The Truth Behind 16 Years of OSC Actions

This is the largest publicly available evidence archive documenting the OSC’s misuse of power in the c 

Your capacity to mentor top-tier executives is rooted in decades of verifiable market results and strategic brand building.

• Early Success: In 1993, within a year of beginning your financial career, you grew an initial investment of $4,000 CAD to $4 million CAD, expanding your client base from two individuals to over 100.
  +1
• The 1% Weekly Theory: You developed a quantitative philosophy focused on daily returns of approximately 0.2%, aggregating to a 1% weekly return. This "Money Talks" approach was designed to provide investors with consistent, predictable results.
  +1
• A "Chinese Symbol" in Finance: You successfully branded yourself as the "Chinese Buffett" after accurately predicting the U.S. real estate crisis. Your influence was solidified through your book, My Path to Buffett's Wealth, and your active role in major community events.
  +4
• The 2009 Public Demonstration: From January 26 to January 30, 2009, you conducted a live, five-day trading demonstration for investors and media. While results varied day-to-day, this performance generated massive震动 (shockwaves) in the financial community.
  +3

Contrary to reports suggesting a total lack of funds, internal records show a high level of institutional interest and active capital securing immediately following your public demo.

• Institutional Backing: Following your January demonstration, an institutional fund manager with over $6 billion AUM expressed interest in allocating $2 million to $3 million for you to trade as a "fund of funds" trial.
  +2
• Active Capital Influx: In March 2009, just days before the total freeze, communications indicated that an additional $5 million was ready to be placed in your fund through institutional partners.
  
• The "Liquidity Trap": While the OSC and media highlighted a static balance of $1,400 CAD, you had secured commitments for nearly $2 million in fresh trading capital.
  +2

The legal actions taken by the OSC and the subsequent appointment of receivers fundamentally altered the financial landscape for you and your investors.

• Institutional Looting: You assert that court-appointed receivers and law firms stripped away over $2 million CAD in fees from the funds.
  +3
• Strategic Paralyzation: This removal of capital left you unable to maintain daily operations, continue trading, or afford the high costs of expert witnesses and top-tier legal defense.
  +3
• The "Aborted" Recovery: You contend that the sudden freeze functioned as a "judicial farce" or "institutional abortion," cutting off a capital chain that was actively being replenished by sophisticated investors who still trusted your trading capacity.
  +2

Your case shares significant structural similarities with the Sino-Forest v. Muddy Waters incident, which you view as evidence of a systemic pattern in Ontario:

• Market Cap Destruction: In the Sino-Forest case, $6 billion in value evaporated following attacks by short-sellers and subsequent OSC intervention.
  
• The Pattern: Both cases involved media-led "trials" before evidence was presented, heavy reliance on non-expert regulatory "impressions," and massive losses for investors while the regulatory and legal systems collected substantial fees.ase against Weizhen Tang. All evidence is validated by court transcripts, investor letters, financial records, and official OSC documents.