R. v. DiGiuseppe, 2008 ONCJ 127 (CanLII)
1.
S.C.C.
R. v. Alexander Street Lofts Development Corp. [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 378
Application for leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused.
2.
Ont. C.A.
R. v Alexander Street Lofts Development Corp. 86 O.R. (3d) 710.
Over a two year period false tax credits claimed on corporate G.S.T. returns under the Excise Tax Act totalling $670,000. Additional counts (x2) of attempted fraud in relations to a further $30,000 in G.S.T. refunds sought by offender but not paid by the government.
30 month jail term and a fine of $702,646.59 imposed after trial. Both conviction and sentence appeal dismissed by the Ontario Court of Appeal.
3.
O.S.C.
R. v. Williams [2007] O.J. No. 1604.
Fraud by a school board superintendent arising from this submission of false invoices and dishonest acquisition of funds for personal compensation resulting in a loss to the Board of Education of $194,357.21
Following a trial a sentence of 18 months imposed and a $159,000. restitution order (recovery of $34,0000 being previously secured)
4.
Que. C.A.
Regina v. Coffin 210 C.C.C. (3d) 227
15 counts of fraud against the Government of Canada over 5 year period resulting in the misappropriation of $1,556,625. Scheme involving submission of false invoices for promotional services and related expenses affording visibility to the Government of Canada at various cultural and sporting events.
Plea of guilty. $1 million restitution paid. Conditional sentences of 2 years less one day deemed unfit. 18 months imposed on appeal.
5.
Ont. S.C.
R. v. Onkar Travels Inc. [2003] O.J. No. 2939
G.S.T. fraud; failure to remit $756,527 and filing of false G.S.T. returns over 3 year period.
Plea of guilty; $105,000 in restitution paid; no criminal record, sentence of two years less one day imposed plus a $200,000 fine or nine months in default.
6.
Ont. C.A.
R. v. Onkar Travels Inc.
[2005] O.J. No. 1452
Sentence appeal.
Sentence affirmed.
7.
Ont. C.A.
R. v. Mastromonaco (2005), 63 W.C.B. (2d) 539.
Fraud; The accused induced an elderly couple to invest $70,000.
Appeal from a 21-month custodial sentence; Restitution order; Breach of trust for taking advantage of an elderly couple and robbing them of a substantial portion of their savings; Appeal dismissed.
8.
R. v. Clarke 2004 CanLII 7246 (ON C.A.), (2004), 189 O.A.C. 331.
Fraud against the bank where he was employed; $20 million; No previous record; Good character; Good employee.
Appeal from a 2-year conditional sentence followed by 3 years of probation; Objective of general deterrence; Breach of trust; High level of moral blame -worthiness; Lack of sophisticated planning; Crime committed over a short period of time; A 3-year custodial sentence would have been justified, but since the accused has already served nearly all of this sentence in the community, an additional 1 –year custodial sentence imposed.
9.
R. v. D’Andrea (2004), 62 W.C.B. (2d) 123.
Fraud; Stockholder; Good Character; Contributed to the community; Efforts made to repay the money.
Appeal from a 2-year custodial sentence; Sophisticated planning; Breach of trust; Violation of fiduciary duty toward other stockholders and investors; Appeal dismissed.
10.
R. v. Wilson 2003 CanLII 48181 (ON C.A.), (2003) 174 C.C.C. (3d) 255.
Fraud; Physician; Accused defrauded the hospital where he worked for $900,000; Restitution of $150,000.
Appeal from a 2-year conditional sentence; Minimal restitution; The trial judge overemphasized the importance of the accused’s guilty plea; Objective of general deterrence; Sentence not proportionate to the gravity of the offence; High degree of responsibility; breach of trust; Appeal allowed; 18-month custodial sentence imposed.
11.
R. v. Hadjor 2002 CanLII 41835 (ON C.A.), (2002), 165 O.A.C. 34.
Fraud: $400,000; Accountant; The accused made false declarations to clients that certain purportedly safe investments would bring a high return; He used the funds collected for personal purposes and to save his company.
Appeal from a 2-year custodial sentence; Restitution order; Objectives of denunciation and deterrence; A severe custodial sentence would reflect the gravity of the offence; Reasonable sentence; Appeal dismissed.
12.
R. v. Bogart 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON C.A.), (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 75, 167 C.C.C. (3d) 390; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2003] 1 S.C.R. vi, 171 C.C.C. (3d) vi.
Fraud; $1 Million; Physician: Fraud against the Ontario Health Insurance Plan over a 7-year period; No previous record; The accused suffered from bone cancer as a teenager; he had one hip replaced and one leg amputated; His psychotherapy helped several patients affected by AIDS; His patients fully supported him at the hearing, some even requesting that he not be sent to prison; He displayed a great deal of remorse for his actions.
Appeal from a 2-year conditional sentence; Order for restitution of $791,780.53; By the time of the appeal, the accused had already repaid $200,000; The sentence deemed unreasonable; Fraud noted as a serious crime; The administration of the health care system the placing of trust in physicians; No justification for the physicians actions; In cases involving fraud of this magnitude committed by persons of trust, the most important factor to consider is general deterrence; The sentence must be punitive: while severe conditions may make a conditional sentence punitive, a conditional sentence is not appropriate for the accused; Appeal allowed: the sentence is replaced by an 18-month custodial sentence.
13.
Ont. C.A.
R. v. D. Palma [2002] O.J. No. 2684
Tax evasion scheme; false claims for Tax refunds on fraudulent losses claimed on a mining exploration venture in the amount of $756,272.
Appeal from conviction and sentence on two counts of tax evasion. $1.1 million fine imposed (150% of income tax evaded) and a 3 year term of imprisonment.
14.
R. v. Suhr 2002 CanLII 13476 (ON C.A.), (2002), 166 O.A.C. 97.
Fraud; $100,000; Administrative technician; The accused stole telephones from his employer, Bell Canada; 22 years seniority; No previous record.
Appeal from a 6-month term of imprisonment followed by 18 months of probation; Order for restitution of $90,000; By the time of the appeal, the accused had already reimbursed $10,000; Breach of trust; Objectives of denunciation and deterrence; Appeal dismissed.
15.
R. v. Dobis 2002 CanLII 32815 (ON C.A.), (2002), 58 O.R. (3d) 536, 163 C.C.C. (3d) 259.
Theft and fraud; $286,636.50 and $1.9 million; Accounting manager; The accused drew cheques from the company payable to himself in the amount of $286,636.50 and defrauded the employer of $1.9 million; No previous record; the accused has a spouse but no children; His mother is his dependent.
Appeal from a 2-year conditional sentence; The amount at issue is particularly high; The victims and the company suffered greatly; Sophisticated planning; Importance of the objectives of denunciation and deterrence in cases of large-scale fraud committed by individuals in positions of trust and with disastrous effects on the victims; There is no mitigating factor justifying a conditional sentence; Appeal allowed: a 3-year custodial sentence would have been justified, but as the accused had already served 9 ½ months of his sentence, an additional 2-year prison sentence is imposed.
16.
R. v. Nichols 2001 CanLII 5680 (ON C.A.), (2001), 148 O.A.C. 344; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused reflex, (2002), 160 O.A.C. 198n.
Fraud; Telemarketer; 29 years old; Induced an 82-year old woman into giving him $1 million in US funds; No previous record; Articulate and intelligent.
Appeal from custodial sentence of 5 years and 3 months; The accused had paid $800,000 in restitution; Although the accused had repaid a substantial amount, the fact remains that he illegally appropriated a significant sum of money; Objectives of denunciation and deterrence; Existence of mitigating factors; Appeal allowed: custodial sentence reduced to 4 years.
17.
O.S.A.
R. v. Bjellebo [2000] O.J. No. 478
One of largest income tax frauds in Canadian legal history involving fraudulent conversion and misappropriation of $22 million over a period of 7 years, from 613 investors. Based on provision of false loss statements through limited partnerships operated by Bjellebo and co-accused Minshella and an additional loss of $2 million by Revenue Canada. Each offender found guilty of fraud over (x2) and uttering forced documents (x2)
After a jury trial Bellfield a.k.a. “Bjellebo” sentenced to 10 years plus $1 million fine and 2 years consecutive in default. Minchella received a sentence of 7 years in totality.
18.
R. v. Ruhland 1998 CanLII 6138 (ON C.A.), (1998), 123 C.C.C. (3d) 262.
Fraud; Fraudulent transactions; The accused illegally transferred company funds $343,186; Good character.
Appeal from a 3-year sentence of imprisonment; Sentence reduced to 2 years; The trial judge erred in the amount of the fraud – it was smaller than the trial judge found; A custodial sentence reflects the Court’s repugnance toward corporate fraud and serves as a deterrent to those who neglect their obligations toward the corporations they control; A conditional sentence is not appropriate.
19.
R. v. Pierce 1997 CanLII 3020 (ON C.A.), (1997), 32 O.R. (3d) 321, 114 C.C.C. (3d) 23; leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [1997] S.C.C.A. No. 225 (QL), 117 C.C.C. (3d) vi.
Fraud against the accused’s employer; Fraudulent transactions; The accused deposited 42 company cheques into his own bank account; The accused falsified the data in the company account books; $270,000.
Appeal from a 21-month custodial sentence; Minimal risk of re-offending; Sentence reduced to 12 months; Objective of general deterrence and public denunciations; Large-scale fraud; Planning and dishonest methods used; Breach of trust; Appeal allowed solely to reduce custodial sentence to 1 year.
20.
Ont. C.A.
R. v. Bertram [1990] O.J. No. 2013
Fraudulent misrepresentations inducing advancement of $4.5 million by the Canada Trust Company. Substantial recovery of lost funds from scheme resulting from lines of credit fraudulently established for non-existent customers.
Appeal from 6 years sentence. Sentence reduced to 4 years 3 months following consideration of 17 months of pre-trial custody not referenced by the trial judge. Plea of guilty.
21.
S.C.C.
Knox Contracting Ltd. et al v. The Queen 58 C.C.C. (3s) 65 (August 16, 1990)
Issue whether an appeal lies from the decision of a Superior court judge who declined to quash an Income Tax Act search warrant.
Evasion of “public duty” to pay income tax constitutes a criminal offence.
1.
Ont. S.C.
R. v. Lall [2007] O.J. No. 5216
Fraud; Government auditor filing of false tax returns claiming $143,000 in benefits on behalf of deceased or non-existent persons. Breach of trust.
Offender 45 years of age; no record; alcohol and gambling problem; family support; positive rehabilitative steps; 18 month sentence imposed. Restitution $1 – 2,000 with offenders wages subject to ongoing garnishment.
2.
B.C. Prov. Ct.
R. v. Kitty’s Beauty Studio Ltd et al, 2007 B.C.P.C. 111 (CanLII)
6 counts of tax evasion/G.S.T. fraud; total fraud approximately $400,000.
Primary offender sentenced to 18 month conditional sentence and fine of $137,250. on plea of guilty.
3.
Ont. S.C.
R. v. Ablacksingh [2007] CanlII 688 (Ont. S.C.)
Fraud; $5.24 million U.S. dollars. ($8 million plus Canadian) – False representations of inventory and accounting systems resulted in loss to victim, in Trade Finance Inc., of ability to carry on business and financial ruin of company principals.
Plea of guilty. “Grudgingly entered” on eve of trial. No restitution, 4.5 year penitentiary sentence imposed.
4.
B.C.S.C.
HMTQ v. Wilder et al, 2004 B.C.S.C. 644
Fraud x 7; possession proceeds of crime x 1; false claims for non-incurred expenses; Federal Scientific tax credit program; Total amount of fraud $36 Million
Kingpin of dishonest scheme sentenced to 9 years imprisonment and a $5 million restitution order. Other co-accused previously sentenced. Those sentences ranging from 6 to 7 years.
5.
Ont. C.A.
R. v. Ruhland; R. v. Tanasecu 1998 CanLII 6138 (ON C.A.), (1998) 123 C.C.C. (3d) 262
Fraud; Corporate fraud involving stripping of assets from the corporation by two shareholders resulting in $2.6 million loss, corporate insolvency and loss of jobs to hundreds of employees. (Note: $2.6 million total book value of assets transferred – actual loss an “indeterminable” lesser amount.)
Appeals from conviction and sentence. Convictions affirmed. Ruhland sentence appeal allowed on one count of fraud over sentence reduced from 3 years to 2 years less a day on basis trial judge magnified extent of fraud perpetrated based on misapprehension of actual realizable value of fraudulently transferred asset.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire