ABSTRACT
Canada is one of the world’s top tourist attractions if you happen to be a non-Canadian securities swindler. Researchers ought to include Canadian data and scenarios in their multi-country comparative studies, because Canada is likely to provide an excellent testing ground for the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of any proposed securities protection hypotheses. Any “principles-based” corruption monitoring concepts, for example, would have to be supplemented with selective tough rules, or the principles would be inadequate, inefficient or pointless in a Canadian setting. Briefly stated, the Canadian courts typically look for violations of clear rules, and tend to ignore departures from vague principles. The peculiarities of the few Canadian corporate crime investigations that are publicly available for study merit careful research thought when formulating regulatory research hypotheses. 1 In general, investor protection processes that have been followed in Canada have repeatedly been unsuccessful for several reasons. Many clues and ideas can be developed from Canada’s serious regulatory mistakes, including minimal oversight, or deregulation. Much of the consequences of Canada’s securities market corruption have been self-inflicted by various participants.
