Banks Responsibility In Investment Fraud

Post#53 by Guest Apr. 29, 2015, 07:32AM

Olympia Trust falls under the Superintendent of Financial Institutions for Alberta, not the Alberta Securities Commission.  The Canada Revenue Agency rules allow for the loophole which facilitates the use of an investors RRSP in these exempt market securities.  I know from talking with many in the industry that some regulators like the ASC are working on limiting the amount of money which can be invested in these types of investments but they are meeting resistance not only from those who sell these types of securities but from other regulators who do not wish to see an investment cap - basically saying as adults we can make our own decisions without the government looking over our shoulders.  That is a philosophical argument but one, in my opinion without merit as those who invest more than they should are the ones who need the protection.  With those selling these now being registered they have to ensure they do their due diligence to ensure they cannot be held accountable down the road.  In terms of cash withdrawals, the banks are not the gatekeepers, FINTRAC is but that only is for money being sent offshore.  Can you imagine the privacy issues that would exist if you were wealthy, decided to buy a big home in Mount Royal and transferred a few million only to be questioned on the transfer?  Where do you draw the line.  It is always a balancing act between privacy and enterprise and responsibility not only of those selling but those buying.

Post#33 by Guest Apr. 04, 2015, 07:10PM

We also need to leverage existing resources and tools. For example, the leading-edge electronic systems that our Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre uses to combat money-laundering can also be utilized to detect and interrupt fraudulent investment schemes, but that capability isn’t made available to securities regulators. Why?

Post#32 by Guest Apr. 04, 2015, 06:36PM

One would think that in Canada we are protected from scams.

The ASE has virtually allowed the scammers to operate with impunity, while investor loss their retirement money, their homes, their dignity, and their trust.

The whole role of the ASE protection methods needs questioning.

The role of Olynpia Trust being virtually the sole financial institution profiting from the exempt market sales products coupled with its ownership of target and eye logic systems being the de- facto vehicle for the ruin of thousands of people's retirement money.

Something is teribbly wrong with the undeniable relationship/ownership of Olympia Trust's public company with so many many failed investments.

Where are the courts and the regulators failing to recognizing this parallel?

Post#2 by Guest Feb. 19, 2015, 08:52PM

Do you think that Banks should have a morale and fudiciary responsibilty in investments.  If they have setup accounts for an exempt market company, shouldn't cash withdrawals and large transfers of money to different accounts be reported?

Reply as