A U.S. court order is reaching into Canada for $9.2 million
A $9.2 million Royal Bank of Canada account is being seized under a U.S. forfeiture order, and Canadian courts will not stop it.
George Georgiou was convicted in the United States in 2010 for his role in a US$55 million stock fraud, triggering an American final order of forfeiture against proceeds held in a Royal Bank of Canada account of about $9.2 million, an account held on his behalf by a friend.
In January 2026, Georgiou appeared before the Ontario Court of Appeal seeking state-appointed counsel or an amicus curiae and a stay pending such appointment to prevent a miscarriage of justice. In United States v. Georgiou, decided March 13, 2026, Justice Lauwers considered whether Georgiou was entitled to that assistance while pursuing leave to appeal a lower court's summary dismissal of his earlier applications.
Those earlier applications sought a stay and termination of the forfeiture order being executed in Canada, and disclosure of cooperation records between Canadian and American authorities, including the OPP, RCMP, Toronto Municipal Police, Montreal Municipal Police, Ontario Securities Commission, FBI, DEA, and Securities and Exchange Commission, relating to Georgiou's investigation and prosecution and as they may relate whatsoever to the investigation and potential prosecution of Vito Rizzuto and Vince Derosa by either government. The application judge dismissed both as manifestly frivolous.
The legal framework is the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty between Canada and the United States (in force January 24, 1990) and Canada's Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act. In September 2012, the U.S. restraint order was entered as a Superior Court judgment; Georgiou's motion to set it aside was dismissed in April 2017, upheld on appeal in March 2018, with the Supreme Court of Canada declining leave. On April 1, 2021, the forfeiture order was itself entered as a Superior Court judgment, rendering it enforceable in Canada. A subsequent U.S. application to reopen his case has since been dismissed; Georgiou asserts he has applied to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Throughout proceedings in both countries, Georgiou has sowed suspicion of nefarious cooperation between U.S. and Canadian authorities, arguing it shows he was not guilty and should keep the $9.2 million. Canadian courts have consistently rejected this.
Justice Lauwers applied the three-part test from R. v. Staples, 2016 ONCA 362.
On the first question, whether Georgiou had the means to hire counsel privately, the court found his evidence insufficient. Georgiou pointed to the size of the forfeiture order and claimed Legal Aid had rejected him but provided no supporting documentation, falling short of establishing he had no other means, personally or through accessible family sources.
On the second question, whether he had arguable grounds of appeal, the court found he did not. His applications amounted to a collateral attack on both American judgments and Canadian court rulings that have ruled on the validity and enforceability of the forfeiture order. His Charter arguments, alleging that section 35 of the Act breached sections 8 and 15 of the Charter by limiting appeals to matters of law, were also rejected. Justice Lauwers noted, however, that this determination does not decide the merits of Georgiou's leave to appeal, which remains a matter for the panel that will ultimately hear it.
On the third question, whether Georgiou could effectively advance the appeal without counsel, the court answered yes. Justice Lauwers described him as "as articulate a litigant as I have ever seen," noting that the U.S. District Court had itself observed that Georgiou "effectively represented himself and thoroughly questioned all of the nineteen witnesses" and had "fully used his unparalleled knowledge of the facts of his case, including the trial record, to his full advantage." He made a similar assessment of Georgiou's skill based on his materials and submissions.
The application for state-appointed counsel and the stay were both dismissed. The court, alive to the logistical issue Georgiou faces as an individual incarcerated in a foreign prison, directed the Crown to provide him with logistical support where necessary to assist in completing and filing his leave to appeal materials. The court directed that the matter be added to the status court list for further management.
