Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

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).

News stories related to Syndicated Mortgage Investments, Fortress Real Developments, and the Regulators of Ontario who failed the investors. Media/News article s Fortress in the News Regulators in the News Nov 30, 2017 Dec 17, 2018 VOSMI in the News "Fortress Real Developments co-founders found guilty of fraud" - Globe & Mail Feb 2, 1018 Feb 2, 1018

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.

Feb 3, 2020 Watch Rose Ray's Update regarding our potential class action law suit.

Coming soon! Check back later.

" 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

May 13, 2020 Update Please watch the video below from Rose Ray. To date we have received a total of $14,000 in contributions to help fund the investigation of our potential class action law suit. Those funds will be advanced by the admins of VOSMI to the investor who fronted the $50,000. If you have not yet contributed $100 towards this endeavor, please complete this form . You may pay via credit card or an transfer . Instructions included in the link provided .

Darryl Levitt Law Darryl Levitt practises law Ontario and is also qualified as a lawyer in South Africa. His area of expertise is corporate finance, energy, and white collar crime investigations. Darryl has worked on many high-profile assignments including the merger of Petro Canada and Suncor for a value of $55bn, the IPO of First Uranium for $265m, the RTO of Pelawan and concurrent financing of $165m. He has also worked on public interest matters including the recent Air Ethiopia aviation disaster, and a large multinational securities law violations case and whistleblower filings. Prior to starting to his own practice, Darryl was a senior lawyer at two multinational law firms. Darryl has consistently been recognized by his peers and clients by the independent WWL as a leading global practitioner in his area of practise. Darryl Levitt Law Counsel Deloitte Building 400 Applewood Crescent Suite 100 Vaughan ON, L4K 0C3 Darryl@darryllevitt.com Reception: 905-482-8089

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.

Coming up! February 2, 2026 Sentencing Hearing Courthouse Details: Location: 10 Armoury Street, Toronto, Ontario (walking distance from subways & City Hall) Room # TBD Start Time 10 am Court is Open to the Public Tried by judge only (no jury) Zoom is not available. JOIN US! About the trial Fortress Criminal Trial R. v Rathore & Petrozza Fortress Real Developments raised more than $920 Million from thousands of everyday investors through syndicated mortgage investments. It is alleged that the company's founders misrepresented the nature and risk of these investments during sales and promotional activities, leading to significant financial losses for investors. In June 2022, following a lengthy investigation by the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team (IMET), Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza were criminally charged with Fraud and Secret Commissions. 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. Key dates: April 13, 2018 : RCMP executed their search warrants and production orders. June 22, 2022 : Rathore & Petrozza are charged with Fraud & Secret Commissions May 28, 2025 : Trial Commences December 3, 2025 : Sentencing Submission Hearing February 2, 2026: Sentencing Hearing 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. The Crown later chose to focus the trial on the fraud charges. 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 the focus of 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. 8. Who is the defence? Gerald Chan for Vince Petrozza, and Scott Fenton for Jawad Rathore. 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