March Was Fraud Awareness Month. – but the end of Fraud Awareness Month does not end the need for the public to be aware of fraud issues. Our firm often reminds fraud victims that they cannot reasonably rely on Canada’s criminal system for recovery or justice in fraud matters. Victims should assess whether their interest is better served with civil court tracing and freezing remedies as opposed to relying on the criminal system for justice.
Case Summary:
Tabrizi et al. v. Farjami et al., 2025 ONSC 1740
Judgment: March 19, 2025
This case involves allegations of fraud surrounding a failed “Book Now, Pay Later” airline ticket financing business known as Trip Support operated by Vahid Farjami. Over $24 million was allegedly lent to the business by numerous plaintiffs, many of whom were recruited by three key investors: Mehdi Saidi-Yousefi, Saeed Tabrizi, and Afshin Nabifar.
The plaintiffs allege that Trip Support was a Ponzi scheme. A Mareva injunction was issued in September 2024 to freeze the defendants’ assets. The plaintiffs also obtained a Norwich order for tracing purposes. Upon service with the court orders, the Defendants moved to set them aside.
The Court declared that Vahid Farjami and Leila Olyaei (his spouse) were in civil contempt of court for failing to disclose ownership of property in Spain contrary to the Mareva order’s disclosure requirements. They had denied owning any assets outside Ontario under oath – a claim later disproven by title records. The Defendants own lawyer conceded their failure to comply with the Mareva injunction. Their sentence is to be determined at a future hearing.
Unfortunately, the Court also set aside the Mareva injunction based on failure to make material disclosure to the Court when the ex parte (without notice) was applied for. The types of material non-disclosure the court cited included:
- the extent of the plaintiffs’ roles in recruiting investors and receiving commissions;
- evidence of partial repayments exceeding $3 million;
- overstating the true amount lost (defendants claimed ~$6 million, not $24 million);
- non-disclosure of statements made by Farjami that he invested the money in real estate in an attempt to recover losses.
The court stressed that this failure to disclose may have influenced the decision to grant such a broad asset freeze. As this was not a class action, the Court found that each plaintiff was required to file their own affidavit containing proof of loss.
Our commentary: Mareva injunctions are discretionary orders based on the laws of equity. Allegations by a defendant are not necessarily fatal to continuing a Mareva injunction. The Court will balance the necessity of full disclosure with the impact on victims to setting aside the Mareva injunction.
Not every non-disclosure is a material non-disclosure: AJL Fruits and Veggies Ltd. V. United Farmers, 2022 ONSC 1147. See also Maxol Wealth Investments Inc. v. Arash Missaghi, et al., 2024 ONSC 3179.
In some cases, a Mareva will not be set aside if there is non-compliance with the Mareva injunction: Mary Young v. Masonry Doctors, 2023 ONSC 2150.
In some cases, the Courts will impose a fine and costs for contempt even if a Mareva injunction is set aside: Corp of Twp of Spanish v. Woodward, 2025 ONSC 852.
Inquiries: At Investigation Counsel, we only act for victims. We are Canada’s only boutique victim focused fraud recovery firm. We investigate and litigate fraud recovery cases each and every day.
If you discover you are a victim of fraud, contact us to have your case assessed and a strategy for recovery mapped out before contacting police or alerting the fraudster. The Courts grant tracing and freezing orders much quicker through the civil process than the criminal process, and even if a criminal complaint is made, the police most often do not disclose their findings with victims.
We also promote victim advocacy and academic discussion through various private and public professional associations and organizations. If you have an interest in the topics discussed herein, we welcome your inquiries.