Sign up for our newsletter! 
Click here.

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

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

Criminal Trial - R. v. Rathore & Petrozza The criminal trial of R vs Rathore & Petrozza, principals of Fortress Real Developments Inc., began in October 2024 and concluded with a verdict in May 2025. A sentencing submissions took place on December 3, 2025, and the sentencing hearing is scheduled on February 2, 2026. This page provides key information about the trial, its outcomes and related media coverage. About the Criminal Trial Trial Background Courthouse Location Q & A Media Coverage Up Trial summary Crown Prosecutor, Defense opening arguments & witness testimonies Read More > closing arguments Summary of Crown Prosecutor & Defense closing arguments Read More > Verdict Justice D Moores verdict & reason for decision Read More > Sentencing Sentencing Submission Hearing Dec 3/25 Read More >

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.

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

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 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

Mitchell Wine & Margaret Waddell legal team About the legal team Click here to read Mitchell Wine's bio. Click here to read Margaret Waddell's bio. Class Action Law Suit The actions relate to the SMLs registered on five different Fortress real estate developments: Collier Centre – Barrie, ON (only with respect to the original loan) Progress Manors Ten88 – Toronto, ON Sutton/The Link – Burlington, ON Harmony Village Lake Simcoe/The Kemp – Barrie, ON Orchard Calgary – Calgary, AB Partial settlements were reached and approved by Justice Perrell on January 13, 2023. Further details, including the statements of claim, and contact information are available on the Sotos Class Action website -(enter "Fortress" in the search bar) Settlement and payouts are carried out by FAAN Mortgage Administrators, Further details on payouts can be found on FAAN's website .

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

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