CIRO orders B.C. adviser to disgorge client money sent to others

A British Columbia investment adviser must give up the full amount she took from a client, including money she transferred to other people, a CIRO hearing panel has ruled in imposing a permanent industry prohibition and $353,791.02 in monetary sanctions.

In Re Wang, 2026 CIRO 31, the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization’s Pacific District hearing panel ordered Haimeng Wang to pay $151,895.51 in disgorgement and $201,895.51 in fines, plus $15,000 in costs. The panel announced its decision on August 19, 2026, and issued written reasons on September 28.

The ruling explains why a registrant who takes client funds cannot avoid disgorgement merely because some money went into someone else’s account. It also leaves unresolved whether CIRO’s increased monetary sanction powers, introduced in April 2026, can apply to earlier misconduct.

An agreed record and a hearing in her absence

Wang worked as a dealing representative for TD Investment Services Inc. from February 2021 until December 2022 and was also employed by an affiliated bank. She operated in Surrey and resigned during the dealer’s investigation. She is no longer registered in the securities industry.

Wang and CIRO staff signed an agreed statement of facts before the scheduled merits hearing, turning the proceeding into a one-day sanctions hearing. She was self-represented and told enforcement counsel she had not been matched with legal assistance and was uncomfortable representing herself. Counsel was open to an adjournment, but she expressly declined one and confirmed that she preferred the matter to conclude without her attending.

The panel found that her choice was clear and informed. It relied on the agreed facts rather than contradictory assertions in her earlier reply that had not been established in evidence. Her admissions resolved the misconduct issues; the panel still had to determine appropriate sanctions.

Access given for assistance became unauthorized transfers

The client had provided banking login information so Wang could help with financial transactions, including bill payments. Between February 2021 and December 2022, she accessed the client’s online banking at least 550 times and made at least 150 transfers to herself and other people.

Wang admitted that the transfers were unauthorized and that she had not repaid the client. She used money transferred to her own account for personal expenses, and there was no evidence the transfers to others benefited the client. The bank compensated the client, but the panel held that compensation by a third party did not reduce Wang’s accountability.

The panel identified calculation discrepancies in the breakdown of transfers and adopted the lower total acknowledged in the agreed facts: $151,895.51. That is the amount used in the disgorgement order, rather than an independently reconstructed total.

The investigation was also hindered by incomplete answers and missing information about the transfers. Wang provided some material, including further records in 2025, but did not account for how the recipients used the money. The panel emphasized that partial cooperation did not satisfy the obligation to cooperate fully or justify leniency for withholding important information.

Disgorgement was not confined to her own accounts

CIRO staff proposed a disgorgement component equal to all the money taken and a matching fine for that misconduct, with a further $50,000 fine for non-cooperation. An alternative proposed by staff would have limited the disgorgement component to money deposited into Wang’s own accounts while increasing the fine component to reach the same overall amount.

The panel rejected the need for that narrower approach. It found that Wang obtained all the misappropriated funds when she transferred them out of the client’s accounts. Establishing whether recipients later held the money for her, received it as a gift or used it in some other way was not necessary to ground the disgorgement order against her.

That conclusion did not expand CIRO’s authority over the recipients. The panel distinguished its disciplinary jurisdiction from the statutory powers of securities commissions and said it could not make joint and several orders against the unregistered third parties. The order was against Wang, not a determination of those people’s liability.

Disgorgement remained a discretionary remedy. The panel considered it contrary to the public interest to let a registrant avoid giving up money by withholding information that would allow investigators to trace transfers. Otherwise, non-cooperation could undermine the discipline process and become a means of retaining the benefit of misconduct.

Older sanction powers applied; increased maximum left undecided

The reasons distinguish the sanction rules before and after April 1, 2026. The earlier rule allowed a global fine with an identified disgorgement component. The amended rule expressly separates disgorgement from fines, increasing the maximum combined monetary sanctions available.

The panel noted conflicting authorities on applying increased administrative penalties to past conduct but did not resolve that issue. The requested sanctions were well below the earlier maximum, and the notice of hearing had not notified Wang of the amendment. At staff’s request, the panel used the pre-amendment provision.

In choosing the sanctions, the panel emphasized the amount taken, the repeated and deliberate conduct, the absence of repayment by Wang and the obstruction of the investigation. It did not regard her lack of a previous disciplinary record as significant mitigation for misconduct of this seriousness. It concluded that a permanent prohibition was necessary for investor protection and deterrence.

The prohibition covers securities-related business in any capacity while employed by or associated with any CIRO dealer member. The separate $15,000 costs award was substantially below staff’s documented costs of $46,783.76, which did not yet include final preparation and attendance at the sanctions hearing. The panel said the reduced award adequately recognized the hearing costs saved by the agreed facts.

This is a regulatory sanction, not a criminal conviction or a new compensation award to the client. The reasons do not establish that the amounts ordered have been collected. A focused check of the official case page and later developments did not identify a subsequent change; the page still labelled the matter active, so no claim that all proceedings are closed is made.