OSC v. Saileshwar Rao Narayan and others (ponzi schemes, 2016)

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-saileshwar-rao-narayan-ponzi-schemes-2016) by email

In 2016 the Ontario Securities Commission reciprocated an Alberta Securities Commission order against Saileshwar Rao Narayan and two companies that raised more than $5.8 million without investing it in mortgages, and on December 15, 2016 imposed market bans. The $300,000 penalty is Alberta's.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

C$300k

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. This regulator states penalties in CAD. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

The Alberta decision of August 11, 2016 found that Narayan raised more than $5.8 million through Prospera Mortgage Investment Corporation and Prosperity Development Group, of which about $1.8 million was seized, and that he admitted some investors were repaid from other investors' money, one aspect of what the panel called a Ponzi-like scheme. Alberta ordered permanent bans and an administrative penalty of $300,000, not the $350,000 staff had sought.

The Ontario decision of December 15, 2016 reciprocates the bans and imposes no financial penalty of its own. The record showed a $350,000 penalty (the figure staff requested in Alberta) and the outcome as filed.

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. 2016-09-29 Statement of Allegations
2. 2016-09-30 Notice of Hearing
3. 2016-10-31 Reasons and Decision
4. 2016-12-15 Reasons and Decision
5. 2016-12-15 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
• Statement of Allegations
• Notice of Hearing
• 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.