加拿大美国律师诈骗无罪

字体 -

在加拿大,美国律师每天都欺诈犯罪,律师诈骗无罪,他们犯罪,欺诈没有人告,更不敢告,告也没有用。 因为他们是律师,这是我的亲身经历和目睹的事实,我已经报告加拿大皇家骑警和律师协会。

在加拿大和美国,一旦政府指控一个人和公司欺诈,律师就可以为所欲为,欺诈这个人和这家公司,更重要的是这个人和这家公司的客户和投资人,还有纳税人,不管一个人和公司是否有罪。

我的公司被美国指控以后,我们的钱,一两百万,几个月就不见了,律师抢劫一空,嫌少。

我们公司被冻结的钱,44万,没有被欺诈那么快,等我判刑以后,再被律师抢走,被我抓住。

我的钱对律师和律师行是微不足道,他们嫌少,是他们期望的1%不到。

加拿大有几家公司,被指控以后,数千万,数亿的资金被律师欺诈,名义上为投资人和公众,其实为自己使得投资人血本无归。

加拿大的 BRE-X ,北电,嘉汉林业等上市公司律师得满贯,律师拿走数千万,上亿,什么问题也没有解决。导致投资人血本无罪。

如果没有律师的介入和参与,投资人还可能夺回损失,或者减少损失。

律师和证券会的目的是投资人的钱,我的知名度。

I.                    BACKGROUND

 

[1] On March 17, 2009, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) issued a temporary freezing orderand $440,000 is at issue and subsequently on April 14, 2009 and repeatedly frozen by AUTORITE DES MARCHES FINANCIERS to date.

 

[2] On March 18, 2009, the OSC issued a Notice of Hearing which set out the Commission’s intention to hold a hearing to consider whether it was in the public interest for the Commission to extend the temporary freezing order beyond 15 days. On April 1, 2009, and on numerous subsequent dates, the temporary order was extended and has been renewed several times thereafter.

 

[3] Although I was charged on May 24, 2011, of $5,000 over and subsequently found quilt on October 30, 2012, the finding of guilty was on funds allegedly ill-spent of $2.84 Million for renting of office and paying employees and promoting business by  a small group of investors who testified against me and who were collectively and as a class of investors may or may not be represented by Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP. It must be noted that not all investors were represented as good number of them supported me and did not press any charges against me.

 

[4] However, two investors, namely Si Yi Qiu and Guosheng Wang (Qiu and wang), did not sue me or testify against me in the courts of law because the monies that was held in the Oversea Chinese Fund account was part of their money. These moneys are part of the moneys being held and, in fact, frozen in the Interactive Brokers Canada Inc.

 

[5] The said two investors brought a Motion/Application, Court File No. 09-8410-000L, wherein they sought the return of $150,000 held in an account with Interactive Brokers Canada Inc. (See Exhibit “A” – unofficial transcript of Endorsement of Justice Pepall – December 3rd, 2009).

 

 [6] Although submitted by alleged counsels who had attended the aforementioned application hearing that the funds in the said account was trust fund, that money was neither a trust account nor served as trust fund but was my company account and personal money not gotten through any trustee or fraudulently.

 

[7] The money held in Interactive Brokers Canada was my investment account.

 

[8] Further, the said money held in the Interactive Brokers Canada account was put in there by the two investors, Qiu and Wang, after Feb. 27, 2009 and all other investors withdraw, and these who withdraw are the same,  a few investors who testified against me at trial.

 

[9] Qiu and Wang never testified against me because they understood that I was legitimately conducting business fairly on their beheld. Their investments money was held up in the Interactive Brokers Canada which is the $150,000.

 

[10] The fact is that $150,000 was deposited by Qiu and Wang; $200,175 was deposited by me to Interactive Brokers Canada on March 15, and 17th, 2009; in three days this money ($150,000.00 + 200,175.00 =  $350,175.00) made a trading profit of $90,000.00 (See Exhibit “B” and “C”) before frozen.

 

[11] The fact is as of the time my account was frozen I had $440,175.00.

 

[12] On or around December 9th, 2013, the December 9th, 2013, Justice Newbould, while I was in prison, ordered that $201,352.42 be distributed to the legal representatives of Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP from the Interactive Brokers Canada account. I appealed this ruling to the court of appeal for Ontario because it was prejudicial to my interests and other two investors as the money that was ordered to be paid to the representatives belonged to me and Qiu and Wang and NOT toother Canadian investors.

 

[13] On or around December 15th, 2015, the court again ordered that $76,458.22 to be distributed to Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP for its own legal proceedings. I am yet to appeal this decision because the Court delayed in releasing the reasons for the decision.

 

[14] The fact is that by the time of this application, the amount of money remaining in the Interactive Brokers Canada account should be $440,175.00 + $76,458.22 - $201,352.42 = $162,364.36. This amount of money is far less than what myself and Qiu and Wang invested into the Interactive Brokers Canada, and it was not and is not the money owed to the Canadian investors as claimed.

 

II.                 LAW

 

[15] In the regard of seizing and or confiscation of my accounts and monies including funds belonging personally to me and other investors (namely Mr. Qiu and Mr. Wang), which are evidently separate from any alleged proceeds of crime/fraud, there is no justification for the continued freezing of the said funds. Any and all amounts of fund to be outside the alleged proceeds of crime ought to be released to the rightful owners without any further delay. This is what Justice Melvyn Green had to say in Canada (A.G.) v. Jamal, 2015 ONCJ 687 (CanLii) at para. 112 with regard to releasing property bellowing to innocent parties in a similar circumstance:

           

[112]   Put otherwise: I am satisfied that they appear innocent (indeed, are innocent) of complicity or collusion, and see no reason in all the circumstances to exercise any residual discretion under s. 19(3) to do other than “order that the property be returned to” the Respondents. Independently, and in the alternative (if I am wrong as to the Respondents’ eligibility for relief under s. 19(3), I am equally satisfied, upon due consideration all the relevant statutory factors, that “the impact of an order of forfeiture … would be disproportionate” and, consistent with my consequent discretion under s. 19.1, “decide not to order the forfeiture” sought by the A.G. and, further, to revoke the restraint order currently prohibiting disposition of the 15 Tamora Court property

 

[16] Also, in the unreported matte of R. v. Abdirahman, Justice Sean Dunphy of the Ontario Superior Court in a ruling of June 7, 2016 stated as follows:

 

“Money is not deemed to be proceeds of unlawful activity merely because possessed outside of the confines of a bank.”

 

This was in a case in which the crown sought to seize $8,740 in cash that was found on the Respondent. The learned Judge went to on to say:

 

“While the applicant Attorney General does not necessarily bear the burden of establishing precisely what unlawful activity the particular property was the proceeds of, the burden cannot be satisfied by the mere casting of suspicion or speculation that does not rise to the level of proof on the balance of probabilities,”

 

III.               SUBMISSIONS

 

[18]        Here are my submissions. The money held up in the Interactive Brokers Canada Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership account is my personal money – the money I had invested as an investor myself – and this is not the money earmarked as proceedings of crime. The money that belongs to my family is $200,000.00 and borrowed from TD Bank against our house. The money that Qiu and Wang invested was $150,000.00. The profit was $90,000.00.

 

[19] Further, it is herein submitted, that while the share of the investment profit, $90,000.00 may be determined by both me and the duo (Qiu and Wang) because of their investment of $150,000.00 together, the amount of $200,000.00 is my personal money (family investment) and these moneys are not subject to scrutiny of the BDR and Ontario Securities Commission (OSC). As explained in (I), all the other investors who may or may not claim that I defrauded them testified or ought to have testified that they were part of the close to $2.84 million of business expenses. Granted. And that finding led to my conviction and imprisonment. However, the moneys involved here, namely the $440,175.00 (see paragraph [11] and preceding paragraphs how this money came about), is and was never part of the close to $2.84 million for which I was punished. It is important to note here that the over $2.84 million was mere business expenses.

 

[20] And further, and to explain my argument in paragraph [19], consider the determination of the Court (Justice I. Nordheimer) on August 15th, 2011:

 

“This matter proceeded, at least initially, and it might still, on the basis that there was no real dispute that the $200,000.00 of funds belonging to Mr. Tang had gone into this particular account, even though it may be that subsequent to that other monies came in and others went out such that you can’t tell one dollar from the other. But there was no dispute that at least $200,000.00 of Mr. Tang’s own money went into this account,” (transcript of August 15th, 2011 in R. v. Weizhen Tang), seeExhibit “D”.

 

[21] I have argued repeatedly that the money which was held and continues to be held in Interactive Brokers Canada was and continues to be my money. The money is supposed to help me in my defense as of the claim as I have a constitutional right to be represented by counsel or to hire adequate counsel. Justice Nordheimer alluded to this when he asked:

 

“Do their claim that these funds [$440,175.00] may be used to redress their losses in some fashion have to take a back seat to Mr. Tang’s right to use those funds to fulfill this constitutional rights to counsel and to make full answer and defence?”

 

It is my submission that, I am entitled to using these moneys to defend myself, not because it is my constitutional right alone, but also because these funds do not constitute the proceeds of crime. But even if these funds constituted proceeds of crime, I still have the right to use them to make answer and defense, in this case, to defend against continued freeze of my personal investment money currently being held in Interactive Brokers Canada.

 

[22] The order to freeze the money was a temporary one. But this order has been renewed several times and years during this time, I have been prosecuted, convicted, imprisoned and released. Why should the temporary order to continue to be in effect or renewed when I have been already punished? The purpose of the order was to temporarily freeze the account until the criminal matter was decided. That matter has been determined and decided. I am no long a subject of a criminal or otherwise investigation, why should I not have access to my money so that I may carry out a reasonable living or defend myself against the freezing of my account? As it stands, I am stranded, broke and bankrupted with no means of funding my defense and earning a living. This money is mine and must be relapsed and the freeze lifted.

 

[23] Granted, I was the managing partner of Weizhen Tang and Associates, in fact, the owner of this company. I still am the person who invested my personal money into this account and was followed or other two investors followed suit and they, too, deserve their $150,000.00 and part of the $90,000.00 investment profit accrued from this account.

 

[24] Unless the two investors object, which they have not, I as manager have the responsibility to access this money and share it with the two. It is for this reason that I submit that this money be released, the freeze be lifted so that I may be able to access my account and manage it. I ask that my personal money and the moneys invested by the two investors be freed with immediate effect. I have been banned from trading by OSC but not to have access to my personal account and personal money.

 

[25] OSC and the Courts agreed that after the completion of the criminal process, the moneys frozen would be defrozen and returned to the investors (Tang and the other two) on a pro rata basis:

 

“And you will have all of the investors watching that litigation, believing that their interest in those funds will be preserved until the end of the criminal trial on a pro rata basis once all of these issues can work themselves through the system” (Volume 2 of 4).

 

[26] It is submitted that, pursuant to paragraph [25] on a pro rata basis, I have 56.18% and the other two investors who invested $150,000.00 (Qiu and Wang) have 42.13% interest (28.1% for Wang; and 14% for Qiu), and the rest of the other investors who had invested before and who leveled the accusation of fraud against me have only 1.68% negligible amount. In other words, as far as these amounts are concerned, the ones being held in the Interactive Brokers Canada.

 

[27] In other words, of the frozen amount, only 1.68% of $440,175.00 = $7,392.00 belongs to the other Canadian investors, and this is the amount that should be frozen.

 

[28] It is submitted that, given the fact that the other represented investors have already taken out $276,000.00 in two installments through their lawyers (Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP), the other investors have no share in this account held at Interactive Brokers Canada.

 

[29] It is further submitted that Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP has no right under any law in Canada to take out over $276,000.00 from the Interactive Brokers Canada account since their client investors only had 1.68% interest in this account. If anything, Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP was only entitled to $7,392.00 of the frozen money but they have defrauded our Interactive Brokers Canada Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership account of more than $276,000.00.

 

[30] Granted, Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP through their associate Alex Zavaglia in a letter dated June 8th, 2016 claim that, “[They are] representative counsel for the Canadian class of investors who invested funds with Weizhen Tang or any of the corporations or entities controlled by Mr. Tang,” (See Exhibit “E”) without proper authorization of investors. Did Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP also represent the two investors (Qiu and Wang) with a stake in Interactive Brokers Canada? If so, where is their retainer agreement to that effect? Why is it that Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP got paid over $276,000.00 from the account which has only about $7,392 of their representative investors’ money?

 

[31] It is my submission that Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP has received unlawful payment from an account for which their entitlement is only $7,392. Qiu and Wang were represented by Adam Ezer, and not by Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP.

 

[32] It is my submission that Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP should have been watched and investigated over its mis-conduct and serious conflicting interest by the proper authority and law society,

 

[33] It is my submission that Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP is not a party to this proceeding, no power over the government and either to the court, unless the OSC and BDR and the lower court influenced and controlled by big law firms, the special interest groups like Gowling LaFleur Henderson LLP, they did nothing for my investors or the public but steal, use  deceit and falseful and fraudulent means to defraud our investors and the public over $50,000.  

 

 

IV.               ORDER SOUGHT

 

[34]        The freeze placed on the Interactive Brokers Canada account be lifted.

 

[35]        All the moneys withdrawn from this account be returned to the Respondent, Mr. Tang and the two investors, Qiu and Wang.

 

ALL WHICH IS RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED

 

DATE: July 1, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

July 1, 2016

 

________________________________________

                                                                                                WEIZHEN TANG

                                                                                                17 Silk Court

                  Richmond Hill, Ontario

L4B 4A4  

Tel: 416-886-8715

Fax: 647-348-7435

 

Self-represented Respondent

 

Save

分享博文至:

    目前没有评论

发表评论