Fraud Defence Lawyer in Brampton

(b) is guilty

(i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.

To be found guilty of Fraud, the Crown must first prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the actus reus of Fraud, that is, engaged in a prohibited act; i.e., an act of deceit, falsehood or some “other fraudulent means”. The prosecutor need only prove any one of these, not all. In R. v. Fast, [2018] O.J. No. 2520, the Court affirmed the definitions of these prohibited acts: “deceit” involves “an untrue statement made by a person who knows that it is untrue, or has reason to believe that it is untrue and makes the statement despite that risk, to induce another person to act on it as if it was true, to that other person’s detriment”; a “falsehood” is a deliberate lie; and “other fraudulent means” is the general concept of dishonesty. Whether or not a particular act falls within the meaning of “other fraudulent means” is determined objectively by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act or dishonest dealing. Some cases have suggested that mere silence can constitute “other fraudulent means”, where that silence hides from another person fundamental and essential information in circumstances where the omission or silence would mislead a reasonable person (R. v. Fast, [2018] O.J. No. 2520, R. v. Drake, [2006] O.J. No. 129 (S.C.J.))

Second, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prohibited act caused deprivation to the victim. For example, this may be satisfied through proof of resulting actual detriment, prejudice or loss experienced by the victim. However, even proof of resulting risk of prejudice to the economic or pecuniary interests of the victim can be sufficient. As recognized in R. v. Fast, [2018] O.J. No. 2520, the accused doesn’t have to be the sole cause of such deprivation, but simply contributing to the deprivation beyond the de minimus range (i.e. not trivial) will be sufficient to make out the offence.

The Crown must also prove the mens rea, or mental element, of Fraud. This requires proof of two things: (1) that the accused had subjective knowledge or awareness of the prohibited dishonest act, meaning that the accused meant to say and/or do the things constituting deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means; and (2) that the accused had subjective knowledge or appreciation that a consequence of the prohibited act could be deprivation of another, meaning that the accused was aware that deprivation or risk of deprivation would be a likely consequence of their prohibited act.

Fraud Over $5000 is an indictable offence and can carry a sentence of up to fourteen years’ imprisonment. On the other hand, Fraud Under $5000 is a hybrid offence, meaning that the Crown can elect between proceeding summarily or by indictment. However, Fraud involving stocks, merchandise, shares, or anything that is offered for sale to the public—e.g. insider trading—will always be an indictable offence, regardless of the amount involved. The maximum punishment for such Fraud is imprisonment of up to fourteen years.