An Alberta investment adviser has been permanently barred from securities-related business with CIRO dealers and ordered to pay $485,900 in disgorgement and fines after a hearing panel found he misappropriated client funds, engaged in undisclosed financial dealings and failed to cooperate with investigators.
In Re Soco, 2026 CIRO 11, decided April 7, 2026, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization’s Alberta District hearing panel also ordered Lou Albert Cruz Soco to pay $32,167.25 in costs. The monetary sanctions comprise $217,950 in disgorgement, a matching $217,950 fine for the client-fund misconduct and a separate $50,000 fine for non-cooperation.
The decision followed a February 10 hearing that Soco did not attend. The panel found he had received adequate notice and had access to the hearing materials. It reserved its decision at the end of the hearing and later obtained an additional affidavit before issuing its reasons.
Money moved outside the dealer
Soco carried on business in the Edmonton area with PFSL Investments Canada Ltd. His most recent period of registration ran from October 2019 until his resignation in February 2023. A client raised concerns shortly afterward, and PFSL reported the matter to the regulator and conducted its own review.
The panel found that Soco solicited money for purported investment opportunities that PFSL had neither offered nor approved. The transfers were outside the dealer’s supervision and were not recorded in its client accounts. Money went into Soco’s personal bank accounts and was mixed with personal expenditures, cash withdrawals and transfers to other people.
One complainant transferred $142,750 to him, including approximately $117,254 drawn from investment-account redemptions he processed. Those redemptions also generated fees. The dealer’s review identified other clients who had transferred money directly to Soco.
Investigators relied on client interviews, text messages and bank records. The panel acknowledged that the banking evidence did not trace every movement of money, but found it corroborated the clients’ accounts. It concluded there was no evidence the funds had been used for legitimate investments.
Soco had promised to repay misappropriated funds in instalments in at least one instance, but made only a single $1,000 payment. PFSL separately paid $123,750 in compensation to the initial complainant. That dealer payment was distinct from the sanctions imposed on Soco.
An interview did not satisfy the duty to cooperate
The non-cooperation finding was not based on a complete failure to attend an interview. Soco eventually attended one in December 2024 after repeated efforts by investigators, including contact through counsel. He suggested that deposits to his accounts were repayments of cash loans and denied preparing or recognizing documents supplied to clients.
The panel rejected his explanations as unsupported and inconsistent with the documentary record. He also failed to supply additional documents he had undertaken to provide. Investigators had to obtain third-party records, and his lack of cooperation limited the scope of their inquiry.
The panel found the evidence of misuse of client money clear, cogent and convincing. It held that the undisclosed arrangements created conflicts that were not addressed in the clients’ best interests, and that delayed responses and unfulfilled undertakings breached the separate regulatory duty to cooperate.
Disgorgement and deterrence serve different purposes
CIRO staff sought disgorgement to remove the financial benefit obtained from the misconduct, along with an additional fine to deter similar behaviour. The panel accepted that structure and imposed a further penalty for obstructing the investigation through non-cooperation.
In assessing the sanctions, the panel emphasized protection of investors, proportionality and deterrence rather than a mechanical penalty formula. Multiple clients were affected, some could not afford the losses, the misconduct continued over an extended period, and the money had not been repaid apart from the single payment described in the reasons.
The absence of prior discipline was the identified mitigating factor. The panel did not treat compensation paid by PFSL as mitigation for Soco. It regarded the combined misconduct as a sustained departure from the standards expected of a registered representative.
The order is a regulatory prohibition and financial sanction, not a criminal conviction or a new damages award to clients. It does not establish that the ordered sums have been collected. CIRO’s public case page records the proceeding as concluded; a focused later-status check did not identify a subsequent change to the decision.
