Ontario Securities Commission: disclosure application by Davide Amato and S.A. Capital Growth Corp. (2015)

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-davide-amato-2015) by email

In May 2015 the Ontario Securities Commission decided an application by Davide Amato and S.A. Capital Growth Corp., who describe themselves as victims of an alleged Ponzi scheme, for disclosure of material the commission had gathered in its investigation. It is a disclosure ruling, not an enforcement action against them.

The record

Structured fields for this action, as recorded in our case library.
Agency	OSC
Date filed	2015-05-29
Court	Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario)
Status	judgment
Criminal parallel	No
Defendants	Davide Amato (individual) ; S.A. Capital Growth Corp. (entity)
Techniques

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

Commission staff had investigated an alleged Ponzi scheme and examined witnesses under section 13 of the Securities Act. Amato and S.A. Capital, who say they lost money in it, applied under section 17 for permission to use staff's material in their civil litigation against lawyers and others. The commission's reasons of May 29, 2015 allow disclosure of part of what was sought, limited to use in that civil action.

The title previously read "OSC v. Davide Amato" and listed Amato as the defendant. He is the applicant, not a respondent, and no sanction was sought or imposed against him.

No technique tag is applied: the document is a procedural ruling on access to investigation material, and the alleged scheme is background.

Timeline

2015-05-29 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.

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

Record added September 10, 2026. submit a correction.