OSC v. Weizhen Tang (ponzi schemes, 2013)

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-weizhen-tang-ponzi-schemes-2013) by email

In 2013 the Ontario Securities Commission began a reciprocal proceeding against Weizhen Tang, convicted of fraud over the Oversea Chinese Fund, and on April 21, 2016 imposed permanent 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

Tang was convicted in Ontario of fraud connected with the Oversea Chinese Fund. The sentencing judge found that he made false representations about the fund's returns, issued false account statements, used money from recent investors to redeem earlier investors in what the judge called a Ponzi scheme, and collected fees contrary to a no-profit-no-fees promise. Tang represented himself and argued that he was a victim.

After a hearing in February 2016 the commission's order of April 21, 2016 bans him permanently from trading, from acting as a director or officer, and from acting as a registrant, fund manager or promoter. The record previously showed the matter as 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. 2013-09-30 Statement of Allegations
2. 2013-11-13 Reasons and Decision
3. 2014-01-21 Reasons and Decision
4. 2014-02-24 Reasons and Decision
5. 2014-04-28 Reasons and Decision
6. 2014-10-28 Reasons and Decision
7. 2015-09-14 Reasons and Decision
8. 2015-10-02 Reasons and Decision
9. 2015-11-11 Reasons and Decision
10. 2015-11-27 Reasons and Decision
11. 2016-01-20 Reasons and Decision
12. 2016-02-10 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
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision
• Reasons and Decision
• 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.