WHY DOES WEIZHEN TANG INSIST THAT HE IS NOT GUILTY.
Firstly, he insists that any deprivation to the investors was not caused by any deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means.
Secondly, he insists, that at no time did he ever, ever intend to defraud his investors. While His Honour at the end of the day, will define the element of ‘intention’ to you. And it is certainly narrowly defined. The fact of the matter is that, according to the law, the crown simply has not discharged its onus to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Weizhen Tang knew, knew in his mind, that saying or doing any of these alleged transgressions could put at risk the economic or financial interest of the complainants.
Query, why has Weizhen Tang, so courageously, so vehemently, so insistently stood up and railed against the OSC?
Firstly, as testified to, he welcomes any and all investigation. Indeed, you heard him boldly tell the Crown that he welcomed Mr. Gattrell’s cross-examination and asserted those memorable words in this trial to ‘Bring it On’.
He says he is not only guilty of fraud, but that he is anti-fraud. Why does he say this. Because throughout the trial, Weizhen Tang has insisted that the OSC doesn’t protect investors whereas Weizheng Tang did. In fact, Weizhen Tang throughout the trial, would indicate either in cross-examination or in testimony that the OSC rarely gets its man.
Weizhen Tang asserts that the OSC investigator, one Mr. Thompson, had the opportunity to discuss his case with his former colleagues at the Fraud detachment – the same detachment that charged Weizhen Tang in November of 2009 with Fraud.
Weizhen Tang insists, that unlike Bre-X, Sino-Forest, and one Joe Feng Deng of MP Global Financial limited, he Weizhen Tang was charged with both OSC and Criminal Charges. And this, according to Weizhen Tang, was because of bias.
TANG BIAS
And here are the reasons for the alleged bias on the part of the OSC:
1) Weizhen Tang had a uniquely high profile in the Chinese Community. He singlehandedly funded the 2007, 2008, and 2009 Chinese New Years Show. He singlehandedly organized the two North American Chinese Wealth Summits in 2006 and 2009 that we’ve heard about. And he was the brains, the finances, the inspiring force behind the 4.13 10,000 man march to steps of Parliament Hill.
2) Weizhen Tang points to his visit by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to question him about this 4.13 rally.
3) Weizhen Tang insists that but for his television and letter campaign against the OSC prior to the criminal charge, he would have never been criminally charged. In essence, he’s the gadfly of the OSC. That is, a man who persistently annoys or provokes others with criticism, schemes, ideas, demands, requests, etc.
4) As an example of this, you’ve heard about the Business News Network interviews Weizhen Tang did, along with the 25 point plan sent to all the media outlets indicating his defence and serious issues with the OSC. To draw a very poor analogy, just as Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses one October day in 1517 to the door of All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg, so did Weizhen Tang email his 24 Theses to the doors of the media outlets of this great country. Again, this was prior to the criminal charge being laid. And it can be found at Exhibit 113 for your deliberation. Enumerated in his 25 points are the following:
#18 Investors have been suffering because of the OSC cease trading order and other actions, and should wait no longer so see justice.
#19 The OSC has its own agenda, image and interest, with little thought or concern for the rights of investors and the public interest.
#20 The OSC mainly protects bank and other large institutions, while injuring individual investors. One can legitimately feel that the OSC has become the enemy of small business and individual investors.
#21 It is informative that a large percentage of Weizhen Tang’s investors have always supported him to continue to trade for them, even after he was under investigation and hit with This unfortunate and unfair cease order.
#22 Once can imagine a tragic new slogan for the Ontario Securities Commission and The American Securities Exchange Commission, after the way they have treated Weizhen Tang: “Too big to fail and too small to save.
TANG – IMPECUNIOUS
Weizhen Tang indicates that there is absolutely no evidence as confirmed by the accountant in this trial that he diverted monies to any offshore accounts, that he lived a lavish lifestyle etc that one could perhaps expect from a fraudster. In fact Weizhen Tang testified and provided documents about his inability to pay for a lawyer, pay for his property taxes, pay for a forensic accountant of his own, or even the gas in his house. You heard Weizhen Tang testify that he and his family members had to attend for a month or two to the local Young Man’s Christian Association (YMCA) to take showers. Further, he testified as to a court order to sell his own home, he provided letters from the bailiff’s office concerning monies owing, and upon his release for jail, there’s a picture of him in evidence at a garage sale he conducted to raise $3000.00. But perhaps the most real testimony in this regard was when Weizhen Tang cried like a broken man when speaking to the fact that he had to collapse his only son’s education fund. Of course, on this point, His Honour will instruct you that you are to make your decision in this case without sympathy, prejudice or fear. You will note, however, that Weizhen Tang broke down just before lunch on Wednesday, October 17, and when the afternoon court session commenced, Weizhen Tang introduced a UPS envelope with an accompanying letter advising him that TD Bank headquarters was shutting down his personal account. Indeed, there were 6 letters delivered to his doorstep that day, indicating that everyone of his family members were having their TD accounts shut down. Seeing that Weizhen Tang pays his mortgage to the TD bank through his TD account, he queried how he would continue. Strange, this would happen in the middle of his trial. But suffice it to say, it speaks to his impecunious nature. That is, that Weizhen Tang is barely hanging one financially. Indeed, Weizhen Tang’s defence of the fraud allegation, can be partly summed up in the following words – “If I’m a fraudster, then show me my money”
Now, of course to prove the fraud allegation, the crown need not show that Tang or any other accused for that matter has piles of money horded in some account. But again, strange, that a man accused of intending to defraud his investors would mortgage his home to provide a cheque for $236,000 to his investors when the Weizhen Tang ship was sinking. Strange too, that at tab 16 of the Exhibit 84, the analysis of his funds report, that upon receiving 1 million dollars from Lucy Lu that he would immediately pay 8 investors tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
TANG BIAS
If I could return to Tang’s bias argument concerning the OSC. You will recall that the expert, who is also an OSC investigator, accountant Michael de Verteuil, wrote at paragraph 6 of his narrative, and I quote, “Personal bank records were not sought or obtained because they were considered beyond the scope of this analysis and therefore funds transferred to the personal account of Tang or the joint account between Tang and Hong Xiao were not analyzed further”
However, when the accountant was questioned about this, he noted that he was mistaken and that Tang’s personal records were indeed sought and obtained, but that he simply did not think it worth while to look into them.
Now, Weizhen Tang asserts that his personal records, which I understand can be found in the Ex 81 disk, will show much monies coming out to pay for the New Year’s Shows, Rallies, Wealth Summit and fund raising event and donations etc.
Query, if Weizhen Tang’s personal records are not important to this case and Weizhen Tang’s lack of personal gain were not important to this case, why would the crown attorney spend a good part of his cross-examination late Thursday afternoon last, showing cheques made from Weizhen Tang’s business to him personally.
In other words, if the accountant is right in asserting Tang’s personal finances are not important, and if Tang is wrong in emphasizing his lack of personal gain in this case, then why would the crown spend so much time on these cheques to Tang.
Tang says to you ladies and gentlemen, that to be fair, it’s important for you to look into his personal finances, and invites you to examine exhibit 81 with the utmost scrutiny, in order to give you a balanced picture of what was really happening at the time.
PETITIONS
Weizhen Tang states have you ever heard a fraud case of where many of the investors are signing a petition to have the alleged fraudster trade again. Strange?
He states what kind of fraudster spends his own money to pay investors, instead of trying to horde as much money as he can when the ship is sinking. Tis a bit odd, isn’t it?
Tang notes, what kind of fraudster, would insist on fighting the OSC on behalf of himself and investors, and invite the authorities to actually investigate him. Isn’t this too counterintuitive?
He queries that if he is some type of manipulative genius purposely committing a fraud on his investors, why is that he ends up having to take cold showers at the YMCA, collapsing his only son’s education fun, and have no money for his defence?
He mentions, why would he agree to face his investors at all these meetings, if he truly has something to hide. If you’ve got something to hide, wouldn’t you run.
STRAIGHT FROM WEIZHEN TANG
Mr. Tang testified that the numbers on the account balances were true promises or targets. He notes that he was not deceiving anyone at any time.
He states that he paid all the investors at all material times except that after the financial tsunami and the OSC interruption he was prevented from being able to carry out his obligations.
He notes that his real time trading ability vindicates his ability and skill to pay investors. He notes that the five day live trading demonstration and its reflected results on the account balances shows you that what his saying is true. In fact, Tang testified that many times he would provide real time trading demonstration to his investors and that the results thereof were accurately reflected in the account balances.
He further notes that using money from new investors to pay old investors is an industry standard. That new investor money is important cash flow. He asserts it’s only a crime to actually take money from investors.
He further notes that the key is the intention to steal money or defraud investors. And of this he is not guilty.
He argues that contrary to the crown’s assertions that Tang’s investors never knew the risks, the investors G in fact, had a variety of ways to control the risk. They could check on his real time trading for example. And he further points out to the fact that there were 30 million dollars plus in actual redemptions at the time of the crisis.
华人抱怨：警察为啥爱管两口子打架？