Money laundering

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against his insurer after it denied coverage for his vehicle, which was destroyed by fire.

The insurer alleged the plaintiff made wilfully false statements, committed arson, and used the vehicle purchase to launder money.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's insurable interest, whether the fire was accidental, and the insurer's allegations of false statements, noting significant evidentiary gaps and inconsistencies that could not be resolved on a summary basis.

The offender was convicted by a jury of fraud over $5,000, possession of proceeds of crime, and uttering a forged document in relation to a $1.8 million cross-border advance fee scam.

The court found the offender was a directing mind of the fraud, which had a devastating financial and personal impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 46 months' imprisonment, taking into account the harsher prison conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also ordered restitution of approximately $1.45 million, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of approximately $1.86 million, a DNA order, and a 10-year prohibition order.

The applicant, sought by the United States for money laundering and operating an un-licenced money transfer business, applied for bail pending extradition.

The applicant bore the onus under s. 515(6)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the applicant posed a significant flight risk, had a history of using false documents, and proposed an inadequate release plan with unsuitable sureties and insufficient supervision to prevent reoffending.

The accused, the CEO of a Shariah-compliant home financing company and the chair of its Shariah Ethics Board, were charged with theft, fraud, money laundering, and Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act offences.

The charges arose after the company was ordered into receivership and the CEO used company funds to purchase over $2 million in gold and silver bullion, which he claimed was to pay the Ethics Board for past services in accordance with Islamic finance principles.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea for the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, as the CEO had an honest belief, based on the Mudarabah partnership structure and Shariah law, that he was authorized to use the funds for this purpose.

Both accused were acquitted of all charges.

The accused was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime and money laundering after receiving $348,751.57 from a sophisticated phishing fraud and immediately dispersing the funds.

The Crown sought 30 months' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the significant impact on the corporate victim and the accused's rapid diversion of the funds.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration, two years' probation, and ordered to pay $348,751.57 in restitution.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

The accused were charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession of large quantities of cocaine, marijuana, oxycodone, and psilocybin, as well as significant amounts of cash.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including keys, documents, and debt lists, overwhelmingly established that both accused were in possession of the narcotics and that the cash was derived from trafficking.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The Crown prosecuted a multi-count fraud trial arising from an alleged scheme involving fictitious businesses, false financial statements, staged site visits, and front persons used to obtain business loans and lines of credit from institutional lenders.

The court conducted an extensive similar act analysis under Handy and Arp, admitting cross-count evidence for most counts because of the striking similarities in the scheme and the distinctive recurring role of the bookkeeper/accountant liaison, but excluding certain weaker counts.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on the majority of fraud, attempt, money laundering, and possession-of-proceeds counts, relying on a combination of banker testimony, documentary evidence, phone records, geolocation evidence, handwriting and fingerprint evidence, and similar act reasoning.

The accused was acquitted on several counts where identity or participation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including the criminal organization counts because the Crown failed to prove sufficient structure and cohesiveness.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and committing offences for a criminal organization in relation to a scheme to fraudulently obtain Canada Small Business Financing Program loans from various banks.

The Crown alleged that the defendants used sham corporations, forged financial documents, and inflated or fabricated invoices for leasehold improvements and equipment to deceive the banks into advancing loan funds, which were then laundered among the defendants.

The court found that Marshall Kazman and Gad Levy orchestrated the scheme and were guilty of fraud, money laundering, and the criminal organization offence.

Ali Vaez Tehrani and Madjid Vaez Tehrani were found guilty of fraud on specific counts but acquitted of the criminal organization charge.

Armand Levy, Ekaterina Chapkina, and Kamyar Ghatan were acquitted of all charges.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused, as the directing mind of a construction company, orchestrated a scheme to assemble and transfer approximately $1.7 million to his personal account in Lebanon while the company was insolvent and unable to pay subcontractors, suppliers, employees, and statutory trust obligations.

The court found that the accused knowingly relied on false financial statements, a sham share sale, a fabricated shareholder deposit, and false pretences to obtain credit, bonding, and financing, and then diverted trust and company funds offshore.

Applying the governing fraud principles, the court held that the Crown proved deceit, deprivation, and subjective knowledge of the risk of deprivation beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court convicted the accused on ten counts including fraud, obtaining credit by false pretence, bankruptcy offences, laundering proceeds of crime, forgery, and uttering forged documents.

Two accused were charged with forgery‑related offences, tax fraud, and money laundering arising from a business producing false identification cards at a Toronto storefront.

The Crown alleged the moving party operated the enterprise through nominee businesses and bank accounts while failing to report significant income, thereby defrauding the federal government.

The court found that forged identification cards were manufactured and sold through the business and that the principal accused was the directing mind of the operation and the beneficiary of its revenues.

However, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused knowingly participated in the offences or benefited from the income flowing through accounts in his name.

The court convicted the principal accused of forgery‑related offences and tax fraud but acquitted the co‑accused and dismissed the money laundering counts.

The applicant corporation sought the return of $144,050 in cash seized by police during a drug and money laundering investigation targeting its former director.

The applicant argued it was the lawful owner of the funds, which it claimed were a business float, and that the funds were not required for the pending criminal proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it was the lawful owner of the funds, and that the funds were required as evidence for the upcoming preliminary inquiry and trial.

Following convictions for multiple drug trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, laundering, and weapon offences, the Crown applied for forfeiture of large amounts of cash, vehicles, equipment, scales, a prohibited knife, and ammunition seized during a search.

The court relied on the trial findings, affidavit evidence, and the statutory inference in s. 462.39 of the Criminal Code to conclude on a balance of probabilities that the property had been obtained with proceeds of crime.

The court rejected competing ownership claims as vague, uncertain, and improbable, and found a pattern of nominee ownership with no credible lawful explanation for the assets.

Mandatory and discretionary forfeiture orders were granted for all listed property.

The accused brought numerous pre‑trial motions in a prosecution alleging forgery‑related offences, money laundering, and income tax fraud arising from a business producing false identification cards.

The motions included challenges to the Crown’s addition of counts under s. 574 of the Criminal Code, Charter claims concerning warrantless seizure of telephone subscriber information and production orders, delay under ss. 11(b) and 7 of the Charter, applications for particulars, certiorari to quash the committal, and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and abuse of process.

The court held that the Crown lawfully added additional charges disclosed by the preliminary inquiry evidence and rejected the Charter challenges to subscriber information and production orders.

Delay claims were dismissed because most delay was attributable to inherent case complexity and defence availability rather than the Crown, and no significant prejudice was shown.

The court also rejected allegations of abuse of process and prosecutorial misconduct, finding they lacked an evidentiary foundation and did not justify an evidentiary hearing.

Following execution of a search warrant at a residence, police discovered drugs, digital scales, large quantities of bundled cash exceeding one million dollars, and numerous assets including vehicles and recreational equipment.

The accused was charged with several offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as well as possession of proceeds of crime and money laundering offences under the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on constructive possession and circumstantial evidence demonstrating knowledge and control over the drugs, cash, and property located throughout the residence and garage.

The court rejected defence evidence that another individual owned the drugs and money and accepted expert evidence on drug trafficking practices.

The court concluded the only reasonable inference was that the accused was engaged in mid‑ to high‑level drug trafficking and that the assets were acquired using proceeds of crime.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery of a bank, attempted extortion of the same branch, laundering proceeds of crime, and fraud.

The offences were committed while the accused was employed at the bank and involved planning with co-accused, threats of violence, and misuse of his position of trust.

During the robbery, co‑accused used knives and restrained employees with duct tape, causing significant fear and emotional harm.

The court considered mitigating factors including youth, lack of prior criminal record, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation, but found numerous aggravating factors including breach of trust, planning, recruitment of accomplices, and continued criminal conduct over several months.

A penitentiary sentence was required to emphasize denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant, a lawyer charged with money laundering and possession of property obtained by crime, sought to vary or vacate three restraint orders freezing his bank and securities accounts.

He argued the orders were based on information obtained in breach of his s. 8 Charter rights, PIPEDA, and a production order, and that the banks acted as state agents.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accounts were properly restrained as offence-related property or proceeds of crime.

The court held the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the banking information disclosed, the banks acted independently to protect their own interests and not as state agents, and the disclosures complied with PIPEDA.

The court also found the CRA tax information was properly acquired and used.

The applicant brought a motion for a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 against thirteen properties alleged to be proceeds of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and money laundering.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing there were no reasonable and probable grounds, that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure on the initial ex parte motion, and that continuation of the order was not in the interests of justice.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe that eight of the properties were acquired with proceeds of crime due to unexplained funding gaps, but discharged the order for five properties where legitimate funding sources were demonstrated.

The court dismissed the non-disclosure arguments and found that continuing the preservation order for the eight properties was not clearly against the interests of justice.