Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

September 13, 2019 We held our first protest on September 13, 2019. The participants included Fortress investors, as well as Tier 1 investors, seeing as investors from both groups were failed by the regulators of Ontario. 80-100 protestors attended! But we won't stop there. Our next process is scheduled for October 4th, 2019 at Queen's Park. Read Nick Boisvert's CBC article here .

Sentence On February 2, 2026, Justice D Moore delivered his sentence to Rathore & Petrozza. Each are to serve 5 years in prison Each to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $12.2 million payable within 10 years following release from custody A further 5 yrs in prison in default of fine payment A DNA order A 10 year prohibition order pursuant to s.380.2 of the Criminal Code It is unknown at this stage if there will be any restitution for the investors of Collier and Sky City Reason for sentencing read here . Sentencing Submission Hearing December 3, 2025 What is a sentencing submission hearing? A sentencing submission hearing is where the Crown and defence lawyers argue for different penalties after a guilty plea or conviction, presenting aggravating/mitigating factors, while judges consider these arguments, Victim Impact Statements , and reports (like Pre-Sentence Reports) to decide a fit sentence, which can range from fines to jail, often following joint submissions in plea deals or occurring later for more complex cases The following is a Summary of the Sentencing Submission Hearing that took place on December 3, 2025. We would like to thank those who attended in person. The courtroom was standing room only - another room had to be made available due to the overflow. This summary is not an official court transcript. The sentencing will be delivered on February 2, 2026. CROWN SUBMISSIONS Crown counsel Scott Patterson opened by stating that “Rathore and Petrozza’s legacy is that of deceit and greed.” He recommended that each defendant serve 10 years in prison, along with: Either a restitution order for the remaining loss of $26 million ($13M per defendant), or A fine in lieu of forfeiture, requiring the defendants to repay the outstanding amount; failure to pay the fine would result in the defendants returning to custody for an additional term, And a prohibition order under s. 380.2 of the Criminal Code prohibiting them from obtaining, seeking, or continuing any employment or volunteer role that involves authority over another person’s money, real property, or valuable security. After outlining the Crown’s position, Patterson read the Victim Impact Statements from the investor witnesses. He also submitted the Community Victim Impact Statement, which echoed many of the same themes and harms described in the individual statements. The Community Victim Impact Statement can be read here. "Rathore and Petrozza’s legacy is that of deceit and greed”. Scott Patterson Crown Prosecutor Aggravating Factors Identified by the Crown 1. Magnitude of the Fraud – $35 million* Supported by four independent sources: 1. Affidavit of Daniel Sobel, Managing Director, FAAN Mortgages Inc. ( trustee with full access to BDMC records) 2. Tranche schedules listings of all investors 3. RCMP Cpl. Yu’s financial analysis 4. RCMP Cpl. Laroche’s files of all investor forms and data confirming LTV language throughout 2. Material Deceit Security and LTV were central promises to investors. Misrepresentations appeared in sales decks, 9D/FSCO forms, investor training, and promotional materials. The “Real Security, Real Returns” slogan provided false assurances. Personal assurances were made by Rathore & Petrozza to witnesses; ILA was paid for by Fortress. Fortress targeted “mom and pop” investors seeking safe, secured mortgages. 3. Causation and Knowledge Both defendants knew the true “as-is” values. Mortgaging reached 300% LTV, far beyond bank norms. Losses directly resulted from their deceit. 4. Nature of the Fraud Sophisticated, planned, and motivated by greed. Inflated valuations were deliberately sought (including from Petrozza’s cousin Felice). Marketing campaigns targeted both English-speaking and Cantonese-speaking communities. Over 800 investors were affected. The consequences were “devastating and catastrophic.” Mitigating Factor Neither defendant has a prior criminal record. Note that a total of over $80 million in SML funds were raised for both projects however the crown focused on specific tranches of Sky City and Collier to arrive at the $35 million figure. Welcome visitors to your site with a short, engaging introduction. Double click to edit and add your own text. Read More "Fortress was a legitimate business, unlike a Ponzi scheme." Gerald Chan Defence Council for Vince Petrozza Defence Submissions Defence counsel Gerald Chan , acting for Mr. Petrozza, opened the defence submissions and addressed the court on behalf of both defendants. Chan argued that the recommended sentence is “grossly excessive.” Key positions included: Fortress was a legitimate business, not a Ponzi scheme. No trust relationship existed between the defendants and investors; brokers held that duty. Many Fortress projects exited successfully. Investors relied primarily on brokers, not Rathore or Petrozza. Justice Moore challenged these assertions, noting: Witnesses testified they trusted both defendants directly. Rathore and Petrozza participated in sales presentations and broker training. Defence Position on Fraud Amount & Sentence Defence argued the fraud should apply only to the five investor-witnesses, avoiding the mandatory minimum. A conditional sentence with repayment to only those five witnesses, Or, if the fraud applies to all investors (> $1M), a reduced sentence of 3–5 years. Additional Defence Arguments No intention to cause loss-at worst “recklessness.” Many projects were successful; therefore, the model “worked.” There was a level of risk Appraisals were based on a “credible method,” not intended as “as-is” values. The developer (Mady) was responsible for the failures. FAAN’s affidavit should not be relied on; RCMP Cpl. Yu’s tracing was “unreliable.” There was not an element of secrecy. Absence of causation-no direct link that Rathore & Petrozza caused the loss to the investors. Claimed the defendants injected their own funds to save the projects. Defendants have no prior criminal record. "But where did all the investors money go?" Justice Daniel Moore Justice Moore responded with several points, and raised several questions, including: Security is supposed to protect the principal. If there is no security, the principal cannot be recovered. Investors supplied all equity and bore all risk, where the developer Mady did not put up any equity and had a 50% stake in the project. Asked the Defence whether there is any evidence of expenses Mady and Fortress incurred? (The defence replied "no".) Sky City began and remained a parking lot; no value was created. Where did all the investors' money go? What about priority? Were they (Rathore & Petrozza) behind or ahead of investors? (Defence was going to “check”) Security was eliminated through inflated valuations. Personal Circumstances Raised Letters of Support for Petrozza Chan presented two letters of support from Petrozza’s family members. One from his wife, and another from his father. Petrozza is 50 has 3 children. His parents are elderly and hopes to care for them as well as his extended family. It was also noted that Petrozza's early career was with Scotiabank. (note that Chan conveniently failed to mention his previous business with Rathore, Phoenix. Rathore & Petrozza were banned for life from dealing with Securities due to a stock manipulation scheme from 2007-2009 and were fined $3 million.) No Restitution Defence provided no restitution proposal for Petrozza No Fine in Lieu of Forfeiture Defense argued that: Forfeiture should be based on what defendants personally gained, not investor losses. Claimed defendants lacked full control over the funds. Repeated that constable Yu’s information is unreliable on criminal sentencing or liability. Justice Moore responded with several points, and raised several questions, including: There is no other suggestion that there were other operating minds of Fortress other than Rathore & Petrozza? The defense replied “No”. Tranche schedules are accurate, registered documents. “ What about tranche schedules? Are you saying that I can’t rely on the tranche schedules- that means Fortress didn’t get that money? Where would the money go?” The defence responded: “What did they receive personally is my submission. The test is what came into the offender’s possession or control.” The judge responded: “ Aren’t they in control of the company?” Prohibition Issue Defence argued that would be an issue as they would not ne able to seek gainful employment and stated “ This is not a case where the defendants handled the victims funds.” Distinguishable? Justice Moore asked Chan if the defendants are distinguishable in relation to a fine or restitution, and the sentence since profits were split 80% Rathore and 20% Petrozza. Chan responded that it should be the same sentence/fine for both. "Fortress was a lawful and successful business, and that in no way was it a scam." Scott Fenton Defence Council for Jawad Rathore Read our Fortress Project analysis here. B ased on court and trustee records the total loss to date to investors is $420 Million. Is this success? Defence counsel Scott Fenton Defence counsel Scott Fenton, acting for Mr. Rathore, continued with the defence submissions and stated that he adopts Chan’s positions. He stated that his client maintains his innocence and has respect for the court, and that Rathore feels badly for the investors losing their money. Fenton raised several factors: Fortress was a lawful and successful business, and in “no way” a scam. He added that: Rathore & Petrozza deserve recognition for the projects that were successful. Fortress had a standard financing model where they would get SMLS (investors money) for the soft costs. It was not a Ponzi scheme, and unfortunately those projects failed. The Judge asked: “Did they all have a model where the developer got 50% with no money down?” (No answer from Fenton). Defence continued: Rathore genuinely wanted the projects to be successful and pay back the investors. SML’s were not safe, & that they were speculative. Investors were told their loan ranked no more than 2nd, subordinated by construction loans. The judge asked: “Did you not see the promotional material and forms?” . Fenton replied: “OK, the form had a mistake. I’m saying it’s relevant to moral culpability.” Fenton continued: “How does the court sentence Jawad and Petrozza when most of the projects were successful?” The Judge replied: “When you’re dealing with people investing in mortgages, the value is important if the project doesn’t work.” Singular feature between Collier and Sky City was Mady, the developer, as Mady went bankrupt. The judge asked “Don’t developers invest capital in the project they’re building?” "Did you not see the promotional material and forms?" Justice Daniel Moore View examples of the Fortress Promotional Material here About Jawad Rathore & his family Jawad is 49. Has no criminal history. Although Fenton did not produce any letters for Rathore, he explained that Rathore has 6 young children, 3 of which have learning disabilities, and their mother has an auto-immune disease. He also has elderly parents (mother has early-onset dementia). No Submissions for Repayment for Jawad Rathore Fenton was asked by the judge if Rathore has any submissions for Rathore’s ability to repay the victims.Fenton stated he has no submissions for repayment. Crown Closing Statements Patterson emphasized: There was a breach of trust: the defendants created the business model and financing scheme. They knew opinions of value were not “as is”. They withheld the truth and lied directly to their investors. There is a direct line between their activities and the risk.They told the LTV was never to exceed 80%. They knew it was not secure, and mortgaged loans up to 300%. Investor losses stemmed directly from the defendants’ actions, not from Mady. Rathore & Petrozza controlled the flow of investor funds.FAAN’s records are consistent and corroborated. Statement by Jawad Rathore Rathore spoke briefly (without addressing victims): “I’m speaking on behalf of myself and Mr Petrozza. Vince and I started this business 16 years ago. We always had the best intentions for all stakeholders. When we took projects it was with intentions of them being successful. We just wanted to share with the court that we had the best intentions. We appreciate the opportunity”. Next Court Date Sentencing is scheduled for February 2, 2026. The court will attempt to make Zoom available. More details to follow.

Closing Arguments (Apr 1-2, 2025) Day 1 Crown Prosecution's Closing Argument The prosecution began by restating the charges against the defendants, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations. Originally there were two charges- Fraud and Secret Commissions on four development projects, however the Crown narrowed this to Fraud on two projects: Collier and Sky City . Crown counsel Vallery Bayly highlighted the three elements of fraud. Deceit, Dishonesty & Deprivation. 1. Deceit 2. Dishonesty 3. Deprivation 1. Deceit The prosecution argued that promotional contained falsehoods. Documents used terms like "as is" and described Loan to Value "LTV" based on current value, and called the investment secured without clarifying that the values were opinions, not actual appraisals. Materials shows included a “What is LTV ?” slide stating “proper evaluations are essential” without indicating the basis for the LTV, and a pamphlet explaining appraisals and "why LTV matter s". The appraisal section of the FSCO investor disclosure firm, showed an appraisal of $21 Million, however this was this was the opinion of value, ie the future value. In some documents the "project value" line was left blank, yet the i n the Law Society disclosure form, point #9 indicates “I am satisfied that current value is $21 Million, LTV 85%. The prosecution stressed that investors testified about security and LTV being import to their investments and argued that forms should have been honest. It was not acceptable to tell investors their funds were secure when that was not true. The Crown stated this was not a "buyer beware" situation. 2. Dishonesty The prosecution argued the the failure to disclose actual "as is" appraisals was dishonest . Evidence suggested that Petrozza had an appraisal as of August 16, 2013, and anther $11 million appraisal, both not provided to investors. Emails discussed a July 24, 2012 appraisal of $6.9 million, demonstrating that Rathore and Petrozza knew real estate appraisals were much lower than the figures presented publicly. The prosecution anticipated the defence would argue that appraisals had to be kept confidential, 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, noting that a dishonest act resulting in deprivation alone suffices conviction- even if the defendants honestly believed in the completion of projects. Prosecution emphasized evidence showing: Rathore and Petrozza were investors were told and not told - they provided training and were personally involved in the marketing materials Training videos and emails demonstrated knowledge of disclosure omissions . 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”. Evaluators confirmed they did not intend their opinions of value to be shared with mom and pop investors. The Crown concluded that the defendants knowingly marketed the investments as secure when they were not, and this dishonesty caused deprivation to the investors. Defence's Closing Argument Scott Fenton began by noting the RCMP lengthy investigation and explaining that the Crown narrowed the charged to two projects. Fenton argued that: Fortress had over 80 projects, and many were successful . (Note that this statement was not supported by evidence. To review a Fortress project analysis, please refer here. 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. During his arguments, he only listed a handful which were successful. ) Brokers had a legal duty under the act to ensure their clients understood risks and the opinions of value, and this responsibility did not lie with Rathore & Petrozza. (Note: 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). Fortress was developer facing, while Centro/BDMC were investor facing The Defence stressed that: Investors could have asked questions or reviews materials more carefully. 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. 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. At one point, the judged 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?” and the t he 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” and added” Anyone was free to ask” (Note that the courtroom erupted in laughter from the viewers.) The defence continued to emphasize risk disclosure and argued that the evidence did not support a finding of fraud. Day 2 Defence Closing Arguments Defence Gerald Chan reiterated that: 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 argued that: Fortress was not investor-facing, and disclosures to investors were made by brokers and lawyers. 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 judge cannot rely on common market judgement about valuation methods. Different valuation methodologies exist, and the evidence did not conclusively show misuse. In exchange with the judge about valuation methodology the defence argued that anticipated future value could legitimately affect valuations and that property valuation is a "murky area". The defence also stated that email chains did not demonstrate undue interference in valuation information and that working with developers and using independent assessments was lawful. The closing argument ended with the defence maintaining that the case did cannot be deemed as fraud.

Unsere Services entdecken und Kontakt aufnehmen Unsere Services 01. Custom Project Unleash your unique vision with our bespoke service, designed to bring your most ambitious ideas to life. We collaborate closely to define project scope, requirements, and deliverables, ensuring a tailored approach from inception to completion. This service is perfect for initiatives that require a one-of-a-kind solution and specialized execution. Experience innovation and receive an outcome precisely matching your distinct needs. Mehr anzeigen 02. Personal Solution Planning Discover tailored strategies designed specifically for your individual needs and goals. Our process involves in-depth discussions to fully understand your unique situation and aspirations. We then develop a clear, actionable plan to help you achieve desired outcomes efficiently. Benefit from personalized attention and expert advice crafted just for you. Mehr anzeigen 03. Expert Guidance Package Navigate complex challenges with our comprehensive guidance package, designed to provide clarity and direction. We offer expert insights and strategic recommendations based on extensive industry knowledge. This package ensures you have the support needed to make informed decisions and move forward with confidence. Achieve your objectives with a clear roadmap and expert-level support. Mehr anzeigen

Fortress Promo Material The following are examples of the promotional material used by Fortress in promoting syndicated mortgage investments. Collier Termsheet Termsheet for the Collier project which was presented to the Syndicate Mortgage investors. Notice the terminology: "Face amount of your investment is fully Registered & Secured via a charge against the property." Sky City Ternsheet Similar features are repeated in this term sheet which was provided to the investors. Note that the theme of these promo materials are the same across all of Fortress projects. "Face amount of your investment is fully Registered & Secured via a charge against the property." This project began as a parking lot, and ended as a parking lot. Where did all the investors money go? Services This is your Services section. This is a great place to give more information about the services you provide. You can write a general description of what your business offers then add more details below. This section can be adapted for your website. You may choose to highlight other things like courses or programs, or to share special features about your business that you want to promote. Double click on the text box to edit the text and make it your own. Custom Project Personal Solution Planning Expert Guidance Package

We are in this Together. Help by Contributing. VOSMI is completely administered on a volunteer basis, with the goal to inform the Fortress investors of the latest developments in possible class action law suits, to clarify questions related to project status, and also simply to help investors understand how this fiasco happened to them. The costs related to VOSMI are two-fold. First, there are costs associated with running the website and email newsletters (via Wix platform). This cost is approximately $700 per year. The second cost is the research that has been undertaken with regards to Class Action Law suits. In order to launch a Class Action Law suit, an intense amount of research is required to review whether a law suit is viable. In 2019, an anonymous investor contributed $50,000 in 2019 in order to start the work. A further contribution of $10,000 was paid by investor Rose Ray to help cover legal and other costs. The work of the investigative team led by Darryl Levitt and his team , was instrumental in the recent class action law suit launched by Groia & Company law firm against Brad Lamb. Unfortunately, Groia & Company decided to not to pursue the law suit against Brad Lamb as they did not feel it was viable. On the other hand, the report created by the investigative team has also been shared with lawyers Mitchell Wine and Margaret Waddell who have current class action law suits in the works . We are asking the investors (and also any referral agents or brokers) to help compensate for our costs by contributing $25 or whichever amount you can afford. Simply click the button below, and you can either make the contribution with your credit card via Paypal, or an e-transfer via your own online banking to info@vosmi.ca . We appreciate your support. After all, we are all in this together. Contribute

Vosmi in the News 2019 Victims Fight Back against Regulator and the Law Society of Ontario September 19, 2019 Canadian Fraud News Investors who lost millions in syndicated mortgages call for changes at law society September 13, 2019- CBC News Victims cry foul over Fortress Real rewards June 13, 2019 - Canadian Professional Mag 2022 Ottawa senior says he lost life savings investing with company now facing fraud charges July 6, 2022 CTV News 2021 Investors who lost millions launch petition calling for federal attention on Fortress deals February 17, 2021 2020 Fortress cancels major high-rise project in Winnipeg, leaves investors hanging October 7, 2020 PC Mag Lot that was supposed to be home to SkyCity, Winnipeg's tallest tower, now up for sale Oct 2, 2020 CBC

" Independent Legal Advice" Most of our members received "Indpendent Legal Advice" prior to investing the Fortress Syndicated Mortgages. We conducted a survey from 154 investors. These are the survey results. ILA Member Survey Results.pdf

Regulators in the news 202 0 FSRA Imposes administrative Penalty of $250,000 on Fortress Real Development Inc. September 19, 2020 2018 Ontario watchdog revokes licence of Fortress' lead mortgage broker Feb 2, 2018 Financial Post FSCO reaches $1.1 million settlement over syndicated mortgages Feb. 2, 2018 Financial Post Regulators leave Fortress investors exposed to mortgage industry Dec. 16, 2018 The Globe and Mail Fortress investors call for restitution from regulator Dec. 17, 2018 The Globe and Mail 2017 The lax oversight of syndicated mortgage is hurting Ontario investors with little relief in sight April 24, 2017 Financial Post Canada regulator ignored warnings on risky mortgage investments Nov 30, 2017 Reuters 2016 Regulators put syndicated mortgages in their crosshairs Nov , 2016, MacLeans Ontario urged to boost financial protection for consumers June 20, 2016 The Star

October 4, 2019 Protest-Legislative Assembly, Toronto Protest at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Queen's Park, Toronto. The protest took place to highlight the following: Increase Public awareness of the Ontario Regulators’ Failure to Protect the public with respect to Syndicated Mortgage Investments (which impacted Investors across Canada) Warn the Public they too shall become Victims of Fraud unless the Regulators radically change their processes, investigations & penalties by being proactive in intercepting perpetrators vs reactive & complaint based. Demand increased Funding for the Police to investigate White Collar Crime. Increase Public’s awareness of VOSMI, encourage investors to come forward & join our group Highlight that the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, & the NDP have done nothing to show support or advocacy for 16,000 victims of Fraud. (14,000 Fortress Victims & 1600 Tier 1 Victims) Huge thanks to Roy Long from the Green Party, who took the time to speak to the investors about his concerns over white collar crime, specifically on seniors. Over 80 members attended the Queen's Park protest! Since Andrew Scheer was in the vicinity, we marched over to his bus, hopping to voice our concerns. We waited over 2 hours meet him- however he snuck through the back door.

VOSMI is an information & resource website for Fraud Victims of Syndicated Mortgage Investments, related to Fortress Real Development Syndicated Mortgages. VOSM I is a non-profit group 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 information, raise awareness, and support one another. Fortress Real Developments raised over $920 million in syndicate mortgage investments from 14,000 "mom & pop" investors between 2008 and 2017, to help finance over 50 development projects. Investors were led to believe these were safe, low risk investments. After a lengthy and complex investigation which began in 2018, the RCMP charged the principals of Fortress on June 22, 2022 with Fraud and Secret Commissions. On May 28, 2025 the duo were found guilty of fraud. They were each sentenced to 5 years in prison, and served a fine. Read here for further details on the sentencing.Rathore and Petrozza are appealing the decision while they are currently on bail. Guilty of Fraud Read More Vince Petrozza and Jawad Rathore were the co-founders of Fortress Real Developments. Fortress partnered with over 25 real estate developers on over 50 projects. Read the timeline to learn more about the Fortress Syndicated Mortgage scheme. Timeline "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 FORTRESS TRIAL R. v Rathore & Petrozza The Real Numbers 14,000 investors The number of Canadians that invested in Fortress Real Developments syndicate mortgage loans $920 Million The total amount raised by Fortress Real Developments from the syndicate mortgage investors $420 Million Total funds lost to date by the Fortress syndicate investors.