Surrey woman wins in court after falling for ‘deceitful’ deal involving fake Dubai development

A Surrey woman has won financial damages in B.C. Supreme Court, but will still likely be grappling with the emotional damage after falling for a real estate deal that involved a housing development in Dubai that never actually existed.

No criminal charges were ever produced in the case, so Manjeet Kaur Sandhu took to the civil courts to receive justice after being taken for $600,000. Sandhu had settled a case with four people for $330,000, but also sued Meera and Kuldeep Virk.

“It is alleged that M. Virk and K. Virk, working together with the assistance of the other defendants, fraudulently misrepresented to Ms. Sandhu that they were assisting in obtaining funds for the completion of a development project in Dubai and that she would receive 10 percent interest per annum on any loan she made to the project,” reads the court ruling, which called the deal “deceitful.”

“Ultimately, Ms. Sandhu discovered that no mortgage was ever registered against a property; that there was no Dubai project; that the Virks were judgment debtors, having been ordered to pay $1.6 million in a judgment in December 2015, a few months before the Virks started to defraud Ms. Sandhu; and that she had, in fact, herself been defrauded of much of her life savings by the Virks.”

The trial was held without the participation of the Virks, with the judge noting that the couple had “checked out” in taking part in the case and had not responded to efforts by the court to contact them.

“Their litigation conduct and their pleadings taken together clearly indicate that they had no intention of raising an admissible defence to Ms. Sandhu’s claims,” the ruling said.

“Ms. Sandhu has clearly been significantly traumatized by the extent of the Virks’ deception of her. A nurse by training, I am certain that Ms. Sandhu feels humiliated that she allowed the Virks to deceive her and effectively steal $600,000 of her money. The Virks, particularly M. Virk, relying on claims of being a religiously and spiritually upstanding person, abused Ms. Sandhu’s trust.”

The ruling also noted the financial damage to Sandhu’s life, saying that “the theft of money by the Virks has meant that Ms. Sandhu has had to work long after she had hoped to retire.”

Sandhu had initially invested $200,000 “in reliance on M. Virk attesting to her Sikh faith,” the court ruling said. Sandhu was later contacted to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the following months.

“Ms. Sandhu heard nothing from the Virks until August 2016, when once again M. Virk promised that the project was very near completion, but they needed more money,” the court ruling said. “M. Virk once again repeated many of the same things. She was a person of high moral and religious virtue, who was a successful businesswoman who had made over $1 million for Ms. Sandhu’s brother‑in‑law.”

During the subsequent months, Sandhu continued to contact the Virks, expressing concern about when the money would be repaid.

“However, eventually M. Virk stopped returning calls. It was not until May 15, 2017, that M. Virk eventually came to Ms. Sandhu’s home,” the court ruling said. “The reassurances continued. Ms. Sandhu was told not to worry. Her money was not going anywhere. Everything was fine. She would be repaid. …  Eventually, Ms. Sandhu learned from a law firm in Surrey that none of the money she had lent to the Virks had been secured by a mortgage properly registered on the title of a property.”

The judge in the case awarded Sandhu the amount she had invested and lost, as well as damages.

“In this case, it is obvious that Ms. Sandhu has been greatly distressed by the conduct of the Virks. Ms. Sandhu was encouraged by M. Virk’s pronouncement of religious adherence and overall probity to trust her. Ms. Sandhu did exactly that. Yet her trust of the Virks was wholly misplaced, and this has left Ms. Sandhu feeling humiliated, anxious, and depressed,” said the court ruling. “The impact of such brazen and continuing dishonesty by M. Virk, interwoven with references to their shared religious faith, was inevitably going to cause significant intangible injury to Ms. Sandhu. Her distress and humiliation were palpable as she gave evidence. The Virks’ conduct continued for over a year; promises and assurances repeatedly made and repeatedly broken. This is not a case of one or two false statements or one or two assurances or reassurances, but rather a case involving repeated and enduring dishonesty.”