Subject: RCMP Investigation of Income Trusts' Illegal Insider Trading
Was the RCMP investigation of income trusts' illegal insider trading during the last federal election campaign a teapot tempest, as James Travers says it was in today's [attached pdf & html below] Toronto Star?
"Canadians still don't have a clue what happened in the heat of the last campaign. They don't know why the RCMP, playing fast and loose with procedures, detoured so far out of its way to make sure voters knew Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale was being investigated for rumoured leaks of his income trust decision.
As it turns out, the probe was a teapot tempest. A single finance department official was charged with breach of trust after an exhaustive 14-month investigation."
Or is there more at play?
"Canadian Business senior writer John Gray talked with Craig Hannaford and Bill Majcher—two IMET officers who recently left the force—about the problems cops face in getting their man, and what can be done about them."
"Their message: When it comes to white-collar crime, it’s worse than you think."
Bill Majcher: "The system is pretty much non-existent. You can fix something that is hemorrhaging, but if the body is already lifeless, you have to start fresh. We need politicians to admit that the system is broken from the top to the bottom. Canadians have to understand that we have a two-tiered justice system, where people with money can play the system. Show me a person who has gotten any sort of satisfaction from going to the authorities after being victimized by a white-collar fraud…who got their money back in a timely fashion and didn’t go through a lot of grief. I can’t think of a single person like that."
Read Larry Elford's Januray 2, 2006, complaint to the Investment Dealers Association below about the income trusts' illegal insider trading investigation:
Larry Elford
521 Fairmont Blvd South,
Lethbridge, Alberta, T1K 7G3
Tel: (403)
Fax (403)
E-mail:
January 2, 2006
Joseph J. Oliver
President & Chief Executive Officer
joliver@ida.ca
-and-
Paul Bourke
Senior Vice President, Member Regulation
pbourke@ida.ca
Investment Dealers Association of Canada
Suite 1600, 121 King Street West,
Toronto , Ontario M5H 3T9
Tel:(416) 364-6133
Fax: ( 416) 364-0753
Enforcement Matters Only: Fax (416) 364-2998
enforcement@ida.ca
Dear Joe Oliver and Paul Bourke:
On December 28, 2005, it was publicly announced that an RCMP investigation has begun on the alleged illegal insider trading of income trusts and dividend paying common shares on November 23rd prior to Finance Minister Ralph Goodale’s announcement of no new business tax on income trusts and a reduction in the personal taxes on dividends. RCMP spokeswoman, Nathalie Deschênes, confirmed that the investigation will involve an RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team, a specialized unit that includes RCMP officers and securities regulators.
I am writing today as an individual investor and a retired twenty year investment industry veteran to complain about the unusual increases in trading volume and up ticking of prices in income trusts and dividend paying common shares that occurred on the afternoon of November 23rd, where the trades were executed primarily by a subset of Investment Dealer Association (IDA) member investment banks. Also, Eric Beauchesne of CanWest News Service reported in his December 10, 2005 article “Renewed Call for Income Trust Probe” that executives of the IDA met with Finance Minister Goodale on the morning of November 23rd prior to the Goodale tax announcement later that evening. The existence of the IDA meeting and its subject were confirmed by both Honourable Minister Goodale’s office and by Ross Sherwood, Chairman of the IDA as noted in the following quotes from the CanWest News Service article:
“John Embury, Goodale's director of communications, said the members of the self-regulatory organization for the securities industry raised the issue of income trusts at the end of previously scheduled regular meeting.”
``There was a very vague, very general discussion,'' Embury said, adding that it dealt with the association's planned submission on the income trusts issue. ``They left the meeting no wiser than when they came through the door.”
“Ross Sherwood, chairman of the investment dealers association and CEO of Odlum Brown Ltd., said the discussion on income trusts focused exclusively on the association's submission on the issue which wasn't finalized at the time and was only released a week later. The announcement on income trusts early that evening ``came as quite a shock ... we had no idea.”
The IDA, as a self-regulator of the investment banking industry, should publicly disclose who attended the IDA meeting with Finance Minister Goodale on the morning of November 23rd. Since a subset of IDA Member investment banks were active in the unusually high volume and price up ticking in income trusts and dividend paying common shares that began at about noon that day, it is reasonable to anticipate that the RCMP will be reviewing communications and conducting interviews surrounding this IDA meeting with Honourable Minister Goodale.
Barry Critchley, of the National Post, wrote the following in his column on December 9, 2005 entitled “Vague heads-up on Ottawa's plans easy to decipher”:
“For instance, when asked yesterday, "When did you know that an announcement was coming?" an investment banking source said, "About 2:30 p.m." He was then asked how he found out. His reply: "Reliable sources."
That comment confirms the following comment from the chief executive of an income trust. "Our bankers told us the day before that something was happening. They didn't know what it was but they knew that something was underway."
On the IDA website, it says: “The enforcement process is an essential element in assuring investors that the IDA’s Member firms are effectively regulated and that each adheres to the highest standards of conduct.” The IDA Guide for the Subjects of an Investigation indicates that the IDA has jurisdiction for undertaking investigations into the conduct of its Members and their employees, which in this case would cover the IDA executives who attended the November 23rd morning meeting with Finance Minister Goodale and the traders working for the IDA Members who executed the unusually high volume and price up ticking in the income trust and dividend paying common share trades later that day.
1. Investigatory Powers of the Association
Pursuant to By-law 19, Enforcement staff of the IDA may undertake investigations into the conduct, business or affairs of its Members and their employees. Investigations may be undertaken on the basis of:
· a complaint received from a member of the public;
· a directive from the IDA’s Board of Directors;
· a request from a securities commission; or
· any information obtained or received by the IDA.
I would like to officially request that the IDA have no role as an investigator in the investigation by the RCMP IMET Unit into the alleged illegal insider trading of income trusts and dividend paying common shares due to the existence of the IDA executives’ meeting with Finance Minister Goodale in the morning of November 23rd and due to the possible subset of IDA Members who executed the unusually high volume and price up ticking in the income trust and dividend paying common share trades later that day.
My request for IDA enforcement personnel to recuse themselves from the RCMP IMET investigation on the alleged illegal insider trading of income trusts and dividend paying common shares is a request for them to break from their normal role as IDA investigators with official status in the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team. The IDA’s normal role in RCMP IMET investigations is well defined in the RCMP IMET press release of January 2, 2005 on the laying of charges against an HSBC Securities (Canada) Inc. employee for theft of securities:
“’This is a good example of the seamless cooperation between securities regulators and IMET in investigations of capital markets fraud," commented Tom Atkinson, president of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS). "RS, in conjunction with the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA), fully assisted IMET in its work to bring this investigation to a successful close."
The objective of the IMET is to maintain investor confidence in Canada's capital markets by deterring market fraud and theft through enhanced enforcement and prosecution of serious market fraud and theft offences in Canada. The investigative work of the IMET complements the work of the financial markets' regulatory organizations such as the provincial securities commissions, Investment Dealers Association of Canada and Market Regulation Services Inc.
The Greater Toronto Area IMET brings together specialized investigative skills from the RCMP and participating agencies. It is currently supported by the Ontario Securities Commission, Investment Dealers Association of Canada, Market Regulation Services Inc. and the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada.”
As we know, the IDA has recently realized that they simply cannot continue in the conflicting roles of representing themselves to be a self regulatory group, while also being registered in Ottawa as an industry lobby group for investment dealers. As a result, they are now in the process of splitting apart these conflicted roles as both a self-regulatory and lobby organization.
I appreciate your attention to the need for the IDA to recuse itself as an investigator assisting the RCMP IMET investigation on the alleged illegal insider trading of income trusts and dividend common shares, where IDA executives and IDA Member employees will be amongst the investigated. Those being investigated must provide their full co-operation to the RCMP IMET Unit, which must act independently on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Larry Elford
Probe role of RCMP in last vote
February 16, 2008
James Travers
Ottawa
Canada is too cold, rich and stable to be easily mistaken for a banana republic. But from time to time – and this is one of them – this capital's willingness to turn a blind eye to bad behaviour explains any confusion.
Sometime too soon this country will plunge into the next federal election without knowing if the RCMP tilted the outcome of the last. That's as inexplicable as it is unacceptable.
Hale and hearty democracies don't stand around twiddling their collective thumbs when there's reason to fear that the police or, for that matter, the military are meddling in the political process. Still, that's precisely what's happening in the run-up to a campaign that may come as early as spring and certainly no later than fall 2009.
Canadians still don't have a clue what happened in the heat of the last campaign. They don't know why the RCMP, playing fast and loose with procedures, detoured so far out of its way to make sure voters knew Liberal finance minister Ralph Goodale was being investigated for rumoured leaks of his income trust decision.
As it turns out, the probe was a teapot tempest. A single finance department official was charged with breach of trust after an exhaustive 14-month investigation.
It's a pity, even a national shame, that equal time and energy haven't been applied to explaining the RCMP's curious actions. More than two years later, the motivation for the pivotal December 2005 intervention remains a mystery.
What is known, or at least what informs conventional wisdom here, is that it was the election's tipping point. Before the RCMP repeatedly flashed its investigation to the NDP, Liberals held a lead and Paul Martin was on course for a second minority mandate. But that changed when now defrocked commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli dumped customary discretion by reporting to MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis that the RCMP was on the case. Surprise, surprise, she rushed to the microphone about as quickly as voters reached the conclusion that Liberals and their ethics were beyond the pale.
It's appalling but hardly shocking that the worst can reasonably be thought of the storied horsemen. The force's dabbling in politics dates back at least as far as its `70s barn burning and burglary. Worse, as the McDonald Royal Commission found and Canadians are periodically reminded, top Mounties have a nasty habit of hiding law-breaking from the force's elected masters and from those it vows to serve. This week alone, a Commons committee recommended that deputy commissioner Barbara George be found in contempt for her suspect pension-scandal testimony, and the federal privacy commissioner revealed the force is wrongly and secretly hoarding thousands of personal files.
Election conspiracy theories are thriving in that fertile ground. Two are most frequently heard. One is that the RCMP preferred the Conservative law-and-order platform, did what it could to help and was quickly rewarded with a budget boost. The other is that the force, drawn into Liberal internal bickering, paid back old Jean Chrétien debts by speeding Martin's defeat.
Whatever the truth, it's remarkable that Bill Elliott, labouring under the twin burdens of being the first civilian commissioner and old Tory ties, has yet to clear the air. Instead, it's heavy with the spoiled odours of banana republics.
Before the next election, Canadians have a right to know if the RCMP was more than a spectator in the last. Nothing less will do.
James Travers' national affairs column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
visit breachoftrust.ca for BREACH OF TRUST film info
E-MAIL us at investoradvocate@shaw.ca
Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?
by admin » Fri Mar 21, 2008 12:17 am
Council handed task to fix RCMP
OMAR EL AKKAD
From Friday's Globe and Mail
March 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM EDT
OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced yesterday the creation of an RCMP "reform implementation council," charged with helping turn the troubled federal police force around.
The new council is a direct response to a key task-force report completed late last year that found many accountability and management problems within the federal police service.
The more than 40 recommendations made by the task force include making the RCMP a separate entity from the government. The new council will oversee the implementation of those recommendations. The council is expected to submit its first progress report to the minister by Sept. 30, with a follow-up report due next March.
Mr. Day said the creation of the council will allow the government "to really start to get to the business of rolling up of the sleeves and making sure that everybody's working together to see the types of changes, the cultural and governance changes, that will carry the RCMP forward."
Enlarge Image
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day discussed a plan for changes to turn the RCMP around after recent problems. (Troy Fleece/The Canadian Press)
Videos
RCMP overhaul
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announces the creation of an RCMP 'reform implementation council'
Internet Links
On the Web: RCMP responds
Critics, however, said the move fails to effect real change within the RCMP.
"We now have a committee to look at the recommendations of another committee," said Liberal national security critic Ujjal Dosanjh.
Mr. Dosanjh added that it's still not clear whether the government intends to act on what is perhaps the most significant recommendation made by the task force last year: the creation of a civilian board of management to oversee the police force.
Asked whether the government has approved that particular recommendation, Mr. Day's senior assistant, John Brent, said by e-mail: "Some of the Task Force recommendations involve complex structural changes. The Government will take the time necessary to give them proper consideration before taking further action."
Yesterday, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott welcomed the creation of the council.
"I have made it abundantly clear that the status quo is not an option," Commissioner Elliott said in a press release, "and I believe our people are ready for real and substantial change."
The new council's members bring with them a mix of police and corporate experience.
David McAusland, chairman of the council, has an extensive background in corporate governance. He most recently served as vice-president of corporate development and chief legal officer at Alcan Inc.
"My experience is that regardless of the type of organization you're dealing with … excellence in management and excellence in leadership is driven by organizational excellence," he said.
The rest of the five-person council includes:
- Jean-Claude Bouchard, a career public servant who served in various government positions.
- Jocelyne Côté-O'Hara, president of a Toronto-based consulting firm.
- Beverley Busson, who served as RCMP commissioner from December, 2006, to July, 2007.
- Kevin McAlpine, a professor with the school of justice at Ontario's Durham College. He served as chief of police with Durham Regional Police Service from 1997 to 2005, and before that held the same job with the Peterborough Community Police Service.
OMAR EL AKKAD
From Friday's Globe and Mail
March 20, 2008 at 9:56 PM EDT
OTTAWA — Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced yesterday the creation of an RCMP "reform implementation council," charged with helping turn the troubled federal police force around.
The new council is a direct response to a key task-force report completed late last year that found many accountability and management problems within the federal police service.
The more than 40 recommendations made by the task force include making the RCMP a separate entity from the government. The new council will oversee the implementation of those recommendations. The council is expected to submit its first progress report to the minister by Sept. 30, with a follow-up report due next March.
Mr. Day said the creation of the council will allow the government "to really start to get to the business of rolling up of the sleeves and making sure that everybody's working together to see the types of changes, the cultural and governance changes, that will carry the RCMP forward."
Enlarge Image
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day discussed a plan for changes to turn the RCMP around after recent problems. (Troy Fleece/The Canadian Press)
Videos
RCMP overhaul
Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announces the creation of an RCMP 'reform implementation council'
Internet Links
On the Web: RCMP responds
Critics, however, said the move fails to effect real change within the RCMP.
"We now have a committee to look at the recommendations of another committee," said Liberal national security critic Ujjal Dosanjh.
Mr. Dosanjh added that it's still not clear whether the government intends to act on what is perhaps the most significant recommendation made by the task force last year: the creation of a civilian board of management to oversee the police force.
Asked whether the government has approved that particular recommendation, Mr. Day's senior assistant, John Brent, said by e-mail: "Some of the Task Force recommendations involve complex structural changes. The Government will take the time necessary to give them proper consideration before taking further action."
Yesterday, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott welcomed the creation of the council.
"I have made it abundantly clear that the status quo is not an option," Commissioner Elliott said in a press release, "and I believe our people are ready for real and substantial change."
The new council's members bring with them a mix of police and corporate experience.
David McAusland, chairman of the council, has an extensive background in corporate governance. He most recently served as vice-president of corporate development and chief legal officer at Alcan Inc.
"My experience is that regardless of the type of organization you're dealing with … excellence in management and excellence in leadership is driven by organizational excellence," he said.
The rest of the five-person council includes:
- Jean-Claude Bouchard, a career public servant who served in various government positions.
- Jocelyne Côté-O'Hara, president of a Toronto-based consulting firm.
- Beverley Busson, who served as RCMP commissioner from December, 2006, to July, 2007.
- Kevin McAlpine, a professor with the school of justice at Ontario's Durham College. He served as chief of police with Durham Regional Police Service from 1997 to 2005, and before that held the same job with the Peterborough Community Police Service.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
by admin » Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:31 am
IMET should be ashamed and the MFDA should news release the fact that
victims were the real driving force.Not to do so would be like crediting
Canaccord for resolving the ABCP scandal rather than victim Brian Hunter [CB magazine did recognize his heroic work on behalf of all retail "investors" infected with the ABCP virus!Another question: How come the MFDA didn't refer the case to the RCMP/IMET in BC?
This June 26, 2008 RCMP News Release
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?conte ... nguageId=1
is unfair to victims. The statement “IMET began investigating Mr. THOW in
the summer of 2005 based on a complaint received from Berkshire Investment
Group (Berkshire). ” Here’s why : Abused clients raised red flags with
Berkshire, the RCMP and the MFDA months before Berkshire even accepted
there was a problem with their Victoria branch manager. Between November
1998 and June 2005, Thow was registered in British Columbia as a mutual fund
salesperson, branch manager and officer with Berkshire. Berkshire itself was
sanctioned by the MFDA on Dec. 13, 2007 .The Hearing Panel approved a
Settlement Agreement entered into between the MFDA and Berkshire. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Hearing Panel imposed a fine in the amount of
$500,000 on Berkshire and required Berkshire to pay $50,000 in respect of
the MFDA’s costs of its investigation and the hearing. The Settlement
Agreement concerned Berkshire’s failure to conduct reasonable supervisory
investigations between September 16, 2004 and June 1, 2005 in response to
reports it had received from two individuals concerning the activities of
one of its mutual fund salespersons. Berkshire further acknowledged that,
had it taken those measures, it is more likely that Thow’s activities would
have been discovered and brought to an end. Instead, Thow was able to
continue to persuade individuals to provide him with an additional $6.3
million, almost $4.5 million of which was received from clients of
Berkshire. Ref http://www.mfda.ca/news/releases07/Rele ... kshire.pdf
NOTE THE TIMELINES! We add parenthetically that the name Berkshire is no
more; The new owner, Manulife, has given the firm a well needed name change
and likely a lot more.
ken k
Kenmar Associates
victims were the real driving force.Not to do so would be like crediting
Canaccord for resolving the ABCP scandal rather than victim Brian Hunter [CB magazine did recognize his heroic work on behalf of all retail "investors" infected with the ABCP virus!Another question: How come the MFDA didn't refer the case to the RCMP/IMET in BC?
This June 26, 2008 RCMP News Release
http://bc.rcmp.ca/ViewPage.action?conte ... nguageId=1
is unfair to victims. The statement “IMET began investigating Mr. THOW in
the summer of 2005 based on a complaint received from Berkshire Investment
Group (Berkshire). ” Here’s why : Abused clients raised red flags with
Berkshire, the RCMP and the MFDA months before Berkshire even accepted
there was a problem with their Victoria branch manager. Between November
1998 and June 2005, Thow was registered in British Columbia as a mutual fund
salesperson, branch manager and officer with Berkshire. Berkshire itself was
sanctioned by the MFDA on Dec. 13, 2007 .The Hearing Panel approved a
Settlement Agreement entered into between the MFDA and Berkshire. Under the
terms of the settlement, the Hearing Panel imposed a fine in the amount of
$500,000 on Berkshire and required Berkshire to pay $50,000 in respect of
the MFDA’s costs of its investigation and the hearing. The Settlement
Agreement concerned Berkshire’s failure to conduct reasonable supervisory
investigations between September 16, 2004 and June 1, 2005 in response to
reports it had received from two individuals concerning the activities of
one of its mutual fund salespersons. Berkshire further acknowledged that,
had it taken those measures, it is more likely that Thow’s activities would
have been discovered and brought to an end. Instead, Thow was able to
continue to persuade individuals to provide him with an additional $6.3
million, almost $4.5 million of which was received from clients of
Berkshire. Ref http://www.mfda.ca/news/releases07/Rele ... kshire.pdf
NOTE THE TIMELINES! We add parenthetically that the name Berkshire is no
more; The new owner, Manulife, has given the firm a well needed name change
and likely a lot more.
ken k
Kenmar Associates
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
by admin » Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:33 pm
OSC and RCMP IMET News Releases August 6, 2008
Please see the attached news releases from the Ontario Securities Commission and the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team released on August 6, 2008, which announce the following:
TORONTO The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) today announced the appointment of Michael Watson, Q.C. as Special Advisor Capital Markets Enforcement to the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Program.
From all of the attached media articles of the past two years and my own direct experience, my conclusion on this new appointment by the OSC of a Special Advisor to the RCMP IMET, is that the Federal Government and Ontario Government are not serious about fixing Canada's securities crime policing problem The four Ministers involved in this decision surely know that the OSC and Michael Watson, as its Head of Enforcement, have an abysmal record of failing to obtain quasi-criminal prosecutions in the Ontario Court of Justice. Plus, the media articles show a litany of broad-based complaints about the OSC failing in its own general mandate to provide investor protection through enforcement of security law violations. How could the OSC possibly assist the RCMP IMET in improving its own abysmal record on securities crime prosecutions, which the Canadian Business highlights in the attached "Calling All Fraudsters" Editorial and the Toronto Star exposes in its series "Ontario Third World Enforcement"? The four Ministers impacted by this appointment are Federal Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Finance James Flaherty, Ontario Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Monte Kwinter, and Ontario Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan.
Gary Logan is a recently retired Detective Sergeant from the Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad, who developed the proposed securities crime complaints intake and assessment system administered by police forces across Canada, including the Federal RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team. This proposed securities crime complaints intake and assessment system is described in the attached "Logan Submission to Expert Panel - Securities Crime Complaints Intake and Review Panel July 11, 2008.pdf." I wrote the attached Opinion Editorial about Mr. Logan's proposed securities crime complaints system in the Ottawa Hill Times, "Fixing Canada's Third World Securities Crime Enforcement," dated January 7, 2008. The system Mr. Logan is proposing is the same system he developed and is working successfully for Mortgage Fraud in Ontario. See also the support for this new securities crime complaints intake and assessment system in the submission of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation Submission to the Expert Panel on Securities Regulation dated July 10, 2008.
If the Ministers named above want to combat securities crime and are sincere in their efforts to protect the general public from securities crimes, then today's news release and appointment is a backward step. These Ministers need to start listening to the informed views of the public being expressed by the media and new experts such as Gary Logan, who has had success in securities crime prosecutions, such as in the case of the two investment industry fraudsters, Nelson Allan and Michael Holoday. These securities fraudsters were put into jail by the Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad. John Reynolds wrote a book called "Free Rider" on the Michael Holoday case, which covers the work of Gary Logan and his fellow senior fraud squad detective, Jeff Thomson.
The Federal Government and Ontario Government have to stop relying on their traditional securities industry advisors on how to fix Canada's broken securities crime system.
For example, one of their advisors is Purdy Crawford, who was the CEO at Imasco-Imperial Tobacco when the largest tax avoidance fraud in Canadian history occurred. David Wilson, Chairman of the OSC, has himself in his former job of CEO of Scotia Capital Markets. supervised billions of dollars of income trusts and Non-Bank ABCP being placed into the retail marketplace, where there is now widespread allegations of securities fraud, even alleged within the Ontario Superior Court of Justice proceedings on ABCP restructuring.
Diane A.Urquhart, B.A. & M.A. Economics, CFA
Independent Analyst
Please see the attached news releases from the Ontario Securities Commission and the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team released on August 6, 2008, which announce the following:
TORONTO The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) today announced the appointment of Michael Watson, Q.C. as Special Advisor Capital Markets Enforcement to the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Program.
From all of the attached media articles of the past two years and my own direct experience, my conclusion on this new appointment by the OSC of a Special Advisor to the RCMP IMET, is that the Federal Government and Ontario Government are not serious about fixing Canada's securities crime policing problem The four Ministers involved in this decision surely know that the OSC and Michael Watson, as its Head of Enforcement, have an abysmal record of failing to obtain quasi-criminal prosecutions in the Ontario Court of Justice. Plus, the media articles show a litany of broad-based complaints about the OSC failing in its own general mandate to provide investor protection through enforcement of security law violations. How could the OSC possibly assist the RCMP IMET in improving its own abysmal record on securities crime prosecutions, which the Canadian Business highlights in the attached "Calling All Fraudsters" Editorial and the Toronto Star exposes in its series "Ontario Third World Enforcement"? The four Ministers impacted by this appointment are Federal Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, Federal Minister of Finance James Flaherty, Ontario Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services Monte Kwinter, and Ontario Minister of Finance Dwight Duncan.
Gary Logan is a recently retired Detective Sergeant from the Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad, who developed the proposed securities crime complaints intake and assessment system administered by police forces across Canada, including the Federal RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team. This proposed securities crime complaints intake and assessment system is described in the attached "Logan Submission to Expert Panel - Securities Crime Complaints Intake and Review Panel July 11, 2008.pdf." I wrote the attached Opinion Editorial about Mr. Logan's proposed securities crime complaints system in the Ottawa Hill Times, "Fixing Canada's Third World Securities Crime Enforcement," dated January 7, 2008. The system Mr. Logan is proposing is the same system he developed and is working successfully for Mortgage Fraud in Ontario. See also the support for this new securities crime complaints intake and assessment system in the submission of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation Submission to the Expert Panel on Securities Regulation dated July 10, 2008.
If the Ministers named above want to combat securities crime and are sincere in their efforts to protect the general public from securities crimes, then today's news release and appointment is a backward step. These Ministers need to start listening to the informed views of the public being expressed by the media and new experts such as Gary Logan, who has had success in securities crime prosecutions, such as in the case of the two investment industry fraudsters, Nelson Allan and Michael Holoday. These securities fraudsters were put into jail by the Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad. John Reynolds wrote a book called "Free Rider" on the Michael Holoday case, which covers the work of Gary Logan and his fellow senior fraud squad detective, Jeff Thomson.
The Federal Government and Ontario Government have to stop relying on their traditional securities industry advisors on how to fix Canada's broken securities crime system.
For example, one of their advisors is Purdy Crawford, who was the CEO at Imasco-Imperial Tobacco when the largest tax avoidance fraud in Canadian history occurred. David Wilson, Chairman of the OSC, has himself in his former job of CEO of Scotia Capital Markets. supervised billions of dollars of income trusts and Non-Bank ABCP being placed into the retail marketplace, where there is now widespread allegations of securities fraud, even alleged within the Ontario Superior Court of Justice proceedings on ABCP restructuring.
Diane A.Urquhart, B.A. & M.A. Economics, CFA
Independent Analyst
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?
by admin » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:27 am
Mounties' stock-market fraud squads a disaster
David Baines
December 20, 2008 1:06 AM
Today I am providing a list of charges laid by the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Teams in Vancouver and Calgary since they were inaugurated in 2003 and 2004, respectively, as part of a national program to fight stock market fraud. It could be the shortest column I have ever written.
HERE'S THE LIST:
Vancouver: Two people charged (one convicted, the other on the lam).
Calgary: No charges.
While those statistics are depressing enough, they still don't adequately quantify what a disaster this program has been.
You should know that the annual budget for the Vancouver team alone is $2.5 million, and that 23 people are working in the team's office in downtown Vancouver. Here's a list of staff members:
Eight RCMP members; one RCMP member on parental leave; three civilian investigative assistants; one civilian employee on sick leave; three public-service support staff; a department of justice lawyer; a full-time employee on loan from the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada; a civilian criminal intelligence analyst; a forensic accountant; a full-time officer on loan from the Vancouver police department; and two major case-management information processors, who are currently being hired.
The two cases that have resulted in charges are:
In May 2006, Vancouver resident Kevin Steele was charged in a commodities trading scam. This case did not represent any sort of investigative or prosecutorial challenge. It was originally investigated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Steele made it clear from the outset that he would cooperate with the RCMP investigation. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
In June this year, the Vancouver team charged former Victoria investment executive Ian Thow in connection with multiple securities fraud. There was nothing about this case that was subtle. Thow took money from his clients, promised to invest it in sundry unauthorized investment schemes and absconded with the money. But it took three years to lay charges. Alas, well before the charges were laid, Thow slipped across the border to Seattle. To date, RCMP have not been able to apprehend him.
And that's it for the Vancouver team, which is celebrating (if that's the correct word) its fifth anniversary this month.
In Calgary, where no charges have been laid, the annual budget is about $2 million, depending on the staff complement. Right now, there just over 20 people working there, and more on the way.
Targeting securities crime
When the program was established in 2003, the plan was to combine the resources of the RCMP, city police, provincial securities regulators, federal prosecutors and private forensic accountants for a coordinated assault on securities crime. The goal was to lay charges within a year of the offence.
Teams were established in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. This year, the overall national budget will be $31 million.
After the Vancouver team had been in operation for a full year and no charges had been laid, I published my first report card: "It's much too early to read anything into this," I wrote at the time. "But with a second team to be added in March [2005] or shortly thereafter, this is the year that the unfettered optimism I observed at the official opening must translate into criminal charges."
By December 2005, the second anniversary, there were still no charges: "Obviously we haven't met the expectations of the public," Insp. George Pemberton, who heads the team, said at the time.
"I think that, in retrospect, the expectations that were set -- the promise that cases would go from inception to referral within one year -- were overly optimistic. That's a really aggressive timeline. ... I think it's fair to hold our feet to the fire."
By December 2006, the third anniversary, only one charge had been laid (against Kevin Steele). "I am the first one to admit that things are not going as quickly as I would like," Supt. John Sliter, the program's national director, conceded at the time. "I think it's fair to hold our feet to the fire," he added, taking a page from Pemberton's song sheet.
By December 2007, the fourth anniversary, nobody else had been charged. "We're starting to get things together," Pemberton said, noting that the team had submitted two briefs to Crown for charge approval and was investigating alleged assay altering by former Southwestern Resources CEO John Paterson.
Since then, Thow has been charged, but not arrested. The police and Crown approach to his apprehension strikes me as very strange. Although Thow is a fugitive from Canadian justice, he is not on the RCMP's "most wanted" list, and no attempts have been made to enlist help in Seattle to apprehend him. Instead, there has been much fiddling, with no result.
Meanwhile, the Vancouver team has submitted a charge approval brief to Crown counsel on the Southwestern file, but no charges have been laid yet. I must admit there is no urgency in this matter. Paterson, unlike Thow, is cooperating with police and doesn't represent a continuing threat to the public.
Hotbed of crime
In assessing the Vancouver team's performance, it is important to understand that getting stock market miscreants criminally charged is the primary purpose of the program. Anybody who follows my column will know that B.C., in particular, is a hotbed of stock market crime. Almost every week, I report on new instances of securities fraud. Although they add up to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses and untold human suffering, the perpetrators rarely have to account for themselves in court.
In the absence of charges, the IMET teams like to talk about tangential work they do. For example, Pemberton says one of his team's "real successes" was working with the B.C. Securities Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to short-circuit U.S. over-the-counter promotions that are being run from Vancouver. (They have been dropping into company offices, reminding promoters of their reporting obligations under B.C. and U.S. securities rules.)
Similarly, Insp. Eric Mattson, head of the Calgary IMET, says his team has provided investigative assistance to other police units, such as the commercial crime and organized crime units. But when I asked him to name any cases they assisted in that resulted in charges, he replied, "I'm not going to comment on that."
Why he wouldn't comment is puzzling. It's been my observation that, whenever criminal charges are laid, police and regulatory agencies are not at all shy about claiming credit. My conclusion is there isn't much to comment on.
Disappointing performance
The public figure who has the biggest stake in the effective criminal prosecution of stock market crime is Doug Hyndman, chairman of the B.C. Securities Commission. He can only do so much to police the market. Any real punishment and deterrence has to be meted out by police, prosecutors and judges.
In an address to the Economic Club of Toronto in September 2007, Hyndman said the IMET's performance had been "disappointing."
"Despite spending about $100 million on this program so far, the federal government has achieved almost nothing," he said.
Since then, the Montreal team (which hadn't laid any charges at that point) announced charges in the case of Norbourg Asset Management, and the Toronto team (which had previously laid charges in just three cases) announced additional charges relating to Nortel, Royal Group Technologies, and Sulja Brothers (a pink-sheet company).
But we have had only one additional charge in B.C., which doesn't appear to impress Hyndman. When I asked for a comment on the Vancouver IMET's performance to date, he declined to provide one, and instead referred me to his previous speech.
He was disappointed then. Obviously, he still is.
dbaines@vancouversun.com
David Baines
December 20, 2008 1:06 AM
Today I am providing a list of charges laid by the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Teams in Vancouver and Calgary since they were inaugurated in 2003 and 2004, respectively, as part of a national program to fight stock market fraud. It could be the shortest column I have ever written.
HERE'S THE LIST:
Vancouver: Two people charged (one convicted, the other on the lam).
Calgary: No charges.
While those statistics are depressing enough, they still don't adequately quantify what a disaster this program has been.
You should know that the annual budget for the Vancouver team alone is $2.5 million, and that 23 people are working in the team's office in downtown Vancouver. Here's a list of staff members:
Eight RCMP members; one RCMP member on parental leave; three civilian investigative assistants; one civilian employee on sick leave; three public-service support staff; a department of justice lawyer; a full-time employee on loan from the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada; a civilian criminal intelligence analyst; a forensic accountant; a full-time officer on loan from the Vancouver police department; and two major case-management information processors, who are currently being hired.
The two cases that have resulted in charges are:
In May 2006, Vancouver resident Kevin Steele was charged in a commodities trading scam. This case did not represent any sort of investigative or prosecutorial challenge. It was originally investigated by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and Steele made it clear from the outset that he would cooperate with the RCMP investigation. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.
In June this year, the Vancouver team charged former Victoria investment executive Ian Thow in connection with multiple securities fraud. There was nothing about this case that was subtle. Thow took money from his clients, promised to invest it in sundry unauthorized investment schemes and absconded with the money. But it took three years to lay charges. Alas, well before the charges were laid, Thow slipped across the border to Seattle. To date, RCMP have not been able to apprehend him.
And that's it for the Vancouver team, which is celebrating (if that's the correct word) its fifth anniversary this month.
In Calgary, where no charges have been laid, the annual budget is about $2 million, depending on the staff complement. Right now, there just over 20 people working there, and more on the way.
Targeting securities crime
When the program was established in 2003, the plan was to combine the resources of the RCMP, city police, provincial securities regulators, federal prosecutors and private forensic accountants for a coordinated assault on securities crime. The goal was to lay charges within a year of the offence.
Teams were established in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver. This year, the overall national budget will be $31 million.
After the Vancouver team had been in operation for a full year and no charges had been laid, I published my first report card: "It's much too early to read anything into this," I wrote at the time. "But with a second team to be added in March [2005] or shortly thereafter, this is the year that the unfettered optimism I observed at the official opening must translate into criminal charges."
By December 2005, the second anniversary, there were still no charges: "Obviously we haven't met the expectations of the public," Insp. George Pemberton, who heads the team, said at the time.
"I think that, in retrospect, the expectations that were set -- the promise that cases would go from inception to referral within one year -- were overly optimistic. That's a really aggressive timeline. ... I think it's fair to hold our feet to the fire."
By December 2006, the third anniversary, only one charge had been laid (against Kevin Steele). "I am the first one to admit that things are not going as quickly as I would like," Supt. John Sliter, the program's national director, conceded at the time. "I think it's fair to hold our feet to the fire," he added, taking a page from Pemberton's song sheet.
By December 2007, the fourth anniversary, nobody else had been charged. "We're starting to get things together," Pemberton said, noting that the team had submitted two briefs to Crown for charge approval and was investigating alleged assay altering by former Southwestern Resources CEO John Paterson.
Since then, Thow has been charged, but not arrested. The police and Crown approach to his apprehension strikes me as very strange. Although Thow is a fugitive from Canadian justice, he is not on the RCMP's "most wanted" list, and no attempts have been made to enlist help in Seattle to apprehend him. Instead, there has been much fiddling, with no result.
Meanwhile, the Vancouver team has submitted a charge approval brief to Crown counsel on the Southwestern file, but no charges have been laid yet. I must admit there is no urgency in this matter. Paterson, unlike Thow, is cooperating with police and doesn't represent a continuing threat to the public.
Hotbed of crime
In assessing the Vancouver team's performance, it is important to understand that getting stock market miscreants criminally charged is the primary purpose of the program. Anybody who follows my column will know that B.C., in particular, is a hotbed of stock market crime. Almost every week, I report on new instances of securities fraud. Although they add up to hundreds of millions of dollars of losses and untold human suffering, the perpetrators rarely have to account for themselves in court.
In the absence of charges, the IMET teams like to talk about tangential work they do. For example, Pemberton says one of his team's "real successes" was working with the B.C. Securities Commission and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to short-circuit U.S. over-the-counter promotions that are being run from Vancouver. (They have been dropping into company offices, reminding promoters of their reporting obligations under B.C. and U.S. securities rules.)
Similarly, Insp. Eric Mattson, head of the Calgary IMET, says his team has provided investigative assistance to other police units, such as the commercial crime and organized crime units. But when I asked him to name any cases they assisted in that resulted in charges, he replied, "I'm not going to comment on that."
Why he wouldn't comment is puzzling. It's been my observation that, whenever criminal charges are laid, police and regulatory agencies are not at all shy about claiming credit. My conclusion is there isn't much to comment on.
Disappointing performance
The public figure who has the biggest stake in the effective criminal prosecution of stock market crime is Doug Hyndman, chairman of the B.C. Securities Commission. He can only do so much to police the market. Any real punishment and deterrence has to be meted out by police, prosecutors and judges.
In an address to the Economic Club of Toronto in September 2007, Hyndman said the IMET's performance had been "disappointing."
"Despite spending about $100 million on this program so far, the federal government has achieved almost nothing," he said.
Since then, the Montreal team (which hadn't laid any charges at that point) announced charges in the case of Norbourg Asset Management, and the Toronto team (which had previously laid charges in just three cases) announced additional charges relating to Nortel, Royal Group Technologies, and Sulja Brothers (a pink-sheet company).
But we have had only one additional charge in B.C., which doesn't appear to impress Hyndman. When I asked for a comment on the Vancouver IMET's performance to date, he declined to provide one, and instead referred me to his previous speech.
He was disappointed then. Obviously, he still is.
dbaines@vancouversun.com
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?
by admin » Mon Dec 22, 2008 11:29 am
From Canadian Business Online, September 24, 2007
Editor's Note: A national scandal
When will Canada's justice system take financial crimes seriously?
By Joe Chidley
This magazine has long argued that establishing a national securities regulator is a vital step not only toward cutting inefficiencies out of the patchwork provincial system Canada now has, but also toward protecting investors from fraud and other financial crimes. Lately, Canadians have been getting political leadership on the issue. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty seems never to miss an opportunity these days to point out why Canada needs one regulator to protect investors. Good for him. But here’s the thing: a national securities regulator will not be enough. Read what Bill Majcher and Craig Hannaford have to say in this issue (page 24), and you’ll see what I mean. For years, the two were top cops on the front lines of the RCMP’s white-collar crime squads, and they paint an alarming picture of what’s really going on. They say police are demoralized, ill-equipped and handcuffed by procedure in financial crime investigations. The rich play the sclerotic Canadian courts, and prosecutors often don’t have the expertise to win cases. Meanwhile, Majcher and Hannaford say, foreign police have greater investigative powers over Canadians than domestic police do. Small wonder Canada has an international reputation as a haven for white-collar criminals. It’s earned it. As a step toward fixing this scandalous state of affairs, a national securities regulator might be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Canada needs a full-scale review of the judiciary’s interpretation of privacy, disclosure and search-and-seizure rules; of the training of prosecutors; of the resources allotted to police; of sentencing and parole guidelines; and of the culture of complacency and appeasement that seems to have infected the justice system in its pursuit of financial criminals. Theirs are not victimless offences. Investors, workers, businesses and government all pay. And as Majcher and Hannaford make clear, Canada’s tolerance of white-collar crime has claimed another victim: the country’s reputation.
Editor's Note: A national scandal
When will Canada's justice system take financial crimes seriously?
By Joe Chidley
This magazine has long argued that establishing a national securities regulator is a vital step not only toward cutting inefficiencies out of the patchwork provincial system Canada now has, but also toward protecting investors from fraud and other financial crimes. Lately, Canadians have been getting political leadership on the issue. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty seems never to miss an opportunity these days to point out why Canada needs one regulator to protect investors. Good for him. But here’s the thing: a national securities regulator will not be enough. Read what Bill Majcher and Craig Hannaford have to say in this issue (page 24), and you’ll see what I mean. For years, the two were top cops on the front lines of the RCMP’s white-collar crime squads, and they paint an alarming picture of what’s really going on. They say police are demoralized, ill-equipped and handcuffed by procedure in financial crime investigations. The rich play the sclerotic Canadian courts, and prosecutors often don’t have the expertise to win cases. Meanwhile, Majcher and Hannaford say, foreign police have greater investigative powers over Canadians than domestic police do. Small wonder Canada has an international reputation as a haven for white-collar criminals. It’s earned it. As a step toward fixing this scandalous state of affairs, a national securities regulator might be necessary, but it is not sufficient. Canada needs a full-scale review of the judiciary’s interpretation of privacy, disclosure and search-and-seizure rules; of the training of prosecutors; of the resources allotted to police; of sentencing and parole guidelines; and of the culture of complacency and appeasement that seems to have infected the justice system in its pursuit of financial criminals. Theirs are not victimless offences. Investors, workers, businesses and government all pay. And as Majcher and Hannaford make clear, Canada’s tolerance of white-collar crime has claimed another victim: the country’s reputation.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: White Collar Criminal Activity Widespread
by admin » Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:05 pm
rough draft on dollar damages to white collar crime
With thanks to Ken Kivenko for starting this ball rolling
www.canadianfundwatch.com
And Diane Urquhart for providing many of the numbers
CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL ASSAULT IN CANADA
Systemic categories (in which "the system is broken", or designed to serve selfish interests)
1. CORPORATE- Accounting fraud, self dealing, executive kleptocracy, insider trading,
regulatory capture, toxic products approved, see no evil

2. CONFLICTED DEALERS/ADVISORS - misleading, misrepresentation, unsuitable investments, double dipping, self dealing, fraud, theft, overcharging, predatory practices, salesmen posing as trusted professionals

3. TOXIC PRODUCTS- highest fees possible, penalties, hidden compensation, hidden conflicts, caps, garbage packaged as quality
The above categories are all considered systemic. Built into the system by poor design. Intentional or otherwise, they serve to transfer more than $50 billion dollars each and every year from the hands of trusting Canadian consumers, into the hands of self serving financial interests. This is by far the largest crime against Canadians of all white collar crimes.
Non-systemic
Non systemic categories of financial assault include brokers who out-and-out steal from clients, without even the pretense of "serving" the public. These are simple small time crooks, with the ability to steal millions or in a few cases, tens of millions, but they pale in comparison to the systemic thefts of billions in the first category.
1. Brokers who steal clients assets.
Estimated at ?? millions each year.
Hidden from public view
The third category of financial assault in Canada is an estimate of the dollar damages that are hidden by settlements with confidentiality agreements. Those damages where clients actually "catch" a financial firm assaulting them, suffer through five to ten years of denials and dispute by the firm, and then settle for pennies on the dollar, giving up their rights and their voice in exchange for a return of their own money.
$$ Unknown damages, but also strongly indicative of a system that is allowed to play by it's own rules.
Un-compensated or un-punished
Last, but not least, is the amount of the above that goes without compensation, without accountability, without recourse. It is the reward for committing financial crime in Canada, and it is becoming very well known worldwide. This is considered due to the ineffectiveness of Canadian financial regulators to do the job that they public wishes they would do.
The amount of financial crime in canada that does not have a recourse, a punishment, or where the perpetrator gets to keep the ill gotten gains is estimated at $$? (estimates put uncompensated damages at greater than 99% of all the damages described above)
Below is partial breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate
Self-dealing –Hollinger /Conrad Black
Outright fraud –Bre-X
Defective disclosure/acct’g -Nortel
Front for Russian mafia- YBM Magnex
Misappropriation of fund assets-Crocus LSIF
Theft of fund assets -Norbourg
Mutual fund market timing -20 fund cos.
Theft of assets-Portus Alternative Mngt. Hedge fund
Fraudulent asset valuation –Strategic Value Corp.
Stock options on “faked” earnings
John Roth removes $120 mil from Nortel (US criminal investigation underway) (nothing in Canada)
CIBC on Global crossing
Global crossing bankrupt within one year of CIBC offering ??
CIBC execs get stock options of ?? Millions on deal
CIBC pays 2.4 bil in suit on enron deal
John Hunkin walks away from CIBC with $54 mil personally
Nortel bankruptcy after execs cook books and pay themselves on phoney bonus schemes $366 billion in market value lost as Nortel goes from the most valuable company in Canada to worthless.
$25 bil per year from mutual fund highest fees in world Keith Ambaschteer U of T
$10 bil “cost of fractured regulatory regime”, John Coffee, Columbia University
--------------------------------------------------------
CONFLICTED DEALERS/ADVISORS
Opaque disclosure / “educational” seminars
Excessive fees/undue leveraging
Deceptive marketing practices/financial porn
Incorrect Information
Misleading articulation of risks
Embedded commissions
Painting the tape. In what also is called "banging the close," portfolio managers run up the price of what they already own. $??
Double dipping (Commissions and IPO fees on top of commissions) $??
Abuse of fee based accounts 1 to 2% on every victim $??
Mutual Fund Market Timing $1,260 mil
Mutual fund Window dressing.....mutual fund practice of moving their funds into the top performing stocks at reporting time, so that their financial statements appear as if they were smart stock pickers.......when they made the moves “after the fact”. $??
FMF capital bankrupt within six months of BMO selling it $??
2% of all mutual funds sold in 2007 were into WRAP programs (large proportion of those being less suitable but more profitable house brand funds) est $1 bil per year
(source IFIC)
mutual funds sold at highest commission choice, contrary to duty of care owed to clients (source IFIC)
$1 bil per year on sales of $20 bil
Unauthorized Foreign Exchange Transactions in RRSP & RRIFs$2.5 bil
Canada exhibits illegal insider trading before 63% of its acquisition
announcements,
Insider Trading Surrounding Acquisitions $14.4 bil
---------------------------------------------------------
TOXIC PRODUCTS
Mutual funds- excessive fees ( Canada has highest in the world)
Income Trusts –misrepresentation
PPN’s -excessive fees, opaque disclosure
LSIF’s- just don’t make money
Structured products – complex/expensive
Commercial Paper- non-bank ABCP
The non-bank ABCP market collapsed in August, 2007, leaving investors holding about $35-billion of frozen notes, including 2,542 individuals with investments totalling $317-million.
$8 billion of investor losses on 46 income trust IPO's and secondary
offerings down more than 30%, where investment bank marketing
materials gave deceptive yields and assurances of low risk to seniors
seeking income and preservation of capital. Not the subject of any SRO or
provincial securities commission regulatory restrictions or investigations.
For details see:
http://www.sipa.ca/
The non-bank ABCP market collapsed in August, 2007, leaving investors holding about $35-billion of frozen notes, including 2,542 individuals with investments totalling $317-million.
$8 billion of investor losses on 46 income trust IPO's and secondary
offerings down more than 30%, where investment bank marketing
materials gave deceptive yields and assurances of low risk to seniors
seeking income and preservation of capital. Not the subject of any SRO or
provincial securities commission regulatory restrictions or investigations.
For details see:
http://www.sipa.ca/
HEATING OIL PARTNERS $165mil
FMF CAPITAL $196 mil
SPECIALTY FOODS $250mil
ASSOCIATED BRANDS $118mil
SPINRITE SUSPENDED $176mil
BOYD GROUP $67mil
MADACY ENTERTAINMENT $60mil
BLACKWATCH ENERGY SERVICES $132mil
ART IN MOTION $59mil
SOMERSET ENTERTAINMENT $106mil
ADVANCED FIBER TECH $97mil
HIGH ARCTIC ENERGY SERV $68mil
VILLAGE FARMS $49mil
GRANBY INDUSTRIES $48mil
ENTERTAINMENT ONE $185mil
GIENOW WINDOWS & DOORS $150mil
CANWEL BUILDING $118mil
CLEARWATER SEAFOOD $150mil
SFK PULP $299mil
PANTERA DRILLING $30mil
HARDWOODS DISTRIBUTORS $68mil
CLEAN POWER $167mil
MENU FOODS 86mil
DEEPWELL ENERGY SERVICES $20mil
E.D. SMITH $103mil
CRESTSTREET POWER $42mil
ARRISCRAFT INTERNATIONAL $28mil
IMPAX ENERGY SERVICES $29mil
OSPREY MEDIA $196mil
NEWPORT PARTNERS $142mil
STEPHENSON'S RENTALS $26mil
TREE ISLAND WIRE $69mil
CANEXUS $97mil
PETROWEST ENERGY SERVICES $80mil
PEAK ENERGY SERVICES$216 mil
TERRAVEST $80mil
SUPERIOR PLUS $1,123mil
ENERGY SAVINGS$1,170mil
AVENIR DIVERSIFIED $246mil
WELLCO ENERGY SERVICE $83mil
CHEMTRADE LOGISTICS $218mil
MULLEN GROUP $755mil
BUILDERS ENERGY $116mil
CONNORS BROTHERS $332mil
MEDISYS HEALTH GROUP $26mil
ATLAS COLD STORAGE $265mil
TOTAL SECONDARY OFFERINGS $4,632mil
INCOME TRUSTS CAPITAL LOSSES $1,385 6 $8,309
LIST OF CANADIAN INVESTOR LOSSES CAUSED BY MALFEASANCE AND LACK OF MARKET COMPETITION
HERCULES MANAGEMENT $40mil
VICTORIA MORTGAGE $50mil
CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK $1 bil
NORTHLAND BANK $230mil
PRINCIPAL GROUP $500mil
STANDARD TRUST $50mil
TEACHERS INVESTMENT AND HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE $150mil
CASTOR HOLDINGS $2bil
BRAMALEA $1bil
CARTAWAY $450mil
GOLDEN RULE RESOURCES $350mil
BRE-X $ 6 bil
CONFEDERATION LIFE $10bil
SHAMRAY GROUP $7mil
LIVENT $500mil
YBM MAGNEX$650 mil
JEVCO INSURANCE$30mil
COREL $500mil
PHILLIPS SERVICES $2.6 bil
MERIT ENERGY $100mil
KING'S HEALTH CENTER$100mil
CINAR $1.4 bil
VISUAL LABS$300mil
HOLLINGER $500mil
CROCUS $150mil
PORTUS $120mil
NORTHSHIELD $500mil
NORBOURG $80mil
To be expanded
To be continued.......
www.investoradvocates.ca
With thanks to Ken Kivenko for starting this ball rolling
www.canadianfundwatch.com
And Diane Urquhart for providing many of the numbers
CATEGORIES OF FINANCIAL ASSAULT IN CANADA
Systemic categories (in which "the system is broken", or designed to serve selfish interests)
1. CORPORATE- Accounting fraud, self dealing, executive kleptocracy, insider trading,
regulatory capture, toxic products approved, see no evil

2. CONFLICTED DEALERS/ADVISORS - misleading, misrepresentation, unsuitable investments, double dipping, self dealing, fraud, theft, overcharging, predatory practices, salesmen posing as trusted professionals

3. TOXIC PRODUCTS- highest fees possible, penalties, hidden compensation, hidden conflicts, caps, garbage packaged as quality
The above categories are all considered systemic. Built into the system by poor design. Intentional or otherwise, they serve to transfer more than $50 billion dollars each and every year from the hands of trusting Canadian consumers, into the hands of self serving financial interests. This is by far the largest crime against Canadians of all white collar crimes.
Non-systemic
Non systemic categories of financial assault include brokers who out-and-out steal from clients, without even the pretense of "serving" the public. These are simple small time crooks, with the ability to steal millions or in a few cases, tens of millions, but they pale in comparison to the systemic thefts of billions in the first category.
1. Brokers who steal clients assets.
Estimated at ?? millions each year.
Hidden from public view
The third category of financial assault in Canada is an estimate of the dollar damages that are hidden by settlements with confidentiality agreements. Those damages where clients actually "catch" a financial firm assaulting them, suffer through five to ten years of denials and dispute by the firm, and then settle for pennies on the dollar, giving up their rights and their voice in exchange for a return of their own money.
$$ Unknown damages, but also strongly indicative of a system that is allowed to play by it's own rules.
Un-compensated or un-punished
Last, but not least, is the amount of the above that goes without compensation, without accountability, without recourse. It is the reward for committing financial crime in Canada, and it is becoming very well known worldwide. This is considered due to the ineffectiveness of Canadian financial regulators to do the job that they public wishes they would do.
The amount of financial crime in canada that does not have a recourse, a punishment, or where the perpetrator gets to keep the ill gotten gains is estimated at $$? (estimates put uncompensated damages at greater than 99% of all the damages described above)
Below is partial breakdown
------------------------------------------------------------
Corporate
Self-dealing –Hollinger /Conrad Black
Outright fraud –Bre-X
Defective disclosure/acct’g -Nortel
Front for Russian mafia- YBM Magnex
Misappropriation of fund assets-Crocus LSIF
Theft of fund assets -Norbourg
Mutual fund market timing -20 fund cos.
Theft of assets-Portus Alternative Mngt. Hedge fund
Fraudulent asset valuation –Strategic Value Corp.
Stock options on “faked” earnings
John Roth removes $120 mil from Nortel (US criminal investigation underway) (nothing in Canada)
CIBC on Global crossing
Global crossing bankrupt within one year of CIBC offering ??
CIBC execs get stock options of ?? Millions on deal
CIBC pays 2.4 bil in suit on enron deal
John Hunkin walks away from CIBC with $54 mil personally
Nortel bankruptcy after execs cook books and pay themselves on phoney bonus schemes $366 billion in market value lost as Nortel goes from the most valuable company in Canada to worthless.
$25 bil per year from mutual fund highest fees in world Keith Ambaschteer U of T
$10 bil “cost of fractured regulatory regime”, John Coffee, Columbia University
--------------------------------------------------------
CONFLICTED DEALERS/ADVISORS
Opaque disclosure / “educational” seminars
Excessive fees/undue leveraging
Deceptive marketing practices/financial porn
Incorrect Information
Misleading articulation of risks
Embedded commissions
Painting the tape. In what also is called "banging the close," portfolio managers run up the price of what they already own. $??
Double dipping (Commissions and IPO fees on top of commissions) $??
Abuse of fee based accounts 1 to 2% on every victim $??
Mutual Fund Market Timing $1,260 mil
Mutual fund Window dressing.....mutual fund practice of moving their funds into the top performing stocks at reporting time, so that their financial statements appear as if they were smart stock pickers.......when they made the moves “after the fact”. $??
FMF capital bankrupt within six months of BMO selling it $??
2% of all mutual funds sold in 2007 were into WRAP programs (large proportion of those being less suitable but more profitable house brand funds) est $1 bil per year
(source IFIC)
mutual funds sold at highest commission choice, contrary to duty of care owed to clients (source IFIC)
$1 bil per year on sales of $20 bil
Unauthorized Foreign Exchange Transactions in RRSP & RRIFs$2.5 bil
Canada exhibits illegal insider trading before 63% of its acquisition
announcements,
Insider Trading Surrounding Acquisitions $14.4 bil
---------------------------------------------------------
TOXIC PRODUCTS
Mutual funds- excessive fees ( Canada has highest in the world)
Income Trusts –misrepresentation
PPN’s -excessive fees, opaque disclosure
LSIF’s- just don’t make money
Structured products – complex/expensive
Commercial Paper- non-bank ABCP
The non-bank ABCP market collapsed in August, 2007, leaving investors holding about $35-billion of frozen notes, including 2,542 individuals with investments totalling $317-million.
$8 billion of investor losses on 46 income trust IPO's and secondary
offerings down more than 30%, where investment bank marketing
materials gave deceptive yields and assurances of low risk to seniors
seeking income and preservation of capital. Not the subject of any SRO or
provincial securities commission regulatory restrictions or investigations.
For details see:
http://www.sipa.ca/
The non-bank ABCP market collapsed in August, 2007, leaving investors holding about $35-billion of frozen notes, including 2,542 individuals with investments totalling $317-million.
$8 billion of investor losses on 46 income trust IPO's and secondary
offerings down more than 30%, where investment bank marketing
materials gave deceptive yields and assurances of low risk to seniors
seeking income and preservation of capital. Not the subject of any SRO or
provincial securities commission regulatory restrictions or investigations.
For details see:
http://www.sipa.ca/
HEATING OIL PARTNERS $165mil
FMF CAPITAL $196 mil
SPECIALTY FOODS $250mil
ASSOCIATED BRANDS $118mil
SPINRITE SUSPENDED $176mil
BOYD GROUP $67mil
MADACY ENTERTAINMENT $60mil
BLACKWATCH ENERGY SERVICES $132mil
ART IN MOTION $59mil
SOMERSET ENTERTAINMENT $106mil
ADVANCED FIBER TECH $97mil
HIGH ARCTIC ENERGY SERV $68mil
VILLAGE FARMS $49mil
GRANBY INDUSTRIES $48mil
ENTERTAINMENT ONE $185mil
GIENOW WINDOWS & DOORS $150mil
CANWEL BUILDING $118mil
CLEARWATER SEAFOOD $150mil
SFK PULP $299mil
PANTERA DRILLING $30mil
HARDWOODS DISTRIBUTORS $68mil
CLEAN POWER $167mil
MENU FOODS 86mil
DEEPWELL ENERGY SERVICES $20mil
E.D. SMITH $103mil
CRESTSTREET POWER $42mil
ARRISCRAFT INTERNATIONAL $28mil
IMPAX ENERGY SERVICES $29mil
OSPREY MEDIA $196mil
NEWPORT PARTNERS $142mil
STEPHENSON'S RENTALS $26mil
TREE ISLAND WIRE $69mil
CANEXUS $97mil
PETROWEST ENERGY SERVICES $80mil
PEAK ENERGY SERVICES$216 mil
TERRAVEST $80mil
SUPERIOR PLUS $1,123mil
ENERGY SAVINGS$1,170mil
AVENIR DIVERSIFIED $246mil
WELLCO ENERGY SERVICE $83mil
CHEMTRADE LOGISTICS $218mil
MULLEN GROUP $755mil
BUILDERS ENERGY $116mil
CONNORS BROTHERS $332mil
MEDISYS HEALTH GROUP $26mil
ATLAS COLD STORAGE $265mil
TOTAL SECONDARY OFFERINGS $4,632mil
INCOME TRUSTS CAPITAL LOSSES $1,385 6 $8,309
LIST OF CANADIAN INVESTOR LOSSES CAUSED BY MALFEASANCE AND LACK OF MARKET COMPETITION
HERCULES MANAGEMENT $40mil
VICTORIA MORTGAGE $50mil
CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK $1 bil
NORTHLAND BANK $230mil
PRINCIPAL GROUP $500mil
STANDARD TRUST $50mil
TEACHERS INVESTMENT AND HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE $150mil
CASTOR HOLDINGS $2bil
BRAMALEA $1bil
CARTAWAY $450mil
GOLDEN RULE RESOURCES $350mil
BRE-X $ 6 bil
CONFEDERATION LIFE $10bil
SHAMRAY GROUP $7mil
LIVENT $500mil
YBM MAGNEX$650 mil
JEVCO INSURANCE$30mil
COREL $500mil
PHILLIPS SERVICES $2.6 bil
MERIT ENERGY $100mil
KING'S HEALTH CENTER$100mil
CINAR $1.4 bil
VISUAL LABS$300mil
HOLLINGER $500mil
CROCUS $150mil
PORTUS $120mil
NORTHSHIELD $500mil
NORBOURG $80mil
To be expanded
To be continued.......
www.investoradvocates.ca
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Police should patrol trading floors
by admin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:31 am
Bill C-45 questions get answered
http://www.cos-mag.com/images/stories/2 ... dwards.jpg
Answers to common queries on Criminal Code amendments
Written by Cheryl Edwards
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:
Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?
The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. “Everyone” includes individuals, organizations as broadly defined, and corporations.
This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply more widely to anyone who “undertakes” to direct work, including lead hands and working forepersons.
The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace activities.
Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal negligence?
Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty occurred in a “wanton or reckless” manner.
Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the Criminal Code, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of a duty must represent a “marked” and significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a “devil-may-care” attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.
Wasn’t Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and officers?
Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended that Canada “amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations,” ultimately Bill C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.
Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?
Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.
What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?
The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the workplace safety context involves two steps.
First, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative (employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential result is serious harm or death.
Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as drafters put it, someone with “real clout” who is responsible for the part of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as amended by Bill C-45?
For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm is ten years’ imprisonment. However, individuals are subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific circumstances of the contravention.
Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is $100,000 for an organization.
Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.
Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to monetary penalties.
Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour OH&S prosecutor and now leads Heenan Blaikie’s national OHS and WSIB practice group. Cheryl is recognized as one of Canada’s leading lawyers in workplace safety and insurance and occupational health and safety law. Contact her at cedwards@heenan.ca.
http://www.cos-mag.com/images/stories/2 ... dwards.jpg
Answers to common queries on Criminal Code amendments
Written by Cheryl Edwards
Wednesday, 28 May 2008
By way of reminder, Bill C-45 amended the Criminal Code to create new duties and possible criminal liability for individuals and organizations, which include corporations. Because of the complexity of these Criminal Code requirements, and the amount of time that has been passed since they became law in March 2004, answers to key questions about Bill C-45 amendments are set out below, as follows:
Is the new Criminal Code duty different from OH&S duties to take all reasonable precautions or all reasonable care? How?
The new duty found in section 217.1 of the Criminal Code requires that “everyone who undertakes, or has the authority to direct how another person does work or performs a task, is under a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm to that person, or any other person, arising from that work or task”. “Everyone” includes individuals, organizations as broadly defined, and corporations.
This duty parallels traditional OH&S standards, but also expands on the matters contained in most OH&S statutes. The duty applies to any individual with authority to direct another person in the performance of work, while OH&S legislation generally imposes duties on employers, supervisors, constructors, owners, directors and officers. The Criminal Code may apply more widely to anyone who “undertakes” to direct work, including lead hands and working forepersons.
The Criminal Code duty also requires that reasonable steps be taken to prevent bodily harm to any person, which would include the public or volunteers who may enter the workplace or be affected by workplace activities.
Does violation of the Criminal Code duty mean we are guilty of criminal negligence?
Breach of the Criminal Code duty does not necessarily mean that an organization or individual is guilty of criminal negligence. In order for a breach of the duty of care to amount to criminal negligence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in court that the breach of the duty occurred in a “wanton or reckless” manner.
Section 219 of the Criminal Code states that, “Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.” The provisions of Section 219 broadly state that for the purposes of the criminal negligence section, Section 219 of the Criminal Code, “duty” means a duty imposed by law.
Criminal cases have found that for criminal negligence to occur, a breach of a duty must represent a “marked” and significant departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances. There must be more than mere failure to meet an OH&S or Criminal Code standard through inadvertence. There must be evidence of behaviour which shows complete disregard for, or indifference to the duty. As one court put it, there must be a finding of a “devil-may-care” attitude that shows a criminal standard has been met.
Wasn’t Bill C-45 all about creating criminal liability for directors and officers?
Not exactly. While the Westray inquiry which concluded in 1997 recommended that Canada “amend or introduce legislation to ensure that corporate executives and directors are held properly accountable for workplace safety and the wrongful and negligent acts of their corporations,” ultimately Bill C-45 created a mechanism which allowed corporations to be more readily convicted of criminal negligence. The Criminal Code continues to allow individual charges of criminal negligence, which could include charges against a supervisor, or director or officer, for breach of a duty in a wanton or reckless manner, but that was not the primary focus of the Bill C-45 amendments when they were passed and came into force in 2004.
Does Bill C-45 create both corporate and individual criminal liability?
Yes, it does both. The provisions create new criminal duties and liabilities for both individuals and organizations (which are defined to include corporations). Both individuals and organizations can now be convicted of criminal negligence for failure to perform the duty, when it occurs in a manner that shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of others.
What is necessary for an organization (including a corporation) to be convicted under the Criminal Code of criminal negligence?
The process for convicting an organization of criminal negligence in the workplace safety context involves two steps.
First, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of a single representative (employee, partner, contractor, agent of the organization) breached the Criminal Code duty in a wanton or reckless way. This could involve reckless ignoring of safety rules or physical protective devices where the potential result is serious harm or death.
Second, after the breach of duty is established, the Crown must then show that a senior officer with operational or executive authority, or as drafters put it, someone with “real clout” who is responsible for the part of the organization involved in the breach, either failed to act or insulated themselves from obtaining the knowledge to act. The Crown has to prove a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected of a senior officer with obligations to protect workers and the public.
What are the potential liabilities under the Criminal Code provisions as amended by Bill C-45?
For individuals, the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing death is life imprisonment, and the maximum penalty for criminal negligence causing bodily harm is ten years’ imprisonment. However, individuals are subject to a range of Criminal Code sentencing options from absolute discharge, to probation, to life in prison, depending on the specific circumstances of the contravention.
Organizations, including corporations, are subject to different penalties depending on how the Crown proceeds. Where the Crown proceeds by summary conviction (the least serious manner of proceeding), the maximum fine is $100,000 for an organization.
Where the Crown proceeds by indictment (the most serious manner of proceeding), there is no limit on the amount of the fine for the corporation or organization.
Organizations may also be placed on probation and the terms of a probationary order can include such matters as: requiring the organization to make restitution, financial or otherwise, relating to the offence; requiring the organization to report to the court or the public on implementation of remedial steps; requiring the appointment of a senior officer to be responsible for implementing remedial procedures; requiring the organization to disclose its conviction to the public.
Probation orders including these types of terms are available in addition to monetary penalties.
Cheryl A. Edwards is a former Ontario Ministry of Labour OH&S prosecutor and now leads Heenan Blaikie’s national OHS and WSIB practice group. Cheryl is recognized as one of Canada’s leading lawyers in workplace safety and insurance and occupational health and safety law. Contact her at cedwards@heenan.ca.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Police should patrol trading floors
by admin » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:16 pm
Garry Breitkreuz
Chairman of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security
and
Roger Préfontaine
Clerk of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security
Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Canada
Tel.: 613-944-5635
Fax: 613-992-7974
E-mail: secu@parl.gc.ca
There are a number of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of securities crimes in Canada. It has become obvious to Canadians that securities crime policing is abysmally weak, and as a consequence, the public safety of Canada's pension funds and personal retirement savings are being damaged.
Securities crime deterrence goes well beyond the creation of a new national securities commission, which is being worked on by the Federal Finance Minister James Flaherty and the Federal Department of Finance.
I sent a package on a new Canadian Securities Crime Unit to Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan. He replied to us in the attached letter that he is committed to enhancing the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Teams and that the laying of recent charges by the RCMP IMET unit on four major cases illustrates positive results. Yet, the RCMP IMET has had only five successful cases since its inception in 2003 and these involved the prosecution of nine minor rogue fraudsters. There is considerable pessimism about the RCMP IMET's ability to achieve success in obtaining jail sentences or other meaningful penalties for the senior executives of Nortel, Royal Group Technologies, Norbourg and of Ian Thow, formerly of Berkshire Securities. In any case, the new charges laid are on cases that occurred at the beginning of the decade. There are no investigations on non bank asset back commercial paper and income trusts that are alleged systemic frauds contributing to the current financial crisis. The estimated losses on Canadian non bank asset backed commercial paper and income trusts are over $50 billion. These losses are concentrated in the senior market and pension funds.
Mortgage and securities frauds in the United States have lead to trillions of dollars of publicly financed bailouts throughout the world. These frauds have been the subject of a Senate Judicial Committee hearing on February 11, 2009. You can listen to this hearing from the attached file, "judiciary02112009-1000.ram."
In the information package sent to Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, there was a DVD of two CBC investigative reports on "The Great Wall Street Swindle and Shady Practices in Canada Too?" and "Who is Guarding Your Money?" On the DVD, Gary Logan, the former Detective Sergeant of Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad, provides the solution of a new Canadian Securities Crime Unit for the intake and assessment of securities crime complaints from the public and investment industry whistleblowers. He implemented a similar system for mortgage fraud in Ontario. We would like the Federal and Provincial Public Safety Ministers to implement the new Canadian Securities Crime Unit, to deter securities crime and provide public safety for our pension funds and personal retirement savings. The new Canadian Securities Crime Unit will use its expertise to better serve the securities crime victims and more effectively deploy the resources of the RCMP, provincial, regional and municipal police fraud divisions. The new independent securities crime policing process will not be hampered by the conflicts of interest and risks of evidence contamination occurring when police are integrated with the Self-Regulatory Organizations and the securities commissions.
Gary Logan and Diane Urquhart would like to present at future Committee of Public Safety and National Security hearings on how the police are handling securities crime in Canada. Their work on securities crime matters is supported by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, which has over one million seniors members. It is also supported by the United Seniors Citizens of Ontario. There will be another DVD released shortly in which Gary Logan and Diane Urquhart explain how the new Canadian Securities Crime Unit will work. You will receive a copy of it. The system can be implemented without constitutional challenges and it will be well embraced by the public and Canada's police forces. The approach taken is working for mortgage fraud in Ontario. We desperately need an effective system for handling securities crime for Canada.
Hugh Urquhart
(advocate comments..........I agree that real police should be called in on any allegation of wrongdoing, but it simply cannot be the RCMP IMET or the current securities regulators. The regulators have shown themselves to be bought and paid for by the investment industry (literally) and they each have conned their way into positions inside the RCMP IMET.)
Chairman of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security
and
Roger Préfontaine
Clerk of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security
Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Canada
Tel.: 613-944-5635
Fax: 613-992-7974
E-mail: secu@parl.gc.ca
There are a number of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of securities crimes in Canada. It has become obvious to Canadians that securities crime policing is abysmally weak, and as a consequence, the public safety of Canada's pension funds and personal retirement savings are being damaged.
Securities crime deterrence goes well beyond the creation of a new national securities commission, which is being worked on by the Federal Finance Minister James Flaherty and the Federal Department of Finance.
I sent a package on a new Canadian Securities Crime Unit to Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan. He replied to us in the attached letter that he is committed to enhancing the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Teams and that the laying of recent charges by the RCMP IMET unit on four major cases illustrates positive results. Yet, the RCMP IMET has had only five successful cases since its inception in 2003 and these involved the prosecution of nine minor rogue fraudsters. There is considerable pessimism about the RCMP IMET's ability to achieve success in obtaining jail sentences or other meaningful penalties for the senior executives of Nortel, Royal Group Technologies, Norbourg and of Ian Thow, formerly of Berkshire Securities. In any case, the new charges laid are on cases that occurred at the beginning of the decade. There are no investigations on non bank asset back commercial paper and income trusts that are alleged systemic frauds contributing to the current financial crisis. The estimated losses on Canadian non bank asset backed commercial paper and income trusts are over $50 billion. These losses are concentrated in the senior market and pension funds.
Mortgage and securities frauds in the United States have lead to trillions of dollars of publicly financed bailouts throughout the world. These frauds have been the subject of a Senate Judicial Committee hearing on February 11, 2009. You can listen to this hearing from the attached file, "judiciary02112009-1000.ram."
In the information package sent to Federal Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, there was a DVD of two CBC investigative reports on "The Great Wall Street Swindle and Shady Practices in Canada Too?" and "Who is Guarding Your Money?" On the DVD, Gary Logan, the former Detective Sergeant of Toronto Police Services Fraud Squad, provides the solution of a new Canadian Securities Crime Unit for the intake and assessment of securities crime complaints from the public and investment industry whistleblowers. He implemented a similar system for mortgage fraud in Ontario. We would like the Federal and Provincial Public Safety Ministers to implement the new Canadian Securities Crime Unit, to deter securities crime and provide public safety for our pension funds and personal retirement savings. The new Canadian Securities Crime Unit will use its expertise to better serve the securities crime victims and more effectively deploy the resources of the RCMP, provincial, regional and municipal police fraud divisions. The new independent securities crime policing process will not be hampered by the conflicts of interest and risks of evidence contamination occurring when police are integrated with the Self-Regulatory Organizations and the securities commissions.
Gary Logan and Diane Urquhart would like to present at future Committee of Public Safety and National Security hearings on how the police are handling securities crime in Canada. Their work on securities crime matters is supported by the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation, which has over one million seniors members. It is also supported by the United Seniors Citizens of Ontario. There will be another DVD released shortly in which Gary Logan and Diane Urquhart explain how the new Canadian Securities Crime Unit will work. You will receive a copy of it. The system can be implemented without constitutional challenges and it will be well embraced by the public and Canada's police forces. The approach taken is working for mortgage fraud in Ontario. We desperately need an effective system for handling securities crime for Canada.
Hugh Urquhart
(advocate comments..........I agree that real police should be called in on any allegation of wrongdoing, but it simply cannot be the RCMP IMET or the current securities regulators. The regulators have shown themselves to be bought and paid for by the investment industry (literally) and they each have conned their way into positions inside the RCMP IMET.)
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:28 pm
I am starting a new post to compile a list of criminal code violations that appear to be ignored in Canada. It is far easier to take a "see no evil" approach when an individual police person, or an individual regulator is faced with the daunting prospect of prosecuting someone like a Conrad Black or similar.
Unfortunately that means for Canada that financial crime does indeed pay, due to the imbalance of power and might between those who commit the crimes and those who regulate the crimes. (see an excellent study by P Puri, U of T on this topic in another post in this flogg: White collar crime is widespread)
This post will contain a list of criminal code (or Competition act criminal provisions) violations that I have been personal witness to, have informed the proper authorities of, and have seen them take the "see no evil approach". Job protection when dealing with multi millionaires becomes more important than doing ones job.
This is not just my conclusion. You really should read the U of T study by P Puri.
Unfortunately that means for Canada that financial crime does indeed pay, due to the imbalance of power and might between those who commit the crimes and those who regulate the crimes. (see an excellent study by P Puri, U of T on this topic in another post in this flogg: White collar crime is widespread)
This post will contain a list of criminal code (or Competition act criminal provisions) violations that I have been personal witness to, have informed the proper authorities of, and have seen them take the "see no evil approach". Job protection when dealing with multi millionaires becomes more important than doing ones job.
This is not just my conclusion. You really should read the U of T study by P Puri.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:38 pm
one small reason (from Britain) as to why criminal code violations in finance are often ignored
"too messy"
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:41 pm
"no guns, no blood" means we have "no idea" how to deal with it
better to ignore it
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:28 pm
Breach of Trust is the title of my film project. See clips at web.me.com.lelford
I decided to make the project after learning of the death of an industry whistleblower. A person who tried to tell the truth against a multi million dollar sales predator. Guess who won.
One of the criminal code violations that is illustrated in the case is Breach of Trust. Where persons in positions of authority choose to look the other way, or actually help the millionaires, the bullys, to beat their opponents.
Case study #1 of a commission of inquiry request speaks pretty clearly to this criminal code violation, which was completely ignored in Canada. Too big to prosecute. Too difficult. Too risky to ones job. Best to see no evil.
I decided to make the project after learning of the death of an industry whistleblower. A person who tried to tell the truth against a multi million dollar sales predator. Guess who won.
One of the criminal code violations that is illustrated in the case is Breach of Trust. Where persons in positions of authority choose to look the other way, or actually help the millionaires, the bullys, to beat their opponents.
Case study #1 of a commission of inquiry request speaks pretty clearly to this criminal code violation, which was completely ignored in Canada. Too big to prosecute. Too difficult. Too risky to ones job. Best to see no evil.
- Attachments
-
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:35 pm
This criminal code violation refers to the many persons and regulators who choose to place their own private interests ahead of the interest of their trusting clients and or the vulnerable public. They looked the other way at ethics and at their duty to care, while gaining legal exemptions, and selling inferior products to their customers at superior prices.
- Attachments
-
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Re: Criminal Code Violations ignored in Canada
by admin » Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:39 pm
Criminal negligence has allowed greedy investment firms to violate client interests, and it also applies to co-operative financial regulators who knew better but chose not to act to protect the public.
- Attachments
-
-
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: alberta
Return to Click here to view forums
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest