Vincent Amartey

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement proceeding against the respondent under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, seeking an order mirroring sanctions imposed by the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC).

The ASC had found that the respondent breached know-your-client and suitability obligations and made misrepresentations to clients, imposing a permanent ban on capital markets participation.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the ASC order met the criteria under s. 127(10) and that it was in the public interest to make a protective order in Ontario.

The Tribunal rejected Staff's argument that principles of comity and reciprocity govern such proceedings, emphasizing its independent public interest jurisdiction.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market bans against the respondent, substantially mirroring the ASC's sanctions.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement proceeding against the respondents following their criminal convictions for fraud.

The respondents had operated a large-scale Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors of over $5 million by issuing promissory notes with guaranteed high interest rates.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the criminal offences arose from a course of conduct related to securities.

Given the egregious nature of the fraud, the significant harm to investors, and the need for specific and general deterrence, the Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to permanently ban the respondents from participating in Ontario's capital markets.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement proceeding against the respondents following findings by the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) that they authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in a company's disclosure breaches.

The BCSC had permanently banned the respondents from the capital markets with limited carve-outs and imposed administrative penalties.

The Capital Markets Tribunal held that while the principles of comity and reciprocity do not govern its public interest mandate, it was in the public interest to issue reciprocal orders permanently banning the respondents from participating in Ontario's capital markets, subject to similar carve-outs.

The appellants appealed a Capital Markets Tribunal decision finding that their business of trading in Contracts for Difference (CFDs) constituted trading and advising in unregistered securities.

The appellants argued that the CFDs were not 'investment contracts' because the CFD providers were counterparties and did not share in profits or losses, thus failing the 'common enterprise' component of the legal test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied a flexible approach to the investment contract test and made no palpable or overriding error in finding that the investors were dependent on the CFD providers, thereby establishing a common enterprise.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in illegal distribution of securities, unregistered trading, securities fraud, and improper revenue recognition, the Capital Markets Tribunal determined the appropriate sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement totaling $4.91 million, administrative penalties totaling $3.175 million, and significant market restrictions, including permanent bans for the GBR parties and multi-year bans for the First Global parties.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay costs totaling $1,080,285, apportioned based on their respective roles and the time spent investigating and litigating the various contraventions.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Polo Digital Assets, Ltd. operated a crypto asset trading platform accessible to Ontario residents without complying with registration and prospectus requirements.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the Crypto Contracts and Crypto Futures Contracts offered on the platform were 'investment contracts' and therefore securities.

The Tribunal concluded that Polo Digital engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities, contrary to ss. 25(1) and 53(1) of the Securities Act.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, an administrative penalty of $1.5 million, disgorgement of USD 1,825,417.89, and costs of $138,371.50.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and Aux Cayes Fintech Co. Ltd. sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations of unregistered trading and illegal distributions.

Aux Cayes operated an online crypto asset trading platform accessible to Ontario investors without being registered or filing a prospectus.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest.

Aux Cayes admitted to the contraventions and agreed to pay a $600,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $514,950 USD in revenue, and pay $25,000 in costs.

The respondent Alli brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging that Staff's former outside counsel was in a conflict of interest and had concocted a fraud allegation to bully him into a settlement.

Staff brought a motion to dismiss Alli's motion on a preliminary basis.

The Capital Markets Tribunal granted Staff's motion and dismissed the request for a stay, finding that Alli had significantly delayed bringing the motion without reasonable explanation, the issues raised were irrelevant to the proceeding, and he failed to meet the high bar for a stay.

The Tribunal also dismissed Alli's request for declaratory relief and granted Staff's request to strike portions of Alli's affidavit and closing submissions that improperly disclosed privileged and irrelevant information.

The respondent pled guilty to criminal fraud for operating a Ponzi scheme that solicited funds for foreign exchange trading.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement proceeding seeking a permanent ban from the capital markets.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct involved investment contracts, which are securities under the Securities Act.

Given the egregious nature of the fraud, the significant investor losses, and the respondent's criminal conviction, the Tribunal concluded it was in the public interest to permanently ban the respondent from trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director, officer, registrant, or promoter.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent operated an unregistered crypto asset trading platform, breaching registration and prospectus requirements.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent admitted the breaches, agreed to disgorge $2,468,910 USD in revenue, pay $10,000 CAD in costs, and wind down its Ontario business.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest given the respondent's cooperation, full disgorgement, and the avoidance of a contested hearing.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Mek Global Limited and PhoenixFin Pte.

Ltd., operating as KuCoin, sold crypto contracts and crypto futures contracts through their global online crypto asset trading platform without complying with registration and prospectus requirements.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the crypto asset products offered on the platform were investment contracts and therefore securities under the Securities Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents engaged in the business of trading in securities without registration and distributed securities without a prospectus, contrary to sections 25(1) and 53(1) of the Act.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, a $2 million administrative penalty, and $96,550.35 in costs on a joint and several basis.