Despite BCSC Lead Investigator Elizabeth (“Liz”) Chan admitting she assumed that the Respondents were raising capital, the Panel accepted her testimony and found this portion of the BCSC allegations to have been proven.
And this is despite the FACT that the BCSC brought in a witness that agreed with the Respondent – that the funds were a loan and NOT an investment.
Staff had the onus to bring valid, compelling evidence before the Panel. Wharram (who has no legal training) 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.
We would formally like to ask BCSC Chair Brenda Leong, new Executive Director Peter Brady, any member of the Panel, and ANYONE else at the BCSC how you can be so incompetent and allow the quality of work Chan has exhibited during her investigation. Who’s in charge of the hen house?
Click on the link… Chan Assumes