Law360 Canada (May 27, 2026, 8:19 AM EDT) --

Heidi J. T. Exner

Kyle Schuh

In white-collar crime investigations, the most dangerous fraud often sounds the most ordinary. A property acquisition, a refinancing, a redemption, a distribution: on paper, these can look like routine business decisions, but they can just as easily be the perfect disguise for self‑dealing, concealment and misrepresentation. In the recent Go‑To Developments case, the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal found that Oscar Furtado and related companies used a Toronto land assembly at 355 Adelaide Street West and 46 Charlotte Street to defraud investors, while hiding the personal benefit he expected to receive from the acquisition “lift.”

That is where certified fraud examiners, or CFEs, become indispensable. Lawyers bring the legal theory, the remedy and the advocacy; CFEs bring the forensic lens that helps reveal what the paper trail is really saying. Together, they can turn a suspicious sequence of events into a provable case for accountability.

But CFEs don’t just follow the money, tracing where it went; they look at the context surrounding the movement of money. They look at the space between the transactions. In a complex case such as Go-To Developments, fraud rarely wears a mask. It wears a contract and hides in plain sight. Where an untrained eye may see a routine business transaction, a CFE will see the deliberate efforts to inflate personal gains to the detriment of unsuspecting investors.

The tribunal’s findings show why that matters. Adelaide LP raised about $42 million from 23 investors to acquire and develop the properties, but Furtado knew he stood to benefit personally from the difference between what Adelaide LP paid and what the original owners received. He did not disclose that conflict to investors, except for one investor who knew about the lift discussions and Furtado’s intended benefit. The lift was the centrepiece of a major securities fraud orchestrated by Furtado.

And that is really the legal lesson here. In fraud and fiduciary-duty cases, the question is not only whether money moved. The question is why it moved, who controlled it and who benefited from it. CFEs are trained to trace those answers through ledgers, bank records, transaction timelines and communications, while lawyers use that work to build liability and seek remedies such as disgorgement.

When a rogue operator constructs a multi-layered corporate maze, they rely on the sheer fatigue of anyone trying to investigate the scheme. But CFEs thrive on interrogating that complexity. They translate a chaotic web of transactions and shells to tease out the unspoken narrative of deception, deprivation and intent, giving legal professionals the ammunition required to prove fraud before a court or tribunal.

The tribunal identified several red flags. It found that Furtado arranged a large investment from Anthony Marek, then redeemed Marek’s units early, contrary to representations that returns would be distributed pro rata, and later used misleading materials that understated debt and overstated equity to obtain more funds. It also found that assets from Elfrida LP and Eagle Valley LP were used to secure Adelaide obligations, despite contrary representations to investors in those funds.

That is why the CFE-lawyer relationship works so well. A lawyer may see a breach of fiduciary duty or a misrepresentation claim, while a CFE may see the mechanics of concealment: unusual side payments, inconsistent treatment of investors or a transaction structure that shifts risk away from insiders and onto limited partners. When those perspectives are aligned early, the investigation becomes sharper and the pleadings become stronger.

The records matter most. If they are reviewed too late, they may be incomplete, inaccessible or strategically sanitized. If CFEs are engaged early, they can help preserve evidence, identify the right custodians and flag the transactions most likely to support the legal theory. In this case, the tribunal’s sanctions phase followed earlier merits findings that the respondents had defrauded investors and misled Ontario Securities Commission staff during the investigation.

There is also a broader accountability point here. The tribunal ordered a 10-year market participation ban, a $1-million administrative penalty for Furtado, $200,000 penalties for each corporate respondent, joint and several disgorgement of $22.2 million and costs of $638,613.85. Disgorgement is not about sympathy for a plaintiff’s loss alone; it is about stripping away improper gain and making sure wrongdoing does not remain profitable. Removing the profit motive from financial crime and misconduct is a critical deterrent.

For legal professionals, the takeaway is simple. A fraud case should never be treated as just another commercial dispute with a few bad facts sprinkled in. When the dispute involves hidden benefits, inconsistent disclosures and related-party transfers, counsel should think like investigators and investigators should think like trial lawyers. That is the model that exposes bad actors, protects investors and makes accountability more than a slogan.

In the end, that is what makes the CFE-lawyer partnership so effective. CFEs can show where the money went; lawyers can show why it matters in law. In a world where sophisticated actors often rely on complexity to hide misconduct, that combination is essential.

Heidi J. T. Exner is an award-winning white-collar crime fighter, and she is passionate about making the world a better place. She is the founding partner of Ethical Edge Advisors, the founder and chair of the Exner Foundation, a student-at-law in the province of Alberta, and a bar candidate in New York state. She welcomes you to find her on LinkedIn or check out her biography page on Ethical Edge’s website.

Kyle Schuh is the president of ACFE Calgary and an intelligence analyst in the enforcement division of the Alberta Securities Commission. He holds the Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist (CAMS), and Financial Intelligence Specialist (FIS) designations. He is also an Alberta peace officer and commissioner for oaths.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.