R. c. Charbonneau, 2008 QCCQ 251 (CanLII)
[15] La Cour a plus particulièrement retenu les arrêts suivants :
1. Dans l’arrêt R. v. Heiligstzer, 2005 CarswellAlta 2023, le juge de première instance a condamné l’accusé à l’équivalent de 7 ans de pénitencier, pour une fraude d’un million et demi de dollars. Il s’exprime ainsi au
paragraphe 11 :
[…]
«In almost all of the cases, general deterrents and denunciation is a primary consideration. As was said by Mr. Justice McDermott in the Ryan decision, we must do what we can to maintain trust in people who have positions of trust. The three year sentencing starting point for trust theft and fraud is not abnormal. In fact, for amounts similar to that in this case, sentences have gone as high as 12 years. In Sandercock, a major trust defalcation case, a starting point should be three to five years and that was cited by Mr. Justice Wachowich, as he then was, in the Kara decision.»
[…]
Cette décision a été maintenue par la Cour d’appel de l’Alberta.
2. Dans l’arrêt R. v. Montpellier, 2004 CarswellOnt 6419, le juge a condamné l’accusé à 7 ans de pénitencier, il s’agissait d’une fraude de plus de cinq millions trois cent mille dollars à l’encontre de 128 victimes. Au paragraphe 17 de son jugement, la Cour s’exprime ainsi :
[…]
«I have considered that the breach of trust involved not only the 128 investors, but the members of this community generally. The breach of trust committed by Mr. Montpellier was that of a person who was an integral part of the business community and who was entrusted with large amounts of money, for some, their entire life's savings. The effect on the members of the community generally is a negative one.»
[…]
3. Dans l’arrêt R. v. Lawrence, 1996 CarswellBC 2121, le juge de première instance a condamné l’accusé à 7 ans de pénitencier pour une fraude de
dix-sept millions de dollars à l’encontre du gouvernement. Il cite au paragraphe 69 la Cour d’appel du Québec en disant :
« In R. c. Savard (1996), 109 C.C.C. (3d) 471 (Que. C.A.), the Court dealt with the factors that should be considered in imposing sentence for offences of fraud and false pretences. The court stated at p. 474 :
The factors which permit one to measure liability of an accused on sentencing, in matters of fraud, were well set out in the decision of our court in R. v. Levesque (1993), 59 Q.A.C. 307 (Que.C.A.). These facts can be summarized as follows: (1) the nature and extent of the loss, (2) the degree of premeditation found, notably, in the planning and application of a system of fraud, (3) the accused's actions after the commission of the offence, (4) the accused's previous convictions, (5) the personal benefits generated by the commission of the offenses, (6) the authority and trust existing in the relationship between the accused and the victim, as well as (7) the motivation underlying the commission of the offenses.
Where these factors point to fraudulent wrongdoing with no indication of mitigating circumstances, the courts give preference to incarceration as the preferred means of protecting society and of general deterrence, and expressly reject consideration of rehabilitation. »
La Cour d’appel de la Colombie-Britannique R. v. Lawrence, 2004 CarswellBC, 1137 a maintenu cette décision et s’exprimait ainsi au paragraphe 22 :
« On the other hand this fraud was enormous. The trial judge characterized it as "morally monstrous". The fraud saw profits of 17 million dollars. It consisted of an elaborate plan which was put into effect over many months. It involved many players, an elaborate paper trail, and significant cunning and deceit. »
4. Dans l’arrêt R. v. Bjellebo, 2000 CarswellOnt 403, la Cour de première instance condamnait l’accusé a une sentence de 10 ans de pénitencier et un million de dollars d’amende pour une fraude de vingt-deux millions de dollars. Elle s’exprimait ainsi au paragraphe 38 :
«In regard to the overriding matters of deterrence and denunciation : (1) This court takes notice of what appears to be a pernicious and alarming proliferation in what is termed "white collar crime" in this country; (2) people in the community who deliberately breach their obligations to others for their own personal gain must be prepared to suffer the consequences of their illegal action; (3) as observed by Watt J. in the Rosenberg case (supra), the vast majority of honest taxpayers in this country are entitled to know that massive frauds of this nature will not be ignored nor treated lightly; (4) I reiterate the following the admonition emphasized by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Pierce (1997), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 23 (Ont. C.A.) at p. 7 :
Great care must be taken in the matter of sentence for a criminal offence, such as fraud at this level of seriousness, to avoid the prospect that by overemphasizing the principle of rehabilitation the crime to many would be worth the risk of being caught.
At the same time, I take into account the fact that these crimes were committed well over a decade ago, that the investigation was prolonged and that the matter took five and a half years to come to trial from the time the accused were charged during which time they each submitted to the court's jurisdiction and appeared in court on numerous occasions. »
Cette décision a été maintenue par la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire