« Peine pour Fraude » : différence entre les versions

De Le carnet de droit pénal
← Modification précédenteModification suivante →
VisuelWikicode
m Remplacement de texte : « détermination de peine{{GeneralSentencingOrders}} » par « détermination de peine {{GeneralSentencingOrders}} »
m Remplacement de texte : « générales de confiscation{{ » par « générales de confiscation {{ »
Ligne 444 : Ligne 444 :
{{GeneralSentencingOrders}}
{{GeneralSentencingOrders}}


; Ordonnances générales de confiscation{{GeneralForfeitureOrders}}
; Ordonnances générales de confiscation
{{GeneralForfeitureOrders}}


==Suspensions de casier et pardons==  
==Suspensions de casier et pardons==  

Version du 30 juillet 2024 à 10:35

Cette page a été mise à jour ou révisée de manière substantielle pour la dernière fois January 2020. (Rev. # 12614)
n.b.: Cette page est expérimentale. Si vous repérez une grammaire ou un texte anglais clairement incorrect, veuillez m'en informer à [email protected] et je le corrigerai dès que possible.
Fraud

Aperçu

Voir également: Fraud (Offence)

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners created a taxonomy of fraud:[1]

  • Corruption
    • Conflict of Interest (purchasing schemes, sales schemes)
    • Bribery (Invoice kickbacks, bid rigging)
    • Illegal Gratuities
    • Economic Extortion
  • Asset misappropriation
    • Cash
      • Theft of Cash on Hand
      • Theft of Cash Receipts
        • Skimming
          • Sales (unrecorded, understated)
          • Receivables (Write-off schemes, lapping schemes, unconcealed)
          • Refunds or Other
        • Cash Larceny
      • Fraudulent Disbursements
        • Billing Schemes (shell company, non-accomplice vendor, personal purchases)
        • Payroll Schemes (ghost employee, falsified wages, commission schemes)
        • Expense Reimbursement Schemes (mischaracterized expenses, overstated expenses, fictitious expenses, multiple reimbursements)
        • Cheque Tampering (forged maker, forged endorsement, altered payee, authorized maker)
        • Register Disbursements (False voids, false refunds)
    • Inventory and Other Assets
  • Financial statement fraud
    • Net Worth/Net Income Overstatement (timing differences, fictitious revenues, concealed liabilities and expenses, improper asset valuations, improper disclosures)
    • Net Worth/Net Income Understatement (timing differences, understated revenues, overstated liabilities and expenses, improper asset valuations, improper disclosures)
  1. ↑ Fraud Taxonomy Tree

Libellé de l'infraction

Fraud

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
(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.

Minimum punishment

(1.1) When a person is prosecuted on indictment and convicted of one or more offences referred to in subsection (1) [fraude], the court that imposes the sentence shall impose a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of two years if the total value of the subject-matter of the offences exceeds one million dollars.
[omis (2)]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 380; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 54; 1994, c. 44, s. 25; 1997, c. 18, s. 26; 2004, c. 3, s. 2; 2011, c. 6, s. 2.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

Note: 380(1) et (1.1)


Termes définis: "Act" (s. 2), "person" (s. 2), et "testamentary instrument” (s. 2)

Draft Form of Charges

Voir également: Draft Form of Charges

See Fraud (Offence)

Principes généraux

Voir également: Objectifs et principes de la détermination de la peine, Facteurs de détermination de la peine liés au délinquant, et Facteurs de détermination de la peine liés à l'infraction
Pénalités maximales
Infraction(s) Élection
de la couronne		 Pénalité maximale
art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $]
From September 15, 2004		 N/A 14 ans d'emprisonnement
art. 380(1)(b) [fraude ne dépassant pas 5 000 $] procédure sommaire emprisonnement maximal de deux ans moins un jour ou d'une amende de 5 000 $ (du 19 septembre 2019)
art. 380(1)(b) [fraude ne dépassant pas 5 000 $] punissable par mise en accusation 2 ans d'emprisonnement
art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $]
Until September 14, 2004		 N/A 10 ans d'emprisonnement

Les infractions en vertu de l'art. art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $] sont directement passibles d'une mise en accusation. La peine maximale est de 14 ans d'emprisonnement.

Les infractions visées par la clause art. 380(1)(b) [fraude ne dépassant pas 5 000 $] sont des infractions hybrides. Si elles sont poursuivies par mise en accusation, la peine maximale est de 2 ans d'emprisonnement. Si elles sont poursuivies par procédure sommaire, la peine maximale est de emprisonnement maximal de deux ans moins un jour ou d'une amende de 5 000 $ (du 19 septembre 2019).

Pénalités minimales

Ces infractions ne sont pas assorties de peines minimales obligatoires.

Dispositions disponibles
Offence(s) Choix du
mode de poursuite		 Absolution
l'art. 730		 Ordonnances de
probation
l'art. 731(1)(a)		 Amendes
autonome
l'art. 731(1)(b)		 Détenues sous garde
l'art. 718.3, 787		 Détenues sous garde and
Probation
l'art. 731(1)(b)		 Détenues sous garde and
Amende
l'art. 734		 Ordonnances
du sursis (ODS)
l'art. 742.1
art. 380(1)(b) [fraude ne dépassant pas 5 000 $] any
art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $]
Nov. 20, 2012 onward		 N/A
art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $]
September 15, 2004 to Nov. 20, 2012		 N/A
art. 380(1)(a) [fraude de plus de 5 000 $]
Until September 14, 2004		 N/A
Peines consécutive

Il n'y a aucune exigence légale selon laquelle les peines doivent être consécutives.


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.[1]

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 November 20, 2012.[2]

Unless prohibited by law, the court should be considered a conditional sentence in all circumstances where incarceration is contemplated.[3]

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."[4]

For most courts, the amount defrauded will be sufficient to determine if incarceration is required.[5]

In major frauds involving breach of trust, denunciation and deterrence are to be emphasized and will usually result in jail sentences.[6]

Certain courts have stated that conditional sentence orders should not be granted where there is a breach of trust.[7] However, others suggest that it is not a full prohibition. Rather is it rate where it is a large scale fraud.[8]

Incarceration is often ordered where there is no remorse.[9] Also where there is no acceptance of responsibility.[10]

Where there are exceptional or extreme personal mitigating circumstances, general deterrence can be satisfied by a conditional sentence.[11]

Restitution and community service work are not sufficient to amount to exceptional circumstances to warrant a conditional sentence.[12]

Where the aggravating factors overwhelm the mitigating factors, a sentence of imprisonment is mandated.[13]

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.[14]

Res Judicata

A person convicted of fraud and income tax evasion may be sentenced separately for each offence.[15]

  1. ↑ R c Plange, 2018 ONSC 1657 (CanLII), par Nakatsuru J, aux paras 36 to 39
  2. ↑ List of Criminal Code Amendments
  3. ↑ R c Moulton, 2001 SKCA 121 (CanLII), 160 CCC (3d) 407, par Vancise JA
  4. ↑ R c Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 61, par Lamer CJ at 114
  5. ↑ R c Bogart, 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), [2002] OJ No 3039, par Laskin JA, leave ref'd, [2003] SCR vi, au para 34
    R c Evans, 2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII), par Glennie J
    R c Williams, 2003 CanLII 9650 (ON CA), [2003] OJ No 2202 (CA), par curiam
    R c Kuriya, 2002 NBQB 306 (CanLII), 658 APR 247, par Russell J aff’d at 2003 NBCA 63 (CanLII), par curiam
    R c Black, 2003 NSSC 99 (CanLII), [2003] NSJ No 168, par Murphy J
  6. ↑ R c MacEachern, [1978] OJ No 987(*pas de liens CanLII) , at paras 8, 9 (ONCA)
    R c Tucker, [1988] NSJ No 33(*pas de liens CanLII) , au p. 18 (NSCA)
    R c Hill, 1997 CanLII 9832 (NSSC), [1997] NSJ No 97, par Gruchy J, aux paras 13 to 15 (N.S.S.C.)
    R c Toews, 2007 ABPC 235 (CanLII), [2007] AJ No 944, par Stevens-Guille J, aux paras 36, 37 (ABPC)
    R c McKinnon, 2005 ABCA 8 (CanLII), [2005] AJ No 12, par Côté JA, aux paras 60 to 63 (ABCA)
    R c Reid, 2004 YKCA 4 (CanLII), [2004] Y.J. No 3, par Hall JA, au para 13 (YTCA)
    R c Steeves, 2005 NBCA 85 (CanLII), [2005] N.B. J. No 351, par curiam, au para 10 (NBCA)
    R c Cremer, 2007 ABQB 544 (CanLII), [2007] AJ No 989, par Burrows J, au para 26 (ABQB)
    R c Miller, 2010 ABPC 37 (CanLII), [2010] AJ No 174, par Mcllhargey J, au para 62
    R c Inglis, 2002 BCPC 242 (CanLII), par Brecknell J, au para 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.”)
    R c Howe, 2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII), [2002] AJ No 1443, par Hunt JA, au para 3 - concerned tax fraud
    cf. R c Matchett, 1997 CanLII 9511 (NB CA), [1997] NBJ No 176 (CA), par Ayles JA at 5
  7. ↑ R c Pierce, 1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA), 114 CCC (3d) 23, par Finlayson JA
  8. ↑ R c Williams, 2007 CanLII 13949 (ONSC), [2007] O.J. 1604, par Hill J, aux paras 26 to 28 ("The sentencing option of a conditional sentence is not excluded from consideration in breach of trust fraud cases")
  9. ↑ R c Mastromonaco, [2002] OJ No 4612(*pas de liens CanLII) at 28
  10. ↑ Desormeau, supra at 20
  11. ↑ R c Bunn, 2000 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 183, par Lamer J
    R c Kratky, 1997 CanLII 936 (BC SC), par Curtis J
    R c Anderson-Davis, 2000 BCSC 42 (CanLII), [2000] BCJ No 88, par Boyle J
  12. ↑ R c McEachern, 1978 CanLII 2506 (ON CA), 42 CCC (2d) 189, par Howland CJ, au p. 191 (CCC)
  13. ↑ R c Bodnarchuk, 2008 BCCA 39 (CanLII), 254 BCAC 6, par Levine JA at 20
    R c Mohebtash, 2007 BCCA 427 (CanLII), par Finch CJ, au para 10
  14. ↑ R c Bunn, 2000 SCC 9 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 183, par Lamer CJ, au para 23
  15. ↑ R c Beggs, 2003 BCCA 101 (CanLII), 180 BCAC 186, par Ryan JA
    R c Leo-Mensah, 2010 ONCA 139 (CanLII), 259 OAC 196, par Gillese JA

Sentencing Principles

Voir également: Property and Fraud Offences (Sentencing)
Primacy of General Deterrence and Denunciation

Major instances of fraud over $5,000 require emphasis on general deterrence and denunciation.[1] The same goes for cases involving breach of trust[2] and offences that involve a substantial amount of dishonesty.[3]

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.[4]

Where general deterrence is to be emphasized there is limited concern to achieve rehabilitation.[5]

Denunciation should adequately reflect the public’s condemnation of this offence and the offender’s conduct.[6]

Where there is a "large-scale" fraud, it will generally attract a sentence of imprisonment absence "unusual circumstances".[7]

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.[8]

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.[9]

  1. ↑ R c Dobis, 2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA), 163 CCC (3d) 259, par MacPherson JA at 42
    R c Bogart, 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), [2002] OJ No 3039, par Laskin JA, leave ref'd, [2003] SCR vi, at 29, 33-36
    R c Wismayer, 1997 CanLII 3294 (ON CA), 115 CCC (3d) 118, par Rosenberg JA at 38
    R c Gray (LV) et al, 1995 CanLII 18 (ON CA), 76 OAC 387, par Carthy JA, aux pp. 398-99
    R c Betram [1990] OJ No 2013(*pas de liens CanLII) at 3 (CA)
  2. ↑ R c Howe, 2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII), [2002] AJ No 1443, par Hunt JA, au para 3
    Dobis, supra at 272
    Bogart, supra at 29
    R c Pierce, 1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA), [1997] OJ No 715, par Finlayson JA, at 11
  3. ↑   R c Drabinsky and Gottlieb, 2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII), 274 CCC (3d) 289, par curiam, au para 160
    R c Coffin, 2006 QCCA 471 (CanLII), 210 CCC (3d) 227, par curiam, aux paras 49, 70
  4. ↑ Pierce, supra at 5
  5. ↑ R. v. Bertram and Wood (1990), 40 O.A.C. 317, at 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."
  6. ↑ R c Howe, 2002 ABCA 277 (CanLII), [2002] AJ No 1443, par Hunt JA, au para 3
    Dobois, supra, au p. 272
  7. ↑ R c Rands, 2005 BCPC 264 (CanLII), [2005] BCJ No 1565, par Howard J, au para 28
    R c Burkart, 2006 BCCA 446 (CanLII), par Thackray JA, au para 5
  8. ↑ R c Elmadani, 2015 NSPC 65 (CanLII), par Derrick J, au para 10
    see also R c Pravo, 2018 ONSC 4889 (CanLII), [2018] OJ No 4361, par Molloy J, au para 23 ("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. ")
  9. ↑ R. v. Ryan [1976] 6 H.W.R. 668 at 670 McDermid. J.A ("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.”)

Social Assistance Fraud

It is suggested that the "paramount consideration" whether dealing with fraud against welfare authorities is deterrence.[1] It has also been said that the focus should be upon "protection of the public."[2]

Defrauding publicly funded programs "corrodes the public's attitude to such forms of assistance -- and hence so undermines them."[3]

  1. ↑ R c Thurrott, 1971 CanLII 381 (ON CA), 5 CCC (2d) 129, par Gale CJ, au p. 129 ("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.")
  2. ↑ R c Bates, 1972 CanLII 1403 (ONSC), 9 CCC (2d) 74 (Ont.Co.Ct.), par Moore J, au p. 74 ("The cardinal principle in the determination of a sentence is the protection of the public.")
  3. ↑ R c Wilton, 1991 CanLII 7961 (SK CA), 93 Sask R 184, par Cameron JA
    see also R c Durocher, 1992 CanLII 8243 (SK CA), 100 Sask R 108, par Cameron JA

Factors

Section 380.1 states aggravating factors relating to fraud:

Sentencing — aggravating circumstances

380.1 (1) Without limiting the generality of section 718.2 [facteurs de détermination de la peine], where a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in sections 380 [fraude], 382 [manipulation de bourse], 382.1 [délit d'initié] and 400 [false prospectus], it shall consider the following as aggravating circumstances:

(a) the value of the fraud committed exceeded one million dollars;
(b) the offence adversely affected, or had the potential to adversely affect, the stability of the Canadian economy or financial system or any financial market in Canada or investor confidence in such a financial market;
(c) the offence involved a large number of victims; and
(d) in committing the offence, the offender took advantage of the high regard in which the offender was held in the community.
Aggravating circumstance — value of the fraud

(1.1) Without limiting the generality of section 718.2 [facteurs de détermination de la peine], when a court imposes a sentence for an offence referred to in section 382 [manipulation de bourse], 382.1 [délit d'initié] or 400 [false prospectus], it shall also consider as an aggravating circumstance the fact that the value of the fraud committed exceeded one million dollars.

Non-mitigating factors

(2) The court shall not consider as mitigating circumstances the offender’s employment, employment skills or status or reputation in the community if those circumstances were relevant to, contributed to, or were used in the commission of the offence.

Record of proceedings

(3) The court shall cause to be stated in the record the aggravating and mitigating circumstances it took into account when determining the sentence.
2004, c. 3, s. 3; 2011, c. 6, s. 3.
[annotation(s) ajoutée(s)]

– CCC (CanLII), (Jus.)

Note: 380.1(1), (1.1), (2), et (3)

Aggravating

Aggravating factors for major fraud include: [1]

  • breach of trust[2]
  • magnitude or size of the fraud[3]
  • degree of sophistication, planning and deception[4]
  • number of dishonest transactions undertaken in the offence[5]
  • Duration of the dishonesty[6]
  • number of victims[7]
  • vulnerability of the victims[8]
  • impact of the fraud upon the victims
  • nature and extent of the loss
  • efforts to conceal the fraud, including forging of documents
  • personal benefit[9]
  • the number of people involved and the role of the offender
  • greed as sole motivator[10]
  • termination of scheme by arrest or voluntarily
  • prior record[11]
Character of Victim

Any dishonest attainment of money "is a serious crime with its own effects, even though [the victim] institution on its face seems able to bear the loss."[12]

Breach of Trust

Theft of money by persons entrusted with it in the course of his employment amounts to an abuse of trust within the meaning of s.718.2(a)(iii).[13]

"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.[14]

Groups a low as 13 people have been considered a "large group."[15]

However, numbers in the range of 4 people is not considered "large."[16]

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.[17]

Method of Scheme

, ibid., au para 173 ("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.")


  1. ↑ R c Cunsolo, 2012 ONSC 114 (CanLII), par Hill J, au para 41
    see also R c Levesque, 1993 CanLII 4232 (QC CA), 59 QAC 307 CA, par curiam
  2. ↑ R c Evans, 2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII), par Glennie J
    see s. 718.2(a)(iii)
  3. ↑ R c Kuriya, 2002 NBQB 306 (CanLII), 252 NBR (2d) 247, par Russell J
    R c Evans, 2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII), [2003] NBJ No 47 (QB), par Glennie J
  4. ↑ Howe, supra
  5. ↑ R c Bjellebo, 2003 CanLII 26907 (ON CA), [2000] OJ No 478 (SC), par Sharpe JA
  6. ↑ R c Fehr, 2001 SKCA 37 (CanLII), [2001] SJ No 147 (CA), par Sherstobitoff JA
  7. ↑ R c Wheeler, 2001 CanLII 37646 (NLSCTD), 612 APR 277, par Dymond J and 2001 CanLII 37651 (NLSCTD), [2001] NJ No 240, par Dymond J
  8. ↑ R c Evans, 2003 NBQB 54 (CanLII), par Glennie J, au para 12 and R c Adler, 1999 CanLII 9438 (NB CA), [1999] NBJ No 100 (CA), par curiam
    R c Desormeau, 2001 CanLII 33851 (NLSCTD), [2001] NJ No 341, par Leblanc J
    R c Bradbury, 2002 CanLII 61687 (NLSCTD), 218 Nfld 33, par Adams J -- institutional victims
  9. ↑ R c Bogart, 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), 167 CCC (3d) 390, par Laskin JA
  10. ↑ R c Wisniewski, 2002 MBCA 93 (CA), (2002) 166 Man R (2d) 73, par Steel JA
  11. ↑ R c Harding, 2002 BCCA 606 (CanLII), [2002] BJ No 2502 (CA), par Thackray JA
  12. ↑ R c McConnell, 2011 ONCJ 476 (CanLII), par Schnall J, au para 48
  13. ↑ Veno v R, 2012 NBCA 15 (CanLII), 995 APR 126, par Richard JA, au para 13
    R c Chaulk, 2005 NBCA 86 (CanLII), 200 CCC (3d) 442, par curiam
    R c McKinnon, 2005 ABCA 8 (CanLII), [2005] AJ No 12, par Côté JA-- embezzlement by a bookkeeper R c Holmes, 1999 ABCA 228 (CanLII), 237 AR 146, par curiam -- bank manager stealing from accounts
    R c Reid, 2004 YKCA 4 (CanLII), 194 BCAC 18, par Hall JA -- cashier stealing from employer R c Pierce, 1997 CanLII 3020 (ON CA), [1997] OJ No 715 (CA), par Finlayson JA -- comptroller sealing from employer
    R c Dobis, 2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA), 163 CCC (3d) 259, par MacPherson JA -- fraud by accounting manager
    R c Clarke, 2004 CanLII 7246 (ON CA), [2004] OJ No 3438 (CA), par curiam -- bank telephone agent stealing from accounts R c Bowes (J.M.)155 NBR (2d) 321 (CA)(*pas de liens CanLII) -- lawyer stealing trust funds
  14. ↑ R c Johnson, 2010 ABCA 392 (CanLII), 265 CCC (3d) 443, par curiam, aux paras 35 to 36
  15. ↑ R c Walker, 2016 ABQB 695 (CanLII), par Ackerl J, au para 65
    R c deKock, 2008 ABPC 279 (CanLII), AJ No 1147, par Ayotte J (13 victims)
    R c Winter, 2008 CanLII 47443 (NLPC), [2008] NJ No 260, par Hyslop J (15 victims)
    R c Banks, 2010 ONCJ 339 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 3550, par West J (18 victims)
    R c Penney, 2008 ABPC 339 (CanLII), [2008] AJ No 1353, par Allen J (20 victims)
    R c Cruz, 2010 ONCJ 640 (CanLII), [2010] OJ No 5735, par Bellefontaine J (29 victims)
    R c Dhanaswar, 2016 ONCA 172 (CanLII), [2014] OJ No 6388, 2014 CarswellOnt 18873, par curiam (31 victims)
  16. ↑ e.g. R c Sanmugam, 2012 ONSC 6663 (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 5647, par Ducharme J
  17. ↑ R c Adams, 2015 ONCJ 161 (CanLII), par LeDressay J, au para 47
    R c Mazzucco, 2012 ONCJ 333 (CanLII), 101 WCB (2d) 651, par Clark J, aux paras 58, 60 to 61
    R c Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII), au para 173 ("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.")

Mitigating

Mitigating factors for major fraud include:[1]

  • “substantial recovery” of the proceeds of the dishonest conduct
  • voluntary repayment of restitution before sentencing[2]
  • 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[3]
  • no record[4]

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.[5]

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.[6]

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.[7]

The sentencing process for major fraud is "not really concerned with rehabilitation."[8]

Gambling Addiction

Factors such as the presence of gambling addictions cannot be considered mitigating, however, can have the effect of “[reducing] moral blameworthiness”[9]

  1. ↑ R c Cunsolo, 2012 ONSC 114 (CanLII), par Hill J, au para 39
  2. ↑ R c Inglis, 2002 BCPC 242 (CanLII), [2002] BCJ No 1551 (PC), par Brecknell J
    R c Bogart, 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), 167 CCC (3d) 390, par Laskin JA
  3. ↑ R c Loewen, 2002 CanLII 37336 (MB PC), 168 Man R (2d) 48, par Wyant J
  4. ↑ Bogart, supra
  5. ↑ Bogart, supra
    R c Bertram and Wood (1990), 40 OAC 317, [1989] O. J. No 2123(*pas de liens CanLII) , au p. 319 (OAC)
    R c Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 160 ("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.")
  6. ↑ R c Foran, 1969 CanLII 209 (ON CA), [1970] 1 CCC 336 (ONCA), par Gale CJ, au p. 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.”)
  7. ↑ Bertram and Wood, supra
  8. ↑ Bertram, supra
  9. ↑ R c Alakija, 2007 ABPC 234 (CanLII), par Bascom J, au para 13

Ranges

Voir également: Fraud (Sentencing Cases)
Alberta

There has been suggestion of three categories of major fraud:[1]

  1. non-lawyer trust thefts. These are usually below 250,000 and attract a range of penalty of 18 months to 2 years;
  2. dishonest lawyer: the range can be from 12 months to 9 years
  3. 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.[2]

"Large-scale" fraud will typically be a penitentiary sentence. A conditional sentence will not be appropriate in these cases.[3]

  1. ↑ R c Davis, 2014 ABCA 115 (CanLII), aux paras 31 to 34
  2. ↑ R c Dobis, 2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA), 163 CCC (3d) 259, par MacPherson JA, au p. 271 - stating 3 to 5 years
    R c Drakes, 2009 ONCA 560 (CanLII), 252 OAC 200, par curiam, aux paras 24 to 26 (leave to appeal refused, [2009] SCCA No 381)
    R c Bertram, [1990] OJ No 2013 (CA)(*pas de liens CanLII) , au p. 3
    R c Wilson, 2003 CanLII 48181 (ON CA), 174 CCC (3d) 255, par curiam, au para 5
    R c Mojadiddi, 2021 ONCJ 38 (CanLII), au para 66
    R c Davatgar-Jafarpour, 2019 ONCA 353 (CanLII), par Roberts JA, au para 34 ("In cases of large-scale fraud, the range of sentences imposed in circumstances like the one at bar is generally three to five years")
    R c Khatchatourov, 2014 ONCA 464 (CanLII), par MacPherson JA, aux paras 37 to 45
    R v Watts, 2016 ONSC 4843 - range of 4 to 8 years for "large scale" fraud
    R c Bogart, 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), par Laskin JA, au para 36
  3. ↑ R c Cunsolo, 2014 ONCA 364 (CanLII), par curiam, au para 53("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")
    R c Drabinsky, 2011 ONCA 582 (CanLII), 107 O.R. (3d) 595, par curiam, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 491
    R c Leo-Mensah, 2010 ONCA 139 (CanLII), 101 O.R. (3d) 366, par Gillese JA, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused, [2010] S.C.C.A. No. 170 ("a penitentiary sentence is the norm, not the exception, in cases of large-scale fraud and in which there are no extraordinary mitigating circumstances")
    Bogart, supra

Ordonnances de condamnation accessoires

Voir également: Ancillary Orders et Fraud Prohibition Orders
Ordonnances spécifiques à une infraction
Ordonnances Condamnation Description
Ordres ADN art. 380(1)(a) or (2)
Stand-alone Restitution Order - Mandatory consideration under s. 380.3 art. 380
Section 380.2 - Fraud Prohibition Order (section 380.2) art. 380
Ordonnances générales de détermination de peine
Ordonnance Condamnation Description
Ordonnance de non-communication pendant la détention du délinquant (l'art. 743.21) tout Le juge a le pouvoir discrétionnaire d'ordonner qu'il soit interdit au contrevenant « de communiquer... avec une victime, un témoin ou une autre personne » pendant sa détention, sauf s'il « estime [qu'il] est nécessaire » de communiquer avec eux.
Ordonnances de restitution (l'art. 738) tout Une ordonnance discrétionnaire est disponible pour des éléments tels que la valeur de remplacement de la propriété ; les dommages matériels résultant d'un préjudice, de frais de fuite d'un conjoint ; ou certaines dépenses découlant de la commission d'une infraction aux articles 402.2 ou 403.
Suramende pour la victime (l'art. 737) tout Une surtaxe discrétionnaire au titre de l'art. 737 de 30 % de toute amende imposée, de 100 $ par déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire ou de 200 $ par déclaration de culpabilité par acte criminel. Si l'infraction survient à compter du 23 octobre 2013, l'ordonnance comporte des montants minimums plus faibles (15 %, 50 $ ou 100 $).
Ordonnances générales de confiscation
Confiscation Condamnation Description
Confiscation des produits de la criminalité (art. 462.37(1) ou (2.01)) tout Lorsque la culpabilité est établie pour un acte criminel en vertu du Code ou de la LRCDAS et que les biens sont des " produits de la criminalité " et que l'infraction a été " commise à l'égard de ces biens ", les biens sont confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté le Roi à la demande de la Couronne. NB : ne s'applique pas aux infractions sommaires.
L'amende tenant lieu de confiscation (art. 462.37(3)) tout Lorsqu'une Cour est convaincue qu'une ordonnance de confiscation des produits de la criminalité en vertu de l'article 462.37(1) ou (2.01) peut être rendue, mais que les biens ne peuvent pas être "soumis à une ordonnance", la Cour "peut" ordonner une amende d'un "montant égal à la valeur des biens". En cas de non-paiement de l'amende, un jugement par défaut imposant une période d'incarcération sera rendu.
La confiscation d'armes et d'armes à feu (art. 491). 491) tout Lorsqu'il y a déclaration de culpabilité pour une infraction où une "arme, une imitation d'arme à feu, un dispositif prohibé, toute munition, toute munition prohibée ou une substance explosive a été utilisée lors de la commission de [l'] infraction et que cette chose a été saisie et détenue", ou "qu'une personne a commis une infraction qui implique, ou dont l'objet est une arme à feu, une arbalète, une arme prohibée, une arme à autorisation restreinte, un dispositif prohibé, des munitions, des munitions prohibées ou une substance explosive a été saisi et détenu, que l'objet est une arme énumérée ou que l'objet connexe est lié à l'infraction", alors il y aura une ordonnance de confiscation "obligatoire". Cependant, en vertu de l'article 491(2), si le propriétaire légitime "n'a pas participé à l'infraction" et que le juge n'a "aucun motif raisonnable de croire que l'objet serait ou pourrait être utilisé pour commettre une infraction", l'objet doit être restitué au propriétaire légitime.
Confiscation de biens infractionnels (art. 490. 1) tout En cas de déclaration de culpabilité pour un acte criminel, " tout bien est un bien infractionnel " lorsque a) un acte criminel est commis en vertu de la présente loi ou de la Loi sur la corruption d'agents publics étrangers, b) il est utilisé de quelque manière que ce soit dans le cadre de la perpétration d'une telle infraction, ou c) il est destiné à être utilisé dans le cadre de la perpétration d'une telle infraction. Ces biens doivent être confisqués au profit de Sa Majesté du chef de la province. NB : ne s'applique pas aux infractions sommaires.

Suspensions de casier et pardons

Les condamnations au titre de art. 380 peuvent faire l'objet d'une suspension du casier conformément aux articles 3 et 4 de la Loi sur le casier judiciaire 5 ans après l'expiration de la peine pour les infractions punissables sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure sommaire et 10 ans après l'expiration de la peine pour toutes les autres infractionl'art. Le délinquant ne peut pas voir son casier suspendu s'il a été (1) reconnu coupable d'au moins trois infractions passibles d'une peine maximale d'emprisonnement à perpétuité, et (2) pour chacune de ces trois infractions, il a été "condamné à une peine d'emprisonnement de deux ans ou plus".(Traduit par Google Traduction)

History of the Offence

Voir également

References
v • e
 
Infractions contre les biens et infractions financières
Infractions / Peines
Récupérée de « https://carnetdroitpenal.ca/fr/index.php?title=Peine_pour_Fraude&oldid=12614 »