OSC v. Jiubin Feng and CIM International Group Inc. (2021)
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.
In 2021 Ontario Securities Commission staff alleged that CIM International Group and its chief executive Jiubin Feng diverted at least $3.39 million of a $10 million debenture offering to other Feng real estate projects. The tribunal's November 2023 order imposed permanent market bans, a $500,000 penalty on each respondent, $7.63 million of joint disgorgement and $206,769.34 in costs.
The record
| Agency | OSC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 2021-27 |
| Date filed | 2021-07-21 |
| Date resolved | 2023-11-14 |
| Court | Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario) |
| Status | judgment |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | trading ban |
| Defendants | Jiubin Feng ; CIM International Group Inc. |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Ontario Securities Act s.126.1 |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- C$500k
What is alleged to have happened
CIM raised $10 million in 2017-2018 from 36 investors in Ontario, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom by selling three-year debentures, telling them the proceeds would be lent to a Richmond Hill townhouse development. Staff alleged that Feng diverted at least $3.39 million to other Feng projects and to CIM's own expenses.
The tribunal's merits and sanctions decisions ran from 2022 to November 14, 2023. The final order bans Feng and CIM from trading and from acting as registrants or promoters permanently, bars Feng from being a director or officer, imposes a $500,000 administrative penalty on each of Feng and CIM, orders them jointly to disgorge $7,630,000 and to pay $206,769.34 in costs. The record showed a $750,000 penalty, which matches neither respondent.
No technique tag is applied. The single reference to a Ponzi scheme is inside a comparison case the respondents' counsel and staff cited on penalty amounts; the diversion of offering proceeds is not described as a Ponzi scheme.
Timeline
- 2021-07-19 Statement of Allegations
- 2021-07-21 Notice of Hearing
- 2021-09-02 Reasons and Decision
- 2021-12-14 Reasons and Decision
- 2022-03-10 Reasons and Decision
- 2022-09-22 Reasons and Decision
- 2023-03-15 Reasons and Decision
- 2023-04-18 Reasons and Decision
- 2023-11-14 Reasons and Decision
- 2023-11-14 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.