OSC v. Duncan Cleworth and others (ponzi schemes, 2014)

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-duncan-cleworth-ponzi-schemes-2014) by email

In 2015 the Ontario Securities Commission imposed sanctions on Duncan Cleworth, Powerwater Systems Inc. and Powerwater USA Ltd., reciprocating a 2013 Connecticut Banking Commissioner order.

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

Ontario Securities Commission staff filed a statement of allegations on May 14, 2014 seeking an inter-jurisdictional order reciprocating an October 2013 Connecticut Department of Banking order against Powerwater Systems Inc., its president Duncan Cleworth and Powerwater USA Ltd. The Connecticut order found that they sold unregistered securities from 2004 to 2013 and that the conduct was a fraud, and the tribunal's March 17, 2015 reasons record that about $937,000 of at least $1.3 million raised was used to pay earlier investors in a Ponzi scheme and $359,000 for Cleworth's own use. The Connecticut order fined the companies $225,000 and $200,000 and Cleworth $225,000.

The unregistered-offering finding is made under Connecticut law and relied on here only to support a reciprocal Ontario order, so the unregistered distributions tag has been removed and the ponzi schemes tag kept.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes, based on the conduct the document describes. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

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. 2014-05-14 Notice of Hearing
2. 2014-05-14 Statement of Allegations
3. 2014-06-26 Reasons and Decision
4. 2014-09-08 Reasons and Decision
5. 2014-12-11 Reasons and Decision
6. 2015-03-17 Reasons and Decision
7. 2015-03-17 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
• 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.