The victims of a multi-million dollar Richmond investment fraudster may get some of their money back – but only a small fraction of what they lost.
The B.C. Securities Commission (BCSC) announced this week that it has received almost $70,000 from a third party, unconnected to Paul Oei, who was found in 2017 to have defrauded Chinese immigrants and was ordered to pay $7.6 million back to the BCSC.
The BCSC said that the victims of Canadian Manu Immigration & Financial Services Inc and Oei – who had a penchant for luxury sports cars – could apply to receive some of the compensation.
The commission said it has published a notice about the availability of the funds and investors who lost money as a direct result of Oei’s misconduct can make a claim using this form no later than Aug. 11, 2023.
In 2017, a BCSC panel found that Oei and three companies he controlled committed fraud when they misappropriated investors’ funds and used them for their own purposes.
Oei and his companies raised approximately $13.3 million for two start-up companies, but did not direct all of the investors’ funds toward start-up costs, as investors were told.
Oei was banned from the financial market
In addition to permanent market prohibitions against Oei and the three companies, the panel ordered Oei and Canadian Manu to pay combined administrative penalties of $5.5 million.
The panel also ordered Oei and Canadian Manu to pay approximately $3.1 million for the amount obtained from wrongdoing.
With files from Graeme Wood
The Richmond News reported last summer how the BCSC filed an application to ICBC — the first of its kind — to prevent Oei from renewing his driver's licence.
Oei had appealed the application, saying he needed a licence in order to drive his father-in-law to a hospital in the event of an emergency. He noted his wife could not do so, as she was working full-time.
He also claimed a licence would help him find a job; Oei told the panel he had applied to become a car salesman although at the time he was starting a “customer support role for a communications company,” according to the BCSC ruling.
The BCSC panel found no evidence he required a car to find meaningful employment; his argument that he needed a vehicle in emergencies for his father-in-law didn’t hold water considering an ambulance can be called in such instances, according to the panel.
With files from Graeme Wood/Glacier Media
