Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: R. v. Siddiqi, 2015 ONCA 374 Date: 2015-05-26 Docket: C56804

Before: Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty and Benotto JJ.A.

Between

Her Majesty the Queen Respondent

and

Sameen Siddiqi Appellant

Counsel: Marie Henein and Christine Mainville, for the appellant Nick Devlin and Yael Pressman, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: May 20, 2015

On appeal from the conviction entered on January 14, 2013 and the sentence imposed on October 11, 2013 by Justice Michelle Fuerst of the Superior Court of Justice.

Endorsement

[1] Sameen Siddiqi was convicted of three counts of knowingly making a false statement in a loan application under s. 16(1)(a) of the Canada Small Business Financing Act, S.C. 1998, c. 36. The false statements were in the form of false invoices submitted in support of loan applications made to three separate banks. Mr. Siddiqi was sentenced to a conditional sentence of imprisonment of two years less one day and ordered to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the amount of $495,049.02 under s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[2] He appeals his conviction and sentence on two grounds.

[3] First, he argues the trial judge’s convictions are unreasonable. He submits that the circumstantial evidence admitted reasonable inferences other than guilt. The trial judge did not have sufficient evidence to conclude that: a) the invoices were false; b) Mr. Siddiqi wrote the false invoices; or c) Mr. Siddiqi wrote the false invoices in support of a loan application.

[4] Second, Mr. Siddiqi argues the trial judge erred in imposing a fine in lieu of forfeiture for an amount which – he argues – is greater than the criminal proceeds the evidence demonstrated he personally benefitted from.

[5] In our view, there is no merit to Mr. Siddiqi’s first ground of appeal. The circumstantial evidence taken as a whole eliminates all reasonable inferences but that the invoices were false and Mr. Siddiqi prepared them in support of the loan applications. That evidence included the three invoices themselves, which, as the trial judge explained, on examination are clearly false. The evidence also showed that the loan proceeds flowed into the bank accounts of two companies controlled by Mr. Siddiqi.

[6] Nor is there any merit to his second ground of appeal. The loan proceeds were proceeds of crime. Mr. Siddiqi had possession and control of loan proceeds in excess of the amount which he was fined. He put most of those funds beyond reach by transferring them out of the country to a third party. That third party was not a co-conspirator before the court. The trial judge did not need to find that Mr. Siddiqi personally benefitted from the funds he transferred to the third party, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture that included the amount of the transferred funds. The concerns that Mr. Siddiqi raises about possible double recovery do not arise on the facts of this case.

[7] The appeal is dismissed.

“Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O.”

“Doherty J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”