What happened.
The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal’s 2024 merits decision found that David Sharpe, Natasha Sharpe, and Andrew Mushore committed misconduct in their respective roles. Its account describes deceptive lending transactions, payments benefiting principals, and failures involving conflicts and fund assets.
Attribution matters. The Tribunal did not find that Bridging itself was responsible for the Sharpes’ frauds on the evidence presented. It did find that Bridging failed to address a material conflict in the Ninepoint transaction. These are the historical findings summarized in the 2024 merits decision, not a statement about the outcome of any later appeal.
The named borrower does not always explain who benefits from a transaction. Ownership, proceeds, repayment behavior, and credit-committee decisions need to be understood together.
From individual facts to a fuller picture.
- The Tribunal described transactions involving borrower funds and benefits to principals.
- Its findings distinguish individual misconduct from the firm’s failure to address a material conflict.
- Do loan proceeds reach the operating purpose and beneficiary recorded in the credit file?
- Are borrowers, principals, owners, and payment recipients connected in ways that require review?
- Do extensions or increases coincide with missed payments or exceptions to approval procedures?
The review questions are analytical prompts. They do not establish that particular data was available to the institution at the time, or that a different process would have changed the outcome.
A different decision starts here.
Put the people benefiting from a transaction into the same review as the borrower, the cash movement, and the approval.
Authorized loan and fund transactions, beneficiary and ownership evidence, conflict disclosures, and approval records available at the review date.
01 Trace the economic beneficiary
- Evidence to connect
- Borrower identities, account ownership, payment destinations, and supported beneficial-ownership evidence.
- Amlok output
- A relationship graph connecting the stated purpose of a loan to the parties receiving funds.
Decision it could supportEscalate unresolved beneficiary identities and supported related-party connections before approval.
02 Reconcile the movement of funds
- Evidence to connect
- Disbursements, repayments, transfers, and available bank or settlement evidence.
- Amlok output
- Named-counterparty flows with the source and timing of each supported link.
Decision it could supportReview unexplained circular movements or mismatches between the documented purpose and observed payment destination.
03 Give conflicts an independent review path
- Evidence to connect
- Declared conflicts, transaction rationale, approval authority, and investigation findings.
- Amlok output
- An evidence package that preserves both the conflict and the decision made about it.
Decision it could supportRoute the transaction to the institution’s independent conflict-review process rather than treating a connected party as automatically cleared.
Put numbers behind the opportunity.
These scenarios apply Amlok’s supplied comparison rates to the review described above. They are projections, not measured results at Bridging Finance. Count-based scenarios use an assumed population, not the institution’s actual records.
Graph relationship precision
Assumed population: 1,000 accepted borrower, beneficiary, and principal links.
A more accurate relationship set could support a better targeted conflict investigation.
Calculation & assumptions
Comparison inputs: 80% → ≈95%.
Population calculation: 1,000 × 80% = 800; 1,000 × 95% ≈ 950. Difference: ≈150 additional.
Relative change: (95 − 80) ÷ 80 × 100 ≈ +18.75%.
15 percentage points higher than the input baseline. Assumes independently labeled relationships and a fixed number of accepted links. A relationship alone is not evidence of fraud.
View the supplied comparison inputsNamed counterparty coverage
Assumed population: 1,000 eligible fund-transfer records.
More transfers could be assessed against the loan purpose and disclosed relationships.
Calculation & assumptions
Comparison inputs: 65% → ≈86%.
Population calculation: 1,000 × 65% = 650; 1,000 × 86% ≈ 860. Difference: ≈210 additional.
Relative change: (86 − 65) ÷ 65 × 100 ≈ +32.31%.
21 percentage points higher than the input baseline. Assumes authorized transfer records and comparable beneficiary evidence; it does not project recoveries from missing fund assets.
View the supplied comparison inputsFrom a projection to a validated result.
Replay transactions before approval using only then-available ownership and transfer evidence. Independently label links and conflicts; compare counterparty coverage, false links, and escalation timeliness.
The Tribunal’s findings differ by respondent. The scenario is about conflict detection and review, not a finding that every connected transaction was fraudulent or recoverable. The supplied comparison rates are approximate scenario inputs; no institution-specific replay or confidence interval is available for these estimates. The two metrics describe separate dimensions and should not be added together.
Read the source material.
Findings about individuals and findings about the firm are distinguished. A relationship in a graph is a prompt for investigation, not proof of wrongdoing.
- 01
- 02
- 03Investment Executive: receiver litigation and >$1B expected investor lossesTrade press, corroboration
Amlok’s interpretation is independent of the institutions discussed. Public records are limited to their stated scope and period. Historical figures describe the source events; the separately labeled Amlok scenarios are calculated projections. Institution names and logos do not imply affiliation or endorsement.
