ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
Unofficial English translation of the Court’s decision
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
YOUSSEF BELMKADDEM
Before Justice Christine Mainville
Heard on February 27, 2026
Reasons for Sentence released on April 28, 2026
Alexandre Simard and Alysa Holmes counsel for the Crown
Marcus Bornfreund counsel for the offender
Mainville J.:
1I found Mr. Belmkaddem guilty, after a trial, of having fraudulently and without colour of right possessed a computer password that would enable a person to commit an offence under s. 342.1(1) of the Criminal Code, namely, the unauthorized use of a computer.
2The facts relating to this offence are that Mr. Belmkaddem visited an online platform called Genesis Market, where he repeatedly purchased stolen credentials obtained through malware. He also repeatedly purchased, on the same marketplace, fingerprints associated with the electronic device from which the data originated. These purchases were made using cryptocurrency, which reduces the possibility of tracing user transactions. Importantly, unless you are a marketplace administrator or registered on the marketplace by an administrator, an invitation from another Genesis user is required to register on the marketplace.
3Mr. Belmkaddem also repeatedly downloaded the plug-in system that Genesis Market made available to buyers. This system ingests data and allows the buyer of that data to impersonate the device from which it originated. This allows the buyer to bypass multi-factor authentication systems to access accounts associated with those usernames and thus use the purchased usernames and passwords (i.e., the credentials).
4In total, between March 17, 2019, and May 17, 2022, one of Mr. Belmkaddem’s Genesis accounts purchased 1,641 bots containing a total of 14,280 identifiers. The other account associated with Mr. Belmkaddem purchased five bots containing a total of 137 identifiers (113 + 24) during the same period.
5The identifiers were linked to various platforms, including Amazon, Costco, Walmart, PayPal, Facebook, Netflix, iCloud, and Google. The price of each purchase ranged from US$1 to a few US dollars. A total of US$3,351 was spent on these transactions, which were funded by an account belonging to Mr. Belmkaddem.
6I concluded, based on the facts established during the trial, that Mr. Belmkaddem knew his actions were prohibited – that he acted intentionally and fraudulently. I also concluded that the identifiers clearly had monetary value.
7During the investigation initiated by the FBI and continued by local police, a search warrant was executed at Mr. Belmkaddem’s residence on April 4, 2023. There, officers found four falsified pieces of identification – namely, counterfeit Ontario driver’s licenses. These all included Mr. Belmkaddem’s photograph, but with different names and identifiers attached to them.
8Based on these facts, I also found Mr. Belmkaddem guilty of possessing four falsified pieces of identification with the intent to commit an offence under s. 368(1) of the Code, namely, to use or act on these forged documents as if they were genuine. Furthermore, I concluded that Mr. Belmkaddem intended to rely on the falsehoods contained in the forged documents.
9As of April 4, 2023, Mr. Belmkaddem was bound by a probation order prohibiting him from possessing such pieces of identification that had not been lawfully issued in his name. I therefore found Mr. Belmkaddem guilty of breaching his probation.
10I must now determine the appropriate sentence for these three offences.
General Legal Principles
11Section 718 of the Criminal Code states that the purpose of sentencing is to protect society, contribute to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful, and safe society.
12Judges responsible for sentencing strive to achieve these objectives by imposing just penalties that comply with the sentencing principles also set out in the Criminal Code. These principles include denunciation of the crime committed, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation of the offender, reparations to victims of crime, and promotion of a sense of responsibility in the offender, as well as recognition of the harm caused to the community and to specific victims: ss. 718(a) to (f) of the Code.
13Ultimately, the fundamental principle of sentencing is to impose a penalty that is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed and the degree of responsibility of the offender: s. 718.1 of the Code. This means that, for the sentence I impose to be appropriate, it must be tailored to Mr. Belmkaddem’s personal circumstances and to the nature and circumstances of the offences he committed.
14In determining the appropriate sentence, it is important to consider any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances: s. 718.2(a) of the Code.
Positions of the Parties
15The defense submits that I should suspend the passing of sentence and issue a probation order for a period of one year. Alternatively, it submits that I should impose a conditional sentence.
16The prosecution requests a total sentence of two years less a day of imprisonment, followed by a two-year probation period.
Community Impact
17I received a Community Impact Statement, provided by the Crown pursuant to section 722.2 of the Code.
18This document states that cyber fraud is on the rise, particularly during the pandemic, when Mr. Belmkaddem committed these offences. Such fraud accounts for 75% of fraud losses in Canada.
19Genesis Market itself was prominent and prolific. It sold data harvested from 1.5 million compromised computers.
20The impact statement outlines the three stages of identity crimes of this nature. The first is the theft of personal information. The second, which applies here, is the transfer or purchase of that information. The final stage is the use of the illegally obtained data to commit fraud and other crimes.
21As stated by Justice Myers in a related, unreported case, R. v. Serati, March 6, 2025, 4911-998-24-91104098-00 (Newmarket), at paras. 2 and 3, it is almost impossible to exist today without having highly personal information on the Internet. This type of information can be used to commit a variety of crimes that can destroy lives. This includes extortion and the decimation of people’s credit and personal accounts. In such cases, the losses are not only monetary, but also psychological.
22Even in a case like this, where there is no evidence that such losses were incurred, it is because of people like Mr. Belmkaddem that the theft of such information is so valuable to those who run a website like Genesis Market. Such marketplaces – along with the associated theft of personal information – would not exist if the demand wasn’t there.
23It was also noted in the Serati case how shocking it is that such personal data is sold for so little. This demonstrates the scale of the problem and the sheer number of such credentials that cybercriminals manage to steal. It costs almost nothing to fuel massive frauds of this kind, while the collective impact is exorbitant – we’re talking millions of dollars in losses.
24In addition to the financial and psychological repercussions of such crimes, the repercussions include the erosion of public trust in the marketplace, the financial sector, and the government. This is a complex and significant threat facing Canada, including to the country’s security and economic integrity. In my opinion, this is a pernicious course of conduct.
Mr. Belmkaddem’s Personal Circumstances
25What then are Mr. Belmkaddem’s personal circumstances?
26When he purchased credentials on Genesis Market between October 2019 and May 2022, Mr. Belmkaddem had no prior criminal record. On this charge, he must be treated as a first offender.
27However, on November 21, 2022, Mr. Belmkaddem had been found guilty of unauthorized use of credit card data, with an offence date of May 1, 2015. He was also found guilty of fraud, with an offence date of February 24, 2021. The arresting officer testified that the arrest date was June 3, 2022. Following a guilty plea, he received a conditional discharge and was subsequently placed on probation for one year.
28Thus, when he was found in possession of false IDs in April 2023, he was in breach of his probation. It was also his second interaction with the criminal justice system.
29Otherwise, I know very little about Mr. Belmkaddem’s personal circumstances. He is 31 years old and has a partner and a one-year-old daughter. I know nothing about his background, education, or life experience.
30His lawyer states that he previously worked as a real estate agent in Toronto, but I don’t know for how long or in what capacity. I have no idea how much time he dedicated to it.
31One thing is certain: he will no longer be able to work in that field. I’ve been informed of future plans to return to Montreal with his family and open a beauty salon. However, these plans remain vague.
32I’m also told he has a photo booth for event rentals, which is a business he shares with his partner and that they would continue running once in Montreal.
33There is no indication whatsoever of remorse or even of understanding on Mr. Belmkaddem’s part of the gravity of his actions and their consequences. In short, no indication that he has learned his lesson.
34Admittedly, he now has a child, and one would hope that this will lead him to reflect and improve, so that he can be a good example for his child – or at least, refrain from committing further offenses in the future, if only to avoid being absent from his child's life. But I have no indication to date that this is the case. Rather, I have what appears to be a pattern of fraudulent conduct from 2015 to 2023.
35While I cannot rule out the possibility of rehabilitation, given Mr. Belmkaddem’s age and this significant change in his life, I cannot assert that the potential is high given the limited information I have on the matter.
The Circumstances of the Offences
36Regarding the circumstances of the offences, it is important to note that Mr. Belmkaddem made sustained use of the Genesis platform, which he accessed repeatedly for over two years (between 2019 and 2022). He continued to purchase credentials during this nearly three-year period before the Genesis Market server was seized by the FBI. It is therefore reasonable to presume that Mr. Belmkaddem was profiting from it.
37His actions involved thousands of compromised accounts. Possession of these credentials was purely a tool for fraud.
38Mr. Belmkaddem also attempted to cover his tracks, notably by requesting that Genesis Market delete his purchase history and by using cryptocurrency.
39In April 2023, he received a conditional discharge for other fraudulent offences and was given the opportunity to turn his life around and avoid a criminal record. Unfortunately, he did not take it.
40Shortly afterwards, he was found in possession of fake identity cards, directly contravening the court order. These cards were also hidden in his apartment.
The Applicable Sentencing Range
41The range of penalties is very broad, both for fraudulent offences and for the offence of breaching probation.
42As can be seen from Mr. Belmkaddem’s own criminal history, fraud can be subject to an absolute discharge. As the jurisprudence presented by the Crown shows, it can also lead to a prison sentence. The same is true for breach of probation.
43On the first count related to Genesis Market, I have the benefit of the Serati case, where the accused possessed passwords obtained from the same Genesis website, as well as credit card data, for fraudulent purposes. The investigation stemmed from the same FBI investigation into Genesis Market.
44In total, Mr. Serati pleaded guilty to purchasing six bots containing 420 credentials for a total of US$107.50. During the execution of a search warrant at his residence, he was found in possession of 41 sets of unauthorized credit card data. There had been two attempts to use this data, but no losses resulted.
45Mr. Serati received a four-month conditional sentence, with house arrest for the duration of the sentence. This sentence was to be followed by a two-year probation period. He was a first-time offender, and the sentence was a joint recommendation from both parties following a guilty plea.
46The Crown distinguishes the sentence imposed in that case from the one it believes should apply here, noting that Mr. Serati pleaded guilty and possessed only 420 credentials, as opposed to the more than 14,000 purchased by Mr. Belmkaddem. Mr. Serati’s rehabilitation prognosis was also important.
47In that case, it was agreed that although Mr. Serati was a first-time offender, the nature of the offence warranted the deterrent and denunciatory effect of a prison sentence.
48It has long been established that the primary objectives in sentencing a first offender are generally individual deterrence, where necessary, and rehabilitation: R. v. Priest (1996), 1996 1381 (ON CA), 110 CCC (3d) 289 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Mohenu, 2019 ONCA 291, at para. 12. Moreover, when dealing with youthful adult first-time offenders, the principle of rehabilitation must generally be central to the analysis: R. v. Al-Akhali, 2025 ONCA 229, at para. 5. For very serious offences and offences involving violence, however, denunciation and deterrence will weigh more heavily in the balance, and in some instances, they will have to be prioritized.
49In the present case, while I must not lose sight of the rehabilitation objective, it is important to impose a sentence that can serve as a deterrent to Mr. Belmkaddem. Yet I do not see how anything short of real custody could do so in this case. While this must not feature as prominently in a case involving a relatively youthful offender, I may still account for the need to denounce fraudulent activities of this type and try to deter other individuals – including younger adults – who might be tempted to commit such offences.
50It appears relatively easy to obtain someone else’s personal login credentials from the comfort of one’s home, and to use these credentials from that same comfort, with little risk of detection. In fact, all sorts of measures are put in place to complicate investigations, making such offences difficult to prosecute. The criminal activity is very much premeditated and considered. If the offender faces minimal consequences in the end, the effort can easily be worthwhile. It is therefore important to send a clear message that such offences will have very real consequences.
51My reasoning is informed by the case of R. v. Tuduce, 2014 ONCA 547, where the accused received a sentence of two years less a day and two years of probation for offences related to a high-level credit and debit card skimming operation. He was found in possession of skimming equipment and cards encoded with data from an active debit account. The accused was 32 years old and had no prior criminal record. The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, given the judge’s opinion that a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect the principles of denunciation and deterrence.
52Contrary to the defence, I see no significant distinction between fraudulent offences involving credit card data and those, as in this case, involving personal identifiers, including those related to or providing access to monetary accounts. Certainly, when there is evidence of monetary losses, this is an aggravating factor, but the offences committed here involve other aggravating factors that credit card cases do not necessarily present. Identity theft – and that is certainly what the purchase of third-party credentials, with the intent to use them fraudulently, constitutes here – is a most pernicious offence, which in itself causes significant harm to its victim. The initial theft of the credentials upon which the offence committed here depends is more sophisticated than credit card theft.
53I disagree with the defence that Mr. Serati’s other offences related to credit card data make his offences more serious than those committed by Mr. Belmkaddem. The other offences committed by Mr. Belmkaddem, which include a breach of probation, are of a level of seriousness equivalent to the other offences committed by Mr. Serati, who was still a first-time offender in relation to these.
Aggravating Factors
54As aggravating factors, I consider that, as in the Serati case, Mr. Belmkaddem’s offences were clearly motivated by greed and profit. Although the investigation did not determine how Mr. Belmkaddem used the credentials, their possession was for the purpose of using them in contravention of the Criminal Code, and the nature of the stolen credentials allows me to easily infer that the objective was, at least in part, to enrich himself financially. As discussed below, Mr. Belmkaddem sought to live in the fast lane. From his perspective, there was one lane for most people, and a fast lane for him and others who share his values.
55Secondly, the purchase of bots containing credentials and associated systems to circumvent multi-factor authentication systems, using cryptocurrency, demonstrates that these crimes involve a high level of technological sophistication.
56Thirdly, this is not an isolated case. The number of credentials Mr. Belmkaddem acquired is substantial: over 14,000. Given the number of bots purchased, we are talking about approximately 1,600 victims whose personal credentials were fraudulently obtained by Mr. Belmkaddem. Even if there is no evidence of monetary losses and Mr. Belmkaddem was not the one who committed the initial thefts, case law clearly establishes that these are not victimless crimes.
57This also occurred over a long period: more than two years. As in the Serati case, this period encompassed the pandemic, a time when most people were spending more time online and were compelled to conduct more transactions online.
58Similarly, regarding the identification documents, Mr. Belmkaddem possessed more than one ID card bearing his image. He had four such cards, all different, hidden in his apartment. Clearly, his objective was not simply to circumvent the age limit for entering a bar, for example. The appearance of the cards also seems very real, demonstrating high-quality, even professional, work that could easily be misleading.
59Furthermore, Mr. Belmkaddem necessarily worked in concert with at least one other person, given that access to the Genesis platform requires an invitation unless one is an administrator, which Mr. Belmkaddem is not. He was also communicating with someone named Ghost about one of the passwords for the Genesis account that granted access to the platform. This suggests the existence of a network to which Mr. Belmkaddem belongs, which is an aggravating factor.
60Indeed, he didn't end up on this site by chance. Nor is this an isolated lapse in judgment or a crime committed on a whim. The crime was planned, deliberate, and its commission was sustained. The level of organization is aggravating.
61Finally, the impact of such cybercrimes is significant. By creating a demand for credentials like those purchased here, he is part of an ecosystem that uses malware to deceive and steal the credentials and even the identities of countless innocent people vulnerable to such fraud. Indeed, there are no large-scale identity and credential thefts without a market for such information. Investigators struggle to stay informed and prosecute such crimes. As was the case here, and as noted in the community impact statement, such investigations often require the participation of actors from different jurisdictions. Reported incidents are increasing, while the number of cases resolved by the police is decreasing.
Mitigating Factors
62Regarding mitigating factors, I take into account that Mr. Belmkaddem is a first-time offender with respect to count #1.
63He was also relatively young at the time the offences were committed, which mitigates his moral culpability to some extent. Indeed, although he is now 31 years old, he was in his twenties when he committed these offences.
64I note, however, that the fact that there are no proven losses in this case is not a mitigating factor; it simply constitutes an absence of an aggravating factor in this respect.
65Similarly, I agree that Mr. Belmkaddem did not himself steal the credentials through malware. This does not, however, mitigate the aforementioned aggravating factors.
The Appropriate Sentence
66What, then, is the appropriate sentence here?
67First, I agree with the analysis in Serati that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted, despite the fact that Mr. Belmkaddem, like Mr. Serati, was a first-time offender at the time of the offences committed in relation to Genesis Market.
68A suspended sentence and probation, as suggested by the defence, would simply not be sufficient to achieve the sentencing objectives that must be met.
69Mr. Belmkaddem has already breached a probation order, and this breach, like the primary offence for which he is to be sentenced, must be denounced. The breach of probation involved the commission of a new offence of the same nature as those for which the probation order was imposed. This is not a minor violation. It is important to deter Mr. Belmkaddem from committing further offences in the future and to protect the public from such fraudulent activities. He has already demonstrated a willingness to violate a probation order – as such, in the absence of any indication that there has been a change of mindset on his part, such an order would not be sufficient in the circumstances.
70In my view, a sentence of imprisonment is necessary. The central question here is whether this sentence should be served in the community or in a correctional facility.
71The first condition that must be met for imposing a conditional sentence is that the sentence imposed be less than two years. I accept that the maximum sentence applicable to the first count, given that the Crown proceeded summarily, is two years less a day. Also taking into account the Crown’s position that such a sentence constitutes an appropriate global sentence in this case, I accept that a sentence of less than two years is reasonable.
72A conditional sentence can therefore be imposed if the other conditions for such a sentence are met, namely that:
it does not endanger the community;
it is consistent with the fundamental principles and objectives of sentencing; and
it is not subject to mandatory imprisonment.
73There is no mandatory imprisonment in this case.
74There is certainly a risk that Mr. Belmkaddem will commit further offences of the same nature. Indeed, given the breach of probation resulting from the commission of a new fraudulent offence and the lack of demonstrated remorse, I have no reason to believe he is ready to turn his life around and change his lifestyle. There is therefore a clear risk to the community, albeit a financial and psychological one. There is no physical danger to others if Mr. Belmkaddem is incarcerated in the community. Nevertheless, a conditional sentence may be inappropriate when there is a risk to the property of others: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61, at para. 75. The seriousness of the damage that would occur if such a risk were to materialize must be taken into account.
75Here, it is difficult for me to assess this given the lack of evidence of losses caused by Mr. Belmkaddem. Therefore, I do not believe that this factor necessarily or on its own precludes the imposition of a conditional sentence.
76The more difficult question is whether a conditional sentence is consistent with the sentencing objectives in this case.
77Non-custodial options should be considered for young adults, taking into account the offender’s potential for reform, and accounting for young adults’ immaturity and consequent reduced degree of responsibility, as well as the harsher impact incarceration has on them: Al-Akhali, at paras. 70 and 71. A custodial sentence should only be imposed when necessary, particularly for first-time offenders: para. 72.
78Certainly, a conditional sentence, if accompanied by sufficiently punitive conditions, can have a significant denunciatory and deterrent effect. However, as the Supreme Court recognized in Proulx, in certain cases, the objective of deterrence will justify a custodial sentence.
79As stated in para. 109 of Proulx, “when the objectives of rehabilitation, reparation, and promotion of a sense of responsibility may realistically be achieved in the case of a particular offender, a conditional sentence will likely be the appropriate sanction, subject to the denunciation and deterrence considerations outlined above.”
80I do not believe that these objectives can be achieved through a conditional sentence in this case.
81In my view, there is a clear distinction between Mr. Belmkaddem’s case and Mr. Serati’s in this respect.
82First, the guilty plea in Mr. Serati’s case was important to the analysis, as it avoided a complex trial that included international FBI testimony, as stipulated by the Crown in its submissions. That is not the case here.
83More importantly, there were several indications that Mr. Serati was well on his way to rehabilitation. In this context, the risk of him committing further online offences while under house arrest was reduced. First, a degree of remorse could be inferred from Mr. Serati’s guilty plea. Furthermore, Mr. Serati was considered an excellent candidate for rehabilitation: his employer – for whom he had worked for nearly three years – attested to his character and the fact that he was a hardworking and motivated employee. He had wanted to plead guilty at an early stage of the proceedings, had begun therapy, and had changed his circle of friends to distance himself from bad influences and surround himself with prosocial people. He was remorseful and fully aware of his personal situation and his crimes. He had presented numerous other letters of support from family and friends.
84I have no evidence of any of this before me. No one in Mr. Belmkaddem’s circle has attested to his character. I have nothing concrete to support his chances of rehabilitation, and certainly nothing has been done in this regard so far. No remorse has been expressed in any way in this case. I have no indication that Mr. Belmkaddem understands the gravity and impact of his crimes. While these are not aggravating factors, they are relevant considerations when assessing the rehabilitation objective and other sentencing objectives that must be met, whether they have already been met, and how they can be met.
85Finally, of course, the number of credentials Mr. Serati possessed was far less than the number at issue here: by a factor of nearly 35. Even the number of bot purchases is disproportionate to the figures in the Serati case: Mr. Serati purchased six bots, compared to over 1,600 for Mr. Belmkaddem.
86Here, house arrest is simply insufficient to meet the objectives of imposing a sentence. Mr. Belmkaddem’s level of responsibility is high. He was an active participant in a sophisticated system of a fraudulent nature. His various offences, both past and those before me at this time, tend to demonstrate a recurring pattern of fraudulent activity. Such offences are difficult to detect, investigate, and prosecute. In the absence of signs of remorse and acceptance of responsibility, there is a clear risk of recidivism. A clear message must be sent.
87House arrest is also, in my view, insufficient in this case, given the ease of access to the online world from which Mr. Belmkaddem committed the central offences in question. He has also already demonstrated a willingness to disregard the conditions imposed by the court. The risk here is too great. Again, despite the fact that the offences in the Serati case were of the same nature as those in this case, the offender's circumstances were very different. Mr. Serati’s rehabilitation efforts and expressed remorse reduced the risk that I account for here.
88The aforementioned distinctions also warrant a sentence longer than the four months of detention imposed in Mr. Serati’s case. While respecting the principles of restraint under ss. 718.2(d) and (e) of the Code, in my opinion, nothing less than a substantial prison sentence will adequately deter Mr. Belmkaddem and protect the public.
89I do take into account the sentencing range and the jump principle, given that Mr. Belmkaddem previously received an absolute discharge for similar offences. Despite this opportunity, however, he almost immediately resumed committing offences, in violation of the court’s conditions. This did not deter him, which is a relevant consideration: R. v. Green, 2021 ONCA 932, at para. 12.
90Furthermore, as stated above, although rehabilitation is theoretically possible, I have no evidence to suggest that Mr. Belmkaddem has reached that point, or that a sentence should be imposed to further any ongoing rehabilitation. Again, this is a relevant consideration for the application of the jump principle: R. v. Ferrigon, 2007 16828 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 1883 (Sup.Ct.), at paras. 9-12.
91On the contrary, it is clear that the sentence imposed today must primarily aim to deter Mr. Belmkaddem from committing offences of this nature. It is also necessary to denounce his conduct, protect the public, and promote a sense of responsibility in him for his actions: s. 718 of the Code. A significant sentence is warranted.
92During the commission of his offences, Mr. Belmkaddem frequently used the Fast Lane nomenclature. Indeed, email accounts linked to him included the names fastlaneinc and fastlane shoppers. A bank statement in the name of Fast Lane Shoppers was also found on Mr. Belmkaddem’s phone. The username for one of the Genesis accounts was fast666. It should also be noted that one of the passwords to access the Genesis account was imsoawsome00.
93If Mr. Belmkaddem wishes to live in the fast lane, he must accept the consequences of his choice. We can certainly move faster for a while, but eventually, reality catches up with us, and we can only lose ground.
94As for whether the breach of the probation order should be subject to a consecutive sentence, it is important to assess whether it constituted a different infringement of a “protected social interest” than the other offences for which Mr. Belmkaddem is to be sentenced: R. v. Fortune, 2024 ONCA 269, at paras. 31 and ff., relying on R. v. Fournel, 2014 ONCA 305, at paras. 58-59.
95In this case, the breach relates to the possession of false identification documents but is completely separate from the purchases of credentials on Genesis Market. I therefore assess that this sentence should be consecutive to the sentence on count #1. However, I can consider this breach as an aggravating factor on count #2 and impose a concurrent sentence on those two counts: Fortune, at para. 33, citing R. v. McCue, 2012 ONCA 773, at paras. 21-22.
96I therefore consider Mr. Belmkaddem’s possession of the false IDs in contravention of a clear condition imposed by the court a few months earlier, while he was on probation, to be a significant aggravating factor. This breach was not a secondary breach, such as failing to keep the peace; it was one of the central conditions – if not the central condition – of the order, directly related to the offences for which the order was imposed. Despite this condition, Mr. Belmkaddem was found in possession of not just one, but four fake IDs reflecting his photo.
Conclusion
97Mr. Belmkaddem, please stand. I therefore sentence you to the following sentences of imprisonment, accounting for the principle of totality:
Count #1: 18 months imprisonment
Count #2: 5 months imprisonment, to be served consecutively to Count #1
Count #3: 5 months imprisonment, to be served concurrently with Count #2
98This represents a total of 23 months imprisonment.
99On each of these counts, the period of imprisonment will be followed by a two-year probation period, with the following conditions:
Keep the peace and be of good behaviour;
Appear before the court when required;
Notify the court or probation officer of any change of address or name and promptly inform them of any changes in employment or occupation;
Report to a probation officer within 48 hours of your release from prison, or if you are released on conditions, at the end of your sentence and thereafter as directed by the probation officer, and follow the advice and instructions of your probation officer and/or any other person to whom you are referred by your officer, as often as required by the officer;
Do not possess any identification, chip or magnetic stripe card, credit or debit card, credit or debit card data, blank magnetic stripe card, check, negotiable instrument, or banking document, unless you can prove that it was legally issued in your name;
Do not possess passwords, usernames, or login credentials for internet accounts belonging to others or that appear to relate, in whole or in part, to another individual;
Do not access online sales platforms offering illegal or stolen goods, or those selling personal data;
Do not access the dark web;
Do not install or use a virtual private network (VPN) on any personal electronic device without the prior written consent of your probation officer.
100The Lenovo laptop and false identification documents seized by the police are also ordered forfeited and destroyed under s. 490(9) of the Code.
Released: April 28, 2026
Signed: Justice Mainville