The British Columbia Securities Commission has imposed 20-year market prohibitions on Avtar Singh Dhillon following his U.S. criminal convictions for undisclosed stock sales, selling unregistered securities and a conspiracy involving undisclosed payments for stock promotion. In Re Dhillon, 2026 BCSECCOM 351, issued October 19, 2026, the panel found his misconduct very serious but declined the permanent bans sought by its executive director.
Dhillon must resign any position he holds as a director or officer of an issuer or registrant. The 20-year restrictions prohibit those roles, acting as a registrant or promoter, securities-market management or consulting, specified promotional activities, and reliance on securities-law exemptions. Trading and purchases of securities or derivatives are also prohibited, subject to tightly defined retirement-account exceptions.
The order does not impose a new fine, compensation award or prison sentence. It is a protective market-access ruling based on the earlier convictions, not a new prosecution of the underlying conduct.
Two episodes of concealed market activity
Dhillon pleaded guilty in Massachusetts in December 2022. The commission’s reasons describe one episode involving shares he beneficially owned in Arch Therapeutics, where he was board chair. Shares were held and sold through a company controlled by another individual, concealing Dhillon’s involvement and avoiding restrictions on sales by a company affiliate.
The sales generated US$1.3 million in proceeds, distributed to other parties at Dhillon’s direction. Required disclosures of his ownership and sales were not filed. The panel found that using nominees this way deprives investors of important information about insider participation in securities transactions.
A separate episode, more than three years later, involved paid promotion of Emerald Health Pharmaceuticals securities through a subscription newsletter. The reasons describe an undisclosed compensation arrangement concealed through sham consulting and service agreements and transfers through multiple bank accounts. Dhillon had a significant interest in the company’s majority shareholder and benefited indirectly from the promotion.
The panel found that the conduct required significant planning and deception and that its repetition across different periods and companies demonstrated an ongoing risk to market integrity. Dhillon’s admissions and guilty pleas were mitigating factors. Although the panel inferred investor harm, the executive director had not supplied specific evidence of losses, so it gave that factor less weight than others.
Why the bans are not permanent
Section 161(6) of B.C.’s Securities Act allows the commission, where the statutory requirements and public interest are met, to make protective orders based on proceedings elsewhere without duplicating the entire case locally. Dhillon accepted that his convictions engaged the provision and did not ask the panel to revisit the U.S. court’s findings. The dispute centred on the scope and duration of the restrictions.
The executive director sought lifetime prohibitions, relying on earlier commission cases involving concealed shareholdings, illegal distributions and stock promotion. The panel distinguished those examples because they involved respondents already subject to previous misconduct orders and conduct it considered more serious. It did not establish a rule that prior misconduct is necessary for a permanent ban.
Instead, the panel concluded that 20 years was appropriate. It emphasized that declining permanent bans did not minimize Dhillon’s conduct. He had agreed to the core restrictions but sought exceptions and a 15-year limit for the consulting and promotional prohibitions; the order did not accept that proposed duration.
Limited investing exceptions, not a family-company exemption
The trading exception requires Dhillon to give a registered dealer a copy of the decision. He may then purchase and sell specified investments in one registered retirement savings plan, one registered retirement income fund and one tax-free savings account in his name. The permitted investments are government bonds, guaranteed investment certificates, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds and individual securities listed on the TSX Composite, Nasdaq 100 or S&P 500 indexes.
Alternatively, he may hold one account of each of those types with purchase and sale authority given exclusively to a registered portfolio manager under an investment management agreement signed when the accounts are opened. These are alternatives within defined accounts, not general permission to trade through any personal or corporate account.
Dhillon argued that Canadian registered-account wording did not work for him as a U.S. resident and sought language adapted to U.S. retirement accounts, along with liquidating trades. He also sought exceptions for issuers wholly owned within his immediate family that would not raise money from the public. The panel rejected his proposed changes, finding the executive director’s wording provided sufficient ability to invest for retirement.
The commission also declined to add a separate statement in the operative order exempting consulting on scientific, medical, agricultural or other operational matters. It explained that its management, consulting and promotional restrictions are directed to securities and derivatives markets. It did not intend, and could not impose, a general prohibition on working in other fields, provided the work does not contravene the order.
Written process and the order’s limits
Dhillon had requested an oral hearing if the panel was unwilling to accept his proposed form of order. In a separate October 14 ruling, Re Dhillon, 2026 BCSECCOM 349, the panel refused that request after reviewing his evidence and detailed written submissions. He had received a six-week extension to provide materials. The panel found that an oral hearing was not needed to let him present his case fully; it did not hold that oral hearings are never available in reciprocal proceedings.
That procedural ruling also recorded that the executive director did not oppose an oral hearing if it could be held within a reasonable time, although he argued none of the issues required one. The panel made its own assessment of fairness and the potential delay from further evidence and responses.
The final order says its restrictions may automatically take effect in other Canadian jurisdictions without further notice. That is not a finding that every jurisdiction has separately enforced them. The published reasons also do not establish whether Dhillon has since resigned any position or exercised an investing exception.
The decision illustrates both the reach and limits of reciprocal securities enforcement: foreign convictions can support substantial local market restrictions without a second prosecution, but the duration and exceptions still require a public-interest assessment of the particular misconduct.
