Voir la source de Peine pour Fraude

[[en:Sentencing_Fraud]]
{{Currency2|Janvier|2020}}
{{HeaderFraud}}
{{OffencesBoxMini|Fraud}}

==Aperçu==
{{seealso|Fraude (infraction)}}
L'Association of Certified Fraud Examiners a créé une taxonomie de la fraude :<ref>
[https://www.acfe.com/rttn2016/images/fraud-tree.jpg Fraud Taxonomy Tree]
</ref>
* Corruption
** Conflit d'intérêts (stratagèmes d'achat, stratagèmes de vente)
** Corruption (pots-de-vin sur facture, truquage d'offres)
** Gratifications illégales
** Extorsion économique
* Détournement d'actifs
** Espèces
*** Vol d'argent liquide
*** Vol de reçus en espèces
**** Écrémage
***** Ventes (non enregistrées, sous-estimées)
***** Créances (stratagèmes de radiation, stratagèmes de recouvrement, non dissimulés)
***** Remboursements ou autres
**** Vol d'espèces
*** Décaissements frauduleux
**** Stratagèmes de facturation (société écran, vendeur non complice, achats personnels)
**** Stratagèmes de paie (employé fantôme, salaires falsifiés, stratagèmes de commissions)
**** Stratagèmes de remboursement de dépenses (dépenses mal caractérisées, dépenses surestimées, dépenses fictives, remboursements multiples)
**** Falsification de chèques (fabricant de faux, endossement falsifié, bénéficiaire altéré, fabricant autorisé)
**** Déboursements enregistrés (fausses annulations, faux remboursements)
** Stocks et autres actifs
* Fraude aux états financiers
** Surévaluation de la valeur nette/du revenu net (différences temporelles, revenus fictifs, passifs et dépenses dissimulés, évaluations d'actifs incorrectes, divulgations incorrectes)
** Sous-évaluation de la valeur nette/du revenu net (différences temporelles, revenus sous-estimés, passifs et dépenses surestimés, évaluations d'actifs incorrectes, divulgations incorrectes)

{{reflist|2}}

==Libellé de l'infraction==
{{quotation3|
; Fraude
380 (1) Quiconque, par supercherie, mensonge ou autre moyen dolosif, constituant ou non un faux semblant au sens de la présente loi, frustre le public ou toute personne, déterminée ou non, de quelque bien, service, argent ou valeur :
:a) est coupable d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de quatorze ans, si l’objet de l’infraction est un titre testamentaire ou si la valeur de l’objet de l’infraction dépasse cinq mille dollars;
:b) est coupable :
::(i) soit d’un acte criminel et passible d’un emprisonnement maximal de deux ans,
::(ii) soit d’une infraction punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire,

si la valeur de l’objet de l’infraction ne dépasse pas cinq mille dollars.

; Peine minimale
(1.1) Le tribunal qui détermine la peine à infliger à une personne qui, après avoir été poursuivie par acte d’accusation, est déclarée coupable d’une ou de plusieurs infractions prévues au paragraphe (1) est tenu de lui infliger une peine minimale d’emprisonnement de deux ans si la valeur totale de l’objet des infractions en cause dépasse un million de dollars.
<br>
{{Removed|(2)}}
L.R. (1985), ch. C-46, art. 380;
L.R. (1985), ch. 27 (1er suppl.), art. 54; {{LegHistory90s|1994, ch. 44}}, art. 25; {{LegHistory90s|1997, ch. 18}}, art. 26;
{{LegHistory00s|2004, ch. 3}}, art. 2;
{{LegHistory10s|2011, ch. 6}}, art. 2
{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|380}}
|{{NoteUp|380|1|1.1}}
|{{terms-
|"Act" (s. 2)
|"person" (s. 2)
|"testamentary instrument” (s. 2)
}}
}}

===Projet de formulaire d'accusation===
{{seealso|Projet de formulaire d'accusation}}
See [[Fraude (infraction)]]

==Principes généraux==
{{seealsoSentencing}}

; Pénalités maximales
{{SProfileMaxHeader}}
{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}<br>À partir de 15 septembre 2004| {{NA}} | {{Max14Years}}}}
{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1)(b) {{DescrSec|380(1)(b)}}| {{Summary}} | {{summaryconviction}} }}
{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1)(b) {{DescrSec|380(1)(b)}}| {{Indictment}} | {{Max2Years}} }}
{{SProfileMax|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}<br>Until 14 septembre 2004| {{NA}} |{{Max10Years}}}}
{{SProfileEnd}}

{{MaxPenaltyIndictment|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}|'''{{Max14Years}}'''}}

{{MaxPenaltyHybrid|art. 380(1)(b) {{DescrSec|380(1)(b)}}|'''{{Max2Years}}'''|'''{{summaryconviction}}'''}}

; Pénalités minimales
{{NoMinimumPenalties}}

; Dispositions disponibles

{{SProfileAvailHeader}}
|art. 380(1)(b) {{DescrSec|380(1)(b)}} || quelconque || {{SProfileAll}} 
|-
|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}<br>Nov. 20, 2012 onward || {{NA}} || {{SProfileNoDischargeOrCSO}}
|-
|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}<br>15 septembre 2004 to Nov. 20, 2012 || {{NA}} || {{SProfileNoDischarge}}
|-
|art. 380(1)(a) {{DescrSec|380(1)(a)}}<br>Until 14 septembre 2004 || {{NA}} || {{SProfileAll}}
|-
{{SProfileEnd}}

; Peines consécutive
{{NoConsecutive}}


;Mandatory Minimum
The mandatory minimum sentence for fraud over $1 million has been found in at least one instance to be unconstitutional as "cruel and unusual" punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Plange|hr3xc|2018 ONSC 1657 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Nakatsuru J}}{{atsL|hr3xc|36| à 39}}
</ref>

===Conditional Sentences===
Conditional sentences are available for offences of fraud under $5,000. 

Conditional sentences are available for offences of fraud over $5,000 where the offence was committed prior to the amendment to s. 742.1 on 20 novembre 2012.<ref>
[[Liste des modifications au Code criminel]]
</ref>

Unless prohibited by law, the court should be considered a conditional sentence in all circumstances where incarceration is contemplated.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Moulton|4t8t|2001 SKCA 121 (CanLII)|160 CCC (3d) 407}}{{perSKCA|Vancise JA}}</ref>

Custodial sentences are considered preferable "[w]here punitive objectives such as denunciation and deterrence are particularly pressing, such as in cases in which there are aggravating circumstances."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Proulx|527c|2000 CSC 5 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 RCS 61}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}} at 114</ref>

For most courts, the amount defrauded will be sufficient to determine if incarceration is required.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bogart|1cqs2|2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA)|[2002] OJ No 3039}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}, leave ref'd, [2003] RCS vi{{at-|34}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Evans|5dlh|2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Glennie J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Williams|6wd3|2003 CanLII 9650 (ON CA)|[2003] OJ No 2202 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Kuriya|5htk|2002 NBQB 306 (CanLII)|658 APR 247}}{{perNBQB|Russell J}} aff’d at {{CanLII|564s|2003 NBCA 63 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtNBCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Black|58sh|2003 NSSC 99 (CanLII)| [2003] NSJ No 168}}{{perNSSC|Murphy J}} <br>
</ref>

In major frauds involving breach of trust, denunciation and deterrence are to be emphasized and will usually result in jail sentences.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|MacEachern|, [1978] OJ No 987}}{{ats-|8, 9}} (ONCA)<br> 
{{CanLIIR-N|Tucker|, [1988] NSJ No 33}}{{atp|18}} (NSCA) <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Hill|1mlz2|1997 CanLII 9832 (NSSC)|[1997] NSJ No 97}}{{perNSSC|Gruchy J}}{{atsL|1mlz2|13| à 15}} (N.S.S.C.)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Toews|1spfq|2007 ABPC 235 (CanLII)|[2007] AJ No 944}}{{perABPC|Stevens-Guille J}}{{atsL|1spfq|36|, 37}} (ABPC)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|McKinnon|1jk86|2005 ABCA 8 (CanLII)|[2005] AJ No 12}}{{perABCA|Côté JA}}{{atsL|1jk86|60| à 63}} (ABCA)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Reid|1g9t4|2004 YKCA 4 (CanLII)|[2004] Y.J. No 3}}{{perYKCA|Hall JA}}{{atL|1g9t4|13}} (YTCA) <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Steeves|1lkkf|2005 NBCA 85 (CanLII)|[2005] N.B. J. No 351}}{{TheCourtNBCA}}{{atL|1lkkf|10}} (NBCA) <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cremer|1sx79|2007 ABQB 544 (CanLII)|[2007] AJ No 989}}{{perABQB|Burrows J}}{{atL|1sx79|26}} (ABQB)<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Miller|2854h|2010 ABPC 37 (CanLII)|[2010] AJ No 174}}{{perABPC|Mcllhargey J}}{{atL|2854h|62}}<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Inglis|5swc|2002 BCPC 242 (CanLII)}}{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}}{{atL|5swc|5}} (“the law has made it clear that unless there are exceptional and unusual circumstances, people who find themselves before the court on offences that involve  a breach of trust should expect that a period of incarceration is the likely consequence.”)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Howe|5fql|2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII)|[2002] AJ No 1443}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atL|5fql|3}} - concerned tax fraud<br>
cf. {{CanLIIRP|Matchett|1l3z3|1997 CanLII 9511 (NB CA)|[1997] NBJ No 176 (CA)}}{{perNBCA|Ayles JA}} at 5<br>
</ref>

Certain courts have stated that conditional sentence orders should not be granted where there is a breach of trust.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Pierce|6hsr|1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA)|114 CCC (3d) 23}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}} </ref>
However, others suggest that it is not a full prohibition. Rather is it rate where it is a large scale fraud.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Williams|1r934|2007 CanLII 13949 (ONSC)|[2007] O.J. 1604}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atsL|1r934|26| à 28}} ( {{Tr}}« The sentencing option of a conditional sentence is not excluded from consideration in breach of trust fraud cases » ) <br>
</ref>

Incarceration is often ordered where there is no remorse.<ref>
{{CanLIIR-N|Mastromonaco|, [2002] OJ No 4612}} at 28</ref>
Also where there is no acceptance of responsibility.<ref>
{{supra1|Desormeau}} at 20</ref>

Where there are exceptional or extreme personal mitigating circumstances, general deterrence can be satisfied by a conditional sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bunn|527m|2000 CSC 9 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 RCS 183}}{{perSCC|Lamer J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRx|Kratky|1f5q8|1997 CanLII 936 (BC SC)}}{{perBCSC|Curtis J}}  <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Anderson-Davis|53wz|2000 BCSC 42 (CanLII)|[2000] BCJ No 88}}{{perBCSC|Boyle J}}<br>
</ref>

Restitution and community service work are not sufficient to amount to exceptional circumstances to warrant a conditional sentence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|McEachern|htxm5|1978 CanLII 2506 (ON CA)|42 CCC (2d) 189}}{{perONCA|Howland CJ}}{{atp|191}} (CCC)</ref>

Where the aggravating factors overwhelm the mitigating factors, a sentence of imprisonment is mandated.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bodnarchuk|1vqm2|2008 BCCA 39 (CanLII)|254 BCAC 6}}{{perBCCA|Levine JA}} at 20<br>
{{CanLIIRx|Mohebtash|1t1dt|2007 BCCA 427 (CanLII)}}{{perBCCA|Finch CJ}}{{atL|1t1dt|10}}</ref>

The “ruin and humiliation” brought upon the accused and his family due to the offence and professional loss coupled with a conditional sentence can be sufficient to satisfy denunciation and deterrence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bunn|527m|2000 CSC 9 (CanLII)|[2000] 1 RCS 183}}{{perSCC|Lamer CJ}}{{atL|527m|23}}</ref>

; Res Judicata
A person convicted of fraud and income tax evasion may be sentenced separately for each offence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Beggs|5cwv|2003 BCCA 101 (CanLII)|180 BCAC 186}}{{perONCA|Ryan JA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leo-Mensah|287j6|2010 ONCA 139 (CanLII)|259 OAC 196}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}<br>
</ref>
{{Reflist|2}}

==Sentencing Principles==
{{seealso|Infractions contre les biens et fraudes (détermination de la peine)}}

; Primacy of General Deterrence and Denunciation
Major instances of fraud over $5,000 require emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dobis|1dqkj|2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA)|163 CCC (3d) 259}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}} at 42<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bogart|1cqs2|2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA)|[2002] OJ No 3039}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}, leave ref'd, [2003] RCS vi, at 29, 33-36<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wismayer|6h6j|1997 CanLII 3294 (ON CA)|115 CCC (3d) 118}}{{perONCA|Rosenberg JA}} at 38<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Gray (LV) et al|674r|1995 CanLII 18 (ON CA)|76 OAC 387}}{{perONCA|Carthy JA}}{{atps|398-99}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Betram| [1990] OJ No 2013}} at 3 (CA)<br>
</ref> 
The same goes for cases involving breach of trust<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Howe|5fql|2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII)|[2002] AJ No 1443}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atL|5fql|3}}<br>
{{supra1|Dobis}} at 272<br>
{{supra1|Bogart}} at 29<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Pierce|6hsr|1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA)|[1997] OJ No 715}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}, at 11<br>
</ref>
and offences that involve a substantial amount of dishonesty.<ReF>  
{{CanLIIRP|Drabinsky and Gottlieb|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)|274 CCC (3d) 289}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fn2mg|160}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Coffin|1p6dw|2006 QCCA 471 (CanLII)|210 CCC (3d) 227}}{{TheCourtQCCA}}{{atsL|1p6dw|49|}}, {{atsL-np|1p6dw|70|}}
</ref>

The purpose of general deterrence is to assuage people from engaging in fraud which is often easy to commit and highly profitable. Without sufficient punishment, the temptation of taking the risk of a lesser punishment in exchange for a large sum of money would make it worthwhile.<ref>
{{supra1|Pierce}} at 5</ref>

Where general deterrence is to be emphasized there is limited concern to achieve rehabilitation.<Ref>
R. v. Bertram and Wood (1990), 40 O.A.C. 317, au p. 319 (in most major frauds “[t]he sentences in such cases are not really concerned with rehabilitation. Instead, they are concerned with general deterrence and with warning such persons that substantial penitentiary sentences will follow this type of crime, to say nothing of the serious disgrace to them and everyone connected with them and their probable financial ruin."
</ref>

Denunciation should adequately reflect the public’s condemnation of this offence and the offender’s conduct.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Howe|5fql|2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII)|[2002] AJ No 1443}}{{perABCA|Hunt JA}}{{atL|5fql|3}}<br>
{{supra1|Dobois}}{{atp|272}}<br>
</ref>

Where there is a "large-scale" fraud, it will generally attract a sentence of imprisonment absence "unusual circumstances".<Ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Rands|1l4dg|2005 BCPC 264 (CanLII)|[2005] BCJ No 1565}}{{perBCPC|Howard J}}{{AtL|1l4dg|28}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Burkart|1pqqb|2006 BCCA 446 (CanLII)|214 CCC (3d) 226}}{{perBCCA|Thackray JA}}{{atL|1pqqb|5}}
</ref>

; Gravity of Fraud
Fraud's are often found to be offences with a high degree of moral blameworthiness as fraud involves a great deal of forethought and conscious effort. It has been called the "thinking person's" crime.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Elmadani|glkcc|2015 NSPC 65 (CanLII)}}{{perNSPC-H|Derrick J}}{{atL|glkcc|10}}<br> 
voir également {{CanLIIRP|Pravo|htn8f|2018 ONSC 4889 (CanLII)|[2018] OJ No 4361}}{{perONSC|Molloy J}}{{AtL|htn8f|23}} ( {{Tr}}« There is considerable legitimate debate as to whether significant sentences imposed on offenders truly have a deterrent effect, either for the individual offender or for others who might be tempted to commit similar crimes. However, it is well recognized that if deterrence is relevant at all, it is particularly so for crimes of this nature, involving individuals who are intelligent and who deliberately set out to plan and execute sophisticated frauds. It is important that such individuals be aware that the significant risk of a long jail term outweighs any benefit or financial reward they may obtain from the fraud.  » )
</ref>

; Lawyer or Other Professionals
A "great deal of confidence" is imputed upon lawyers by the public and legislature to hold onto large sums of money. They should not be seen as getting lesser penalties or else it will harm the reputation of the profession.<Ref>
R. v. Ryan [1976] 6 H.W.R. 668 at 670 McDermid. J.A ( {{Tr}}« A great deal of confidence has been reposed in the legal profession by the public and by the legislature; they are entrusted with large sums of money and with large matters where integrity is most necessary. It is imperative that the reputation of the profession be maintained and, ... it must be made clear that a lawyer receives no more favourable treatment than the general public.”)
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

====Social Assistance Fraud====
It is suggested that the "paramount consideration" whether dealing with fraud against welfare authorities is deterrence.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Thurrott|g1hmp|1971 CanLII 381 (ON CA)|5 CCC (2d) 129}}{{perONCA|Gale CJ}}{{atp|129}} ( {{Tr}}« this Court is unanimously of the opinion that the paramount consideration in determining the sentence is the element of deterrence.  Welfare authorities have enough difficulties without having to put up with persons who set out to defraud them. » )</ref> 
It has also been said that the focus should be upon "protection of the public."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bates|htwkv|1972 CanLII 1403 (ONSC)|9 CCC (2d) 74 (Ont.Co.Ct.)}}{{perONSC|Moore J}}{{atp|74}} ( {{Tr}}« The cardinal principle in the determination of a sentence is the protection of the public. » )
</ref>

Defrauding publicly funded programs "corrodes the public's attitude to such forms of assistance -- and hence so undermines them."<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilton|gbrrr|1991 CanLII 7961 (SK CA)|93 Sask R 184}}{{perSKCA|Cameron JA}}<br>
voir également {{CanLIIRP|Durocher|gbz4x|1992 CanLII 8243 (SK CA)|100 Sask R 108}}{{perSKCA|Cameron JA}}
</ref>

{{reflist|2}}

==Facteurs==
L’article 380.1 énonce les facteurs aggravants liés à la fraude :
{{quotation2|
;Détermination de la peine <nowiki>:</nowiki> circonstances aggravantes

380.1 (1) Sans que soit limitée la portée générale de l’article 718.2, lorsque le tribunal détermine la peine à infliger à l’égard d’une infraction prévue aux articles 380, 382, 382.1 ou 400, les faits ci-après constituent des circonstances aggravantes :
:a) l’ampleur, la complexité, la durée ou le niveau de planification de la fraude commise est important;
:b) l’infraction a nui — ou pouvait nuire — à la stabilité de l’économie canadienne, du système financier canadien ou des marchés financiers au Canada ou à la confiance des investisseurs dans un marché financier au Canada;
:c) l’infraction a causé des dommages à un nombre élevé de victimes;
:c.1.1) l’infraction a entraîné des conséquences importantes pour les victimes étant donné la situation personnelle de celles-ci, notamment leur âge, leur état de santé et leur situation financière;
:d) le délinquant a indûment tiré parti de la réputation d’intégrité dont il jouissait dans la collectivité;
:e) il n’a pas satisfait à une exigence d’un permis ou d’une licence, ou à une norme de conduite professionnelle, qui est habituellement applicable à l’activité ou à la conduite qui est à l’origine de la fraude;
:f) il a dissimulé ou détruit des dossiers relatifs à la fraude ou au décaissement du produit de la fraude.

; Circonstance aggravante <nowiki>:</nowiki> valeur de la fraude

(1.1) Sans que soit limitée la portée générale de l’article 718.2, lorsque le tribunal détermine la peine à infliger à l’égard d’une infraction prévue aux articles 382, 382.1 ou 400, le fait que la fraude commise ait une valeur supérieure à un million de dollars constitue également une circonstance aggravante.

; Circonstances atténuantes

(2) Lorsque le tribunal détermine la peine à infliger à l’égard d’une infraction prévue aux articles 380, 382, 382.1 ou 400, il ne prend pas en considération à titre de circonstances atténuantes l’emploi qu’occupe le délinquant, ses compétences professionnelles ni son statut ou sa réputation dans la collectivité, si ces facteurs ont contribué à la perpétration de l’infraction, ont été utilisés pour la commettre ou y étaient liés.

; Inscription obligatoire

(3) Le tribunal fait inscrire au dossier de l’instance les circonstances aggravantes ou atténuantes qui ont été prises en compte pour déterminer la peine.

{{LegHistory00s|2004, ch. 3}}, art. 3;
{{LegHistory10s|2011, ch. 6}}, art. 3

{{Annotation}}
|{{CCCSec2|380}} 
|{{NoteUp|380.1|1|1.1|2|3}}
}}

{{reflist|2}}
===Facteurs aggravants===
Les facteurs aggravants pour une fraude majeure comprennent : <ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Cunsolo|fpl48|2012 ONSC 114 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|fpl48|41}}<Br>
voir aussi {{CanLIIRP|Levesque|1pcs1|1993 CanLII 4232 (QC CA)|59 QAC 307 CA}}{{TheCourtQCCA}}
</ref>
* abus de confiance<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Evans|5dlh|2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Glennie J}}<br> voir art. 718.2(a)(iii)
</ref>
* ampleur ou taille de la fraude<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Kuriya|5htk|2002 NBQB 306 (CanLII)|252 NBR (2d) 247}}{{perNBQB|Russell J}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Evans|5dlh|2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII)| [2003] NBJ No 47 (QB)}}{{perNBQB|Glennie J}}
</ref>
* degré de sophistication, de planification et de tromperie<ref>
{{supra1|Howe}}</ref>
* nombre d'opérations malhonnêtes entreprises dans le cadre de l'infraction<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bjellebo|4s1z|2003 CanLII 26907 (ON CA)|[2000] OJ No 478 (SC)}}{{perONCA|Sharpe JA}}</ref>
* durée de l'acte malhonnête<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Fehr|4tch|2001 SKCA 37 (CanLII)|[2001] SJ No 147 (CA)}}{{perSKCA|Sherstobitoff JA}} </ref>
* nombre de victimes<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wheeler|2f10c|2001 CanLII 37646 (NLSCTD)|612 APR 277}}{{perNLSC|Dymond J}} and [http://canlii.ca/t/2f11j 2001 CanLII 37651] (NLSCTD), [2001] NJ No 240{{perNLSC|Dymond J}} </ref>
* vulnérabilité des victimes<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Evans|5dlh|2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII)}}{{perNBQB|Glennie J}}{{atL|5dlh|12}} et {{CanLIIRP|Adler|1k5v2|1999 CanLII 9438 (NB CA)|[1999] NBJ No 100 (CA)}}{{TheCourtNBCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Desormeau|27pzs|2001 CanLII 33851 (NLSCTD)|[2001] NJ No 341}}{{perNLSC|Leblanc J}}<br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Bradbury|fww9m|2002 CanLII 61687 (NLSCTD)|218 Nfld 33}}{{perNLSC|Adams J}} -- institutional victims </ref>
* l'impact de la fraude sur les victimes
* la nature et l'étendue de la perte
* les efforts pour dissimuler la fraude, y compris la falsification de documents
* l'avantage personnel<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Bogart|1cqs2|2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA)|167 CCC (3d) 390}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}</ref>
* le nombre de personnes impliquées et le rôle du contrevenant
* la cupidité comme seule motivation<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Wisniewski|5kf4|2002 MBCA 93 (CA)| (2002) 166 Man R (2d) 73}}{{perMBCA|Steel JA}}</ref>
* cessation du projet par arrestation ou volontairement

* antécédents judiciaires<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Harding|58lm|2002 BCCA 606 (CanLII)|[2002] BJ No 2502 (CA)}}{{perBCCA|Thackray JA}}</ref>

; Caractère de la victime
Toute tentative malhonnête d'obtenir de l'argent {{Tr}}« constitue un crime grave ayant ses propres effets, même si l'institution [victime] semble à première vue capable de supporter la perte. »<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|McConnell|fn7dc|2011 ONCJ 476 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Schnall J}}{{atL|fn7dc|48}}<Br>
</ref>

; Abus de confiance
Le vol d'argent par des personnes à qui cet argent est confié dans le cadre de leur emploi constitue un abus de confiance au sens de l'article 718.2(a)(iii).<ref>
{{CanLIIRPC|Veno v R|fq7f8|2012 NBCA 15 (CanLII)|995 APR 126}}{{perNBCA|Richard JA}}{{atL|fq7f8|13}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Chaulk|1lkkc|2005 NBCA 86 (CanLII)|200 CCC (3d) 442}}{{TheCourtNBCA}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|McKinnon|1jk86|2005 ABCA 8 (CanLII)|[2005] AJ No 12 }}{{perABCA|Côté JA}}-- embezzlement by a bookkeeper
{{CanLIIRP|Holmes|5s4c|1999 ABCA 228 (CanLII)|237 AR 146}}{{TheCourtABCA}} -- bank manager stealing from accounts<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Reid|1g9t4|2004 YKCA 4 (CanLII)|194 BCAC 18}}{{perYKCA|Hall JA}} -- cashier stealing from employer
{{CanLIIRP|Pierce|6hsr|1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA)|[1997] OJ No 715 (CA)}}{{perONCA|Finlayson JA}}  -- comptroller sealing from employer<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dobis|1dqkj|2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA)|163 CCC (3d) 259}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}} -- fraud by accounting manager<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Clarke|1hp4j|2004 CanLII 7246 (ON CA)|[2004] OJ No 3438 (CA)}}{{TheCourtONCA}} -- bank telephone agent stealing from accounts
{{CanLIIR-N|Bowes (J.M.)|155 NBR (2d) 321 (CA)}} -- lawyer stealing trust funds<br>
</ref>

; "Large number of victims"
The reference to "large number of victims" under s. 380.1 (1)(c) of the code will include a group of more than 50 people.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Johnson|2dz2h|2010 ABCA 392 (CanLII)|265 CCC (3d) 443}}{{TheCourtABCA}}{{atsL|2dz2h|35| à 36}}<br>
</ref>

Groups a low as 13 people have been considered a "large group."<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Walker|gw3zb|2016 ABQB 695 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Ackerl J}}{{atL|gw3zb|65}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|deKock|21852|2008 ABPC 279 (CanLII)|AJ No 1147}}{{perABPC|Ayotte J}}  (13 victims)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Winter|20sw1|2008 CanLII 47443 (NLPC)|[2008] NJ No 260}}{{perNLPC|Hyslop J}} (15 victims)<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Banks|2c4m9|2010 ONCJ 339 (CanLII)|[2010] OJ No 3550}}{{perONCJ|West J}} (18 victims)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Penney|21svj|2008 ABPC 339 (CanLII)|[2008] AJ No 1353}}{{perABPC|Allen J}} (20 victims)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Cruz|2f7ll|2010 ONCJ 640 (CanLII)|[2010] OJ No 5735}}{{perONCJ|Bellefontaine J}} (29 victims)<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Dhanaswar|gnj49|2016 ONCA 172 (CanLII)|[2014] OJ No 6388, 2014 CarswellOnt 18873}}{{TheCourtONCA}} (31 victims)<Br>
</ref>

However, numbers in the range of 4 people is ''not'' considered "large."<ref>
e.g. {{CanLIIRP|Sanmugam|ftznx|2012 ONSC 6663 (CanLII)|[2012] OJ No 5647}}{{perONSC|Ducharme J}}
</ref>

; Greed vs Advancement of Business
While greed as a motivation to fraud is recognized as a aggravating factor to sentence, the use of money to keep a business afloat is a moderate-to-high aggravating factor as well.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Adams|ggtsf|2015 ONCJ 161 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|LeDressay J}}{{atL|ggtsf|47}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Mazzucco|frlmp|2012 ONCJ 333 (CanLII)|101 WCB (2d) 651}}{{perONCJ|Clark J}}{{atsL|frlmp|58|, 60 to 61}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Drabinsky|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)}}{{atL|fn2mg|173}} ( {{Tr}}« Whether the absence of "pure greed" is viewed as a mitigating factor or simply as the absence of an aggravating factor would seem to make little difference in the ultimate calculation. » )
</ref>

; Method of Scheme
{{ibid1|Drabinsky}}{{atL|fn2mg|173}} ( {{Tr}}« We agree that cases properly characterized as "scams" will normally call for significantly longer sentences than frauds committed in the course of the operation of a legitimate business. » )


{{reflist|2}}

===Mitigating===
Mitigating factors for major fraud include:<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Cunsolo|fpl48|2012 ONSC 114 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|fpl48|39}}</ref>
* “substantial recovery” of the proceeds of the dishonest conduct
* voluntary repayment of restitution before sentencing<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Inglis|5swc|2002 BCPC 242 (CanLII)|[2002] BCJ No 1551 (PC)}}{{perBCPC|Brecknell J}} <br>
{{CanLIIRP|Bogart|1cqs2|2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA)|167 CCC (3d) 390}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}</ref>
* honest motive, including a medical condition, addiction, or other motivating causes other than greed or financial gain
* major personal impact from offence, such as loss of job<ref> 
{{CanLIIRP|Loewen|79tq|2002 CanLII 37336 (MB PC)|168 Man R (2d) 48}}{{perMBPC|Wyant J}}</ref>
* no record<ref>
{{supra1|Bogart}}</ref>

No prior record is a limited factor since it is a common situation and, at least in relation to major fraud, the offender would have been less likely to have been in the position to commit the offence had the offender had a prior record. Further, the lack of a record is usually trumped by the emphasis on general deterrence.<ref> 
{{supra1|Bogart}}<br>
{{CanLIIR-N|Bertram and Wood| (1990), 40 OAC 317, [1989] O. J. No 2123}}{{atp|319}} (OAC) <br> 
{{CanLIIRP|Drabinsky|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|fn2mg|160}} ( {{Tr}}« In any event, this court and all other provincial appellate courts have repeatedly held that denunciation and general deterrence must dominate sentencing for large-scale commercial frauds. Denunciation and general deterrence most often find expression in the length of the jail term imposed. » )
</ref>

; Good Character
Good character is also of a limited factor as the good character will often help facilitate the offence. The person will often have a place in the community and a good reputation and without which they would not have been able to commit the offence itself.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Foran|g1kjb|1969 CanLII 209 (ON CA)|[1970] 1 CCC 336 (ONCA)}}{{perONCA|Gale CJ}}{{atp|337}} (“Any mitigation from [the accused position in the community] would seem to us to be more than offset by the fact that the very nature of this type of crime requires that it be committed by persons who have an established place in the community and are allegedly honourable gentlemen.”)
</ref>

The good character of well-educated persons who commit offences of major fraud are not of great concern since they are the group that tends to commit these offences the most.<ref>
{{supra1|Bertram and Wood}}<br>
</ref>

The sentencing process for major fraud is "not really concerned with rehabilitation."<ref>
{{supra1|Bertram}}<br>
</ref>

; Gambling Addiction
Factors such as the presence of gambling addictions cannot be considered mitigating, however, can have the effect of “[reducing] moral blameworthiness”<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Alakija|1sxt1|2007 ABPC 234 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Bascom J}}{{atL|1sxt1|13}}</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Gamme de peines==
{{seealso|Fraud (Sentencing Cases)}}

; Alberta
There has been suggestion of three categories of major fraud:<ref>
{{CanLIIR|Davis|g6df8|2014 ABCA 115 (CanLII)}}{{atsL|g6df8|31| à 34}}
</ref>
# non-lawyer trust thefts. These are usually below 250,000 and attract a range of penalty of 18 months to 2 years;
# dishonest lawyer: the range can be  from 12 months to 9 years
# fraud exceeding a million without trust or lawyers: range between 3 and 6 years.

; Ontario
Ontario cases have set the generally accepted range of sentence for major fraud or "complex" frauds at 3 to 6 years.<ref>
{{CanLIIRP|Dobis|1dqkj|2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA)|163 CCC (3d) 259}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atp|271}} - stating 3 to 5 years<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Drakes|24f74|2009 ONCA 560 (CanLII)|252 OAC 200}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atsL|24f74|24| à 26}} (leave to appeal refused, [2009] SCCA No 381)<br> 
{{CanLIIR-N|Bertram|, [1990] OJ No 2013 (CA)}}{{atp|3}}<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Wilson|1bstx|2003 CanLII 48181 (ON CA)|174 CCC (3d) 255}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|1bstx|5}}<br> 
{{CanLIIR|Mojadiddi|jct83|2021 ONCJ 38 (CanLII)}}{{atL|jct83|66}}<br>
{{CanLIIR|Davatgar-Jafarpour|j02ms|2019 ONCA 353 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|Roberts JA}}{{AtL|j02ms|34}} ( {{Tr}}« In cases of large-scale fraud, the range of sentences imposed in circumstances like the one at bar is generally three to five years » )<br>
{{CanLIIR|Khatchatourov|g7g1h|2014 ONCA 464 (CanLII)}}{{perONCA|MacPherson JA}}{{atsL|g7g1h|37| à 45}}<br>
R v Watts, 2016 ONSC 4843 - range of 4 to 8 years for "large scale" fraud<Br>
{{CanLIIR|Bogart|1cqs2|2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA)}}{{perONCA|Laskin JA}}{{atL|1cqs2|36}}</ref>

"Large-scale" fraud will typically be a penitentiary sentence. A conditional sentence will not be appropriate in these cases.<ref>
{{CanLIIRx|Cunsolo|g6s86|2014 ONCA 364 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtONCA}}{{atL|g6s86|53}}( {{Tr}}« The jurisprudence of this court indicates that conditional sentences are not appropriate in cases involving convictions for large-scale fraud.  Penitentiary sentences are typically imposed in such cases » )<Br>
{{CanLIIRP|Drabinsky|fn2mg|2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII)|107 O.R. (3d) 595}}{{TheCourtONCA}}, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 491<br>
{{CanLIIRP|Leo-Mensah|287j6|2010 ONCA 139 (CanLII)|101 O.R. (3d) 366}}{{perONCA|Gillese JA}}, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 170 ( {{Tr}}« a penitentiary sentence is the norm, not the exception, in cases of large-scale fraud and in which there are no extraordinary mitigating circumstances » )<br>
{{supra1|Bogart}}
</ref>

{{Reflist|2}}

==Ordonnances de condamnation accessoires==
{{seealso|Ordonnances auxiliaires|Ordonnances d'interdiction de fraude}}
	
; Ordonnances spécifiques à une infraction
{{AOrderHeader}}
|-
| [[Ordonnances ADN]] ||art. 380(1)(a) or (2) ||
* {{SecondDNA(AorB)|art. 380(1)(a) et (2)}} 
|-
| [[Restitution|Stand-alone Restitution Order]] - Mandatory consideration under s. 380.3 ||art. 380 ||
|-
| Section 380.2 - [[Ordonnances d'interdiction de fraude|Fraud Prohibition Order (section 380.2)]] ||art. 380 ||
{{AOrderEnd}}

; Ordonnances générales de détermination de peine
{{GeneralSentencingOrders}}

; Ordonnances générales de confiscation
{{GeneralForfeitureOrders}}

==Suspensions de casier et pardons== 
{{RecordSuspension|art. 380 {{DescrSec|380}} }}

==History of the Offence==
* [[History of Fraud Offences]]
==Voir également==
* [[Vol d’identité (infraction)]]
* [[Vol (infraction)]]
* [[Infractions frauduleuses diverses]]
; References
* [[Liste de contrôle des requêtes préalables au procès et au procès]]

* [http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_sentencing_for_fraud_statutory_offences.pdf UK Sentencing Guidelines for Fraud]

{{OffencesNavBar/Property}}

[[Catégorie:Offences Punishable on Summary Conviction]]