Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

How to contact us, whether you have a general inquiry, or whether you are an investor. INVESTOR / GENERAL INQUIRIES Please complete your information below and we will get back to you. If you have any project specific questions, please contact FAAN Mortgages . Thank you. Thank you. We will get back to you shortly. Send

Please wait a moment for the form to load on the screen.

An animated & explanatory timeline of events describing the Fortress Real Development Syndicated Mortgage Investment Fraud charges & the failures of the regulators, and how VOSMI was created. Timeline The Founders of Fortress RDI began working together since 2002. This timeline traces the key milestones, from their early business ventures and the creation of Fortress, to regulatory shortcomings, RCMP investigations, and the criminal legal proceedings that continue today. Please view this timeline slideshow on computer or tablet vs a phone for optimal viewing.

Fortress Project Outcomes – Summary Analysis The following analysis is based on records obtained from FAAN Mortgage Administrators , the court-appointed trustee following the RCMP raid of Fortress. These records include information filed with the court and documentation published by FAAN. During the trial, the defence stated that Fortress had many “successful” projects. While some projects did return investor funds in full, a significant number of projects failed. As shown in the tables below, 28 development projects returned only a portion of the invested principal, while 18 projects did not return any principal to investors. Based on the available records, the total investor loss to date is approximately $428 million. In addition, two projects have not yet exited and remain in distress. Investors seeking information specific to their project status or outcome are encouraged to contact FAAN Mortgage Administrators, the trustee overseeing the administration of these projects. Outcome Summary of Fortress SML Projects (post 2018) Projects with No Repayment to SML Investors Projects with Partial Repayment to SML Investors Projects with Full Repayment to SML Investors Projects in Distress The following is a summary in presentation form of the Fortress Projects and review of total funds paid to investors and total losses. Please view this presentation on your PC or iPad for optimal viewing

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 submission hearing took place on December 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing is to take place on February 2, 2026. "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

Trial Summary These are not official court transcripts. They are observations and summaries of the prosecution & defence questioning and witness testimony. Opening Statements Prosecution Opening Remarks The Prosecution alleges that: Rathore and Petrozza deceived the public by misrepresenting the true land value of the projects in which they were investing  They obtained opinions of value and represented them as actual appraisals to brokers and investors, even though the property value was substantially less than the stated opinion of value Rathore and Petrozza kept a large portion of the investors’ money for themselves, and this was not disclosed to investors Defence Opening Remarks Advance payments to Fortress were disclosed to the public Opinions of value were provided to investors Rathore & Petrozza did not act alone, they had office staff assisting them Fortress retained law firms ( Norton Rose; Gowlings) for tax opinions Fortress used a reputable custodian Olympia Trust, to hold the investors’ funds Many development projects were successful A failed project is not an indicator of fraud Clients are plead not guilty of fraud and secret commissions and the defence seeks acquittal of all charges. Week 1 (Oct 28 -Nov 2024) Witness #1 Investor #1 Prosecution Questioning The first witness was a retired female who put $50,000 in cash in the Collier project with her husband, and $70,000 registered funds into Harmony Village Sheppard. She previously worked in IT and part-time as a real estate agent. She attended a Fortress presentation in Barrie where both Rathore and Petrozza spoke. Materials presented described the investments as: low risk 8% interest loan to value (LTV) 2-year term principal secured by land a statement reading: "The investors get their money back before developers get theirs ". She received interest payments for Collier until January 2015, after which she was notified the project entered receivership. She stopped receiving interest and did not receive her principal back. Harmony Village went into receivership and the investors received 70% repayment once the land was sold. The Prosecution showed the witness an email exchange regarding an Opinion of Value. The email was from Cushman & Wakefield, where they were advising Fortress that it was understood by both parties that the evaluation they were proving for the Collier project was not a formal value. The witness commented that at the presentation she attended, the figure that was provided was referred to as an "appraisal", not Opinion of Value. The Prosecution went through the SML loan documentation and the witness admitted she did not pay attention to details. The prosecution also pointed out a page in the documentation that referred to an “appraisal” of the property, and in another paragraph referring to the “as is” value at $21 million. (Note that "as is" value of a property should be the actual value of the property or of the land- it is not a "built out" value. ) The Prosecution asked if she understood what this meant, to which she replied “just the land”. She also believed the LTV was 85%. They then went through an appraisal report dated June 2012. This is a month or so prior to Cushman Wakefield Opinion of Value. The land value was a mere $7.5 million. The witness was unaware this appraisal existed. The Prosecution went through the Fee Disclosure overview, a document that listed how the money (SML) was being used. legal fee (paid by borrower), mortgage brokerage fee (Centro/BDMC). It listed lawyers, Centro, and brokers. Fortress was not listed. Defence Questioning The Defence emphasized the witness did not read the documents carefully. Now keep in mind, all the presentations and flyers she has seen about Fortress SMLs promoted the SML investment as being low risk, name on title, 8% annual interest etc. The defence asked if her understanding was that the SML was safe? The witness said yes, based on the appraisal value she was given. The defence asked if it was the broker who made her feel at ease? The witness said yes, but it was because of appraisal value making the investment feel safe. The Defence reviewed the FSCO (financial regulator’s form.) The form stated that “brokers, agents or related parties may receive a percentage of profits and may be paid in advance of project completion.” The Defence asked “you don’t recall asking how much Fortress would get paid? ” She replied no. Witness # 2 Principal Broker FDS Prosecution Questioning The FDS Principal Broker testified he oversaw compliance at FDS, broker, training, and documentation review. As Fortress COO, Petrozza provided the brokerages (FDS, FMP, FFM) with the SML documents and compliance videos; Rathore handled the project/development aspects. A Sky City webinar was played where Rathore discussed project highlight, and Petrozza discussed SML terms, and reviewed the project fact sheet which included LTV of 85% and 8% interest. He stated the $18 million evaluation was provided by Global Legacy, and a face value up to $35 million. He mentioned risks ( non-liquid investment, locked in funds). He added that the investment is "secured against the land". He advised brokers met to "scare investors" but to explain disclosures and risks. An August 2013 email revealed a Sky City appraisal of $5.9 million that was not shared with investors and brokers. The witness said if he had known this, it would have been a huge red flag and would have made the investment RRSP non-eligible. The Prosecution went back to the appraisal emails, where the author states the residual value would be $11 million ( based on hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions) to which Petrozza’s email reply to the other Fortress staff is that the appraisal is a "joke of an appraisal", and to "focus on the end goal" Defence Questioning The witness also discussed a regulatory correspondence (FSCO) between the witness, Rathore, Petrozza, Ildina Galati (former principal broker of Centro/BDMC), and other staff. FSCO was seeking to clarify how Fortress and the brokerages were being paid, and the witness suggested to the group that he make a presentation to FSCO. Petrozza responded that the witness should not volunteer to do a presentation. The witness responded to Petrozza that he wanted the regulator to understand what they are doing and that it was" crystal clear". The witness stated to the prosecution that it was the role of Centro/BDMC to obtain and verify the appraisals. (Note that Petrozza was a licensed broker for Centro; while also being COO of Fortress). The appraisals and evaluations were then provided by Centro to the brokerages. The witness was also asked whether he was aware how Rathore & Petrozza were getting paid - the witness responded that he understood they were paid a portion of profits, upon project completion. He said that if Rathore and Petrozza were taking a percentage of the SML funds and paying themselves, it should have been disclosed to investors. The witness advised that all templates and documentation they received describing the KTV, SML advantages, project fact sheets, evaluations, was provided to them by Centro (BDMC) and Fortress. Witness # 3 Investor #2 Prosecution Questioning Another female investor testified she invested $80,000 in Collier and other Fortress projects with her retirement savings. She felt assured that the SML investments were safe and fully secured against the land, based on the information presented to her by Fortress, Centro, and the broker. The Defence highlighted fine print indicating Fortress would be paid before completion and with profits. She acknowledged signing but said this was not made clear to her. The defence stressed that brokers had a duty to explain risks. Witness # 4 FDS President An FDS employee testified that he understood Fortress received 50/50 commission with the developers. When asked what cars Rathore and Petrozza drive, he recalled several luxury vehicles ( Aston Martin, a Ferrari California, a Porsche Panerama, and a Porsche GT3.). Note that the Defence objected, however the judge allowed the question. The Prosecution showed the witness an appraisal. This was the first time he saw it, and confirmed investors were not given it. The evaluation provided to investors was overstated ( $21m vs. actual $7.5m) The defence maintained Fortress SMLs were high risk investments, commissions and risks fully disclosed and signed by investors; all investors were given independent legal advice. Witness # 5 Cushman & Wakefield SVP-Opinion of Value A senior VP at Cushman & Wakefield testified the Opinion of Value provided to Fortress in 2012 was for internal use only, not intended to be an appraisal or shared with the public. He was approached in 2012 by Petrozza, who is his cousin, for an Opinion of Value for the Collier project. Once he leaned it was used publicly, and in brochures, he cut ties with Fortress. The Defence asked the witness if his letter to Fortress indicated that it was to be used for internal purposes only, and the witness replied that the investors, as he understood, were the purchasers of the land. He maintained that he did not intend for the Opinion of Value to be shared with the general public. Week 2 (Nov 4- 5, 2024 Witness # 6 Investor #3 A woman who invested in Sky City and several other projects testified Fortress presentations and documentation led her to believe the SML investments were low risk. The investor met both Rathore and Petrozza. Initially, a couple of the projects paid off. She referred other people to invest as well, however they no longer speak to her. The defence focussed again on signed disclosures, which she stated she did not clearly understand, even calling herself "stupid for failing to comprehend them. Witness # 7 Global Legacy Managing Partner -Opinions of Value A managing partner of Global Legacy testified he is not accredited to provide appraisals, however he does have an MBA. He did not know that "mom & pop” investors would receive his opinions of value. The opinions of value were all based on the information that Fortress supplied to Global Legacy. He expected his opinions of value would be used internally, not shared with the investors. The Defence went into a lengthy presentation that focused on how the Opinion of Value increased over the years and was looking to justify how their Opinions of Value increased. The defence ignored addressing appraisals. Witness # 8 Investor #4 A male investor with $900,000 across 8 projects testified he attended presentations, spoke with the principals over the phone, believed his name would be on title and his investment was secure. Specifically, the security of the investment was the loan to value ratio, and that he would be on the deed of the property. He did not feel his SML investments were risky. He understood that the Opinion of Value and appraisal meant the same thing, and thought his money was being used for the purchase of the land and soft costs as per Petrozza and Rathore. During cross-examination the defence went through documents that he signed. The witness made it clear that he never had documents to review before signing. He understood that Fortress oversaw all facets of every project with the developers. The defence again focused on the risks of investing in syndicated mortgages. The witness explained he attended the defendant’s office a few times and talked to Rathore about any potential risks; he was made to feel that Colliers was a safe investment. Witness # 9 Investor #5 A Mandarin-speaking investor and his wife invested in the Collier project. He first saw an ad in a Chinese newspaper, and later attended a presentation at a Cineplex theatre with 100-200 people in attendance. Rathore and Petrozza were both there, and Rathore spoke to the audience about the success of other projects. The witness thought his money was being used for the project.The witness recalled having a lawyer explain the documents via video, but he and his wife felt the lawyer who spoke to them did not represent them because they didn’t pay a fee for his advice. They were mainly focused on the interest rate on his investment and that their name would be on the land title. He admitted he and his wife went through the documents very quickly with little to no time for review. They felt the risk was very low based on what was presented in the theatre regarding successful Fortress projects. They did not see the risk document and their broker did not explain it. The term “risk” never came up. It was never explained by anyone and their 3rd ranking mortgage was not understood. Upon signing the documents, the witness was never told how much Fortress would get paid. Week 3 (Nov 12-14, 2024) Witness #10 FSCO Employee A former Sr Compliance Officer with FSRA. (formerly FSCO) testified his review of Centro's compliance in 2013 did not extend to investor files. He reviewed only hour institutional lender files-no mom and pop SML investor files. He explained that his examination was to ensure Centro was in compliance with the MBLA. His scope was to review the brokerage policies & procedures, not to audit the brokerage. During this examination he met with the principal broker, Ildina Galati. (who is now deceased). The Prosecutor also went over a letter dated April 2013. This letter provided a summary of findings. Galati responded in the letter that Centro/Fortress will establish separate brokerages. (these brokerages became FMP, FFM & FDS). The Defence went over the role of the FSRA employee, and how the brokerage's role was to take reasonable steps to disclose material risks; and to give each lender the proper lender forms in a language that can be understood by the lender. The Defence stated that certain requirements and provisions only came into effect much later after his Centro review. The Defence also clarified that the witness's examination of Centro was not as a result of a complaint, it was a regular compliance review. The witness stated that the existence of policies and procedures was the main purpose of the exam. Witness #11 Former Fortress Employee-EVP Strategy & Development A former Fortress EVP testified his role was to bring in developer clients, underwrite projects, and secure financial institution backing. He said FI's do not rely on opinions of value and was unaware of how much Rathore and Petrozza were paid from SML proceeds. He confirmed the Sky City land was a parking lot in 2013 when he joined Fortress, and remained a parking lot when he left Fortress in 2017. Emails showed internal pressure to obtain higher appraisals to meet investor expectations. The Prosecutor then went over an email trail between the witness, another Fortress employee and Vince Petrozza with regards to appraisals and construction financing. The appraisal provided by one company is listed as $5.9 million. They discuss how they should look at residual value. In another email Petrozza responds to the other Fortress employee, and removes the witness from the email trail and says"Get me an appraisal of $9.5 Million or better!" Upon cross-examination, the Defence went over an offering memorandum. (Note that an offering memorandum is provided to accredited investors in the exempt market.) The Defence went over this document with the witness, and read the risks that were cited. The witness clarified that this was a security offering and that he was not involved in that side of the business. They went over the different types of exits for projects. 1. Completion- project is built, units complete, proceed to pay back SMIs. 2. Refinance 3. Sale- entire project is sold and cash is paid to SMIs. The Defence asked if the witness was involved in the execution or steps made to pay the SMIs? Who was responsible? The witness responded that he believed it was a combination of Fortress, BDMC, and the Fortress affiliated brokers. Witness # 12 Mady Development Executive Mady was the developer who partnered with Fortress for the Collier project in 2012. Mady sought bankruptcy protection in January 2015. Fortress then took the project over from Mady in 2015. The witness was asked whether they were made aware of the commission that Fortress was taking from the investors' principal and the witness confirmed they were aware. Even though they did not receive the full principal they felt the project would still succeed with the condo sales. Week 4 - Jan 27, 2025 Witness # 12 RCMP Forensic Accountant An RCMP forensic accountant described detailed financial analysis of Fortress (eg Sky City, Collier) tracing investor funds, fee distributions, and who benefited financially. The Defence asked the witness if he knew that the offering memorandum was provided to investors? The witness replied he did not. (note that the OMs were only provided to accredited investors, not to the mom & pop investors).

March 11, 2020 Watch Rose Ray's Video with an update and request of our investors. As per Rose's video, attached below to the right, is the letter that you may use in your email to FAAN mortgages requesting the documents pertaining legal opinions related to your file. Please ensure you sign the letter before you send it to FAAN. Subject line of your email can read: Request for Legal Opinion Documentation Send the letter via email to FAAN i nfo@faanmortgageadmin.com , with a copy (cc) to roseray@bell.net Thank you! Letter to FAAN Requesting Docs.docx

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

Did you Know? What's an LTV and why does it matter? The loan-to-value (LTV) ratio shows how much money is being borrowed compared to the actual value of the land. The land is supposed to be the safety net for investors: if a project fails, the land can be sold and the loan repaid. A lower LTV means more protection, because the land is worth more than the loan. Typically, lenders will not lend more than about 85% of the land’s value. If the land is overvalued, investors are exposed to much greater risk. In the case of Fortress Real Developments, the land values were inflated, and investors were misled into thinking their money was secure, when it wasn't. For example, in the Collier Centre Project (Barrie, ON) investors lent $16.9 million to the project. They were told the land was worth $21.9 million, which suggested an LTV of about 77% -appearing safe. But in reality, an appraisal showed the land was worth only $7 million. The $21.9 Million figure was a future based evaluation. That meant the true LTV was over 200%. This was far riskier than investors had been led to believe.When the project collapsed, the land sale could not cover the debt. Since investors were also ranked fifth in repayment priority, there was no money left to pay them back . Another supposed advantage to investing in Fortress SMLs was the 8% interest rate. This rate 8% was far more attractive than GIC's, or bonds. What you weren't told, was about returns provided in the mortgage market. Under MBLAA, the following comparative information was required by law to be disclosed to you by FSCO licensed parties. Did you know that the private lenders who lend on first mortgages on commercial properties only lend 65% of their as-is appraised value at 9-12%. Land loans on farmland are done by few private lenders and they loan 50% of their as-is appraised value. Private lenders will provide first mortgages on houses up to 80% at 8% return, and on second mortgages lend up to 85% of as-is appraised value at 10-15% for a one year term. Compare these loan to values and returns, to your 8% return at well over 100% of as-is appraised value. Fortress did not provide as-is values. They provided opinions of value, which are not appraisals. Fortress opinions of value were based on future value. You were equity investors in these projects, which means that you should have received an ownership interest in the project and/or share of profits, as you were unknowingly were taking a lot of risk. Even as an equity investor you would not invest if your investment was much more than 100% of as-is appraised value. Fortress stated in their marketing and legal documentation that their LTVs were based on "as is" values- where in reality the LTVs were based on future values. This misrepresentation was detrimental to your investment, because if something went wrong with the project, there would not be enough assets to repay the investments as the loan was much higher than the value of the land. There are a few lenders who provide soft cost loans to developers by way of a first mortgage at 20-30%, plus fees, and these lenders do not postpone to construction financing. Meaning, if they lend money towards a project, they only do so on the condition that their position in rank cannot be moved or postponed. If they lend as 2nd mortgage, they stay at 2nd without any sneaky clauses that postpone them to 3rd. Do you think that this is a good comparison to the Fortress mortgages you invested in? Your return was 8%. Remember how you were promised 2nd mortgage, but you were moved like a hot potato to 3rd, 4th or even 5th mortgage? A private lender would never, ever, sign-off on such an agreement. The reason the lenders charge these rates and fees is because they know that they can lose money if the land is not rezoned and even if it is, that the developer does not get the necessary presales, that they will lose money. All the benefits went to Fortress. They collected a 35% fee and 50% of the profits. The investors took all of the risk and only were to be paid 8%. This structure was completely unfair to investors. Now you understand why the RCMP obtained its search warrant. Fraud, section 380 of the Criminal Code, includes misrepresenting the value and placing the victim at risk of economic harm.

Fortress in the News 2025 Developers found guilty of defrauding investors out of retirement savings in Barrie, Winnipeg May 28, 2025- CBC Fortress Real Developments co-founders found guilty of fraud May 28-Globe & Mail Syndicated mortgage firm co-founders found guilty of massive fraud May 30-2025 CMP 2022 Fortress Real Developments founders charged with fraud in connection with syndicated mortgage probe June 22, 2022 - Financial Post Fortress Founders Charged with Fraud June 22, 2022- Toronto Star Fortress founders charged in mortgage investments scheme June 22, 2022 - Orillia Matters Ottawa senior says he lost life savings investing with company now facing fraud charges July 6, 2022 - CTV News 2021 Former executive of troubled developer Fortress involved in new real estate company September 13, 2021 2020 FSRA Imposes administrative Penalty of $250,000 on Fortress Real Development Inc. September 19, 2020 Planned web series to shine light on alleged Fortress Real scam December 29, 2020- Canadian Real Estate Magazine 2019 Victims cry foul over Fortress Real rewards June 13, 2019 Mortgage Broker News No retirement for 73 year old investor June 11, 2019 Mortgage Broker News 'I still feel ashamed'; investors' life savings held in limbo Jan. 11, 2019 Barrie Today 2018 Lenders to seize 13 real estate projects Oct 25, 2018 Globe and Mail RCMP raid 6 locations in GTA as part of syndicated mortgage fraud Apr. 13, 2018 CBC.ca Canadian police search Fortress office in mortgage fraud probe: sources Apr. 3, 2018 Reuters Trustee to take over Fortress broker in wake of RCMP raid Apr. 20, 2018 The Globe and Mail Fortress investors could face 'significant losses' Jun. 24, 2018 The Globe and Mail Allegations of inflated property values at centre of RCMP syndicated mortgage fraud investigation Jul. 19, 2018 CBC.ca Fortress misled investors about land valuation, RCMP alleges Oct. 21, 2018 The Globe and Mail RCMP allege obstruction in Fortress fraud investigation Oct. 23, 2018 CBC.ca Inside the fall of Fortress Dec. 14, 2018 The Globe and Mail 2017 How a real estate developer's efforts to silence a critic failed Jan. 19, 2017 MacLean's 2016 The high-risk world of syndicated mortgages Apr 29, 2016 The Star Just how safe is the ‘safe’ world of syndicated mortgages? April 4, 2016, MacLean's