Připojte se k našemu seznamu příjemců newsletteru! 
Klikněte zde.

Vyplňte prosím následující pole a připojte se k našemu seznamu adresátů, abyste mohli dostávat aktualizace a zpravodaje. Poslat Dík! Zpráva odeslána. Zkontrolujte prosím svou nevyžádanou poštu, abyste se ujistili, že vám naše e-maily neuniknou.

VOSMI is a group of investors of Syndicate Mortgages through Fortress Real Developments Inc. We are sharing our stories, and joining together so that our voices can be heard. Bylo nám slíbeno: Splacení jistiny na konci hypotečního období Získejte 8 % pevný úrok s jistina zajištěna Investice je podpořena zabezpečením fyzického majetku podobně jako banka s běžnou hypotékou Splacení jistiny na konci hypotečního období RRSP, TFSA, LIRA způsobilé Bezpečná a nízkoriziková investice Co jsme objevili: Investice byla vysoce riziková Aktuální hodnota „tak jak je“ byla hrubě nafouknutá Poměr úvěru k hodnotě přesáhl 100 % až přes 300 %.Přečtěte si více zde . Neúspěšné projekty (např. Collier, Harmony) vedly k tomu, že nezbyly žádné prostředky na splacení syndikátních investorů (tj. VOSMIS). Investice nebyly způsobilé podle RRSP Nezávislé právní poradenství bylo hrazeno společností Fortress RDI Nezveřejněné provize ve výši 35 % byly odečteny z jistiny investora 8% úrokové platby byly zastaveny v polovině období Z jistiny investora byly odečteny poplatky ve výši 8 %. Zní vám to povědomě? Pokud jste obětí podvodu, vězte, že v tom nejste sami. Kanadské centrum pro oběti zločinu vytvořilo vynikající zdroj na podporu obětí podvodů. „Pomáháme obětem podvodu zotavit se“ si musíte přečíst. Linda "I was ashamed that I was duped into doing this investment - I thought that I was smarter than that. This just proves how we were conned." Andrew “The way it was sold to me – and I think everybody – is... you’d be a fool to not want to invest; it was so lucrative. This was a no-brainer. You were investing on real properties and developments. Back then, there was a big condo boom, especially in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA)” you are not alone Thousands were affected. Together, we stand stronger you are not to blame The responsibility lies with those who orchestrated the fraud. Justice takes time The legal process can seem slow and frustrating, but every step brings the truth forward. your feelings are valid Anger, grief and frustration are natural. Healing takes time. Your feelings are valid. You are not alone. We created a word cloud with our investors emotions and reactions as they navigate through this emotional and financial journey. Do these emotions and thoughts resonate with you? About VOSMI is a non-profit organization formed by victims of the largest mortgage investment fraud in Canada's history. We are the individuals directly impacted by the Fortress Real Developments Inc syndicated mortgage fraud, coming together to share resources, raise awareness, and support one another. Are you a victim? You are not alone. Our group was first formed on Facebook in 2018 by a victim of the Fortress fraud who felt she had to connect with other Fortress investors. Slowly, the group grew to over 800 members, with hundreds of additional subscribers on our website. We hope this website provides victims and their families with some resources, information, and support. Helpful Resources Join our private VOSMI group! Sign up for our Newsletter! Helpful victim resources from these sites: CRVC (Canadian Resource for Victims of Crime ) Navigating the Justice System Helping Victims of Fraud Recover The Serious Fraud Office Ontario-Victim Resources “There’s this unfair sense from others who hear these stories that these people should’ve known better, and that’s unfortunate because every one of us in this day and age is susceptible.” Vanessa Iafolla, Anti-Fraud Intelligence Consultant. ‘The forgotten impact’: Helping victims of financial fraud deal with emotional distress CTV News Sep 6, 2025- Pat Tenney

Coming up! December 3, 2025 Sentencing Submission Hearing Courthouse Details: Location: 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, Ontario (walking distance from subways & City Hall) Room # 1003 Start Time 10 am Court is Open to the Public Tried by judge only (no jury) Zoom is not available. JOIN US! *Sentencing Submission Hearing Crown and defense argue the sentence length. During the hearing, the judge considers arguments, evidence, victim impact statements before deciding on the appropriate sentence. About the trial Fortress Criminal Trial R. v Rathore & Petrozza The criminal trial for the Principals of Fortress Real Developments began October 28, 2024, through to May 28, 2025, with the Sentencing Submission Hearing to take place on December 3, 2025. Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza were criminally charged in June, 2022 with Fraud and Secret Commissions for their role in promoting Fortress Syndicated Mortgage Loan “SML” investments. The RCMP IMET began their investigation in 2015, and in 2018 executed their search warrants, and seized items from Fortress and their affiliate brokerages (Centro/BDMC, FDS, FMP, & FFM). The prosecution chose to focus on 2 projects during the trial - Sky City and Collier. On May 28, Justice D. Moore delivered his guilty verdict. The trial summary can be read here. Q & A 1. Who are Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza? Rathore and Petrozza are the founders and principals of Fortress Real Development. Rathore is the CEO, and Petrozza is the COO. Petrozza was also the principal broker for Centro/BDMC. Fortress and its affiliated brokerages raised over $920 million in syndicated mortgage investments to help fund the "soft costs" of their developments. Investors who were everyday "mom & pop" investors were led to believe the SML investments were secure and low risk. In total, over $900 million was raised from all syndicated mortgage investments. Thousands of investors have lost their life savings investing in Fortress SMLs. 2. Why are they being tried in a criminal court? Rathore and Petrozza were criminally charged with Fraud and Secret Commissions after a lengthy RCMP investigation. It is alleged that the founders of Fortress Real Developments engaged in fraud by orchestrating an ongoing scheme whereby they did not disclose the various risks to brokers and investors of syndicated mortgages. 3. What is a syndicated mortgage? A syndicate mortgage is a group of individuals who lend money privately to a borrower to finance real estate developments, such as residential condo buildings. In the case of Fortress Real Development Inc, loans were secured against a major development proposal known as a Syndicated Mortgage Investment (“SMI”).These funds were primarily to finance the ‘soft costs’ of a real estate development. They are also referred to as Syndicated Mortgage Loans (SML) as the investors in effect leant money to the borrower (developer). 4. Is zoom available for this trial? Unfortunately there are technical issues that prevent the trial from being shared over zoom. If you are able to attend in person, there are many TTC options for those of you in the GTA. Please go to the Trip Planner site for assistance. https://www.ttc.ca/trip-planner 5. What should I expect at the courthouse? What can I bring? Please refer to the courtroom guidelines and etiquette. 6. Which projects are they focussing on during the trial? Even though Fortress raised money for over 70 projects, (there were about 45 at the time of the RCMP raid), the RCMP narrowed their investigation on Collier, Crates Landing/South Shore, Harmony Village & Sky City. 7. Who is the prosecutor? It is crown attorney Scott Patterson. CBC Developers found guilty of defrauding investors out of retirement savings in Barrie, Winnipeg Read More Global News Fortress Real Developments co-founders found guilty of fraud Read More Investment Executive Fortress pair convicted on fraud charges Read More

Právní tým Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell O právním týmu Kliknětetady přečíst životopis Mitchella Winea. Kliknětetady na přečtěte si Margaret Waddellův životopis. Společná žaloba Akce se týkají SML registrovaných na pěti různých nemovitostech Fortress: Collier Center – Barrie, ON (pouze s ohledem na původní půjčku) Progress Manors Ten88 – Toronto, ON Sutton/The Link – Burlington, ON Harmony Village Lake Simcoe/The Kemp – Barrie, ON Orchard Calgary – Calgary, AB Částečná vyrovnání byly dosaženy a schváleny soudcem Perrellem dne 13. ledna 2023. Další podrobnosti, včetně prohlášení o nároku a kontaktních informací jsou k dispozici na Waddell Phillips webová stránka .

VOSMI VE NOVINKÁCH 2019 Oběti bojují proti regulátorovi a Law Society of Ontario 19. září 2019 Kanadské zprávy o podvodech Investoři, kteří přišli o miliony v syndikovaných hypotékách, volají po změnách v právní společnosti 13. září 2019- Zprávy CBC Oběti křičí faul kvůli odměnám Fortress Real 13. června 2019 2022 Ottawa senior říká, že přišel o celoživotní úspory při investování do společnosti, která nyní čelí obvinění z podvodu 6. července 2022 Zprávy ČTV 2021 Investoři, kteří přišli o miliony, zahájili petici vyzývající k federální pozornosti ohledně obchodů s pevností 17. února 2021 2020 Pevnost ruší velký projekt výškové budovy ve Winnipegu a nechává investory viset 7. října 2020 PC Mag Pozemek, který měl být domovem SkyCity, nejvyšší věže Winnipegu, je nyní na prodej 2. října 2020 CBC

Zákon Darryla Levitta Darryl Levitt vykonává advokacii v Ontariu a je také kvalifikovaný jako právník v Jižní Africe. Oblastí jeho odborných znalostí jsou podnikové finance, energetika a vyšetřování trestných činů bílých límečků. Darryl pracoval na mnoha významných zakázkách včetně fúze společností Petro Canada a Suncor v hodnotě 55 miliard USD, IPO společnosti First Uranium za 265 milionů USD, RTO společnosti Pelawan a souběžného financování ve výši 165 milionů USD. Pracoval také na záležitostech veřejného zájmu, včetně nedávné letecké katastrofy Air Ethiopia a velkého nadnárodního případu porušení zákona o cenných papírech a oznámení oznamovatelů. Před zahájením vlastní praxe byl Darryl senior právníkem ve dvou nadnárodních advokátních kancelářích. Darryl byl neustále uznáván svými vrstevníky a klienty nezávislou WWL jako přední světový odborník ve své oblasti praxe. Zákon Darryla Levitta Poradce Budova Deloitte 400 Applewood Crescent Suite 100 Vaughan ON, L4K 0C3 Darryl@darryllevitt.com Recepce: 905-482-8089

Verdict On May 28, 2025, Justice D Moore delivered his guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud to the accused principals of Fortress. Jawad Rathore & Vince Petrozza were found guilty of Fraud over $5000. Read the complete reasoning for the judgement here. We would like to thank the Crown Prosecutors, and the RCMP IMET for their tireless work on this case. The Sentencing Hearing is to take place on December 3, 2025. More details to follow. "I find beyond a reasonable doubt that they both intentionally misled investors about the value of their secured interest in order to induce them into investing." Justice D. Moore

Počkejte prosím chvíli, než se formulář načte na obrazovce.

How to contact us, whether you have a general inquiry, or whether you are an investor. INVESTOR / OBECNÉ DOTAZY Náš proces registrace bude brzy k dispozici. Vyplňte prosím níže své údaje a my se vám ozveme zpět. Děkuji. Děkuji. Brzy se vám ozveme. Poslat

Ottawa Protest, Náš třetí protest se konal v Ottawě, October 18, 2019. October 18, 2019. Zvýší vláda finanční prostředky na boj proti zločinu bílých límečků? Mnohokrát děkujeme těm, kteří nás přišli podpořit!

Closing Arguments (Apr 1-2, 2025) Crown Prosecution's Closing Argument The prosecution began by restating the charges against the defendants, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. The crown had originally 2 charges brought against the defendants- Fraud and Secret Commissions on 4 development projects, however narrowed down the charges to Fraud, on only 2 projects- Collier and Sky City. The Crown counsel Vallery Bayly highlighted the 3 elements of fraud. Deceit, Dishonesty & Deprivation. 1. Deceit This was done via promotional material falsehoods. The language used in marketing materials to describe opinion of value by using the terms “as is” values. The Loan to Value ( LTV) was described as being based on current value and not future value, and marked as being secured. The Prosecutor shows promotional power point presentation , “What is LTV?” The slide states “proper evaluations are essential.” Nowhere does it say LTV was based on Future evaluations. The Prosecutor later showed a pamphlet, which is what the witness received. “What is an appraisal ?” Why are evaluations so important? ” The pamphlet goes on to explain the why an LTV matters. The Prosecutor then moved to Disclosure documents. In the appraisal section of the FSCO investor disclosure firm, the form shows an appraisal of $21 Million. But this was Mr Felice’s opinion of value , when the project would be built out. The line where it says “project value” is left blank. LTV section states appraised as is $21 Million, and LTV is 85%. Projected value is left blank. In the Law Society disclosure form, point #9 indicates “I am satisfied that current value is $21 Million, LTV 85%. In the Memorandum of Understanding (note that the mom & pop SML investors did not receive this document, as it was only provided to accredited investors) the evaluation is listed as $21 million. LTV listed as 85%. However even in these documents there was deceitful language. Investors testified of security & LTV, and the importance of LTV as it gave security to their investment. Prosecution argued that forms had to be filled honestly, and pointed out that Fortress could have disclosed the values or added accurate language. The nature of the opinion of values were dishonest throughout the documents . The crown is not saying the opinion of value should not be used, but it should be used honestly. The crown added that it is not fine to tell mom & pop investors that funds are secure when that is not true. Crown stated that this should not be a “buyer beware” situation. 2. Dishonesty - Dishonest act- Failure to disclose "As Is" Value. The appraisals were available at the time the investors invested in the SMLs. There is strong evidence that Petrozza had the appraisal as at Aug 16, 2013, and an additional accredited appraisal done Aug 26, 2013 which was given to Rathore and Petrozza of $11 million also not disclosed to investors. There as an email chain where they discussed the Collier appraisal of $6.9 million July 24, 2012 . It is a proven fact that Rathore and Petrozza knew the appraisals were vastly lower than that of Mr Felice & Mr Cheung’s evaluations. The prosecution added that the defence will argue that Rathore & Petrozza had to keep appraisals confidential and away from investors. However, a contractual confidential clause does not negate fraud, and it was not on the investors to request appraisals. 3. Deprivation. The prosecution cited the Theroux fraud case. (The judge in this case held that all that was required for a conviction was a dishonest act which had as a consequence that someone was deprived of something; the fact that Théroux honestly believed that the residences would be built, and that the deposits would not be lost, was no defence to the crime. ) The prosecution continued that there is evidence of Rathore and Petrozza’s knowledge of what the investors were being told. For example, the prosecutor refers to the Sky City training video where Petrozza gives training to the brokers. Petrozza reminds agents of suitability, “Know your client” and “make sure your client fully understands”, but yet does not disclose appraisals. He knew what was in the disclosure forms, and what was NOT in the disclosure forms. In an email chain between Rathore & Petrozza July 4-6 2012- Petrozza asked for an appraisal to Jeff Cheung - Subject line is Appraisal. They discuss the $6.9 appraisal. Petrozza knows $6.9 million figure will be a problem and not sufficient. They discuss the Felice evaluation and say “Felice for the win!” Other evidence from the Sky City documents, and similar email chains. Email between Petrozza and another Fortress employee - Fortress employee Mr Cercosta states “ I don’t even know why we paid or wasted time “ … Petrozza replies “I said get me an appraisal or evaluation of $9.4 million or better! “ Cercosta replies “It’s an insulting joke”, Petrozza replies “ Agreed, but we get what we need to get to the end goal”. Prosecution added there is evidence of one of the witnesses speaking directly to Rathore and Petrozza about the LTV. The evaluators Felice and Cheung did not believe their opinions of values would be passed on to mom and pop investors. On April 2013, Felice called and discussed this with Petrozza and later stopped all communication with Fortress. Counsel stated they were dishonest. They needed to know deprivation could occur. They knew LTV was central to them promoting SMLs. They were dishonest to market these investments as secure when they were not. Their dishonesty was intentional and they were personally involved in marketing. Defence's Closing Argument Defence Counsel Scott Fenton began by stating that the RCMP started investigating Fortress in 2016 and executed multiple search warrants in 2018. They discarded to fraud on 4 projects however Crown abandoned 2 projects which left Sky City and Collier. Note that the judge has previously stated that Fraud only needs to be proven on 1 project for a conviction. He continued by saying that Fortress had over 80 projects, and that many were successful. (Fact Check: Note that this is not accurate. Out of the 80 projects, 18 exited with no payout at all to investors (total loss of over $240 Million; 28 projects exited with partial payouts to investors with losses of $180 Million) The total amount of investor funds never repaid to date is over $400 Million. While some projects were successful, some were also discontinued, some projects were sold to another developer.) During his arguments, he only listed a handful which were successful, and did not submit any evidence showing that "most projects" were successful. The Defence argued that: The brokers had a legal duty under the act that their clients understood risks, and that they understood opinion of value, and that it was not the responsibility of Rathore & Petrozza. (Fact check- Petrozza was actually a licensed broker with Centro/BDMC while also a controlling principal of Fortress and had a duty of care to the investors). Centro/BDMC were investor facing, whereas Fortress was developer facing. That Fortress operated a successful business (Fact Check- while some projects were successful, many projects failed to repay investors, a total of $420 million). In the case of Collier, that the initial developer Mady went bankrupt and that is the “Elephant in the room” (Fact Check-Collier was initially developed by Mady Development Corp; Mady filed for creditor protection January 30 2015; In November 2015 Fortress purchased the Collier Centre and as lead developer they were responsible to repay the SML investors. Fortress later defaulted on its first loan to Morisson. Morrison then listed the property for sale in 2018; in 2019 the property was sold however there were no recoveries to repay the SML investors. Numerous documents were signed by investors Brokers were responsible for explaining terms and conditions to SML investors. Independant Legal Advice (ILA) was provided to investors. (Fact Check: the ILA was arranged and paid for by Fortress) All documents were conveyed to investors via brokerages. The documents that Rathore & Petrozza showed the importance of brokers to disclose information to investors. (Defense shows an email with Petrozza and Rathore stating the importance of ILA training, and that one would arrange a webinar and a checklist- and how this email shows a pro-compliance of Rathore and Petrozza.) Defence continued that the documents stated : “The principals will receive further fees based on the profitability and success of the project” And continued that the brokers had a legal fiduciary duty.” To which the judge asked “Were the fees payable whether the project was successful or not? If they were not profitable and not completed do they have to pay the money back?” The defence replied “ Well investors could have asked” The judge responded” I’m asking you .” He added: “ It was calculated assuming it will be profitable?” Defence responded “ It’s not a fee based on profitability”.’’ He added” Anyone was free to ask” - Note that the courtroom erupted in laughter from the viewers. The Defence continued to focus on the risks, and that these investments were not a guaranteed return, and that it was made very clear how risky it was to investor. The Defence refers to “Declaration 10” that explains fees, how investors will only get net investment over in above fees but not guaranteed. There was addendum to declaration 10 that with schedule C2 that states that Fortress will make money before completion of the project. Investors were fully informed of the risks and fees payable in advance of the project completion. (Fact Check- SML investors did not receive this document, this document may have been provided to accredited investors but mom & pop investors). The judge asked if the money was being used for their own purposes, the document is not clear even to the judge. The Defence responded that the document was not hidden, investors had the right to ask about it . Day 2 of Closing Arguments The Defence Gerald Chan continued with closing arguments. Opinions of value were fully disclosed to investors Opinions of value were independent Fortress was not required to disclose the other valuations/ appraisals in its possession-and in fact was prohibited from doing so Crown's cases are distinguishable (ie. this case differs from a precedent case, and therefore, the precedent's legal reasoning or holding does not apply to the this case due to materially different facts.) The Defence restated that Fortress was developer facing, not investor facing and argued that the brokers dealt with the investors, and had the duty to disclose to investors per regulations- however that regulation was not applicable to Fortress. The Judge responded: “Brokers don’t immunize Fortress from responsibility”. The Defence continued that brokers had all the information. Opinions of value were fully disclosed; opinions of value were independent; the value was based on legally permissible methodologies; and Fortress was not required to disclose any other valuations. He added that investors had the broker and Independant Legal advice (ILA) counsel to guide them. (Fact Check: In 2017 The law society later issued a warning to lawyers regarding providing ILAs for syndicated mortgages due to the Fortress losses and undisclosed risks ). The Defence provided investor witnesses as examples of how they could have asked to discuss with the broker, lawyer and financial advisor, and how another investor did not ask for more time to review the documents. Next the Defence moved to address Opinions of Value, and how the future value with the capitalization rate. The judge asked several questions to understand how this rate was arrived at. The judge asked “To what amount can I use my general knowledge of accounting in this case? He adds that an investor would review Fortress with knowledge of residential mortgages, so could he also consider such knowledge? The Defence responded he was “not sure, I’ll reserve comment, need to use what is in the case”. The Defence and Judge go back and forth with the Defense explaining there are different methodologies to calculate current property value. The Judge asked “Isn’t plain meaning of current market value, is what somebody would pay for something today? He attempts to compare to current value of a car, today, and market is market place. The Defence responded that the developer may pay more money for land anticipating value of future completed project, and that there is no evidence from experts on which evaluation method is the right one. The Judge adds, “Rezoning can change land value, future development can change market value. To take a charge on land, isn’t current value if the project does not go ahead. That isn’t in the stated evaluations. If it’s a material fact, isn’t it the value of the land today, in the event the developer party defaults?” The Defence responds that the duty to report is different, assessments were for the loan to value disclosures. Argues that the current market value was the assessment. The Judge adds, “If a buyer agrees on a big house and then discovers it’s a $500 Canadian Tire shack, isn’t that material and not what the investor agrees to?” The Defence responds: “will get to that. ” Then then head for a break. T he Defence goes back to the brokers’ role, and how brokers provided the investors with all the assessment information, it was not a secret to brokers, and reiterated the legal duty is on the brokers. He added that Fortress provided brokers all the assessment information. The Defence continued and said that the judge cannot rely on common judgment regarding valuation and suggests that property valuation is a murky area. The Judge stated- "that land is usually a stable value short of a market collapse or discovery of contaminants, see “as is” as fairly stable value, not speculative." The Defence went back to positioning Fortress as sourcing investments and dealing with developers and how investors should be reviewing documents and asking questions. Concerning the evaluation by Felice, the Defence stated that Felice was unclear about investors receiving the assessment information. Felice expressed concern to his management and his management told him not to worry. As per the email chains on the evaluation, he argued that the emails do not support undue interference in valuation information. Cheung’s initial land value was low, after back and forth with Vince and project documentation, moved to higher valuation. The 3rd email regarding the 9.5M Sky City valuation was to satisfy some mortgage legal requirement. The Defence added that there is nothing wrong with a developer facing firm to also have a focus on the end goal and working with regulated parties and using independent assessments using legitimate methodology. He then brought up the principal broker Anderson, who was the only broker to testify. The defense pointed out how the Email describes Legacy’s assessment approach and how Anderson agreed to the valuation being used. The Defence ended the day’s arguments by stating that investments were not risk-free, and that this case cannot be deemed as fraud.