The CEO of Millionaire Training Systems, Douglas John Vermeeren, describes himself as a wealth management expert, author, and video producer. However, he is facing significant charges of fraud with Monthly Millionaire Mentor Ltd.

The charges are based on claims that Vermeeren and his company violated an order to cease trading that was placed against them and forbade them from dealing in Monthly Millionaire Mentor securities. Despite these limitations, Vermeeren is said to have made loan agreements with other investors, allegedly raising $1.3 million. Allegedly, these transactions occurred in March 2013, and Vermeeren is accused of misleading investors by representing investments as loans for a range of enterprises, including the making of films.

Additionally, Vermeeren is charged with embezzling money from investors for his benefit or to reimburse other investors. He also allegedly made false statements about how risky investments were, how successful his investments were, and how much money he managed for clients.

Vermeeren has been scheduled for a hearing before the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC) to address these allegations. According to the ASC, Vermeeren collected money from investors in contravention of the temporary cease-trade order, which prompted further investigation into his behavior.

By promoting his appearances on television networks and positioning himself as an expert in wealth planning, Vermeeren has made an effort to uphold his credibility on the internet. Nonetheless, he is accused of mismanaging investment funds and making deceptive promises in his publications to deceive investors.

All things considered, Vermeeren’s business dealings and reputation are being closely examined, and the accusations against him could have major legal ramifications.

A Statement Regarding Allegations Made by Ontario Securities Commission Staff  

• Douglas John Vermeeren (“Vermeeren” or the “Respondent”) and the Alberta Securities Commission (the “ASC”) signed a Settlement Agreement and Undertaking on June 14, 2016 (the “Settlement Agreement”).

• As per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Vermeeren committed to several tasks and accepted to be subject to obligations, conditions, and/or consequences within the province of Alberta.

• By paragraph 5 of subsection 127(10) of the Ontario Securities Act, RSO 1990, c S.5 (the “Act”), the staff is requesting an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order mirroring the Settlement Agreement. 

The Proceedings of the ASC 

Concurring Information

Vermeeren concurred with the following details in the Settlement Agreement:

Reunions

Living in Calgary, Alberta, is the Respondent. The Respondent was the only officer and director of Calgary-based Monthly Millionaire Mentor Ltd. (“MMM”) at all relevant periods. 

Situations

• At least forty-three investors from Alberta and other regions of Canada signed loan agreements (the “Loan Agreements”) with the Respondent between December 2011 and April 2014; some of these agreements included promissory notes as collateral. By the Loan Agreements, the Respondent raised more than $735,000.
• The Loan Agreements featured interest rates between 7% and 10% for terms ranging from three to twenty-four months. As stated in the Loan Agreements, Business Boost, the business name of one of the Respondents, or MMM, was designated as the “Borrower.”
• A periodic “Investment Report” was sent to some investors by the Respondent. The overall returns on each investment, along with details about each one, such as the “investment description,” “investment date,” and “investment amount,” were all included in the Investment Reports.
• Investors knew that their money would be used to make loans to other parties, primarily small businesses. The Investment Reports referred to these loans as “venture capital lending.”
• The Respondent met with potential investors, made presentations to them, managed their funds, and communicated with them regarding their investments.
• Money from investors was given to the respondents so that they could make money through “venture capital lending” or lending to other people. Investors expected the Respondent to make the required efforts to carry out the obligations to pay interest on the capital supplied to the Respondent. Investors were not required to do anything at all to contribute to the profits, other than to give the Respondent their investment money.
• The Respondent interacted with investors, made presentations to prospective ones, managed their funds, and kept in touch with them about their investments.
• Investors gave the respondent money to employ in “venture capital lending,” or lending to other parties, in the hopes of making a profit. Investors anticipated that the Respondent would make the necessary effort to fulfill its commitments to pay interest on the funds that were provided to it. Apart from giving the Respondent their investment cash, investors were under no need to contribute in any way to the earnings. The venture capital loan was intended to be a common business endeavor, with investors heavily depending on the Respondent’s efforts to generate the anticipated returns.
• Since the venture capital lending was to be a shared enterprise, investors placed a great deal of reliance on the Respondent to realize the expected gains.
• According to the definition of trading in securities provided by the Alberta Securities Act, RSA 2000, c S-4 (the “Alberta Act”), the investments mentioned above qualified. Furthermore, by his conduct or by representing himself as such, the Respondent was engaged in the business of trading securities or exchange contracts. Since these securities had never been issued before, these trades met the requirements for distributions under the Alberta Act.
• At all pertinent times, neither MMM nor the Respondent had a dealer registration under Alberta securities laws.
• Before and during the aforementioned trades, neither a preliminary nor a final prospectus had been submitted to or accepted by the ASC Executive Director. 

False Claims

Regarding one or more investors, the respondent made statements that he knew—or should have known—were untrue or misleading. The answerer asserted:

• The invested funds would be used for “capital lending” or “venture capital lending”; additionally, the respondent stated that there were no risks associated with the investment or that the investors’ money was “guaranteed”; lastly, the respondent never experienced a loss on behalf of investors.

Given that the aforementioned comments were misleading or untrue, the respondent made them with knowledge of their deceit or should have known better:

• A portion of the invested money was utilized to cover the respondent’s expenses or to reimburse previous investors.
• The claim that the investments were risk-free and guaranteed was unfounded, and several investors lost all of the money they had placed with the Respondent. 

Fraud

• Regarding the aforementioned securities, the respondent either directly or through indirect means engaged in or took part in actions, practices, or courses of behavior that he knew or reasonably should have known would deceive investors. The specifics of the fraudulent behavior carried out by the Respondent include the commingling of investor cash into the Respondent’s account and business accounts under its control. A portion of the money in these accounts was utilized to reimburse investors and for personal expenses. It was challenging to pinpoint the exact extent of the unlawful use of investor monies because the Respondent did not maintain sufficient accounting records.
• A portion of the investment capital was utilized for loans to other parties. 

Breaches Alberta Securities Commission Order

• ASC issued an interim cease trade order (“ICTO”) against MMM and Respondent on March 14, 2013. ICTO extended “until this matter’s enforcement action and conclusion.

• The Respondent gathered monies from additional investors against the ICTO. 

Agreement

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Vermeeren agreed to undertake specific tasks and to be subject to restrictions, limitations, conditions, or obligations inside the province of Alberta. Vermeeren promised to do and consented to:

• Give the ASC $120,000 in total to settle all of the allegations made against him, plus an additional $10,000 to defray the investigation’s expenses.

• Ten years following the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent shall refrain from purchasing or disposing of securities or derivatives; however, he may still purchase or sell exchange-listed securities in his capacity or for the benefit of his family through a registrant in one or more family or personal accounts held with that registrant.

• Give up any director or officer positions he now holds with any issuer, registrant, or investment fund manager in Alberta or across Canada. He also has to abstain from holding such positions for 10 years. He may, nevertheless, carry on serving as an officer or director of any issuer that does not presently or in the future intend to offer securities for sale to the general public.

• To ensure the timely and orderly payment of the $130,000, the Executive Director of the ASC, or his designee, must execute any additional agreements or papers that may be required, and he must also induce his spouse to execute any such agreements or papers. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, claims of fraud on Douglas John Vermeeren’s organization, Monthly Millionaire Mentor Ltd., have entangled the CEO of Millionaire Training Systems in serious legal issues. Vermeeren is charged with deceiving investors, breaking a stop trading order against his company, and committing fraud, which includes stealing investor money and making false investment claims.

Vermeeren has agreed to certain terms and obligations in a Settlement Agreement and Undertaking with the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC), and the ASC has scheduled a hearing to resolve these accusations. They consist of fines, limitations on trading securities, resigning from director or officer posts, and other measures.

Serious repercussions from Vermeeren’s actions have included financial penalties and limitations on his ability to conduct business. The severity of the accusations made against him and the regulatory reaction to his actions are emphasized in the Settlement Agreement. All things considered, these legal actions have hurt Vermeeren’s reputation and commercial transactions.