In the article “CEF/DIL – ASC Settles with Lutheran Church Respondents” “Carl Vehse” asked some questions I’d like to address here.
Does this mean that the possibility of jail time has been removed for the Respondents?
If this case proceeds along the same lines as the Concrete Equities timeline the next step in this process would be for the RCMP to follow up with criminal charges, particularly for the Ponzi aspect of the Prince of Peace development. If the RCMP gets a conviction then jail time is certainly a possibility.
What about subsequent civil lawsuits?
All the civil lawsuits pertaining to CEF and DIL have been rolled into the CEF and DIL Representative Actions, and both of them are still in play. The Encharis et al RA respondents tried to get the ASC hearing stayed until the RA action was completed in order to prevent evidence presented in the ASC hearing from being used in the RA cases. In the end all they succeeded in doing was to delay the hearing and eventual settlement.
I had a short chat with the ASC and their interest in this case has concluded. The BC Securities Commission, however, can still weigh in. If the BCSC wants to impose anything beyond the current prohibition on trading, they will need to hold their own hearing.
Will their admissions make the LCC-member Respondents in the ASC Settlement Agreement subject to any LCC Commission on Adjudication actions?
Let’s go back in time and look what’s happened so far:
- the “sufficient funds shortage” became public in Jan 2015,
- there ABC District financials showed things were running off the rails all the way back to 2008,
- the ecclesiastical authorities have had nearly five years after the “sufficient funds” announcement to conduct their own investigation into the conduct of its members,
- the ABC BOD shut down the CEF Task Force even after the Task Force uncovered evidence of serious wrongdoing,
- the Monitor uncovered and reported significant evidence of wrongdoing.
All this boils down to one incontrovertible fact – Synod has had plenty of opportunity to do the Christian thing. They’ve had more than enough time to identify the offenders, confront them with their sin, bring them to repentance, and restore their relationship with their Lord and their siblings in the faith.
To me the evidence is clear – not only has Synod failed to do that, it has prevented others from doing so as well.
Will this settlement / conviction change things and convince the ecclesiastical authorities to finally do their job? One would hope so. I’m not holding my breath because if past history is any indication of future behavior, Synod’ll either bury their head in the sand or find some pious-sounding reason to continue in the sin of Eli.
If the old Districts and Synod seriously believed that a steward of the mysteries of Christ must be trustworthy, a lot of harm might’ve been avoided with respect to itself, its reputation, its clergy, and its lay membership.
This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found faithful.
1 Corinthians 4:1-2
Thank you for your informative answers to my questions and to the links you supply in your articles to the relevant legal and other documents. Your articles are a (if not the) primary source of information of LCC goings on for those of us Lutherans south of the Canadian border.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re welcome. Please see my response to your comment on the previous article so you can update your LutherQuest article with correct information .