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.
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.
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.
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.
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).