Le fait d'espérer que des manipulations comptables n'entraînent aucune privation n'est aucun secours pour la personne qui les commet

R. v. Drabinsky, 2009 CanLII 12802 (ON SC)

Lien vers la décision

[472]       The question is whether the accused subjectively appreciated that certain consequences would follow from his act, not whether he believed they were moral:  “…the defrauder will not be acquitted because he believed what he was doing was honest.”[196]

[473]       The fact that the accused may have hoped deprivation would not occur or may have thought what he was doing was not wrong is no defense.  Where the accused knowingly undertook the acts in question aware that deprivation or risk of deprivation could follow, the accused is guilty.  This is so whether he actually intended the consequences or was reckless as to whether they would occur.  In other words a “sanguine belief that all will come out right in the end” is not a defense.   “Many frauds” are perpetrated by people who think there is nothing wrong with what they are doing or who think it will turn out alright in the end.[197] 

[474]       Mr. Drabinsky and Mr. Gottlieb may have thought the manipulations would be temporary. They may have thought there was nothing wrong with accounting practices they were directing. They may have thought it would all work out alright in the end. However:

 …this inquiry has nothing to do with the accused’s system of values. A person is not saved from conviction because he or she believes there is nothing wrong with what he or she is doing. The question is whether the accused subjectively appreciated that certain consequences would follow from his or her acts, not whether the accused believed the acts or their consequences to be moral.[198]

 

[475]       It is essential that dishonest commercial practices which put the pecuniary interest of others at risk be visited with criminal sanctions.[199]

*** Confirmé par R. v. Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582, par. 80-82 ***