Skip to Main Content

MFDA Hearing Panel issues Reasons for Decision in the matter of Jeffrey Lau

For further information, please contact:

Charles Toth
Vice President, Enforcement

MFDA Hearing Panel issues Reasons for Decision in the matter of Jeffrey Lau

February 28, 2018 (Toronto, Ontario) – A Hearing Panel of the Central Regional Council of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“MFDA”) has issued its Reasons for Decision dated February 27, 2018 in connection with a settlement hearing held in Toronto, Ontario on January 25, 2018 in the matter of Jeffrey Chi Kin Lau (“Respondent”).

In its Reasons for Decision, the Hearing Panel confirmed the sanctions imposed on the Respondent, namely:

  • a prohibition from conducting securities related business in any capacity while in the employ of or associated with a Member of the MFDA for a period of 30 months;
  • a fine in the amount of $10,000 (“Fine”);
  • costs in the amount of $2,500 (“Costs”);
  • the Fine and Costs are payable to the MFDA in certified funds as follows:
    • $2,500 (Costs) upon entering into the settlement agreement;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on February 28, 2018;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on March 30, 2018;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on April 30, 2018;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on May 31, 2018;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on June 29, 2018;
    • $1666.67 (Fine) on July 27, 2018; and
  • shall in the future  comply with MFDA Rules 2.3.1 and 2.1.1 and MFDA Policies Nos. 3 and 6.

In the Settlement Agreement dated August 21, 2017, the Respondent admitted that:

  1. on June 2, 2016, he falsified four client signatures or client initials on two account forms in respect of one client, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1;
  2. on June 2, 2016, he opened a client account and processed a transaction without client authorization, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.3.1 and 2.1.1;
  3. between June 6, 2016 and July 18, 2016, he failed to report a complaint to the Member, contrary to the Member’s policies and procedures and MFDA Policy No. 6 and MFDA Rule 2.1.1;
  4. between about June 6, 2016 and June 22, 2016, he attempted to pay compensation directly to a client to settle the client’s complaint, without obtaining prior consent of the Member, contrary to the Member’s policies and procedures, and MFDA Policy No. 3 and MFDA Rule 2.1.1;
  5. between June 30, 2016 and June 19, 2016, he misled the Member during the course of its investigation into his conduct, thereby interfering with the Member’s ability to supervise him, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1; and
  6. between June 3, 2016 and July 19, 2016, he misled the client with respect to the processing of an unauthorized transaction, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1.

Copies of the Reasons for Decision and the Settlement Agreement are available on the MFDA website at During the period described in the Reasons for Decision, the Respondent conducted business in the Markham, Ontario area.

The MFDA is the self-regulatory organization for Canadian mutual fund dealers, regulating the operations, standards of practice and business conduct of its Members and their approximately 83,000 Approved Persons with a mandate to protect investors and the public interest. For more information about the MFDA’s complaint and enforcement processes, as well as links to ‘Check an Advisor’ and other Investor Tools, visit the For Investors page on the MFDA website.

DM 602098