OSC v. 2002 Concepts Inc. and others (ponzi schemes, 2017)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (osc-2002-concepts-inc-ponzi-schemes-2017) by email

In 2017 the Ontario Securities Commission reciprocated a British Columbia Securities Commission order against Thomas Williams, his Global Wealth entities and four individuals over a Ponzi scheme that also diverted about $6 million to people with fraud histories. Its March 29, 2017 order imposes market bans.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars.

What is alleged to have happened

The British Columbia panel found that Williams and the Global entities operated a Ponzi scheme and diverted roughly $6 million of investor money, and imposed bans and penalties ranging from $5,000 to $15 million, plus disgorgement. Staff asked the Ontario commission to reciprocate under section 127(10).

The respondents did not take part. The commission's order of March 29, 2017 bans the Global entities permanently from trading and from acting as registrants or promoters, and imposes trading, director and registrant bans on the individuals that run until fixed dates or until the British Columbia payments are made. Ontario imposed no monetary penalty of its own. The record showed the matter as dismissed, apparently from the phrase describing a claim the British Columbia panel itself dismissed.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the tribunal or the court it relies on describes money from later investors being used to pay earlier ones. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Ponzi schemes — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2017-01-10 Notice of Hearing
2. 2017-01-10 Statement of Allegations
3. 2017-01-30 Reasons and Decision
4. 2017-03-29 Reasons and Decision
5. 2017-03-29 Reasons and Decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Tribunal proceeding
• Notice of Hearing
• Statement of Allegations
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.