become a popular tool for federal prosecutors in public corruption and white-collar crimes cases.

McCarty scandal
PB County commissioner is the fifth local political leader in the past three years to head to prison for abusing public office.





Who has been convicted with it? Media tycoon Conrad Black, Enron Corp. Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Skilling lobbyist Jack Abramoff, U.S. Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney, and Palm Beach County Commissioners Masilotti and Warren Newell.

What does it say? In short it defines as illegal a "scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

Any complaints about it? Defense lawyers say it is unconstitutionally vague. It has not been struck down, but the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York wrote that "the plain meaning of 'honest services' ... simply provides no clue to the public or the courts as to what conduct is prohibited under the statute."

palmbeachpost.com

(advocate comments.........sure wish we had a Securities Crime Unit. They would probably be versed in this type of crime and be able to apply consequences to politicians and regulators who sell out the public interest for money or political gain.)

[admin]

Part of a post from a wise man in ottawa.........is that an oxymoron......
"It came after more than a decade working with people literally from St. John's to Victoria, testing every aspect of the system, a website (five years), a civil filing and all the nonsense up to the courthouse steps and an IDA complaint that went all the way to regional council. And this continued to varying degrees with case after case. We had press, including coverage outside the country - as reflected so well on Kyle's site - all of these warnings with examples preceded the inevitable - the big bust that we are in now.

At the end of the day, I told people there were only two strategies that remained - one for financial services and one for the politicians. BUT, the public had to do it for themselves - as nobody would do anything for them.

Since Bay Street thinks only in dollars, the strategy was to have as many people as possible pull everything from a target bank/brokerage, publicizing what was being done and why; the second, since Ottawa (and the provincial capitals) think only in votes was to get as many people as possible to agree to block vote in exchange for improvements to the system.

Did these represent perfect solutions? NO! Both ideas landed with a thud - they meant people would have to act - they are used to whining and having someone else act for them. They just take it. That I will never understand.

Hugh is correct about public hearings, royal commissions or any other "dog and pony" show you can imagine - completely useless. He has participated in enough to know. And I used to organize these "pseudo" consultations. So I know!

Now I see that Hugh has turned bad cop and you, Larry, are asking for a public hearing (but you are flexible). Most frustrating of all is that, I see advocates going at one another - in this case Hugh - a little over the top - and not with total justification. Larry expressed support for your strategy and explained his rationale for his own. Larry, that is one hell of a good video. And the U's videos and other activities have been outstanding - credit where credit is due!

However, Hugh's plan has flaws too. In many cities in Canada, the Municipal Police are RCMP rent-a-cops, right out of basic training. They call it "community based policing." There are no resources at the levels of the Force that would allow them to fulfill the mandate they were given to deal with more sophisticated crimes - no matter how hard the police work a case. If a wronged investor goes to a local police station, and it is an RCMP shop, they will be out of luck.

The Officer will have no clue about white collar crime, and will most likely direct them to the regulators. He is a street cop. I find it hard to believe, based on my experience, that provincial or municipal forces - with rare exceptions - would be any different.

Logan seems like a good man and a good policeman, and I hear he did some good work. When he worked for Fantino, he worked for a close personal friend of Zacardelli, so he gets double points for doing the job and bucking the system. But bringing front line or even specialized police up to speed on even sophisticated white collar crime and resourcing them properly is not the whole answer either!

Larry has done extremely well in his public appearances, and his video, done at his own great expense, is now a "must see" for anyone with money invested. He is absolutely correct on the key point - the problem is with the law and the judicial system, and it originates at the public policy and legislative levels - and on the other end of the see-saw, a public that is as docile as sheep.

Our criminal code is fatally flawed, and that is not the case by accident. Canada has been a banana republic for years - money laundering, organized crime, terrorist financing, black ops - and we have been delighted to have the business. There are even policy papers that have been written which argue that laundered money and the proceeds of organized crime, once the original transaction is complete, go into the real economy and are no different from your paycheck. What ever happened to the ability to think critically?

White collar crime has been seen as non-violent and the proceeds get "spread around"....if you take my point. We rarely talk about that in Canada, but I have spoken with law enforcement and media people outside the country over the years - and - trust me - we are a laughing stock.

When 8 or 10 people try to make a stand, we end up fighting among themselves instead of concentrating our fire on the enemy. The police are defensive - who wants to admit, even to themselves - that they would be over their heads or that the case would never go to conviction if it involved one of our elites.

Not that it matters because Larry finally has it at the end of his very fine video - until people stop whining and make a stand en masse, this is it. And you know what - anyone - and I don't give a damn who it is - will get whatever they are willing to put up with in life, and they deserve it. There was a time when "victims" could rightly claim naïveté; those days are long gone. But they still get taken, and only the small Ponzi guys get busted.

Municipal, provincial and RCMP community police personnel do not have the expertise they think they have. Some don't know it, but their leadership has a reverse mandate - they can catch the small fry - but the major players are hands- off. If, by accident, a case is built, it goes to a Crown - who knows how to deflect the puck into the corner and away from the net!

Read the preamble to the Criminal Code; imagine the fun a Crown or an AG can have stopping any charge then and there. See the section that states fraud must intentional. Get it into court and the Judges are crooked, incompetent or get the word to make sure the elite are left unscathed - the Code is designed to facilitate that.

Add to that the Charter of Rights (a disaster). I wouldn't be a policeman for a million a year; if I were a part of the legal system, I would resign. And yes, when I was working, I resigned more than once. After the ABCP Ruling by the Supreme Court, Canada was officially a country brazen enough to show the world we were a country without the rule of law.

I understand that Centennial College is in the process of setting up courses to help buttress Hugh's plan...at the police level. That's great! And the RCMP is still turning out experienced police officers who know the score. But we still are stuck with the same Charter and Criminal Code.

Larry did not deserve that horse whipping, Hugh, and you and Di are as stubborn as he can be when someone challenges your grand design. I am not without sin on that score either. But until "the masses'' who now know, are willing to act in some way that will bring about change, nothing will change.

Canada is totally corrupt - in every sector - cancer spreads - that requires a corrupt or overly docile population. You cannot have this sort of thing go on for decades and not have it spread throughout a society. It takes the majority of people standing around and doing nothing to allow it to happen.

We small few have all given our best, and we should be respectful and grateful to one another - because sure as hell - we will never get any public recognition or appreciation from anywhere else (not that we would want it). But this group is one squadron that will never fly in formation. The elites have one; there formation is better, but far from perfect. The fight has gone out of the public; and so the least we can do now is be good to one another - we all deserve it. And I include in that number some of the solid policemen who soldier on realizing full-well that what they do is not "career-enhancing"!

Ironically, the elites know what they want, but they battle over the best way/s to get there too. That insight gave me a real chuckle. But they are winning, to quote Warren Buffett.

Like me, you have done all you can do, and then some! Larry at least knows that it will take "the people" beyond a certain point. Our situation always reminds me of the movie, "The Poseidon Adventure" - the majority insisted on going the wrong way or on doing nothing. At the end, the few brave and lucky souls who knew the ship was top down, and hoped the hull was not under water, made it through.

People trapped inside the ship throughout growled and argued and whined, and some acted - but in an ineffective way; very few acted in the right way and (with luck) made it to the bottom (IN THIS CASE THE TOP). In Canada, the Coast Guard would have been sent off in the other direction on exercises, and the survivors would have likely washed away.

We have all done above and beyond what we were capable of doing as responsible citizens of a democracy - now it is up to everyone else to join in - or surrender. Do you see what I see?

Jim Roache

[admin]

Picture 5.png (104.66 KiB) Viewed 701 times

Robert Scheer's Columns
Still Doing God’s Work on Wall Street

EMAIL PRINT SHARE
Posted on Nov 25, 2009


AP / Jose Luis Magana
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner testifies last Thursday on financial regulatory reform before the Joint Economic Committee.

By Robert Scheer

Jail, anyone? Perhaps that’s too harsh, and at any rate premature, but is anyone ever going to be held accountable for the behind-the-scenes sweetheart deals that passed tens of billions of taxpayer dollars through the AIG shell game to the very banks that caused the financial meltdown? Or for the many other acts of double-dealing that left one out of three American homeowners owing much more than their houses were worth while the folks who swindled them were rewarded with hundreds of billions in public money?

Undoubtedly not, since the same folks who are most culpable wrote the laws that made this, and the other scams at the heart of the banking collapse, perfectly legal. And guess what? They’re back at work in the government, writing the new laws that will, they claim, prevent us from being had once again. As a telling example of that process at work, check the official response of the Department of Treasury to the devastating report by the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), Neil M. Barofsky, titled “Factors Affecting Efforts to Limit Payments to AIG Counterparties.” The main factor was that Timothy Geithner followed the lead of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd “I’m Doing God’s Work” Blankfein in crowding the lifeboats with bankers.

Geithner, now treasury secretary, was previously the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY), where he negotiated the deal to pay Goldman Sachs and the other top banks in full to cover their bad bets on securitized mortgages. Barofsky’s report concluded that Geithner’s scheme represented a “backdoor bailout” for the financial hustlers at the center of the market fiasco. Noting that Geithner denies that was his intention, the report states, “Irrespective of their stated intent, however, there is no question that the effect of FRBNY’s decisions—indeed, the very design of the federal assistance to AIG—was that tens of billions of dollars of Government money was funneled inexorably and directly to AIG’s counterparties.”

Not surprisingly, the Treasury Department that Geithner now heads defended his actions in not forcing “haircuts” on the full dollar-for-dollar payoff by AIG to the banks while he was at the New York Fed: “The government could not unilaterally impose haircuts on creditors, and it would not have been appropriate for the government to pressure counterparties to accept haircuts by threatening to retaliate in some way through its regulatory power.”

Nonsense, argues Eliot Spitzer, who as New York attorney general was way ahead of the curve in challenging Wall Street arrogance. Writing in Slate on Monday, Spitzer points out: “Pressuring Goldman and the other counterparties to offer concessions would have forced them to absorb the consequences of making suspect deals with an insurance company that was essentially a Ponzi scheme.”

Advertisement

The Ponzi scheme was based on the collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in which the bankers traded and which AIG had insured with the credit default swaps (CDSs) that they sold but failed to back with adequate funding. Now Geithner’s Treasury concedes that AIG “should never have been allowed to escape tough, consolidated supervision.” But none of AIG’s scams were regulated, nor were any of the others at the center of the larger financial debacle, because of laws pushed through Congress by Geithner’s boss, Lawrence Summers, when they both were in the Clinton administration. Specifically, they prevented regulation of those opaque CDOs and CDSs that would come to derail the world’s economy.
As the inspector general’s report stated: “In 2000, the [Clinton administration-backed] Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) … barred the regulation of credit default swaps and other derivatives.” Why did the financial geniuses of the Clinton administration seek to prevent that obviously needed regulation? Because the Clintonistas believed the Wall Street guys knew what they were doing and that what was good for them was good for us lesser folk. As Summers, who is the top economic adviser in the Obama White House, put it in congressional testimony back then: “The parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies.”

Sounds nonsensical today: The inspector general’s report notes that AIG, because of the deregulatory law that Summers and Geithner pushed through, was “able to sell swaps on $72 billion worth of CDOs to counterparties without holding reserves that a regulated insurance company would be required to maintain.” But why, then, is Summers once again running the show with Geithner when both have made careers of exhibiting total contempt for the public interest? Because there is no accountability for the high rollers of finance, no matter who happens to be president.

[admin]

INVESTMENT NEWS

We need financial cops - and speed limits

June 28, 2009
Mary Schapiro, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, is correct: Fiduciary standards for all who give investment advice won't be sufficient to deter fraud.
High standards are never enough. Consider that every state and municipality has traffic laws and speed limits that are posted and widely known. Yet the same jurisdictions also have police forces to enforce the laws and a jail to house those who violate them.
In most fields of endeavor, there are a few people who violate or try to game the rules and regulations for their own advantage. The investment advisory field is no exception, as the Madoff scandal and other recent cases of fraud have reminded us.
In fact, as reported in InvestmentNews last week, about a third of the 26 actions that the SEC has brought against Ponzi-type schemes since January involved investment advisory firms subject to fiduciary standards.
Simply declaring that all who provide investment advice must adhere to a fiduciary standard and act in the best interests of the client won't make them do so.
That is why President Obama's regulatory reform outline, put forward by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner almost two weeks ago, is merely a first step.
If Congress includes that fiduciary standard in any reform bill it passes — which by no means is a sure thing, given the intensive lobbying that will no doubt accompany the drafting of the law — it must also give the body assigned to regulate investment advisers the additional manpower and resources to enforce the standard.
That is true whether the authority and responsibility are assigned to the SEC, which now oversees investment advisory firms with at least $25 million in assets, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Inc. of New York and Washington, which oversees the brokerage industry, or the Washington-based Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc., which is angling for the oversight role.
The SEC has the staff and structure, but needs more of both to properly oversee and enforce fiduciary standards at thousands of small independent advisory firms.
Likewise, Finra has some of the staff and some of the tools it would need for the task, but it would need more of both, and the staff would have to be trained in a new mindset.
The CFP Board would need to build the necessary staff and systems almost from scratch, which wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because the new staff wouldn't have anything to unlearn.
Firms whose employees or affiliates give investment advice, whether financial planning firms, investment advisers or brokers, will have to adjust to a new regime. This new world no doubt will include different, probably more intrusive, and possibly more frequent audits — the cost of which will be borne by all financial advice givers.
Whichever institution receives a congressional mandate to enforce a fiduciary standard, it will have to conduct new and different audits to catch rule breakers in the act.
Just as traffic police in many jurisdictions use radar traps and sobriety checkpoints to catch speeders and drunk drivers, the responsible financial agency will have to be proactive in seeking signs of fraud. It can't wait for bad times to reveal the crooks who prospered in good times.
Doing so inflicts too much financial harm on too many investors and damages the integrity of the investment advisory profession and the capital markets.
Just as the sight of a police car parked on a highway shoulder deters speeders, so too will the presence of proactive overseers deter financial fraud.

[admin]

Every one of the criminal offenses listed here have been swept under the carpet by a financial regulatory system in Canada who places it's industry "above examination", and by a criminal justice system in Canada which buys into this "above examination" story. If this does not bother you, then just wait until you learn just how much financial abuse you are already suffering from.

Subject: Re: Steven, Q. when are journalists / the media guilty of Criminal Misrepresentation?

Criminal Code of Canada Notes on False Pretenses, False Statements,
Fraud Involving Securities
Summarized from Martin’s Criminal Code 2010

False Pretence / Exaggeration / Questions of Fact

361.1 (1) A false pretense is a representation of a matter of fact either present or past, made by words or otherwise, that is known by the person who makes it to be false and that it is made with fraudulent intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act on it.
(2) Exaggerated commendation or depreciation of the quality of anything is not a false pretence unless it is carried to such an extent that it amounts to a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact.

False Pretence or False Statement

362. (1) Every one commits an offence who
(a) by a false pretence, whether directly or through the medium of a contract obtained by a false pretense, obtains anything in respect of which the offence of theft may be committed or causes it to be delivered to another person;
(c) knowingly makes or causes to be made, directly or indirectly, a false statement in writing with intent that it should be relied on, with respect to the financial condition or means or ability to pay of himself or herself or any person or organization that he or she is interested in or that he or she acts for, for the purpose of procuring, in any form whatever, whether for his or her benefit or the benefit of that person or organization.

Obtaining credit by fraud or false pretense [subsec. (1)(b)] … Furthermore, there is a presumption that where money was obtained by a false pretense, prima facie , there is an intent to defraud.

Obtaining Execution of Valuable Security by Fraud

363. Every one who, with intent to defraud or injure another person, by a false pretense causes or induces any person
(a) to execute, make, accept, endorse or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
(b) to write, impress or affix a name or seal on any paper or parchment in order that it may afterwards be made or converted into or used or dealt with as a valuable security,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. R.S., C-34, s. 321.

The following is extracted from the Justice Department Criminal Code of Canada:



Forgery and Offences Resembling Forgery

FORGERY / Making false document / When forgery complete / Forgery complete though document incomplete.

366. (1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document, knowing
it to be false with intent
(a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of anyone whether within Canada or not; or
(b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.
(2) Making a false document includes:
(a) altering a genuine document in any material part;
(b) making a material addition to a genuine document or adding to it a false date, attestation, seal or other thing that is material; …
(4) Forgery is complete notwithstanding that the false document is incomplete or does not purport to be a document that is binding in law, if it is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted on as genuine. R.S., c. C-34, s. 324.


Cross References

374. Drawing document without authority.

375. Obtaining by forged document.


This section describes the offense of forgery. Every person who makes a false document, knowing it to be false, with the intent that it should be used as genuine to the prejudice of another person, or that another person should be induced, believing the document to be genuine, to do or refrain from doing anything, commits the offence of forgery.

Annotations – Meaning of “false document”

The provisions of this subsection do not exclude the definition of “false document” in s. 321. Thus the accused may be convicted of forgery where he makes a “false document” as that phrase is defined in s. 321. Specifically, the accused makes a “false document: where he prepares a document which is false in some material particular. A document which is false in reference to the very purpose for which it was created is clearly one which is false in a material particular…
It is not necessarily the case that a document which merely contains a lie falls within the definition of a false document. However, a document which is false in reference to the very purpose for which it was created is one that is false in a material particular within the meaning of s. 321 and therefore capable of founding a conviction under this section. R. v. Ogilvie (1993), 81 C.C.C. (3d) 125, [1993] R.J.Q. 453 (C.A.)

Punishment for Forgery

367. Every one who commits forgery
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term on exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S.C., c. C-34, 325; 1994. C. 44, s. 24; 1997, c. 18, s. 24.

Cross References

Forgery is defined in s. 366. This offence may be the basis for an application for an authorization to intercept private communications by reason of s. 183. Forgery is an enterprise crime offence for purposes of Part XII.2


This section describes the offence of uttering a forged document. Any person who, with knowledge that a document is forged, uses or acts upon it as though it were genuine is guilty of the offence of uttering. … that an intention to defraud is not an element of the offence under this section. Rather, the intent required is the intent to deceive, such an interpretation is consistent with the forgery offense defined by s. 366(1)(b) which as well does not require proof of an intent to defraud.

Drawing Document Without Authority Etc.

374. Every one who
(a) with intent to defraud and without lawful authority makes, executes, draws, signs, accepts or endorses a document in the name or on the account of another person by procuration or otherwise, or
(b) makes use of or utters a document knowing that it has been made, executed, signed, accepted or endorsed with intent to defraud and without lawful authority, in the name or on the account of another person, by procuration or otherwise,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 332.

Synopsis

This section describes the offence of drawing or using a document without authority. Anyone who makes, executes, draws, signs, accepts or endorses a document in the name of or on behalf of another person without lawful authority and with an intention to defraud, or who knowingly makes use of, or utters such a document, commits an indictable offence. The maximum term of punishment is 14 years’ imprisonment.

Obtaining, Etc, by Instrument Based on Forged Document

375. Everyone who demands, receives or obtains anything, or causes or procures anything to be delivered or paid to any person under, on, or by virtue of any instrument issued under the authority of law, knowing that it is based on a forged document, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years. R.S., c. C-34, s. 333.

Synopsis

This section creates the offence of using an instrument based on a forged document. Anyone who demands, receives or obtains anything, or causes anything to be delivered or paid, by virtue of an instrument issued under legal authority, but knowing that it is based on a forged document, commits an indictable offence. The maximum term of punishment is 14 years…
Sections 487.012 to 487.017 provide procedures for the making of production orders that would require persons to produce documents, data or information to police officers or public officers designated in the order.


HYPERLINK "http://laws.justice.gc.ca/fra/C-46/page-10.html" \l "codese:487_03-ss:_1_1_" Endorsement
(1.1) The endorsement may be made on the original of the warrant or on a copy of the warrant that is transmitted by any means of telecommunication and, once endorsed, the warrant has the same force in the other province as though it had originally been issued there.
(2) [Repealed, 2007, c. 22, s. 7]
1993, c. 40, s. 15; 1995, c. 27, s. 1; 2000, c. 10, s. 13; 2007, c. 22, s. 7; 2008, c. 18, s. 12.
Annotations – Meaning of Fraud Generally

The classic definition of fraud is found in the judgement Buckley J., in London & Globe Finance Corp. Ltd. (Re), (1903) 1 Ch. 728 at pp. 732-3 “To defraud is to deprive by deceit: it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury. More tersely it may be put, that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud by deceit to induce a course of action.”

…Scott v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner (1974) 60 Cr. App. R. 124 (H.L.) [held] that this definition is not exhaustive and that to “defraud” ordinarily means “to deprive a person dishonestly of something which is his or of something to which he is or would or might but for the perpetration of the fraud, be entitled.”
Meaning of “Other Fraudulent Means” Generally: … Other fraudulent means includes mere omission where, through silence, an individual hides from the other person a fundamental and essential information. The silence or omission must be such that it would mislead a reasonable person. R.v. Emond (1997), 117 C.C.C. (3d) 275 (Que. C.A.) leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 117 C.C.C. (3d) vi.
… The dishonesty lies in the wrongful use of something in which another person has an interest, in such a manner that this other’s interest is extinguished or put at risk. The use is wrongful in this sense if it constitutes conduct which reasonable decent persons would consider dishonest and unscrupulous. R. v. Zlatic [1993] 2 S.C.R. 29, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 466.

… Economic loss does not have to be proven by the Crown and fraud is complete when money is paid for corporate shares to which the accused falsely ascribed certain attributes: R. v. Knelson and Baran (1962), 133 C.C.C. 210, 38. C.R. 181 (B.C.C.A.)

Mens rea – The mens rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act, and subjective knowledge of the act could have as a consequence deprivation, in the sense of causing another to lose their pecuniary interest in certain property or in placing that interest at risk. There is no requirement that the accused subjectively appreciate the dishonesty of his acts: R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C. R. 5, 79 C.C.C. (3d) 449; R. v Zlatic, supra.

Every one of the criminal offenses listed here have been swept under the carpet by a financial regulatory system in Canada who places it's industry "above examination", and by a criminal justice system in Canada which buys into this "above examination" story. If this does not bother you, then just wait until you learn just how much financial abuse you are already suffering from.

[admin]

A true story of how police turn a blind eye to investment crime and abuse.

HAROLD C. BLANES

REPORT OF ENCOUNTERS WITH RCMP STAFF
WHEN REPORTING CRIMINAL CODE VIOLATIONS RELATING TO DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT ACTS INVOLVED IN SALE OF SECURITIES

APRIL 11, 2010


When I first asked the RCMP to help us with my claim, I asked for Sgt. Penner, but he was not available so the RCMP assigned Constable Melanie Coons to look at our case. She told me that she never had too much experience at this, but she would do what she could. We never heard from her for quite a while and I went back to their station to see her, but she had been assigned to another location. They let me see another constable. I showed him our claim [affidavit] that we put together about the claim against Canaccord Capital.

Canaccord had our savings in their company for about 4 years. Things went by OK most of that time, but we noticed Mr. Ritchie would phone us quite often for permission to buy something different. For a while, we thought that this was probably OK, but we began to notice that every time he called to make one of these transactions, that he would charge a big commission fee. We would tell him we thought it was too much, but he would say that was the rules.

This constant calling to trade went on until June 2006, when he called my wife and I to his office, saying that he had something that we might like. He handed a paper to my wife and said to her "you have to sign this". My wife was in her last few months of life at that point, and was very uncomfortable having to leave the house, and to concentrate on business matters. So she signed the paper, and asked if we could leave so that she could go home and lay down. I did not like that paper; it had a lot of small print. I said that I did not want to sign this document, having difficulty reading the small print. Mr. Ritchie said not to worry, that the buy was a low risk. I then signed, so that I could hurry back home so that my wife could get comfortable. When I got the statement for July 2006 we had lost about $9000. We went in to get Ritchie to put our savings in GICs and he said that he would not do this, saying: "You can't live with that". By the time we transferred our account out of there, we had lost $27,000 from this particular account, 312-A. Other accounts were also significantly down due to dishonest dealing by Ritchie and Canaccord.

Mr. Ritchie phoned about the second week in October of 2006 and asked for permission to take money out of another investment [229-A] to buy Leon Frazer Notes. My wife was getting worse with her health and we both were very worried, I told Ritchie "I'm not in favour of that deal and want no part of it." Mr. Ritchie went and made that trade against my wishes, and when we got the statement, we had lost over $19,000 when we moved the portfolio away from Canaccord. Most of the $19,000 went to Ritchie's commissions. All of this was against what I had asked for.

We had our savings moved over to Investors Group in 2007 and we had an agreement with the advisor to put our funds into GICs and bonds. Karen Erickson was the advisor. She told us that she would treat us honest, just like she treats her mother with her investments. My wife and I were glad we had found someone who was honest. That's why she got the job. The end of 2007 we found we had a loss recorded on our December 2007 statement.

I phoned Karen and asked how can this be? She said I have to come over to explain.

She came to our house and started talking about financial and estate planning. I quickly told Karen that this kind of service is unnecessary and not requested by me. I told her that all of my final expenses are arranged and paid for, and I have a will that has been set up. I have no mortgage or other insurable liabilities. I said to her that I am planning to divide my savings three ways next year and put it into the names of my three kids. She said that she would not do this, saying "I'll write the cheques for your kids once you die". She had everything made out in her favour. The Seg Fund that she put most of our savings in generated about a $25,000 commission to her as a deferred service charge, that would require the money staying in that account for 7 years in order for me to avoid any penalties in taking this out. Unfortunately, Karen did not discuss this with me at all, and I found out after the second year of dropping in my account, that this money was locked in to this DSC plan. This Seg Fund does not meet my definition of what a "guarantee" means, if it only guarantees 70 or 75% of the principal. When I got my 2008 statement, I had lost almost $50,000.

That was when our opinion of Karen changed from "honest" to "dishonest". I went over to the RCMP again and was able to speak to Constable Kincaid. She said that she used to work with Nesbitt Burns, and she said that they were "so dishonest that she had to quit". She looked over my portfolio and did see something that was not quite right. And Constable Kincaid contacted Karen and her boss, Paul Demay and told them that they will have to give back my savings that were taken by the actions of these brokers. They did not act on what Constable Kincaid said, and since then Constable Kincaid has not been available for comment. I have tried repeatedly to reach her by phone, but I have never been able to get a returned phone call.

I maintain that I never saw any of the fine print that is part of the document that I signed that says that these investments are not guaranteed. I maintain that Karen Erickson told me that these investments were guaranteed, and that any reference to the contrary must have been covered up when I was signing for this deal. When I signed, I was just coming out of the hospital from surgery for a ruptured appendix and I was too weak to question anything that was happening. I was relying on the truthfulness of the statements that Karen Erickson was making to me. At all times when we were speaking with Karen Erickson, we were asking for only guaranteed investments and no-gambling bonds, and I was under the impression that this was what she was offering.

With all this dishonest dealing, I wrote the President of Investors Group and he turned it over to his compliance officer. He told me to take it up with the OBSI.

I tried several times to see Constable Kincaid and left several messages on her answering machine, but she seems to be completely unavailable. This is a serious problem, because she has a lot of knowledge on just how dishonest the investment industry can be in Canada. I think that it is extremely necessary to have knowledgeable police involved with the problem of predatory investment dealers.

I have not given up yet, and I have asked to see Sgt. Penner. The local detachment has said that he is stationed up at the airport. His assistant did phone me and I had a long talk with her. She said there is not much they can do. She said: "You should take the loss and move on…" I told her $49,000 is a lot of money to lose, as I was then 89 years old and needed to help my kids with their debts. It is not my fault and I feel that I should not have to be victimized because brokers are allowed to adopt deceptive business practices in the sale of securities. The Criminal Code is explicit about any hint of deception in the sale of securities being against the law. It is only because of the SRO [self regulation] that has crept into the investment field over the last couple of decades – that this predatory lying is tolerated. I think that the police can do more to solve this kind of problem.

[admin]

Sent: April-24-10 10:27 AM
To: 'William Elliott'; 'Dean Buzza'; 'John Sliter'; 'mikemiles@shaw.ca'
Subject: Article Bottom Line

John Sliter, RCMP

The article by Jeff Buckstein was interesting. The largest fraud in Canadian History was ABCP. My suggestion for you is to invite Diane to the Canadian Police College and have her take police officers, accountants, and others through the fraud in ABCP. Judge Collin Campbell appointed her as the financial analyst in the court for the retail owners . She got the largest financial settlement in Canadian history for the retail clients. The retail clients now finally have an RCMP ABCP criminal investigation on the go, but none of the ABCP retail victims have been interviewed as far as we know.

If you provide the forum, Diane will provide the information and education. Yes interview protocol is important, but so is prosecutions when you have the expertise of Diane willing to assist in a criminal prosecutions. She has tried twice to get an investigation started during the ABCP crisis and it appears there are always junior analysts put on the case. Mike Miles out in Victoria, B.C. leads a retail group wanting a thorough investigation into the ABCP fraud.

John, Diane managed to get Mr. David Wilson removed from overseeing any investigation by the OSC of ABCP. He still was head of the OSC but could hold no responsibilities for any investigation of ABCP. The OSC and the IIROC had several meetings with Diane to understand ABCP. So there was a court settlement of $188 million for retail owners and another $150 million regualtory settlement for other impacted parties. Yes, she beat Purdy Crawford, the head of the Pan Canadian Committee that lead the restructuring of ABCP. If Purdy had his way the retail parties would have gotten next to nothing. Mike Miles would be happy to assist in any way in getting the criminal investigation going. Yes, we are after the big boys who structured and sold it, so you will need the expertise of Diane to assist in understanding this fraud. The US SEC is taking on Goldman Sach`s for its central role in packaging toxic structured credit products steeped full of high U.S. subprime mortgages that were designed to fail. Its time Canada stepped to the plate, so that our country`s citizens are not the dumping ground for toxic investment waste. Dean Buzza, many ABCP victims are waiting for the criminal investigation of ABCP. Mike Miles is concerned because he has not heard back from any of you.Please no more junior analysts. No more excuses just action please. I spent 18 months answering the phone for the victims and they are still in a state of shock even though they got their money back. The Shock is the RCMP's lack of action to do the ABCP criminal investigation. Does Purdy Crawford and his men run the RCMP? ( Canada's Largest Excise Tax Fraudster )

[admin]

Fellow Citizens in the Fight Against White Collar Crime.

The National Securities Regulator is not the panacea for prosecution and deterrence of white collar crime, when its governance structure is opaque and controlled by the investment industry itself. There is a high risk, based on what we know so far about what is proposed for the governance structure and the integration of securities regulatory and criminal enforcement, that the new National Securities Regulator will have less output and less integrity in criminal enforcement than what we have today. There will be almost no prospect for the systemic fraud at the highest levels of the investment banking industry to be stopped, without an independent Securities Crime Unit.

If you watch the video at www.ismymoneysafe.org, one will come to realize that even with a National Securities Regulator, the process of dealing with Earl Jones and other rogue fraudsters would likely be the same as now. In billion dollar plus public market frauds, the National Securities Regulator will be in a better position to cover up the frauds and protect the senior executives and professionals involved, unless you also have the independent SCU in place to keep these people in check.

My understanding is that the Federal Government intends to integrate criminal policing with administrative enforcement within the National Securities Regulator. This will be the fox guarding the hen house. David Wilson, Chairman of the OSC, has over $15 billion billion in losses on Income Trusts, a product which has a deceptive yield and was shut down in the US. Income Trusts were started up in Canada, after it was shut down in the US when the US Department of Justice imposed a deferred criminal prosecution on Prudential Securities, which had to pay $2 billion in restitution to its investor victims and a $40 million fine for selling the same product to seniors and other unsophisticated investors. After this US criminal prosecution, Canada's Income Trusts developed into a $200 billion dollar industry, that acted as predator of senior investors.

The real fraud in ABCP will probably never be dealt with by the RCMP IMET, yet some like Diane are aware of how the fraud was executed and have explained it to the regulators. If you go to the site www.investorvoice.ca and move to the right, you will see our citizens' fight for restitution on ABCP. Scroll down and you read all the stories. Diane and Henry Juroviesky, a Toronto lawyer, got a $188 million settlement for 1800 families and worked at pushing the regulators to force another $140 million settlement. The retail ABCP owners are now trying to get criminal justice and it is one hell of a fight.

The same players involved with the regulators for the National Securities Regulator are working to ensure that the RCMP IMET will remain controlled by integrating them with the regulator. They have it set up now that a criminal investigation can only start if it is referred from a regulator to the RCMP IMET. One cannot go direct to the police as we want for the SCU.

Hugh Urquhart