Ontario Court of Justice
Citation: R. v. Akram, 2026 ONCJ 342 Date: 2026-06-03 Court File No.: BRAMPTON 25-31100252
Between: His Majesty the King — and — Rehan Akram
Before: Justice P.T. O’Marra Heard on: November 2, 2025 and April 27, 2026 Reasons for Judgment released on: June 3, 2026
Counsel: David Tice and Filareti Perivolaris, counsel for the Crown Randy Norris, counsel for the accused Rehan Akram
P.T. O’MARRA J.:
Introduction
1Mr. Akram appears for sentencing following his guilty plea to one count of fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code. The plea reflects his admission that he participated in a structured scheme to resell stolen loyalty points on an online marketplace.
2The sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility, as required by s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and informed by the objectives in s. 718 and the principles in s. 718.2.
The Guilty Plea
3The guilty plea is a significant mitigating factor. This prosecution would have required a complex trial involving financial tracing, digital evidence, and extensive documentation. As a result, the plea has saved substantial judicial resources.
4A guilty plea is relevant both as an expression of responsibility and for its practical value: R. v. Lacasse, 2015 SCC 64 at para. 60; R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6 at para. 40.
The Facts
5The facts are drawn from the agreed statement and Mr. Akram’s admissions under oath. I accept them as establishing the factual foundation for sentencing. The offence arises from an online enterprise known as “CanadaCrack”, comprising a Telegram channel and a web-based storefront.
6The enterprise resold stolen Scene+ loyalty points to the public at discounted rates, presenting itself as a legitimate retail platform. A “vouch” system was used to confirm successful redemptions and to build credibility with prospective purchasers. Multiple payment systems were used, including PayPal, Wise accounts, and cryptocurrency platforms.
7The scheme operated over a sustained period and involved repeated transactions. It was a commercial operation designed to generate revenue through fraudulent means.
8Mr. Akram’s brother, Noman, was the directing mind of the enterprise. He controlled the operation and received the majority of the proceeds, profiting approximately $1,000,000 as a result of this fraudulent scheme. Noman has fled the country and is a fugitive from justice.
9However, Mr. Akram’s role was active. He communicated with customers, facilitated transactions, and assisted in creating fraudulent accounts used to obtain loyalty points. He knew the nature of the enterprise and participated voluntarily.
10He received approximately $7,200, which he has agreed to forfeit to a charity.
11The broader enterprise incurred significant losses, including substantial harm to the primary corporate victim. The scale of the enterprise informs the gravity of the offence. However, the sentence must reflect Mr. Akram’s individual role. He was a knowing and active participant, but not the architect, and did not share significantly in the overall proceeds.
Positions of the Parties
12The Crown submits that the offence is serious and should be treated as a form of large-scale cyber fraud. Although this particular “points redemption” scheme is relatively novel, it is said to fall within the broader category of fraud that is difficult to detect, resource-intensive to investigate, and capable of causing substantial financial harm. The Crown emphasizes that the enterprise incurred substantial losses, with the primary corporate victim reporting losses exceeding $500,000, along with additional unquantified losses to other merchants. It submits that such offences ordinarily attract significant custodial sentences and identifies an established range of three to five years’ imprisonment for large-scale fraud of this magnitude.
13At the same time, the Crown distinguishes Mr. Akram from the principal offender. It acknowledges that he was not the directing mind of the scheme and that his role was facilitative and subordinate to his brother's. In light of those considerations, together with his personal circumstances, the Crown ultimately submits that the appropriate disposition lies within the reformatory range. It seeks orders for restitution and forfeiture, as well as a DNA order. The Crown identifies the scheme’s structured and sustained nature, its duration over years, the use of false accounts, and Mr. Akram’s knowing participation as aggravating factors. It acknowledges mitigating factors, including his youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and rehabilitative prospects.
14The defence accepts the seriousness of the offence and the importance of denunciation and deterrence, but submits that a custodial sentence is unnecessary. It emphasizes Mr. Akram’s reduced moral culpability. He is described as a socially isolated, immature young person who was highly susceptible to the influence of his older brother, the architect of the scheme. The defence submits that Mr. Akram’s role was secondary and dependent, rather than that of a principal or organizer. The defence relies on pre-sentence and counselling evidence to explain his initial lack of insight and to support the conclusion that he now accepts responsibility and presents a strong prospect of rehabilitation. It highlights that he was 18 at the outset of the offence, has no prior criminal record, cooperated with the police, and has derived only limited financial benefit. The guilty plea is considered highly significant, particularly given the complexity of the investigation. The defence further submits that the primary victim is a corporation capable of absorbing the loss, distinguishing this case from frauds involving vulnerable individual victims. It argues that a community-based disposition would adequately address the objectives of sentencing. It seeks a suspended sentence or a short conditional sentence, in the range of six months.
The Offender’s Background and Counselling Report
15Mr. Akram was 18 years old at the time of the offence and is now 22. He is a full-time student and lives with his family in a stable home environment.
16The evidence establishes longstanding academic difficulties, including memory limitations, reduced processing capacity, and challenges with sustained attention. These features have affected his ability to function independently and contributed to a pattern of reliance on others in decision-making contexts. Mr. Akram also experiences significant social anxiety. The counselling report describes a persistent fear of negative evaluation and heightened self-consciousness in social interactions. He has difficulty initiating interactions, avoids unfamiliar situations, and becomes anxious when required to make decisions in the presence of others.
17This anxiety manifests as avoidance, passivity, and reluctance to assert disagreement. He is highly conflict-averse and tends to defer to others to reduce interpersonal stress. In the presence of more assertive individuals, his capacity for independent judgment is diminished. These features are part of his baseline functioning. His social anxiety is associated with low self-confidence and a tendency to doubt his own judgment, increasing his susceptibility to external influence.
18A central feature of his background is his relationship with his older brother, who was the principal actor in the offence. The counselling evidence describes a longstanding dynamic of dependence and deference. Mr. Akram placed significant trust in his brother and relied on him for direction and guidance. Within the family structure, the brother occupied a dominant and directive role. Mr. Akram assumed a compliant position, tending to follow instructions without question and rarely challenging decisions, even when he had reservations.
19This dynamic was reinforced over time. Mr. Akram’s academic struggles and social anxiety contributed to diminished confidence, which in turn deepened his reliance on his brother. In practical terms, decision-making authority was ceded to him.
20The counselling opinion is that this relationship materially shaped Mr. Akram’s conduct in the offence. While he understood the activity was dishonest, his participation occurred within a context of dependency and deference. This does not excuse his conduct but is directly relevant to his level of responsibility. The report characterizes him as emotionally immature and developmentally delayed relative to his age. He presents as passive, non-assertive, and vulnerable to influence, with limited capacity to assess risk independently in real time.
21Following his arrest, he experienced significant psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. These symptoms have resolved with counselling and support. He has since demonstrated stability. He is engaged in full-time education, follows a structured routine, and remains in a supportive family environment with no further criminal involvement. He expresses genuine remorse and demonstrates insight into his conduct. He understands the harm caused and the consequences for his family and future. The clinician assesses his risk of reoffending as low, based on his insight, lack of a prior record, absence of entrenched antisocial attitudes, and stable supports. His rehabilitative prospects are strong.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors
22Section 718.2(a) requires the court to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances when determining a fit sentence. The analysis focuses on moral blameworthiness: Lacasse at para. 53; Nasogaluak at para. 40. The aggravating factors are as follows.
23The offence was part of a structured, technologically sophisticated scheme that involved planning and coordination. It operated over a sustained period and involved repeated transactions. Section 380.1(1)(a) of the Code. Mr. Akram’s role, while secondary, was active and facilitative. He contributed to both the acquisition and the distribution of the fraudulent product. He acted with knowledge of the dishonest nature of the conduct. The broader enterprise caused substantial losses. Although he is not responsible for all of those losses, he knowingly participated in an operation that caused them. This informs the seriousness of the offence.
24The mitigating factors are significant and stem from both his role and the background and counselling evidence.
25Mr. Akram was 18 years old at the time of the offence. Youth may reduce moral culpability due to immaturity and susceptibility to influence: Lacasse at para. 56. The significance of age in this case is not merely chronological. Mr. Akram’s youth is reflected in the concrete features identified in the counselling evidence. At 18, he was emotionally immature, socially anxious, and prone to deferring to others, particularly his older brother. These characteristics diminished his ability to exercise independent judgment in real time and increased his susceptibility to influence. As recognized in Lacasse at para. 56, youth may mitigate moral culpability when accompanied by diminished judgment and vulnerability to external pressure. Here, those features are firmly grounded in the evidence and materially bear on his level of responsibility. Age does not lessen the seriousness of the offence or the need for denunciation and deterrence, but it is an important component of the individualized assessment required by proportionality and supports the conclusion that his moral blameworthiness is lower than that of adult offenders acting with full independence and maturity.
26His role was secondary. He did not design or control the operation: R. v. Foran, 2014 ONCA 549 at para. 29. His financial gain was limited and has been forfeited. The counselling evidence establishes that he is socially anxious, conflict-averse, and prone to deferring to others. It further establishes a sustained family dynamic in which his brother exerted a dominant influence. These features materially reduce his moral blameworthiness. His participation occurred within a pattern of dependence and diminished capacity to exercise independent judgment, particularly in response to his brother’s direction. He experienced psychological consequences following his arrest, which form part of the overall context. He has expressed genuine remorse and accepts responsibility. He presents a low risk of reoffending and has strong prospects for rehabilitation. The guilty plea carries significant mitigating weight.
Sentencing Principles
27Proportionality is the governing principle: Section 718.1 of the Code; R. v. Lacasse at para. 53; R. v. McDonnell, 1997 CanLII 389 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948 at para. 42. Sentencing must reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s moral culpability.
28Denunciation and deterrence are central objectives in fraud cases: R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 at para. 107. Those objectives cannot justify a sentence that exceeds proportionality: Nasogaluak at para. 40.
29Sentencing remains individualized and flexible: R. v. Lacasse at para. 53
30The authorities establish that large-scale fraud is among the most serious non-violent offences in the Criminal Code. In Ontario, a settled range of three to five years’ imprisonment has long applied to major frauds: R. v. Scholz, 2021 ONCA 506 at para. 18; R. v. Bogart (2002), 2002 CanLII 41073 (ON CA), 61 O.R. (3d) 75 (C.A.) at para. 36. More recent jurisprudence indicates that, depending on the scheme’s magnitude, sophistication, duration, and impact, sentences may exceed that range, in some cases to seven or eight years: R. v. Pavao, 2018 ONSC 4889 at paras. 86–92. These ranges are not binding but serve as guides to promote parity, and a substantial departure from them requires principled justification: Scholz at paras. 20–21.
31The consistently emphasized principle in these cases is that denunciation and general deterrence are primary sentencing objectives. Large-scale frauds are typically deliberate, planned, and motivated by financial gain: Pavao at paras. 23–26; Scholz at para. 24. As a result, otherwise mitigating personal factors, such as good character or the absence of a prior record, are often afforded limited weight because they commonly facilitate the commission of such offences: Scholz at para. 10. For similar reasons, penitentiary sentences are the norm in cases involving significant loss, multiple transactions, or sustained commercial activity: Scholz at para. 18. While those authorities mark the gravity of the broader enterprise in this case, they do not dictate the sentence to be imposed on this offender. The authorities also recognize that departures from the usual range may be justified where the offender’s role is secondary or their moral blameworthiness is materially reduced: Pavao at paras. 94–99; Scholz at para. 21. In such cases, the sentence must reflect not only the seriousness of the scheme but the offender’s own degree of responsibility. This case falls within that latter category. Mr. Akram participated in a structured and ongoing fraud and bears real responsibility for his actions. However, he was not the directing mind of the scheme, did not design or control it, and did not share significantly in its proceeds. More importantly, his participation occurred at age 18, in a context of emotional immaturity, social anxiety, and a longstanding pattern of deference to a dominant older brother. These features materially distinguish him from the principal offenders who define the established range for large-scale fraud. When those considerations are taken together, the general sentencing range for large-scale fraud assists in identifying the seriousness of the offence and the importance of denunciation and deterrence. However, it does not require imposing a penitentiary sentence in this case. To apply that range mechanically would overstate Mr. Akram’s moral culpability and fail to give effect to the fundamental principle of proportionality: Lacasse at para. 53; Nasogaluak at para. 44.
Analysis
32This is a serious offence. It involved a structured and sustained fraud that required meaningful denunciation and deterrence. The central issue is Mr. Akram’s level of moral blameworthiness.
33His participation was knowing and active, but it occurred within a context of youth, emotional immaturity, significant social anxiety, and a longstanding dynamic of dependence on a dominant older brother.
34He did not design or control the enterprise, nor did he significantly benefit from it. His conduct reflects involvement in, rather than direction of, the scheme. When these features are considered together, his culpability is materially lower than that of the principal offenders in comparable fraud cases.
35He falls within a category of offender for whom denunciation and deterrence remain important, but proportionality does not require a custodial sentence served in an institution. Having considered the competing positions, I am satisfied that the appropriate disposition lies within the reformatory range and that a conditional sentence is sufficient to meet the objectives of sentencing in this case.
Conditional Sentence
36Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code authorizes a conditional sentence where the term is less than two years, the offender does not endanger the safety of the community, and the sentence is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing. A conditional sentence is a sentence of imprisonment: Proulx at para. 22. It must impose real restrictions on liberty.
37The evidence establishes that Mr. Akram does not pose a danger to the community. He is assessed as low risk, has demonstrated insight, and has remained law-abiding while engaged in structured, prosocial activity.
38A conditional sentence is consistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing in this case. Institutional custody would place undue weight on general deterrence, given his reduced culpability. A conditional sentence, structured to include a period of house arrest followed by curfew and supervision, provides a meaningful deprivation of liberty. It reflects the seriousness of the offence, gives effect to denunciation and deterrence, and remains proportionate to this offender.
Conclusion
39A custodial sentence served in an institution is not required to achieve the objectives of sentencing. A conditional sentence provides a proportionate and principled response.
40Mr. Akram, please stand. You are sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment to be served in the community pursuant to s. 742.1 of the Criminal Code. The first four months shall be served under house arrest. The next four months shall be served under curfew. The final four months shall be served subject to the statutory conditions.
41The sum of $7,200 held in trust shall be paid to a charity. The Crown’s application for forfeiture of offence-related property is granted, and an order is made under section 490.1(1) of the Code. DNA will be provided. This sentence is proportionate and appropriate, having regard to all the circumstances.
Conditional Sentence Order
42The sentence shall be served in the community subject to the following conditions pursuant to s. 742.3 of the Criminal Code. You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You shall appear before the court when required to do so. You shall report to a supervisor within two working days and thereafter as directed. You shall remain within the Province of Ontario unless written permission is obtained from the court or your supervisor.
43For the first four months of this order, you shall remain in your residence at all times except with the prior approval of your supervisor for the following purposes: seeking or attending employment, attendance at an educational institution, medical or counselling appointments, meetings with your lawyer, meetings with your supervisor, or any other purpose approved in advance by your supervisor. You shall be permitted to shop for the necessities of life and attend religious services each Friday from 10:00 until 3:00 pm. You shall present yourself immediately upon request by a peace officer or your supervisor for the purpose of confirming compliance with this condition.
44For the next four months, you shall abide by a daily curfew by remaining in your residence between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., except with the prior approval of your supervisor for employment, education, medical needs, or other approved purposes. You shall carry a copy of this order with you at all times when outside your residence and shall produce it upon request of a peace officer.
45You shall notify your supervisor in advance of any change of address, employment, or education. You shall not communicate or associate with any person known to you to be involved in criminal activity, except with the prior approval of your supervisor. You shall not possess or use any device, account, or platform for the purpose of engaging in fraudulent or deceptive activity. You shall provide access to any digital device in your possession to your supervisor upon reasonable request for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this condition. The remaining four months you are subject to the statutory conditions.
46You are advised that if you breach any of these conditions, you may be brought back before the court and may be required to serve the remainder of your sentence in custody. The victim fine is waived.
Released: June 3, 2026
Signed: Justice P.T. O’Marra