A regulatory hearing panel has upheld an order blocking the target of a British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) enforcement order from continuing to access his retirement savings.

A BCSC hearing panel dismissed an application from Earle Douglas Pasquill, who sought to lift an order that the BCSC granted in March, preventing Pasquill from depleting his registered life income accounts (LIFs).

The preservation order followed a BCSC enforcement decision in 2015, which ordered Pasquill to pay a $15-million penalty and $21.7-million disgorgement after the regulator found he co-operated an investment club that fraudulently raised millions from investors.

Pasquill sought to have the preservation order lifted, arguing that registered accounts are exempt from enforcement proceedings under B.C. pension laws and its court order enforcement laws.

However, the BCSC panel rejected that argument, ruling that the preservation order doesn’t seize the assets; it merely prevents them from being depleted.

It said the order only prevents dispositions and transfers from the accounts.

“The accounts remain the same,” the panel said. “The beneficiaries remain the same, and the property held in the accounts remains the same. The preservation order does not purport to take any enforcement steps, but rather preserves assets for future legitimate claimants.”

The panel also rejected the notion of varying the order to allow Pasquill to meet his monthly living expenses.

According to the panel’s decision, he’d been taking monthly draws of $6,575 from the LIF accounts, making up the bulk of his income.

However, the panel ruled that he didn’t provide “sufficient evidence regarding his living expenses to establish that he would suffer hardship if the preservation order were not revoked or varied.”

The panel also noted that Pasquill hasn’t paid any of the sanctions ordered by the BCSC in 2015 nor provided any plan to pay.

“The final implication of the applicant’s submissions is that he should be shown some leniency from the panel, as he only benefited personally by gaining $400,000 through his fraudulent actions,” the panel said in its decision.

In rejecting that claim, it noted he hasn’t paid back the $400,000 — and investors lost $21.7 million.