You are here
Insurance 

Two respondents are planning to challenge an ex parte decision of the TMF

by

Charles Mathieu

June 28, 2019 09:30

Zahir Ahmed Fancy, of in The financial services Fancy inc. and his wife Rashida Lila, of Builder of heritage financial, ltd., intend to challenge the orders issued by the administrative Tribunal of the financial markets (TMF).

The Court had ordered in the two spouses ” not to dispose of funds, securities, or other property that they have in their possession or entrusted to them and not to remove or appropriate any funds, securities or other property out of the hands of another person who has on deposit or in the custody or control of them “.

The TMF has also forbidden to perform any “operations on values” and to exercise the business of advising or trading in securities.

Decisions were made ex parte, that is to say without preliminary hearing with the parties involved. Thefinancial markets Authority (AMF), asked that the hearings be held soon in order to prevent ” irreparable prejudice being caused “, what the TMF has accepted it.

In the process of disposing of their assets

The regulator said that the respondents have moved to Ontario and they were in the process of disposing quickly of their assets. According to the Authority, ” they would have […] recently completed the buy of insurance policies and borrowings on the other, demanding the receipt of monies in a very short period of time […]. They have sold some real estate and were encumbered by other mortgages. They have emptied gradually their bank accounts so that there remains that balances the minimum and use the active accounts such as ducts “, indicates to Me Elyse Turgeon in his judgment.

The result of an investigation of the Authority, which began after that three investors have asked to be compensated. “They would have solicited investment among the clients of The financial services Fancy […], a legal person removed from office of the registrar of companies for June 2017 “, one can read in the judgment dated 31 may last.

It is also indicated that other persons would have been able to entrust money to the respondents.

The sums deposited into personal accounts

The survey would have helped to know that the respondents have deposited the amounts obtained from investors in joint bank accounts held by them personally “. The investigator of the Authority has subsequently found that the respondents have prepared the contracts to be signed and that the said money was transferred into personal accounts or those of their respective companies.

The offences come against the securities Act.

The Court has also ordered the three financial institutions not to dispose of what they have on deposit in the names of respondents and their companies.

He also commanded a company from “not to pay, partially or in full to any person, the cash surrender value of the contracts,” and to a firm of insurance ” does not pay, partially or in full to any person, the value of a fund linked to a contract held by Rashida Lila “.

Related posts

Leave a Comment