May 2016 – BCSC Truth Movement

ADVISOR OR ADVISER? A WAY TO SKIRT AROUND REGULATION?

Searching through the web and even YouTube, it doesn’t take long for some very powerful videos to surface – none more compelling than the work of a gentleman named Larry Elford, who lives in Alberta. His videos seem well researched and spot on for many of the difficulties the BCSC (and the other 12 provincial regulators) seem to be dealing with on a regular basis.

Government Regulators Help “Launder” Your Money…Gone!

Securities Commission Distraction

The “Douche-iary” Investment Advisor

Trust Me I am an Advisor…(And I…AM Lying…Twice)

We think you get the idea…

The System is broken and needs an overhaul. We used several sales agents that told us they were financial planners, brokers, and/or advisors/advisers. In our dealings with them (from 2007-2010), it was very apparent that many of them only cared about the commission being offered and not about the best interest of their clients – some of which were even family members.

We thought we would take a moment to see the current status of most of financial experts who raised capital for either (or both) of the FCC or DCF offerings. Bear in mind, the Respondents only met approximately 12-15 (out of 250) of the investors in FCC and DCF.

You can verify the information below by visiting the Canadian Securities Administrator (“CSA”) website. Here we go…

DUKE, James (Jim) – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Owner of Duke Wellington)

RICK UNRAU – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

ROD BURYLO – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

LANG, David K – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

WING, Fredric – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Former Partner/Founder at Strategic Brokerage Services West LP (“SBS West”), instrumental in bringing the Falls project onto the shelf at SBS in 2009 as well as an avid golfer)

CHAN, Alex – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Former Partner/Founder at SBS West, has CHS – Certified Health Insurance Specialist; CFP – Certified Financial Planner; CPCA – Certified Professional Consultant on Aging; EPC – Elder Planning Councilor; CFSB – Certified Financial Services Broker).

HEINRICH, Adam S – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Sent a very long list of questions during his due-diligence of the Falls project – very professional and detail orientated)

ANDREWS, Miriam – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS West Staff. Came to Falls property and completed her own due diligence before placing funds into project. Very Professional)

MACKAY, Robin – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS Staff. Owner of Drake Wellington in 2010).

McARTHUR, Ian (Peter) – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA – (Introduced by SBS Staff. Asked several questions in his review of the project – very professional.)

LAI, Loretta – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

TOEWS, Jeff – REGISTERED WITH THE CSA (Registered under Raintree Financial and currently calls himself the CEO and Strategic Wealth Planner at Drake Wellington.)

PAQUETTE, Susan – NOT REGISTERED WITH THE CSA

Just looking at this very simple list – it appears (in our experience) the sales people that have been registered with the CSA were far more diligent in their preparation of putting clients money into the Respondents projects – with exceptions of course.

It would be interesting to see how they currently spell ADVISOR/ADVISER…

…something to think about!!

QUESTION / ANSWER WITH RW – QUESTION #3

QUESTION:

WILL THE FORMER INVESTORS IN FCC OR DCF EVER SEE ANY OF THEIR ORIGINAL INVESTMENT EVER AGAIN?

ANSWER:

We are not sure – the BCSC has pretty much made it impossible for the Respondent to obtain work in the province of British Columbia. The Manitoba Securities Commission has already held a hearing and issued an order very similar to what the BCSC did. The Alberta Securities Commission (and other jurisdictions across Canada) will more than likely duplicate the orders as well. We are fine with not raising capital in the securities market as it does not have the best interest of the people.

Facts are the Commission was premature in branding the Respondents a multi-million dollar fraudster and by indicating we lied to them under oath during questioning. When potential employers look at this they are not exactly going to be lining up to offer employment. With no employment, we will not be able to pay money towards the disgorgement order. And bear in mind the absolute pathetic policy by the BCSC that even if I happen to pay funds towards the disgorgement, investors will have to wait 3 years to apply to get their money back – Yes, you need to apply to them to get your money back. Again their policy is found on their website at:

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Returning_Funds_to_Investors/

We argued as part of our Submissions on Sanction that we did not want this to take 3 years for the investors – in fact, we argued that if we ever come across substantial monies, we would like the ability to pay the investors back WITHOUT the involvement of the BCSC:

2015 BCSECCOM 422 – Repayment to Investors

When and if we are able to, we intend to pay each and every one of the former investors back their investment into my companies BEFORE we pay a dollar towards the $500,000 fine implemented by the BCSC. Whether this happens or not depends on where (and if) we land back on our feet. It is one thing to have the Respondents out of the securities market, but when they make it physically impossible for a person to obtain work we start to question what their motives behind their actions really take into account.

As of today, we have yet to find employment despite applying for several jobs in the area. As we pointed out in our Submissions on Sanction, we did obtain a tremendous job offer on February 10, 2015 paying over $130,000 per year – the Panel issued their Findings document document on February 11, 2015 and the job offer was rescinded approximately 1 week later.

This is just anther reason why we feel it was so unfortunate that the optimistic Settlement Offer (presented to the BCSC) should have, at the least, been explored by Staff at the BCSC. The property in now doing very well as the real estate market has exploded in the last few months in Chilliwack. This was by far, the best opportunity for investors to re-coup monies lost in the FCC and DCF offerings. It is time to find out WHY Staff at the BCSC did not even enter into negotiations with the Respondents when so much was at stake for the former investors.

I encourage ALL former investors in FCC and DCF to call the BCSC at 604-899-6500 and ask them. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS and represent your rights in the securities market and as such, they must answer you!

IMPACT STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE HEARING

The hearing into our matter started on April 7, 2014 – on March 24, 2014 (only 2 weeks earlier), Staff sent correspondence to numerous investors in FCC and DCF asking for them to fill out an Investor Impact Statements (“IIS”). Along with this request, in many instances investors were sent links to the very slanderous press release where the Respondents were wrongly accused of not advancing the majority of the funds to the Developer – some $5.45 million dollars.

The problem with sending the IIS in March was the Respondents had not even stepped foot in the hearing room – and we would like to have thought we were innocent until proven guilty – not the other way around!

And the problems with the IIS statements as a document are many – first of all there is NO disclaimer indicating the allegations have yet to be proven. The document literally using wording such as “the offence” and “the securities violation” in their questions. This is PRE-LOADING an investors response – putting it in their minds that the Respondents committed the allegations. Take a look:

Investor Impact Statement – Blank

Imagine your being an investor who had just been told that someone you placed money with had committed a $5.45 million fraud, bought his wife a grocery store, and had personal vehicles restored – and then being asked to fill out a document asking you how you felt? Many of the IIS we received were very one-sided with angry language. We must admit, we would feel the same way if we only knew half of the story or were told untruths by the government regulator.

There is NO reason to do this before the hearing – there are many days/weeks/months to obtain them after the Findings document was made public by the Panel. Speaking of the Panel, we argued in our written submissions that there should be little to no weight put on the IIS for the very reasons outlined in this blog. What did they think?

Investor Impact Statement – Decision

We were pleased they agreed with us! But it just shows again how strong Staff at the BCSC thought their case was against the Respondents when it was not. It’s items like this that really show the pathetic methods used at the BCSC to make the playing field very un-level.

LAST EFFORTS TO SETTLE STILL NOT GIVEN TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Only a couple of weeks before the extremely expensive hearing began at the Commission, we again tried to settle with Staff at the Commission. Staff Litigator Paige Leggat again indicated the ONLY way she would consider taking the Settlement Offer to the Executive Director was IF I agreed to all allegations in the Notice of Hearing and pay a fine and disgorgement of $5.8 million.

This was the final straw and ended up costing the Investors any participation in the real estate project that was part of the Settlement Offer.

WHY WOULD THE COMMISSION (WHO’S MANDATE IS TO HAVE THE BEST INTEREST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE BC CAPITAL MARKET) NOT EVEN DISCUSS WITH THE RESPONDENTS THIS OFFER?

Settlement Emails – March 21-24, 2014

The wording in these latest emails is comical – Leggat has the gall to imply that “we” had been in settlement negotiations for the last few months. This is absurd – she blocked EVERY attempt the Respondents made to settle and bring something back to the table for the investors in FCC and DCF.

This is YOUR regulator people! Call them and find out why they did not even enter into discussion with the Respondents – Call 604-899-6500 and ask for someone to explain this to you!! Unfortunately you cannot ask for C. Paige Leggat as she miraculously resigned shortly after we accused her of manipulating evidence in the Executive Director’s Written Submissions on Liability! Maybe you could ask for the Director of Enforcement at the time – Ms. Teresa Mitchell-Banks – oh sorry, you can’t – she was terminated in November 2015 under what seems to be mysterious circumstances to say the least.

HOW WERE STAFF’S ALLEGATIONS PROVEN USING INACCURATE NUMBERS?

In November 2007, the Developer of the Falls Resort approached me and asked if I knew of anyone that might purchase a unit in the Deercrest Townhomes, located on the property. He had Unit 101 that was available for sale and the Respondents indicated they would ask around. I called one of the investors in Edmonton and asked if he wanted to buy and he indicated he would.

Shortly there later, a commission cheque in the amount of $24,292.75 arrived made payable to West Karma Ltd. I placed the cheque into the WKL bank account and NEVER wrote a cheque to myself personally. Looking at the bank account statements for WKL for the following 10 days, $20571.61 was spent directly on business expenses for WKL and FCC and the balance were used for personal expenses.

THESE WERE NOT INVESTOR FUNDS YET PAID FOR BUSINESS RELATED DIRECTLY TO THE WKL AND FCC.

That’s fine – people place funds into their business accounts on a regular basis as shareholder loans. IF the BCSC’s Executive Director (and his Staff) wanted to bring accurate allegations in their Notice of Hearing they needed to complete a proper accounting and bring in a proper number into the allegation….but let’s see what Lead Investigator Elizabeth Chan had to say during the cross examination during our hearing in April 2014:

Q Can we put up, pull up Exhibit 00240? Can you please read this letter for the panel?

A Just the body of the letter, like, —

Q Just —

A — after the “re” line?

Q Just lead the letter please, from who it’s addressed to, and who it’s from and the body of the letter, sure, please.

A Okay. So, I don’t think this is a document that I obtained. Uhm, it says:

West Karma Ltd., BC
Dear Sirs/Mesdames:
Re: Sales of 101-51096 Falls Court, Chilliwack, BC (the “Property”) by Blackburn
Developments Ltd. (the “Seller”) to -REDACTED- (the “Buyers”) effective November 23, 2007 (the”Completion Date”). As notary for the seller, we enclose our firm trust cheque drawn in your favour, in the amount of $24,292.75 representing payment in full for the Commission with respect to the above transaction. Please provide our office with a receipt for payment at your earliest convenience. We trust you find the foregoing and enclosed to be in order, however, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the writer or Shirley MacKillop of this office.
Yours truly, Simpson & Simpson. And the name there says, “R. Dean Simpson” and the letter, the date, November 23, 2007.

Q Thank you. And have you ever seen this document before?

A Uhm, I didn’t obtain this document during the course of my investigation, but I did see it in the binder of materials of materials contained in documents that you were intending to rely on.

Q That’s the first time you saw it though?

A Yes.
Source: Hearing Transcript, April 11, 2014 (pages 23-25)

This is the testimony of Staff’s most important witness – a Certified General Accountant with a degree from the University of British Columbia in Bachelor of Commerce? That she never saw items going into the bank account that were relevant IF they wanted to bring an accurate number into the hearing room. Elizabeth Chan is a highly paid Senior Investigator with the BCSC – it is HER job to find out the numbers used in the Notice of Hearing are accurate! There is NO excuse for the sloppy work Staff completed in this matter!

How is this even possible is the onus was on the Executive Director to bring in clear and compelling evidence to prove the allegations in the Notice of Hearing? Was the Respondents not entitled to a fair hearing with accurate numbers as the BCSC boasts on their website?

INVESTORS MUST WAIT FOR 3 YEARS TO RECOUP FUNDS SEIZED BY THE BCSC

According to an article recently published by Wealth Professionals magazine, as of March 2015, the Canadian Regulators (in charge of the Canadian Securities industry) are owed nearly $900,000,000 million in unpaid fines. These funds are a combination of fines and disgorgement/restitution that wrongdoers are issued at the close of their hearings. Funds that are NOT considered fines (that are included in orders) are suppose to be returned to investors (or people directly affected by the actions of the wrongdoer). As an example, the Panel in our matter ordered a $500,000 fine and $517,500 in disgorgement/restitution. Unfortunately, there is no break down (out of the $900,000,000) of what is actually fines and what is owed to the investors.

The BCSC leads the way at over $340,000,000 million in unpaid fines and disgorgement/restitution which is very unsurprising. Again, the numbers in the article only cover up to March 2015 and several millions of dollars (including our $500,000 + $517,500) has been added since this time so it is fair to say the number is far greater that $340 million.

We will take a moment and congratulate the BCSC for this distinct honor of being owed the most of any regulator in Canada – over 1/3 of the total amount owed across Canada. Under changes to the BC Securities Act in November 2013, “the BCSC must make funds (that have been paid to the Commission) available to eligible investors who lost money as a result of Respondent misconduct”. Again, they do not distinguish as to the difference of funds issued as fines or disgorgement/restitution. In our matter, are investors only entitled to the $517,500 or the $500,000 as well? I encourage anyone that has an interest to call the BCSC and ask them this question. And ask them who gets money first – if we paid the commission $400,000 tomorrow – who would get it? Them or the former investors in FCC and DCF? And do THEY have to wait 36 months (see below) to get their piece of the pie? Their number for inquiries is 604-899-6854 or call the main switchboard at 604-899-6500 and the lovely receptionist will put you through to the right department to have these questions answered. The BCSC is an organization FOR the people so you ALL have a right to know answers to these basic questions…please take the time.

Now, I hope most of you are sitting down reading this – are you ready for the real kicker here? YOU HAVE TO WAIT UPWARDS OF 36 MONTHS TO GET YOUR PROPORTIONATE PERCENTAGE OF THE FUNDS BACK….AND THATS ONLY AFTER YOU FILL OUT A FORM APPLYING FOR ELIGIBILITY!

Take a look for yourself:

http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/Enforcement/Returning_Funds_to_Investors/

And please note, out of the 340,000,000+ million they are owed; and since they implemented the changes to the Act in 2013, they have seized….

…are you ready?….

….a whopping $156,061.34 from Respondents. This is not even .0004590 cents on the dollar! Tell us again how this government organization is protecting the people of this wonderful province of British Columbia? These are your government officials that have put these people in charge – if you or I had this little success doing our jobs we would be terminated instantly!

Its time for change with these failing regulators. And people affected (on both sides) need to unite to make these changes – and stop the division that will ruin any success we are able to obtain.

Link to the SIPA Article…. CLICK HERE

$75,000 REPAYMENT NOT INCLUDED IN BCSC SUMMARY WORK!

In 2008/2009, the Respondents took $75,000 out of the FCC bank account which went towards a down payment on a residence they were building in Chilliwack, BC.

They moved into the home on August 9, 2009 and immediately began the process of obtaining a second mortgage on the home with the FULL intent of replacing the $75,000. After being denied a second mortgage by a few different lenders, he was finally approved in December 2009 for a mortgage amount (after fees and expenses) of $82,279.40 which was placed into the WKL bank account. Understanding that the WKL, FCC, and DCF bank accounts were very much intertwined (WKL paid many of the bills associated with the companies), there are several instances were funds (from the $82,000 deposit) went to pay bills for the FCC and DCF offerings.

This would make the amount of $75,000 inaccurate! Despite this, the Respondents have been ordered to repay the FULL $75,000 as part of the disgorgement/restitution ordered by the BCSC. Despite having the onus to bring “clear and compelling” evidence to the hearing, Staff did not and as a result we know have numbers that are not factual! Bringing these allegations and then NOT determining the correct number is NOT clear; not is it compelling.

Continue reading $75,000 REPAYMENT NOT INCLUDED IN BCSC SUMMARY WORK!

THERE ARE OTHERS HAVING THE SAME ISSUES WITH THE BCSC

We decided we wanted to do this blog some time ago – and as we were conducting our research, we came across some very interesting blog sites and others that were in the very same boat (with the BCSC and/or other jurisdictions across Canada). Here are a few from a group out of Kelowna, BC:

http://bcscwrongdoing.blogspot.ca/

http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/

http://bcsccriminalcharges.blogspot.ca/

We recently traveled to Kelowna and and met with their group. We can tell you first hand, they are very passionate regarding their issues they have had with the BCSC. They are too simply wanting the truth to be told. Their story is similar to ours in many ways including very little to no replies to request to settle, a botched investigation, and a decision (made by the Panel) that did not even begin to consider the investors into their company.

We wish them nothing but the best in their plight to find out the truth and to spread the word of what is really happening with our securities regulators.

$20,000 PAYMENT TO DCF NOT INCLUDED BY STAFF

As with the $45,000 that was returned to the FCC bank account, the Respondents also returned $20,000 to the DCF account on August 5, 2011.

When cross-examined during the hearing, Staff’s Lead Investigator, Elizabeth Chan (“Chan”) indicated she knew about this repayment but DID NOT include it in any of her summary work she completed but that she “might have seen this bank draft previously when I was reviewing the bank records” and that, “…I don’t know what this draft is for…” (Source: Hearing Transcript, April 14, 2014, page 61/62)

Chan’s credentials include having a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of British Columbia and a Chartered Accountant designation from the Institute of Charter Accountants. Understanding she is highly trained, one would think she would understand that summary evidence (when the Executive Director had the onus of proving the exact allegations outlined in the Notice of Hearing) simply would not meet any sort of test needed.

And the fact that she admits to knowing about this cheque, and the others (the $45,000 to FCC), one needs to question the motives behind the Executive Director and his Staff…and are they promoting a “fair, efficient, and innovation in the Canadian capital markets” as their website boasts? Our feeling is that Staff, when alleging a huge multi-million dollar fraud with the consequences so strong for the Respondents and their INVESTORS, they need to come to a hearing with accurate numbers – not just throw a bunch of stats at the wall and hope they all stick.

A copy of the cheque showing the repayment of the funds yet NOT included by Staff:

QUESTION / ANSWER WITH RW – QUESTION #2

QUESTION:

WHY DID THE BCSC ORIGINALLY ALLEGE YOU TOOK $5.45 MILLION DOLLARS FROM INVESTORS BY NOT ADVANCING FUNDS TO THE DEVELOPER IF YOU SAY THIS IS NOT TRUE?

ANSWER:

This literally is the million dollar question – during the lead up to the hearing I was given certain documents by the BCSC and was told they would be making their case out of these documents. I was told they had to make the case that was brought forward in the Notice of Hearing (“NOH”) that was issued on June 14, 2013 and they could not vary from those allegations. Among the allegations was that in both FCC and DCF, I did not advance the majority of the funds to the Developer – something that is stated in the Offering Memorandum(s) that would happen.

Reading through Staff’s NOH, the Press Release (or the subsequent newspaper articles written directly by the reporters after reading the BCSC Press Release) they clearly imply that I absconded with over $5.45 million dollars. The front page of the Vancouver Province newspaper on April 8, 2014 featured a close up picture of the Respondents face with the headline “Investor’s Millions Evaporate” splashed across the bottom. The problem with all this is that I knew I had NOT absconded with millions of dollars – it was physically impossible. And the problem that Staff at the BCSC soon discovered, is that relying on a Grade 2 summary calculation was not enough to prove their case. Again, Liz Chan (the lead investigator responsible for all the math brought into the Hearing) took the total money raised and subtracted the commissions and cheques that were written to the Developer and came up with this great big number that she took to her boss – the Executive Director. This is WHERE the number of $5.45 million came from and it was wrong to rely on this number.

Continue reading QUESTION / ANSWER WITH RW – QUESTION #2

QUESTION / ANSWER WITH RW – QUESTION #1

QUESTION:

WHY DID YOU JEOPARDIZE YOUR ENTIRE BUSINESS (AND SUBSEQUENTLY YOUR LIVELIHOOD) TO BUY YOUR WIFE A RING AND GROCERY STORE?

ANSWER:

In 2006 (the year I started West Karma Ltd.), I sold my home in Calgary for a $400,000 profit and placed over $300,000 of it directly into starting the business. Starting from scratch, money was spent on travel, a photocopier, staff wages, seminars, and office space in downtown Vancouver. During this time, after discussions with both my accountant and lawyer, it was decided that this shareholder loan would be taken back out of the company once it started showing a profit.

In 2010, I went into a jewelry store and spent time picking out a ring for my wife. I had just received a new credit card and was planning on using it to purchase the ring. As I went to pay for the ring the card was rejected (due to it being new) and I ran to the bank across the street and had a certified bank draft issued. A while later when I was doing my income taxes with my accountant the subject of the bank draft came into play. She asked whether the expense was business or personal and we marked it down as personal. I am not sure if it was considered a repayment of the shareholder loan or earned income but I assure you it was accounted for as a suspense item in the 2010 Income Tax preparation prepared by my bookkeeper.

I declared the $24,000 for the ring (along with another $140,599.27 as personal items) but the BCSC investigators (and Executive Director) sensationalized the fact I bought my wife a ring. We need to ask ourselves why they didn’t even have one bit of concern over the other $140,000 – just the ring. It is our personal belief that the BCSC love to sensationalize certain items as it helps build their case in the public domain.

With respect to the grocery store and the newspaper headline, “Wharram Buys Wife Grocery Store” (that was written by a complete ass of a reporter), I did not buy my wife a grocery store. My wife was a shareholder in a grocery store with two other individuals. The two other individuals are part of the head ownership of the Nature Fare grocery store chain that has been in business for many years.

The store was new and they needed a loan to get things going. At NO TIME did I just give money directly to my wife for the grocery store – the cheques were always written to the corporation directly and were written with the intent to make money for the Deercrest fund. At the time the funds were lent to the store, the project Developer was waiting for a closing to occur on some of the Deercrest units and we were concerned there would not be sufficient funds to pay the interest to the DCF investors. The ONLY reason the Respondents originally invested into the grocery store was to make money for the fund. If the Respondents thought for one moment that lending investor funds to a well-established entity in an attempt to make money for the DCF was fraud, he would have declined to make the loan or used his own personal funds.

It is very important to know that 100% of the money was returned into the Respondents bank accounts BEFORE the investigation by the BCSC. This is something the BCSC does not tell in their account of the events as I don’t think they would want the public to know that. The return of the money can be proven by looking at the testimony of one of Staff’s witnesses who is the owner of the entire chain of grocery stores. He was asked during cross examination if 100% of the funds were returned and he replied, “Yes”. Yet, the Panel includes these funds ($240,000) as part of the $515,500 in disgorgement/restitution it has ordered the Respondents to pay.

Facts of the matter are – I would NOT have jeopardized my company over buying my wife a ring for $24,000 or investing in a grocery store. This does not make any sense to anyone who truly knows me – I had a far greater pay day coming down the road getting things accomplished and the project to the finish line.

I am not downplaying my actions – I am simply saying that when you only show a very little of the overall story, it is very easy to allege intentional actions of a person. Its only after the ENTIRE story is told that one can (and should) form an opinion, or in this case, bring concrete allegations to the table. The BCSC does not tell the entire story in this case because it does not sensationalize their theory of the events.

COMPLAINTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY GO NOWHERE

On February 13, 2015, the Respondents lodged of formal complaint with the Law Society of British Columbia with respect to Staff’s at the BCSC manipulating the Offering Memorandum to suite their theory of the matter. Our letter was precisely written and explained in detail exactly what the issues were with regard to the actions of the Staff.

[Click on Link…]

Law Society Complaint

On February 20, 2015, the Law Society wrote a letter back to the Respondents dismissing the complaint and informing us they were closing the file. In less than 5 business days – they decided to close the file? Their “parting shot” insinuated that “if the Hearing Panel ruled in your favor on this issue, it does not necessarily follow that the lawyers did anything wrong or unprofessional” . They then indicated they were closing the file with no further investigation into the allegation.

[Click on Link…]

Letter from Law Society – February 20, 2015

Continue reading COMPLAINTS TO THE LAW SOCIETY GO NOWHERE

ATTEMPTS TO GET ANSWERS FROM THE BCSC’s TOP EXEC GO UNANSWERED

Brenda BCSC Chair Brenda Leong

(Photo: Chen Zhiqiang)

Starting in May 2016, we starting asking the BCSC’s Chairman, Ms. Brenda Leong answers to some fairly significant questions. Questions that we think need to be answered once and for all by the people at the BCSC.

Letter to Brenda Leong – May 9, 2016 – (“Explanation on Decision?”)

Letter to Brenda Leong – May 11, 2016 – (“Settlement Not Presented?”)

Letter to Brenda Leong – May 13, 2016 – (“Manipulating Evidence?”)

Letter to Brenda Leong – May 16, 2016 – (“Did Panel make Error?”)

Unfortunately, Ms. Leong has failed to answer even the simplest of question in a timely manner. Why will this highly paid public official not stand behind anyone from her organization and support their actions? Or, if her Staff have in fact made some serious mistakes, why does she continue to let this occur on her watch?

Our letters were originally just sent to her – now they will be sent to other government officials, the media, and published in this blog. Ms. Leong cannot continue avoiding these questions – it is very important that they are answered.

And one thing we can promise – they will continue until we have our answers.

DID THE BCSC PROMOTE VIGILANTE JUSTICE?

In November 2014, the the Chair of the BCSC (Ms. Linda Leong) launched the latest Fraudster Fighter video that featured a character (known as Jean) sitting on the coach with her son who was a recent victim of investment fraud. The video starts out by her son explaining his story and then Mom starts into a daydream where she runs through the streets of Vancouver (doing all kinds of stupid jumps and back flips) and ends up at a highrise condominium. She then knocks on a door and as the person (known as David) answers and she states, “Hello David….” as she rolls up here sleeve on her shirt. The video implies she is there to physically hit him, leaving no doubt that is why she is there. This still goes down as one of the most disgusting things we have ever seen. What a waste of capital – this is your BC government at work.

[Click on the Link…]

Fraudster Fighter Video

Here is the YOUTUBE link to the newest version of the video – this has been edited from the video that first appeared – instead of going up to his residence you will see she now only goes to one of his seminars and makes comments. Interesting enough though, is now when her son wakes her up from her day dream she still says, “What? He deserves it” See the terrible editing at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWiyj65aIk

We are sending the Freedom of Information of BC (https://www.oipc.bc.ca ) office a request to see if we can obtain a copy of the original video. If we are successful in obtaining a copy, we will post it in a future post.

DID STAFF RESORT TO MANIPULATING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR THEORIES?

At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel Chair instructed both parties to complete Written Submission on Liability. These documents argued the points brought up during the hearing and gave the parties the ability to prove (or disprove) the allegations brought forward in the Notice of Hearing.

One of the key documents involved in the hearing was the Offering Memorandum(s) (“OM’s”) used by the Respondents to raise capital. For those that invested with the Respondents, you will remember this document as one you were given at the time you invested. The BCSC (and other securities jurisdictions) allow an OM Exemption when raising capital in the securities market.

On May 16, 2014, the Respondents received the Executive Directors Submissions on Liability and began reviewing the points brought forward by Staff. We read them from cover to cover a couple of different times and soon noticed something very particular….

Unfortunately, at paragraph #10 of their submissions, Staff resorted to physically changing the appearance of the document. We feel they did this to suite their theory (and main allegation) that the Respondents did not forward the MAJORITY of the funds to the Developer. This was the big $5.45 million fraud allegation that was ultimately dismissed by the Panel. Let’s take a look at paragraph #10 as it appears in their submissions….

And now, for those of you that don’t have the FCC or DCF Offering Memorandums in front of you, this is how the document looked – keep in mind this document was relied upon at all times to raise capital for the projects, and Staff were suppose to have the onus of proving the case as alleged in the Notice of Hearing:

Continue reading DID STAFF RESORT TO MANIPULATING EVIDENCE TO PROVE THEIR THEORIES?

AGAIN…RESPONDENTS CAN’T GET PAST THE LAWYER TO PRESENT SETTLEMENT OFFER

One thing I will give Staff Litigator C. Paige Legatt is at least she didn’t make us wait 7 weeks for a response on this one. However, her response again indicated the ONLY way she would take a Settlement Proposal to the Executive Director was if I met the terms set by them – the litigators themselves! This was becoming extremely frustrating and demeaning to the Respondents.

I was being forced into a hearing for absolutely something I did not do – I did not commit a $5.45 million fraud as they had alleged. The process (especially for a self-represented Respondent) was fixed and I began to see the true-colors of the people at the BCSC – they do NOT have the best interest of investors) or anyone else for that matter) as a priority.

It was at this point, the Respondents realized this was not a level playing field and that the entire BCSC mandate were simply just words. We were now forced into fighting this war with an opponent that was not playing fair. It wasn’t until after the hearing that we truly saw what the Staff at the BCSC were prepared to do in an attempt to prove their case.

For any of you (specifically the former investors in FCC and DCF) that want to inquire to the BCSC why Staff did not forward this viable Settlement Offer to the Executive Director (with the possibility of receiving dollars through the development of the project) we suggest you call them. Their number for inquiries is 604-899-6854 or call the main switchboard at 604-899-6500 and the lovely receptionist will put you through to the right department to have your questions answered. They are a public organization serving the people of British Columbia and they have to answer you. That being said, to date, we have yet to receive a response from Brenda Leong – the Chair of the BCSC.

What are they possibly hiding?

[Click on the link…]

January 17, 2014 – LEGATT to RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS TRY IN VAIN TO GET SETTLEMENT TO THE RIGHT PERSON AT THE BCSC

When reading this simple email to Staff Litigator Legatt, it becomes apparent the frustration the Respondent was feeling for the process at the BCSC. Facts are, they were forcing us into a corner buy telling us to put our Settlement Offer on paper and then would not even take it to the only person that could make the decision. The process appears to be a game – a game that is so rigged against the Respondents (and the former investors) that it is impossible to make headway.

The email sent to Legatt on January 16, 2014 pleaded with her to at least point the Respondent in the right direction to having the hearing avoided and having the investors participate in the real estate project. Time was running out and I was not able to wait another 7 weeks (as was the case in the last email correspondence). We eagerly awaited another response from her…

[Click on Link…]

January 16, 2014 – RESPONDENT to LEGGAT

STAFF TAKE 7 WEEKS TO RESPOND TO SETTLEMENT OFFER

The Respondents sent their time-sensitive Settlement proposal to Staff on November 7, 2013. Finally after 7 weeks of waiting the Respondents were very eager to receive the reply from the Litigator at the BCSC. As the attachment was opened, eagerness turned to frustration as Staff indicated they did not even take the Settlement Agreement to the Executive Director for approval (or even a review/negotiation). The reason the offer was time sensitive is the builder and lender were anxious to move the project forward in a timely fashion. There was NO reason ever given why Staff took this amount of time to reply.

Instead Staff indicated the only way they would take a Settlement Offer to the Executive Director is IF pleaded guilty to their long list of allegations and agreed to pay $5.8 million dollars in fines and disgorgement. The BCSC website indicates all Settlements must be paid in full at the time the Settlement Agreement is agreed to – this was impossible for the Respondents, let alone the FACT that many of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing were NOT accurate.

ON WHAT PLANET DOES A PERSON HAVE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO ALL ALLEGATIONS OUTLINED IN A NOTICE OF HEARING AND THEN PAY A “RANSOM” OF NEARLY $6 MILLION DOLLARS JUST TO GET THEIR SETTLEMENT OFFER NEGOTIATED? THIS IS BORDERLINE EXTORTION!

The parties could have avoided a long, lengthy, expensive hearing IF Staff Litigators and the Executive Director would have even looked at the proposal and actually thought about the investors. In hindsight, it appears that the BCSC did not have the investors best interest at stake as their website promotes – nor was it a fair system for all parties. Please read for yourself, the reply from Staff and ask “WHY DID THE BCSC NOT TAKE THE TIME TO EVEN REVIEW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEN SO MUCH WAS AT STAKE FOR THE INVESTORS?”

We encourage anyone affected by the Settlement Offer not even being put onto the Executive Directors desk for a review to contact the BCSC at 1-604-899-5600 during regular business hours. Maybe you can get an answer – the Respondents have certainly not been able to do so.

[Click on the link…]

December 30, 2013 – LEGATT to RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENTS MAKE VALID SETTLEMENT OFFER TO BCSC

By November of 2013, Primex (the Lender) was becoming very impatient and needed the Deercrest property to move forward one way or another. I approached Kerkhoff Construction and they agreed (with many other terms) to allow the investors in both Falls Capital Corp and Deercrest Construction Fund to participate as non-voting shareholders. This would have seen the investors participate in net profits of the Deercrest property as it was developed.

As you see, the Settlement Agreement focused on the well-being of the former investors and allowed light at the end of the tunnel in terms of possibly seeing funds put back into their control.

[Click on the Link…]

November 7, 2013 – BCSC Settlement Letter (REDACTED

ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT COMPELLING

Staff had the onus to bring valid, compelling evidence before the Panel. Wharram (who has no legal training) had Investigator Elizabeth Chan admit that she assumed vital details that caused the Executive Director to issue portion of the Notice of Hearing against Wharram…

Yet the same Panel ruled the Executive Director proved “on the Balance of Probabilities” that the allegations were accurate. How is the compelling evidence?

The following attachment are part of the written Submissions on Liability the Respondents wrote in defense of this portion of the allegations.

Click on the link… Chan Assumes