A former rep who claimed client funds were penalized loans over $700,000

In addition to misappropriating client funds, IIROC alleged that Odorico engaged in unauthorized trades and failed to cooperate with the investigation. Odorico is no longer registered.

In 2013, Odorico purchased a home using a seller’s repossession mortgage (VTM), according to IIROC’s reasons for decision. The door-to-door seller then becomes his client.

The following year, the client testified, Odorico suggested that he give him additional funds to invest on his behalf on his behalf. “He told her he could make more money for her than she could in the CIBCWM investment accounts held with him,” IIROC said in its ruling.

Between 2014 and 2018, the client gave Odorico $449,000 to invest. Odorico testified that the money was a loan from the client to repair defects in the house he bought her, but the client denied this.

Of the $449,000, she said only $9,000 was returned. Odorico said he made cash interest payments of up to $4,000 to $5,000 a month for four to five years.

IIROC has stated Odorico provided no proof of home repairs or interest payments.

“The panel found that the respondent’s testimony undermined credibility, that an experienced investment adviser who dealt with financial transactions on a daily basis would make cash payments on a loan without obtaining written receipts and without knowing the amount remaining unpaid,” the decision reads.

The panel concluded that taking clients’ money to invest and using it for other purposes constituted misappropriation, although where the money ended up was not disclosed.

He further found that Odorico executed 45 unauthorized transactions on the client’s account.

IIROC also found that Odorico misappropriated $150,000 from a couple who had been his clients for some time.

In 2018, Odorico recommended that they buy a $150,000 stock which he said could generate a 10% return within 30 days. The couple sent a bank draft for $150,000 to Odorico, which Odorico demanded be made payable to himself, according to the ruling.

A month later, Odorico gave the couple a post-dated check for $165,000, but he asked them not to cash it because he didn’t have sufficient funds. He also asked them not to report the matter.

Odorico testified that the $150,000 was a loan, which the clients denied, and they eventually complained when they weren’t repaid.

Odorico said he promised to repay the couple as soon as he refinanced their property, but was prevented from doing so due to a court case. However, IIROC has concluded that the lis pendens on the property was not registered until almost a year after the funds should have been repaid.

The panel also found that the money the couple sent Odorico was for investments, not a loan.

James V. Hayes