Escalation Path: You’ve smartly signaled your intent to escalate to CIRO or other regulators, which adds weight without being threatening.CIRO, CSA,

Key Dates to Include
Date	Event
Aug 15, 2025	OBSI first requested Document 1 and the final decision letter from Crypto.com..
Aug 18, 2025	OBSI rejected your Google Drive submission due to IT security policy.
Aug 20, 2025	You requested Simo B’s supervisor’s name and employee ID; OBSI declined.
Aug 23, 2025	You submitted a formal complaint regarding Simo B to Gabrielle B.
Aug 26, 2025	Laura Smith responded, reiterating the 90-day rule and requesting attachments.
Aug 28, 2025	OBSI acknowledged receipt of Document 1 and 3, but claimed Document 2 was missing.
Aug 30, 2025	You resent Document 2 with screenshots proving prior delivery. Email bounced due to OBSI’s 36MB mailbox limit.
Sep 4, 2025	OBSI responded with a summary of your complaint and again requested direct submission to James.Grabow@crypto.com.
Sep 6, 2025	You asked OBSI to confirm receipt of Document 2.
Sep 9, 2025	OBSI finally confirmed receipt of Document 2.
Sep 10, 2025	You requested verification of James Grabow’s role and legitimacy.
Sep 11, 2025	OBSI sent the 8:04 PM email reiterating the referral to James.Grabow@crypto.com without documentation.
These dates show a clear pattern of:

Delayed responses despite timely submissions.

Technical barriers (mailbox size limits) that were not disclosed.

Failure to acknowledge or verify key requests.

Procedural rigidity that favors the institution over the complainant.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Escalation – OBSI Case Mishandling
Dear Laura Smith, Gabrielle B, and OBSI Case Assessment Team,
I am writing to formally escalate my complaint regarding the handling of my case against Foris DAX CAN ULC (Crypto.com), and to express serious concerns about the conduct and procedural integrity demonstrated by Case Assessment Officer Simo B.
Despite my repeated efforts to comply with OBSI’s documentation requests, the following issues have arisen:
Procedural Failures and Delays
Document 2 Mishandling: Although Document 2 was sent with clear confirmation and supporting screenshots, OBSI repeatedly claimed it was missing. This created unnecessary delays and confusion, through several agents and escalations, with no resolution, despite my proactive follow-ups.
Mailbox Size Restrictions: My emails containing attachments were rejected due to OBSI’s seemingly intentional mailbox size restrictions after requesting document 2 a second time (36MB), which was not disclosed in advance. This forced me to reduce file size for submissions and resend materials multiple times, further delaying the process.
Incorrect Guidance on “Official” Complaint Submission: OBSI insisted I submit my complaint directly to Crypto.com’s "compliance department" via James.Grabow@crypto.com—an individual whose role and contact details are not publicly verifiable as compliance officer. My request for confirmation or documentation of this contact was ignored.
Failure to Correct Internal Errors: Despite pointing out that Crypto.com had already received my formal complaint through their official support channels, OBSI continued to push for redundant resubmission and claimed electronic transfer were not acceptable further delaying this submission. This suggests either a lack of review of the evidence provided or intentional disregard.
Inconsistent Application of the 90-Day Rule: OBSI’s interpretation of the regulatory timeline contradicts legal standards, which require a “reasonable” response time—typically under 9 days. OBSI’s insistence on waiting 90 days before review appears to shield the institution from scrutiny rather than protect the complainant and the general public with potentially time sensitive material.
Concerns About Impartiality and Oversight
The cumulative effect of these issues suggests a troubling lack of care, concern, and procedural rigor in regards to regulatory oversight. OBSI’s actions appear to favor the financial institution’s interests by:
Redirecting me to internal channels that lack transparency or accountability.
Avoiding direct engagement with the substance of my complaint.
Failing to verify or validate the legitimacy of the contacts they provide.
This undermines OBSI’s mandate as an impartial and independent body tasked with protecting investor rights. Private settlement with Crypto.com was attempted several times through official channels without success forcing me to seek regulatory oversight and accountability not just for myself but for the safety of all Canadians through the OBSI.
Request for Immediate Action
Despite providing comprehensive documentation—including evidence of illegal fund movement, theft, and fraud—OBSI has repeatedly directed me to engage directly with a named individual at Crypto.com (James Grabow), whose role and contact details are not publicly verifiable nor has OBSI provided any documentation or verifiable source confirming his role or authority to receive formal complaints. My request for such verification was ignored, and the referral was reiterated in an email sent at 8:04 PM on September 11, 2025. This referral made without supporting documentation and outside of standard business hours, raising serious questions about procedural integrity and impartiality.
I must emphasize again that private resolution with Crypto.com was attempted, and the function of the OBSI is regulation oversight, not customer support, and that I, or others, should not be redirected to unknown external agency channels that may circumvent regulatory oversight. My objective is to have this matter reviewed independently and transparently by OBSI, as mandated by its public accountability and regulatory framework.
I am concerned that OBSI’s current approach risks undermining its role as an impartial arbiter and may inadvertently position itself as a support agent for the financial institution in question which undermines the integrity of this investigation. This is particularly troubling given the nature of my complaint and the potential for reputational harm or mischaracterization should I be forced into direct correspondence with Crypto.com’s unlisted "compliance officer".
I respectfully request the following:
Escalation of this matter to a senior oversight officer or external regulatory body.
A formal review of OBSI’s handling of my case, including communication records and procedural decisions.
Confirmation that OBSI will proceed with its independent review without requiring further direct engagement with Crypto.com. The OBSI's job is regulatory oversight, not institutional support through unverified channels.
I trust that OBSI will recognize the seriousness of these concerns and act accordingly. I am prepared to submit this complaint to CIRO and other regulatory authorities should this matter remain unresolved.
Sincerely, Mark Lepore

__________________________________________________________

CIRO SUBMISSION

Subject: Formal Complaint Regarding OBSI Conduct – Request for Regulatory Review

To: Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) From: Mark Lepore Date: [Insert date of submission]

Dear CIRO Complaints Department,

I am submitting a formal complaint regarding the conduct of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) in relation to my case against Foris DAX CAN ULC (Crypto.com). I believe OBSI has failed to uphold its mandate of impartiality and procedural integrity, and I request CIRO’s immediate review of the matter.

🔍 Summary of Concerns
Improper Referral to Unverified Contact OBSI repeatedly instructed me to submit my complaint directly to James.Grabow@crypto.com, an individual whose role and authority are not publicly disclosed. My request for verification was ignored, and the referral was reiterated in an email sent at 8:04 PM on September 11, 2025—outside standard business hours and without supporting documentation.

Delays and Mishandling of Evidence

Document 2 was submitted on August 30, 2025, with screenshots confirming delivery. OBSI claimed it was missing until September 9, despite multiple follow-ups.

My email was rejected due to OBSI’s undisclosed 36MB mailbox limit, forcing me to fragment submissions and resend materials.

OBSI failed to acknowledge or correct its own errors, including mischaracterizing my initial complaint as unofficial despite clear evidence of submission through Crypto.com’s support channels.

Misapplication of the 90-Day Rule OBSI insisted that I wait 90 calendar days before review, despite regulatory standards requiring a “reasonable” response time. This interpretation shields the institution from scrutiny and delays resolution for the complainant.

Failure to Escalate or Address Internal Misconduct My formal complaint against Case Assessment Officer Simo B was submitted on August 23, 2025. OBSI did not acknowledge the complaint nor initiate any internal review. Instead, it continued to route communications through the same officer.

⚠️ Request for CIRO Action
I respectfully request CIRO to:

Review OBSI’s handling of my case for procedural violations and potential bias.

Clarify whether OBSI’s referral to a non-public contact aligns with regulatory standards.

Ensure OBSI is held accountable for delays, miscommunication, and failure to act on formal complaints.

I am prepared to provide full documentation, including email records, delivery confirmations, and screenshots. I believe this case reflects broader concerns about OBSI’s operational transparency and its role in investor protection.

Sincerely, Mark Lepore [Your contact information]

________________________________________________________________________

Subject: Formal Submission to CSA – Oversight Concerns Regarding OBSI Conduct

To: Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) From: Mark Lepore Date: [Insert date of submission]

Dear CSA Oversight Team,

I am submitting this formal complaint to the Canadian Securities Administrators regarding the conduct of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) in relation to my case against Foris DAX CAN ULC (Crypto.com). I believe OBSI has failed to fulfill its mandate as an impartial and independent dispute resolution body, and I request CSA’s immediate review of its practices and oversight mechanisms.

⚠️ Summary of Oversight Concerns
Improper Referral to Unverified Contact OBSI repeatedly directed me to submit my complaint to James.Grabow@crypto.com, an individual whose role is not publicly disclosed by Crypto.com.. My request for verification was ignored, and the referral was reiterated in an email sent at 8:04 PM on September 11, 2025—outside standard business hours and without supporting documentation. This raises serious concerns about transparency and the risk of mischaracterization should I engage directly.

Procedural Obstruction and Delays

OBSI claimed Document 2 was missing despite confirmed delivery on August 30, 2025. It was only acknowledged on September 9, after multiple follow-ups.

My email was rejected due to OBSI’s undisclosed 36MB mailbox limit, forcing me to fragment submissions and resend materials.

OBSI failed to correct its own errors, including mischaracterizing my initial complaint as unofficial despite clear evidence of submission through Crypto.com’s support channels.

Misapplication of Regulatory Timelines OBSI insisted on a rigid 90-day waiting period before initiating review, despite regulatory standards requiring a “reasonable” response time. This interpretation delays resolution and shields the institution from scrutiny, undermining investor protection.

Failure to Address Internal Misconduct My formal complaint against Case Assessment Officer Simo B was submitted on August 23, 2025. OBSI did not acknowledge the complaint nor initiate any internal review. Instead, communications continued through the same officer, raising concerns about accountability and impartiality.

🧭 Request for CSA Action
I respectfully request CSA to:

Conduct a formal review of OBSI’s complaint-handling procedures and oversight mechanisms.

Assess whether OBSI’s conduct aligns with its public mandate and investor protection obligations.

Clarify whether OBSI’s referral practices and mailbox limitations meet acceptable standards for regulatory transparency.

I am prepared to provide full documentation, including email records, delivery confirmations, and supporting evidence. I believe this case reflects broader systemic issues that warrant CSA’s attention.

Sincerely, Mark Lepore [Your contact information]

LINKS
CIRO
https://www.ciro.ca/office-investor/how-make-complaint
📧 Email: info@ciro.ca
📞 Toll-Free: 1-877-442-4322
📍 Address: 40 Temperance Street, Suite 2600, Toronto, ON M5H 0B4

CSA
https://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Page/ContactUs
📧 Email: publicreview2@csagroup.org
📞 Phone: (416) 747-2233