Ponzi scheme

The trustee in bankruptcy moved for a phase-one determination that profit payments made by Douglas Grozelle to net winners in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme were void as against creditors and recoverable for the estate.

The court found the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, held insolvency and fraudulent intent could be inferred globally, and concluded the payments were void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and not saved by good-faith or good-consideration defences.

The court approved a two-stage insolvency process: common liability issues resolved summarily now, with individualized quantum determinations in phase two.

The winners’ cross-motion for broad directions attacking the trustee’s process and authority was dismissed.

The appellant investors, who participated in a Ponzi scheme operated by a one-person corporation, sought to have the trustee in bankruptcy's unjust enrichment claims statute-barred under Ontario's Limitations Act, 2002 by attributing the directing mind's knowledge of illegal interest and commission payments to the corporation.

The majority held that the corporate attribution doctrine applies to one-person corporations on the same purposive, contextual, and pragmatic basis as to other corporations, and that courts retain discretion to decline attribution when it would undermine the purposes of the laws engaged — here, the limitations and bankruptcy regimes.

In concurrence, a separate judge held that resort to the common law corporate attribution doctrine was unnecessary because the codified agency rules in s. 12 of the Limitations Act, 2002 provided a complete answer, and that the claims were not discoverable until the trustee was authorized by the court to bring them.

All judges agreed that the investors were disentitled from equitable set-off for lack of clean hands, that the referral agreements were illegal contracts at common law, and that one appellant was not dealing at arm's length with the corporation.

The appellant, David Holden, appealed his conviction for fraud over $5,000 and money laundering, and his 12-year sentence, in relation to a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

The conviction appeal argued the trial judge impermissibly inferred guilt from fabricated evidence.

The sentence appeal challenged the application of aggravating factors and sought a reduction due to COVID-19 incarceration conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's reasoning regarding the conviction and upholding the sentence as fit given the extensive aggravating circumstances, including the large scale of the fraud, its devastating impact on victims, and the appellant's history of similar offenses.

SureFire Dividend Capture LP (SDC) sought indemnification from Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance under a fidelity bond for losses incurred due to a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Brenda Smith, manager of Broad Reach Capital, LP (BRC), in which SDC had invested.

SDC claimed coverage under three insuring agreements (A)(1), (A)(4), and (B)(1)(b) of the Bond.

The court found that SDC failed to establish that its loss fell within the initial grant of coverage under any of the agreements, primarily because the stolen funds belonged to BRC, not SDC or its investors, and Brenda Smith was not an "Employee" of SDC as defined by the Bond for the purposes of SDC's direct claim.

The court also noted that SDC failed to disclose a material "in-kind" transfer of interests from other funds to SDC, which would have excluded coverage for that portion of the loss.

SDC's claim for punitive damages for bad faith was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, acting as trustee in bankruptcy for a company involved in a Ponzi scheme, sought to recover $121,845.37 in payments made to the defendant in the year prior to bankruptcy.

The trustee argued these were preferential payments made while the company was insolvent.

The court found that the defendant, who was the nephew of the company's founder and worked for the company, was not dealing at arm's length with the insolvent company.

The court ordered the defendant to reimburse the full amount to the trustee.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000 and money laundering after operating a $29 million Ponzi scheme called Debit Direct.

He sold fake point-of-sale debit terminals to hundreds of investors and transferred the funds to the Dominican Republic.

The court sentenced the offender to 7 years in prison, less pre-sentence custody, and ordered $26.9 million in restitution along with a matching fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendants brought a second motion to strike the plaintiff's re-amended statement of claim in an action arising from a Ponzi scheme.

The court found that the plaintiff had addressed the deficiencies identified in a previous decision regarding the damages claimed against most defendants.

However, the court struck the claim against two defendants (the McKillips) without leave to amend, finding no material facts were pleaded to establish a duty of care.

The court also held that the defendants were precluded from raising new arguments about the duty of care that they could have raised on their first motion to strike, as serial attacks on a pleading constitute an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction and Certificates of Pending Litigation against the defendants, alleging they perpetrated a Ponzi scheme involving mortgage and securities fraud.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, oppression, and conspiracy, noting that tens of millions of dollars were raised without proper compliance and were unaccounted for.

The court inferred a strong risk of dissipation of assets based on the defendants' conduct, including the listing of a $4 million house and suspicious property transfers.

The motion for the Mareva injunction and CPLs was granted.

David Holden was found guilty of fraud exceeding $54 million and money laundering in a large-scale Ponzi scheme.

This decision outlines the sentencing, which includes 12 years imprisonment for fraud (concurrent with 8 years for money laundering), a restitution order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $54,159,737, with a default imprisonment of 5 years consecutive.

The court emphasized denunciation, general deterrence, and separation due to the egregious nature of the fraud, its devastating impact on 65 victims, and Holden's significant prior record of similar offences and lack of remorse.

This appeal concerns an auditor's liability action arising from the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The appellants, three Fairfield feeder funds incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, invested in Madoff's company and suffered losses when the fraud was revealed in December 2008.

The funds sued PricewaterhouseCoopers for breach of contract and negligence in auditing their financial statements for 2006 and 2007, claiming damages of approximately $2.5 billion.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action on the basis that no damages were suffered, applying the Livent damages methodology.

The appellants appealed on five grounds, all involving findings of fact or mixed fact and law regarding the calculation of damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's analysis.

The accused, a former financial advisor, was charged with fraud and theft over $5,000 after collecting approximately $12 million from 41 investors for supposedly low-risk real estate and corporate bond investments.

Instead of investing the funds as promised, the accused operated a Ponzi scheme, diverting the money to pay spousal support, fund his failing businesses, and make partial repayments to earlier investors.

The court found the accused's testimony to be entirely lacking in credibility and rejected the defence's forensic accounting evidence.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, with the theft charge conditionally stayed.

The appellants appealed from an order dismissing their motion to strike claims for usurious interest and unlawful commissions in actions brought by the trustee in bankruptcy of the promoters of an alleged Ponzi scheme.

The appellants argued the order was final because it determined a question of law regarding whether the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court found that the motion judge did not formally invoke the applicable rule for determining questions of law, the formal order simply dismissed the motion without making a binding determination, and the motion was premature as pleadings had not closed.

The defendants, an auditing firm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a $5 billion negligence claim arising from their audits of feeder funds that invested in the Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme.

The plaintiffs alleged that the auditors failed to discover the fraud, causing the funds to remain invested and suffer massive losses.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove any damages.

Applying the plaintiffs' own damages formula, the court concluded that the funds actually benefited from the delayed discovery of the fraud due to net withdrawals and the exclusion of fictitious profits and unasserted liabilities.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for partial summary judgment seeking a declaration that losses it sustained due to an employee's participation in a Ponzi scheme constituted a 'direct financial loss' under its fidelity bond.

The bank had settled multiple third-party claims after victims transferred funds to the bank based on fraudulent representations by the bank's employee.

The court held that the bank received the funds subject to a constructive trust, and suffered a direct financial loss when those funds were credited to unrestricted accounts controlled by the fraudster.

The court found this narrow issue of policy interpretation appropriate for partial summary judgment and granted the declaration.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the applicant recklessly depleted family assets by investing heavily in a hedge fund that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.

The court found the investments were made in good faith on professional advice and did not meet the threshold of unconscionability for an unequal division.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court also imputed income to both parties due to intentional underemployment and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.

The offender, a former financial advisor, was convicted of Fraud Over $5,000 for operating a Ponzi-type scheme over eight years, defrauding multiple victims, many of whom were friends or elderly clients.

The court found the offender's breach of trust and the devastating financial and emotional impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, ordered to pay restitution of $109,150, and issued a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with six years to pay following his release.

The defendant investment firm brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs, who were victims of their former investment advisor's Ponzi scheme, argued they did not discover their claims against the firm until the advisor's fraud was exposed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiffs, as allegedly unsophisticated investors, knew or ought to have known of their claims earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Bank of Montreal (BMO) arising from a $77 million Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Salim Damji.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO knowingly assisted in Damji's breach of trust, knowingly received fraudulent funds, and was negligent in its receipt of these funds.

The court granted leave to bring the certification motion and found that the plaintiff met the first four criteria for certification under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act.

However, the court found the representative plaintiff's health issues and deficiencies in the litigation plan rendered the final criterion unsatisfied.

The certification motion was adjourned for 30 days to allow the plaintiff to address these deficiencies.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against the Bank of Montreal arising from a $77 million investment fraud perpetrated by Salim Damji.

The plaintiff alleged that BMO knowingly assisted in Damji's breach of trust, knowingly received fraudulent funds, and was negligent in its receipt of these funds.

The court found that the plaintiff satisfied the criteria for certification under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, except for the requirement of a workable litigation plan.

The court adjourned the certification motion to allow the plaintiff to provide an acceptable litigation plan.

The applicants invested in a Ponzi scheme through their companies.

They received payments that were reported as income and paid taxes on them.

After discovering the fraud, they applied for an order rectifying their corporate and tax records to show the payments as a return of capital, and for a declaration to that effect.

The court dismissed the claim for rectification because the documents accurately reflected the applicants' intentions at the time they were prepared.

However, the court granted a declaration that the moneys were a return of capital, without prejudice to how the payments should be treated for tax purposes by the tax authorities.