Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 JANUARY 2018

Double Jeopardy Argument Fails In Ponzi Fraud

Bennett Jones LLP
Bennett Jones LLP
Contributor
Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones is one of Canada’s premier business law firms. With deep experience in complex...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bennett Jones LLP

In R. v. Samji, 2017 BCCA 415 [Samji], the B.C. Court of Appeal decided that a $33-million administrative monetary penalty (AMP) assessed by the province's Securities Commission...

CanadaCriminal Law

In R. v. Samji, 2017 BCCA 415 [Samji], the B.C. Court of Appeal decided that a $33-million administrative monetary penalty (AMP) assessed by the province's Securities Commission against a person who had run a massive Ponzi scheme was not a "true penal consequence". Therefore, the Court ruled, a parallel criminal prosecution did not expose the person to double jeopardy under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The person involved is Rashida Samji, a one-time licenced notary public in the Vancouver area. Ms. Samji operated a large-scale Ponzi scheme, involving at least $100 million, from about 2003 to 2012.

After the scheme was uncovered, Ms. Samji was subjected to proceedings before the B.C. Securities Commission. The Commission found she had committed a fraud under the province's Securities Act. It issued a disgorgement order of just over $10 million and assessed an AMP of $33 million. Its decision was never appealed.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from