Forgery (Sentencing Cases): Difference between revisions
m Text replacement - "\| ([0-9])\.([0-9]) years \|" to "{{JailY|$1.$2}}" |
m Text replacement - "\| ([0-9]*) months \|" to "| {{JailM|$1}} |" |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{SCase1|{{CanLIIRS|Drummond|hp36m|2017 CanLII 81318 (NL SC)}}{{perNLSC|Burrage J}} | 3 months CSO | "Following a guilty plea and conviction, the 70-year-old offender was given a conditional sentence of three months concurrent on two counts of forgery of a document, contrary to section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. In October 2014 the offender signed two Agreements of Purchase and Sale of real property using a false name, but failed to provide the requisite deposit. As such, the agreements were not legally binding. The offender did not profit from the forgery, nor did the vendors suffer a financial loss. The offender had a prior criminal record for fraud arising from events in 1996-97 and 2013." }} | {{SCase1|{{CanLIIRS|Drummond|hp36m|2017 CanLII 81318 (NL SC)}}{{perNLSC|Burrage J}} | 3 months CSO | "Following a guilty plea and conviction, the 70-year-old offender was given a conditional sentence of three months concurrent on two counts of forgery of a document, contrary to section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code. In October 2014 the offender signed two Agreements of Purchase and Sale of real property using a false name, but failed to provide the requisite deposit. As such, the agreements were not legally binding. The offender did not profit from the forgery, nor did the vendors suffer a financial loss. The offender had a prior criminal record for fraud arising from events in 1996-97 and 2013." }} | ||
{{SCase1|''R v Burke'',<br> 2016 NLTD 135{{NOCANLII}} | 12 | {{SCase1|''R v Burke'',<br> 2016 NLTD 135{{NOCANLII}} | {{JailM|12}} | The offender was convicted at trial of fraud, forgery and uttering forged documents. "Mr. Burke, who was a real estate agent, engaged in a 'complex and sophisticated scheme', in which he created eight false Purchase and Sale Agreements for real estate. From 2009 until 2011 he used those agreements and other forged documents to obtain advances on his real estate commissions. As the scheduled closing dates arrived, there were false amending agreements, creating new fictitious closing dates. Eventually, ... “detection was inevitable”. The total monies advanced was $65,331.12, of which $35,821.85 (exclusive of interest) remained outstanding at the time of sentencing." [https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2017/2017canlii81318/2017canlii81318.html] The offence was considered a "serious and deliberate breach of trust".}} | ||
{{SCase1|''R v Escott'', <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/gr5vh 2016 CanLII 24770] (NL PC){{perNLPC|Linehan J}} | {{Suspended}} | "Mr. Escott, who was the president of a local bowler’s association, forged the signature of the association’s treasurer to eight cheques, totalling more than $50,000. There was no associated fraud involved, the cheques involved legitimate expenditures and Mr. Escott did not financially benefit from the forgeries. The matter came to light, however, when a number of cheques were returned by the bank, as there were insufficient funds in the association’s account. Mr. Escott’s actions damaged the reputation of the association and ... constituted a “serious breach of trust”. As against this aggravating factor, Mr. Escott entered a guilty plea, made an early admission to police and had no prior criminal record." [https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2017/2017canlii81318/2017canlii81318.html]}} | {{SCase1|''R v Escott'', <br> [http://canlii.ca/t/gr5vh 2016 CanLII 24770] (NL PC){{perNLPC|Linehan J}} | {{Suspended}} | "Mr. Escott, who was the president of a local bowler’s association, forged the signature of the association’s treasurer to eight cheques, totalling more than $50,000. There was no associated fraud involved, the cheques involved legitimate expenditures and Mr. Escott did not financially benefit from the forgeries. The matter came to light, however, when a number of cheques were returned by the bank, as there were insufficient funds in the association’s account. Mr. Escott’s actions damaged the reputation of the association and ... constituted a “serious breach of trust”. As against this aggravating factor, Mr. Escott entered a guilty plea, made an early admission to police and had no prior criminal record." [https://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlsctd/doc/2017/2017canlii81318/2017canlii81318.html]}} | ||