Thursday, 10 August 2017

To the Attention of Andrew Kriegler CEO of the IIROC

Below is a copy of a letter that is part of an ongoing conversation regarding restoring the rule of law in Canadas financial markets, the letter is penned by Alan Blanes who has made many guest posts on this blog and others in regards to this topic. Alan is a member of the Council of Canadians as well a the lead contact for PBI the Public Banking Institute in Canada. His and his father Harold's story went public on CBC recently, some of which can be seen here.
CBC Reports on Forged Documents

 See the letter below regarding the utter disregard for the rule of law by agencies such as the IIROC. As we have demonstrated many times the BCSC is not the only corrupted financial regulator in Canada. The entire system is a sham.


Thanks for this Peter,
Also to the attention of Andrew Kriegler

I am very interested in finding out where things stand with regard to ending the misappropriation of the term "ombudsman" with regard to complaints against deceptive dealing in securities in Canada. I was able to trace 29 examples of where my dad had documented fraudulent practices by investment dealers and reported the evidence to compliance officers, senior managers, OBSI, regulators, government councils and commissions, and political representatives. A consistent response was to utterly ignore the evidence and the clear questions that were stated in clear sentences, to each of these authorities. The responses uniformly were to fail completely to engage on the questions, failure to register any recognition of the evidence, and failure to summarize the evidence to others with responsibilities to follow up on the evidence. 
OBSI was indefensible and inexusable in its wilful policy of disregarding facts that show explicitly that Harold Blanes had contracted for a tangible service with one of these brokerages, for GICs to be held in trust. He had sent the contract for this agreement to a number authorities, who have never acknowledged this agreement, preferring instead to do as Karen Budden of OBSI did, to try to get Harold Blanes to agree to "sell" the defective and unasked for seg. funds that he had involuntarily been placed in. Harold Blanes was aware enough to understand that agreeing to sell such unrequested products would be de facto acknowledgement of ownership, which he refused all along. 
At no time did any of the pretend mediators such as Karen Budden ever question the matter of Rule 2500 of IIROC having been, or not been, carried out; i.e., had anyone else in the firm verified that the client was in what the consultant had represented to the client. This pattern is uniform. Karen Budden is by no mean alone; her performance is symptomatic of the bad faith performance that runs through all of Harold Blanes' experience with the impunity that has been given to predatory and dishonest investment brokerage services. 
What has been shocking is that IIROC itself totally ignores the matter of whether there is a paper trail of applying Rule 2500 - and when there is zero evidence of this rule having been followed, IIROC plays dumb on this. It is obvious that from the Harold Blanes experience, IIROC has this rule only for show. As someone who has exhaustively researched IIROC complaint history, I would ask you Peter, if you have ever encountered a case where IIROC has a documented example of where an  IIROC or former IDA investigator has ever bothered to determine if a client account had ever been looked at by another person within the company to determine by asking the client - if the client was in what they thought they were in. Any example of a case where IIROC actually took their policy seriously would be a valuable piece of evidence. 
I am sending this message to the CEO of IIROC Mr. Andrew Kriegler, asking if he can provide one example of where a complaint resulted in a questioning of whether Rule 2500 was actually carried out in the management of an account. I would be surprised if he is willing and/or able to answer this question. 
I would expect that OBSI would be willing to put this Rule 2500 matter into their performance as a mediator. Thus far, their performance has been surprisingly indulgent of fraudulent practices, and has resulted in an ombuds-service fiasco. 
 More to come..

No comments:

Post a Comment