Criminal charges filed against Manulife

In 2017, all the proofs regarding the existence of the orphan clients and criminal actions of Manulife were provided to the Anti-corruption unit of Quebec (UPAC). Here are our criminal accusations:

Summary: In 2010, I reported to the Autorité Marché Financier a fraud over $ 250 million per year committed by Manulife. I gave the AMF documents proving the existence of this fraud. Three months later, Yan Paquette, Director of the AMF, falsified (proven by the proof in hand) and destroyed documents (unproven fact apart from the admission by the AMF that the documents submitted to the AMF concerning this fraud had disappeared.). Yan Paquette's entered into a collusion with Manulife allowing this company to hide this fraud and send false information to orphan clients to reassure them that they had a licensed agent when it was not the case. It is still impossible for me to determine whether Yan Paquette acted individually and what compensation or cooperation he received from Manulife for his services in the forgery of legal documents or whether he acted under the orders of a superior.

Details:

At the end of 2009 / beginning of 2010, Richard Proteau (the complainant) who was the Manulife Sales Director for the Québec Direct Network, was appointed Associate Vice President of this distribution network.

This promotion had the result of putting Richard Proteau in charge of all the operations of this distribution network in Quebec.

However Richard Proteau had many doubts about this promotion because he would have to endorse the changes introduced at Manulife, namely the dismissal of 75% of the employees of this network and the request that the management of this network be made on a PANCANADIAN basis which is impossible to do since the Quebec law on the distribution of financial products and services is unique in Canada. It was clear that to follow Manulife's orders; Richard Proteau would have to conduct the operations of this distribution network in contravention of the law.

To understand how far off the law, he would have to be in order to comply with Manulife's instructions and keep his job, Richard Proteau conducted a review of all the operations of this Network in Quebec. What he discovered was more than 20 years of operations in violation of the law...

In particular, Richard Proteau discovered the existence of insurance policies that had no licensed representatives. He discovered the existence of faxes which were notices of cancellation of the coverage of insurance policies. These notices were sent to a Manulife fax on the 2nd floor of the Manulife tower because the owners of the policies had changed their address and could not receive the lapse notices in question (overdue premiums) which would have allowed them to pay the overdue in order to keep their policy in force. Usually these notices were sent to the agent, but as no agent name of these policies and lapse notices, these notices were simply destroyed, allowing the forfeiture of these policies without the owners being notified; Illegal practice and against the law.

Richard Proteau adopted the position that orphan policies in Quebec were illegal (policies become orphans due to the retirement of the representative, death, change of employment; license is canceled by the AMF ...). Richard Proteau, after review of the law, concluded that representatives without a license could not be appointed as representatives on these policies. THE ORPHANED POLICIES WERE as a result ILLEGAL under the LAW! The Manulife Compliance Department in Quebec came to the same conclusion than Richard Proteau. Toronto, however, was unwilling to accept this conclusion, because Quebec would have had to deal with these policies differently than the English provinces, which was against a Pan-Canadian system that Manulife wanted to adopt.

Manulife after a conference call with Brian Woolley VP and Bob Gloin Director (see recording) agreed to let Richard Proteau proceed with the assignment of these orphan policies to junior representatives under the supervision of senior representatives.

Defining whether a policy is orphaned takes a lot of time because you need to check multiple databases. Checking a policy can take up to 1 hour. Having no more staff in Quebec, Richard Proteau decided to take a shortcut and include 250 policies without agent names in the block of 500 orphaned policies that were to be assigned. Manulife in Toronto was not informed of this by Richard Proteau because Richard Proteau had the authority to make that decision and Richard Proteau would never have thought that these policies should be treated differently. In fact it was urgent to address the existence to the policies because of the unlawful forfeiture of these policies.

After sending 500 letters to orphaned clients saying that they would all have to select a new representative or a new one would be assigned, some clients began to complain (estimated: 100 clients out of 500) that the letter was wrong and that they had a licensed representative.

It was discovered that policies with a unnamed agent did have a licensed representative, and that some the representatives such as Mr. Cormier's had been looking for these policies for a very long time seeking to get paid on the commission owed on these policies while Manulife was giving them false information.

In particular, Richard Proteau discovered the existence of insurance policies that had no licensed representatives. He discovered the existence of faxes which were notices of cancellation of the coverage of insurance policies. These notices were sent to a Manulife fax on the 2nd floor of the Manulife tower because the owners of the policies had changed their address and could not receive the lapse notices in question (overdue premiums) which would have allowed them to pay the overdue in order to keep their policy in force. Usually these notices were sent to the agent, but as no agent name of these policies and lapse notices, these notices were simply destroyed, allowing the forfeiture of these policies without the owners being notified; Illegal practice and against the law.

Richard Proteau adopted the position that orphan policies in Quebec were illegal (policies become orphans due to the retirement of the representative, death, change of employment; license is canceled by the AMF ...). Richard Proteau, after review of the law, concluded that representatives without a license could not be appointed as representatives on these policies. THE ORPHANED POLICIES WERE as a result ILLEGAL under the LAW! The Manulife Compliance Department in Quebec came to the same conclusion than Richard Proteau. Toronto, however, was unwilling to accept this conclusion, because Quebec would have had to deal with these policies differently than the English provinces, which was against a Pan-Canadian system that Manulife wanted to adopt.

Manulife after a conference call with Brian Woolley VP and Bob Gloin Director (see recording) agreed to let Richard Proteau proceed with the assignment of these orphan policies to junior representatives under the supervision of senior representatives.

Defining whether a policy is orphaned takes a lot of time because you need to check multiple databases. Checking a policy can take up to 1 hour. Having no more staff in Quebec, Richard Proteau decided to take a shortcut and include 250 policies without agent names in the block of 500 orphaned policies that were to be assigned. Manulife in Toronto was not informed of this by Richard Proteau because Richard Proteau had the authority to make that decision and Richard Proteau would never have thought that these policies should be treated differently. In fact it was urgent to address the existence of these policies because of the unlawful forfeiture of these policies.

After sending 500 letters to orphaned clients saying that they would all have to select a new representative or a new one would be assigned, some clients began to complain (estimated: 100 clients out of 500) that the letter was wrong and that they had a licensed representative.

It was discovered that some of the policies with a unnamed agent did have a licensed representative, and that some the representatives such as Mr. Cormier's had been looking for these policies for a very long time seeking to get paid on the commission owed on these policies while Manulife was giving them false information.

Taking advantage of the departure of Richard Proteau was absolutely to cover up this because of the risk of a lawsuit, Manulife began to make false statements. To do this, Manulife had to negotiate the AMF's collaboration for the AMF to say that all these orphaned policies were not orphans and that these police had a dismissed representative who appeared on the police.

Fortunately Richard Proteau had saved some documents that proved the contrary such as copies of notices of lapse of fonts without name of representatives and he submitted this to the AMF. Until now Richard Proteau thought that these fonts without names of representatives owed their existence to errors. But now it was clear that the name of the representatives had been deliberately removed to increase the disqualifications.

The AMF, through a decision made by Yan Paquette (decision kept secret from the public secret but communicated to Manulife and Richard Proteau) issued a decision stating that these policies were not orphaned and all had a licensed representative appearing on the these policies. Richard Proteau was never contacted or questioned by Paquete about the existence of the lapse notices which clearly demonstrated that no representatives were assigned to these policies.

The actions of the AMF and its collusion with Manulife allowed Manulife to send a letter to the 500 orphaned clients saying that Richard Proteau had lied when they informed them that they had no representatives.

Following this, after legal action against the AMF, Richard Proteau forced the AMF to interpret the law in relation to the existence of orphan policies. The AMF issued a statement in Quebec saying that the existence of such policies was illegal and that if a representative had no license, insurers were obliged by law to assign these policies to licensed representatives. So according to this release; Richard Proteau had acted legally. All that remained to be done was to determine whether the 500 policies in question were not orphaned as Yan Paquette had stated. This was not easy to do because the AMF refused to disclose information from its investigation that these investigations were confidential and extended this privacy protection to Manulife, which also refused to prove by evidence that these policies were not orphaned .

On the other hand, Richard Proteau was able to rebuild a part of the list of 500 orphaned clients, or 250 of these clients. He was stunned because he found. Not only did all 250 clients have no representatives, contrary to what Yan Paquette had stated in a legal document; But some of these clients had been sanctioned by Yan Paquette himself or in his sanction, Yan Paquette himself canceled the representative's license for life and gave the agent 30 days to transfer the policies to a licensed representative if not the insurer to do.

By assigning these orphaned policies Richard Proteau followed Yan Paquette's instructions, but the latter in order to protect Manulife suddenly said that these representatives had a license because he thought that Richard Proteau was unable to trace these orphaned clients and to prove this Fraud by Yan Paquette and Manulife. Some of these non-licensed representatives whom Paquette said had a license had been found guilty in the Superior Court of Quebec for selling unlicensed insurance and sanctioned for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Conclusion:

Considering that the Manulife offices in Quebec received on average 10 notices of disqualification without agent names per week; Considering that the death benefit of the policies was in the average of $ 100,000, the forfeiture of these policies without the client being aware of it represented fraud of $ 1,000,000 (or $ 50 million per year) per week for elderly clients. Depending on the time this stratagem was used (a minimum of 5 years) we are talking about $ 250 million and more. In addition, we must add all unpaid service fees to the representatives. It is hard to say what is the value of these corn commissions or can be said that it is at least 1% of lapses ie $ 500,000 per year.

Did Yan Paquette act alone in his collusion with Manulife or did he execute any orders he had received? Did he act to secure an advantage such as Manulife's collaboration in another file or a representative suing the AMF because of Yan Paquette's actions? Was he acting to protect the AMF, which was already a guarantor of the Cormier action that was now suing Manulife, which meant that the AMF could become liable for all disqualifications by its refusal to intervene over the years In the orphaned police files despite the repeated requests of representatives in Quebec? Only a criminal investigation can answer these questions.

Nicolino Altieri: An example of Manulife fraud and infraction..

When I became the Associate Vice President of Manulife; the person responsible for the operations of Manulife Direct Channel in Quebec; I should have been filled with joy. I had work more than 20 years to reach this point. Instead I was worried and unhappy with this promotion. So far I had been the Director of Sales for the Direct Channel in Quebec and as a result my only authority was on new sales. Now I was becoming responsible for all of the operations of Manulife in regards to new and existing business.

Having stumbled across the lapse notices that were sent to inexistent Manulife branches and where no name of agents existed, I knew something was wrong. So I decided to conduct an audit of the Direct Channel in Quebec.

As part of this audit, I pulled the policies of an inforce block of business on a random basis. The block of business was under the name of Nicolino-Pio Altieri. He had a block of about 250 policies with Manulife with a combined cash value of more than $1.7 million dollars.

I went on the AMF site and entered the name of Nicolino Altieri and he did not show up as a licensed agent. That was interesting so I decided to call him to see how his clients were getting any service. This was in 2009. When I talked to Altieri who was not happy to receive a call from me in regards to his block of policies, I asked him after he confirmed to me he was not licensed:

“Do you have an agreement with another licensed agent to provide service to this block of clients?”

“No,” he said.

“So how are your clients getting service?”

This is when he admitted something that would send me shivers.

“The clients call me and I call Manulife to get the information and make the changes that are needed.”

“But you have no contract with Manulife,” I replied. “This means you have no access to our service platform inforep, so who are you calling at Manulife?”

“I call Manulife client services,” he answered.

“And Manulife clients services provides you the support for you to service your clients, is this right?”

Sensing I did not think this was right our conversation became less than friendly. Basically he told me this was none of my business.

However I knew there was a real problem. Manulife was actively and knowingly helping unlicensed individuals in providing service to Manulife policy owners. Whether the individual had been previously licensed this was illegal.

These blocks of policies were coded under Manulife branches that did not exist showing MY address and office number. I was suite 200 at Manulife.

This was only the tip of the iceberg. What my audit uncovered was more than 15 years of mismagement and infractions committed under the management of a Manulife employee named Guy Couture who still works at Manulife today.

I knew I could not take the channel over and I could not stay silent. I knew then this was putting me in a collision course with Manulife. Manulife was going to do everything in its power to destroy me. Was I afraid? Yes and no. I had faith in the law and therefore I believed the AMF/Government of Quebec would protect me. I was so wrong… Instead the AMF destroyed all of the evidence and buried the whole affair. Why? The answer is simple. With Montreal struggling to keep financial jobs, Quebec needed to keep Manulife happy and needed to show that Quebec was a place friendly to businesses even if this meant allowing these businesses to break the law.

×

Click on image to view full size

×

Click on image to view full size

×

Click on image to view full size

Toxic life insurance and orphan policies

The purpose of a business is to make profits. The purpose of executives is to create and implement the strategies necessary to maximize the profit. As a result, under the protection of the corporative legal umbrella, it is easy for executives to cross a line where they will be breaking the law; committing infractions to make more profits or to protect the profit margins of the company.

There is no better example than the insurance industry. Insurance companies and their executives have engaged in many fraudulent activities protected by the network of political relationships they have established through their incessant lobbying activities with the government.

The fraudulent activities in the insurance industry has been fueled by the existence of toxic assets owned by life insurance companies which are certain life insurance policies that were priced under very aggressive assumptions. The existence of these toxic life insurance policies have defined the insurance industry in Canada and explains why we have no life settlement industry in Canada when one exists in the USA. It explains the existence of the orphan policies. The point is simple. For the insurance companies to get rid of these toxic life policies, they must lapse. If service on these policies can be prevented by not having a licensed agent to service these policies, then there is a greater likelihood that the policy owner will forget to do something and lose a benefit or lapse the policy…

The existence of these toxic life policies has been established by the Canadian government. Superintendant Julie Dickson, Office of Superintendant of Financial Institutions Canada confirmed during her delivery of a presentation on the “Challenges in the life insurance industry” on November 8, 2010, the existence of toxic products in the life insurance industry. This comment was made at the 2010 Life Insurance Invitational Forum. She said as an introduction:

“I have attended this conference on several occasions in the past and one that I remember particularly well was in November 2005. There was a session on the history of toxic products in Canada. A reinsurer provided all the gory details. He said that the first major Canadian insurance industry toxic product was “Term to 100”, offered in the 1980s. This product was a great idea at the time, but the problem was that early years’ premiums far exceeded expected claims, and later years premiums were far less than claims.”

But Julie Dickson failed to ask how life insurance companies managed these products. This is not intentional. Her federal role is to ensure the solvency of insurance companies. Commercial practices of life insurance companies fall under provincial jurisdictions and she continued her presentation about how insurance companies’ capital requirements would change in the future to deal with this issue.

How did insurance companies manage those toxic assets?

Julie Dickson made another comment that we have to carefully study.

“The industry had assumed that lapses would be the same as with other products, and they were not – the educated guesses turned out to be horribly wrong and the consumer response was more sophisticated than expected.”

In confirming the existence of the toxic products, Julie Dickson tells us that the amount of the liabilities associated with these toxic products are yet to be determined and will depend on the behavior and sophistication of the consumer response.

Are insurance companies manipulating the sophistication of consumer response?

The sophistication of the consumer response is directly linked to the access to information, access to service and access to an advisor. Is this why insurance companies have adopted and protected a service model that is extremely poor? Is this why all commissions are paid up front? Advisors don't want to hear these questions but they can't be ignored.

One strategy of the insurers to reduce access to service is to create orphan policies. (Without a licensed servicing advisor), and therefore, through this strategy, they have been able to increase the lapse rates on these toxic products and decrease their financial exposure or liabilities.

I can tell you as an executive of 25 years in the life insurance industry, with the demutualization, many CEO of insurance companies promised their shareholders to deliver returns on equity that were on par with the banks. This could not be achieved if the problem of these toxic products was not resolved through the use of questionable commercial practices and fraud.

Orphan policies should not exist based on provincial laws but insurance companies have ignored these laws for 40 years and the regulators have failed to act. If provinces do have not the strength to apply their laws maybe this demonstrates why we need one Superintendant of insurance at the federal level and only one Insurance law across Canada.

Julie Dickson then said:

“He then talked about segregated fund guarantee risk and the market crash of the early 2000s (the main challenge being predicting the market).”

In other word the insurance industry is again facing toxic products but this time it involves segregated funds. The history is repeating itself because there are no consequences for insurance companies are committing fraud. The level of financial exposure faced by life insurance companies in relation to these new toxic products will also depend on the sophistication of consumer response and access to information.

It is unbelievable that current provincial laws specifically exclude the disclosure of the value of segregated funds guarantees to the client prior their transfer to another investment. There are no obligations to inform the clients of what he will be losing. NO DISCLOSURED IS REQUIRED!!!

Orphan Policies and provincial regulators

We have approached all of the regulators in reference to the existence of the orphan policies, pointing to the regulators that the existence of the policies were illegal and constituted grave infractions. All regulators refused to answer our inquiries.

Here is our inquiry sent to the New Brunswick regulator.

From: Lafortune, Pauline (CAI-DMA) Sent: 2 juillet 2013 11:58 To: Godin, Sandra (CAI-DMA); Godin, Ronald (CAI-DMA); Ramsay, Anne-Marie (CAI-DMA) Subject: FW: orphan policies

From: Richard Proteau [mailto:richard_proteau@yahoo.com] Sent: 1 juillet 2013 21:10 To: Lafortune, Pauline (CAI-DMA) Subject: orphan policies

Dear Consumer Advocate for Insurance,

You will find attach a press release in regards to a recent Notice published by the Autorite des Marches Financiers advising insurers and advisors that the existence of orphan policies in the insurance industry of this province is a violation of several laws in this province.

I have reviewed the Insurance Act of New Brunswick, and my conclusion is that the same violations are occurring in New Brunswick. Below you will find the statutes of the Insurance Act about the subject matter.

Please note that I have proofs, having in my possession faxed lapse notices from Manulife that the existence of the orphan policies constitutes an inducement to lapse and surrender of policies. The fact that policyowners of orphan policies receive annual reports telling them to contact unlicensed agents for information creates the idea with these customers that a licensed agent is taking care of their policy when this is not the case. It promotes lapses and target old age policy owners who are not mentally apt to manage their policies.

I am available for any questions you may have. Richard Proteau

From: "Godin, Ronald (CAI-DMA)" To:"'Richard_proteau@yahoo.com'" Cc: "Godin, Sandra (CAI-DMA)" ; "Ramsay, Anne-Marie (CAI-DMA)" Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 2:49:07 PM Subject: FW: orphan policies Mr. Proteau….I have forwarded your email messages to Mr. David Weir, Deputy Superintendant of Insurance for the Province of NB. This matter is not within our mandate but rather within the mandate of the office in question or the new Financial and Consumer Services Commission of NB. Ronald Godin Consumer Advocate for Insurance Défenseur du consommateur en matière d'assurances

Ronald Godin Consumer Advocate for Insurance Défenseur du consommateur en matière d'assurances From: Richard Proteau [mailto:richard_proteau@yahoo.com] Sent: 14 juillet 2013 3:13 To: Godin, Ronald (CAI-DMA) Subject: Re: orphan policies Hi Mr. Godin, I aknowledge your message. Please note I have studied carefully the Consumer Advocate Act. Section 9(3) If the Consumer Advocate refuses to investigate or ceases to investigate any complaint, the Consumer Advocate shall advise the complainant and provide reasons for the decision to do so. Sadly while you explain that this does not fall within your mandate you do not provide any reasons. To be specific since I do not believe my complaint is frivolous, the only reason left is that after studying what I have sent you have determined that my complaints was about violations of the Insurance Act and therefore under : 9(9) Notwithstanding subsection (7), where during the course of an investigation the Consumer Advocate reasonably believes the insurer, broker or agent has violated any prohibition or failed to comply with the requirements of the Insurance Act, the Consumer Advocate shall (a) suspend the investigation and refer the matter to the Superintendent, or (b) complete the investigation and communicate to the Superintendent the results of the investigation and any recommendations, including any opinion and the reasons for the recommendations. Has my complaint being referred under section 9(9) thank you for confirming Regards Richard Proteau

Godin, Ronald (CAI-DMA) To me Jul 15, 2013 Your complaint has been referred directly to the Office of the Superintendant of Insurance for NB. Ronald Godin Consumer Advocate for Insurance

Statutes of the Insurance Act in question:

351. No person shall act or offer or undertake to act or represent himself as an insurance agent, broker, adjuster or damage appraiser in this Province unless he holds a subsisting licence issued under this Act or is otherwise authorized to do so under this Act.

362Any person who not being duly licensed as an agent, broker, adjuster or damage appraiser represents or holds himself out to the public as being such an agent, broker, adjuster or damage appraiser or as being engaged in the insurance business, by means of advertisements, cards, circulars, letterheads, signs or other methods or, being duly licensed as such agent, broker, adjuster or damage appraiser advertises as aforesaid or carries on such business in any other name than that stated in the licence is guilty of an offence. 1968, c.6, s.359; 1976, c.34, s.10.

368(1)No insurer licensed under this Act, and no officer, agent or employee of such an insurer, and no insurance agent or broker authorized under this Act, shall directly or indirectly, pay or allow, or offer or agree to pay or allow, any commission or other compensation or anything of value to any person for acting or attempting or assuming to act as an insurance agent or broker in respect of insurance in the Province or for having or claiming or appearing to have any influence or control over the insured or prospect for insurance unless that person holds at the time a subsisting insurance agent’s or broker’s licence or is a person acting under the authority of subsection 352(15), (16), (17) or (18).

369(1)Any person licensed as an agent for life insurance under this Act who induces, directly or indirectly, an insured to lapse, forfeit or surrender for cash, or for paid up or extended insurance,or for other valuable consideration, his contract of life insurance with one insurer in order to effect a contract of life insurance with another insurer, or makes any false or misleading statement or representation in the solicitation or negotiation of insurance, or coerces or proposes, directly or indirectly, to coerce a prospective buyer of life insurance through the influence of a business or a professional relationship or otherwise, to give a preference in respect to the placing of life insurance which would not be otherwise given in the effecting of a life insurance contract, is guilty of an offence.

369.2No person shall engage in any unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance. 1980, c.27, s.9. No compensation except to licensee

39 (1) No insurer, and no licensed agent shall, directly or indirectly, pay, or allow, or offer or agree to pay or allow, any commission or other compensation or anything of value to any person in respect of the effecting or negotiating or placing of any contract or renewal thereof unless that person holds a license that is in force under this Part. Inducing policyholder to lapse or surrender 43 No person shall, by means of a false or misleading representation, procure or induce, or attempt to procure or induce any person to forfeit, lapse or surrender a policy. R.S., c. 231, s. 43.

AMF Notice reference orphan policies

THis is the link to the notice published by the AMF declaring the existence of orphan policies illegal

Consumer Advisory: Orphan policies/Manulife and Commercial Union policies

We are advising the public, in particular those consumers who have older parents that may have purchased a life insurance policy a long time ago to be on guard against an illegal cancellation of these policies by insurers.

Orphan policies are those policies which have no licensed agents/representatives to look after their service and where the insurers give the impression that the agent/representative (referred as the servicing agent) showing on the annual report and other communications is licensed and active when it is not the case. Consumers have the impression that someone is looking after their policy when it is not the case. This leads often to the cancellation of the policy in question.

In Quebec, we have gone to Court seeking an injunction and sanctions against Manulife which we believe is the insurance company which has the most orphan policies and certainly uses the most questionable commercial practices in regards to orphan policies. While the administrative court (Bureau decision et revision) has rejected our demands on the basis it did not have the competency to go after Manulife in order to meet its mandate of protecting the public, our legal initiative has forced the regulator, the AMF, to declared illegal all orphan policies in the province of Quebec while confirming that the Manulife treatment of these orphan policies constituted infractions. However the AMF refused to go further by demanding sanctions against Manulife. No other regulators have followed the decision of the AMF.

In regards to Commercial Union policies, we are advising those who own these policies or those who have family who own these policies to be particularly vigilant. We have proof that Manulife removed the name of agents from these policies. This mean that lapse notices were not acted upon when sent out, if they were sent out at all, for many possible reasons such as a change of address. These lapse notices were instead destroyed. We are currently talking to consumers who are looking for their Commercial Union policies and who have been told by Manulife that no information can be found on their policies. This supports the evidence we have of the destruction of these lapse notices and the resulting consequences.

“Personally I have received a “mise en demeure” from Manulife in my attempt to rectify false information that was provided to 500 orphan policies. Manulife, using my name and attacking my reputation informed these 500 orphan clients that my communications to them, informing them that no one was looking after their policy because the listed agent was not licensed, or was dead… was false which is clearly a lie on the part of Manulife. Now the cat is out of the bag, Manulife wants me to keep quiet and keep this confidential. I refuse to become associated through my silence with the infractions of Manulife,” stated Richard Proteau. He intends to publish the “mise en demeure” of Manulife with a very public response. “Manulife can sue me all it wants. It will only provides me more ammunitions to support my claims as Manulife will be forced to provide full disclosure…”

In the end, there is nothing worse than to see consumers that have paid for their policies for twenty years or more being denied their life insurance through infractions committed by Manulife or other insurers

Letter to Manulife Orphan Clients

This is an exemple of a letter sent to Orphan clients of Manulife informing them they were the victims of fraud by Manulife

Following a written letter from me in April 2010, as Associate Vice President and Manulife Direct Network Manager for Quebec, I informed you that the representative Louis Thompson was no longer a registered representative with the AMF and that I had to assign you a new representative.

You then received a letter on June 21, 2010 from Manulife Vice President of the Independant Advisor Channel Lester Heldsinger who deliberately provided you with false information about your policy.

Contrary to the deceitful statements made by Heldsigner, the information that your police was orphaned had been verified by me personally beforehand. Not only did Manulife through Heldsinger lie to you about the statute of Thompson, the only Thompson that appears to have existed in the AMF's records is a former agent whom the AMF sued in the Superior Court of Quebec for having acted in as a representative without a license and was sentenced to more than $ 100,000 in fines. How is it possible for Manulife to provide you with information contrary to a Superior Court ruling?

Manulife can do this because of the complicity of the AMF in this great fraud with the help of employees like Yan Paquette who left the AMF. Yan Paquette eliminated evidence submitted to the AMF regarding the licensing status of advisors such as Thompson. Yan Paquette in an aberrant decision informed me that my conclusion that Louis Thompson was not licensed was inaccurate and that he was indeed licensed with the AMF and this against the AMF's own conclusion and representations made in the Superior Court of Quebec.

It must be understood that the existence of the orphaned police where Manulife sends you misleading and inaccurate information by asking you to contact Louis Thompson as a representative authorized to give you service is a serious offense. In fact, the AMF often states that these types of offenses jeopardize the entire financial industry. If the law were applied, Manulife would have to pay millions of dollars in fines and be liable for damages suffered by orphaned clients in the tens of millions of dollars

Manulife will not have to pay these fines. Manulife will not have to compensate victims of its illegal activities. Why? Because Yan Paquette decided to make everything disappear in order to protect Manulife. By doing this Yan Paquette has broken the law, possibly committed a criminal offense. Why did he do this? Who told him to do this within the government? It's a good question. This is a question we tried to ask Yan Paquette in the Superior Court but thanks to the influence of the AMF on the judges, Judge April of the Superior Court decided to give immunity to Yan Paquette by saying that " it would not allow us to ask a single question on this subject. Paquette is now working for the Deputy Minister of Justice.

Despite the protection of these judges, we still decided to continue our fight against these illegal practices. We have decided to use public opinion and we need your support. If you have suffered damage as a result of the actions of Manulife and AMF, you can go to our website to register a complaint. By registering a plain you will help us build records that will be used in a class action. You can register your complaint http://www.consumerights.ca/database.html

I apologize again for this late communication to re-establish the facts. If you have any questions or require more information on this subject, you can email me at info@consumerights.ca.