COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: R. v. Dhanaswar, 2016 ONCA 172

DATE: 20160301

DOCKET: C59461

Tulloch, Benotto and Roberts JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Devika Dhanaswar

Appellant

Devika Dhanaswar, in person

Gerald Chan, duty counsel

Greg Skerkowski, for the respondent

Heard: February 9, 2016

On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Todd Ducharme of the Superior Court of Justice on May 20, 2014, and from the sentence imposed on September 19, 2014, with reasons reported at [2014] O.J. No. 6387 (S.C.) and [2014] O.J. No. 6388 (S.C.).

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant was convicted of two counts of fraud over five thousand dollars following a trial by judge sitting without a jury. She was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on each charge, concurrent. The sentencing judge ordered her to pay restitution in the amount of $2,372,702, and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount, with six years to pay it following her release. He imposed the minimum sentence provided by s. 462.37(4) of the Criminal Code in case of default for that amount of money, five years’ imprisonment.

[2] The appellant appeals her convictions and sentence. On the conviction appeal, she argues that the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence. On the sentence appeal, she argues that the trial judge erred by imposing a sentence that was outside of the acceptable range.

Conviction appeal

[3] The two charges arose out of a series of fraudulent real estate transactions initiated by the appellant and her co-accused husband, Mohammed Saheed. The first count relates to various real estate deals, and the second to various loans that were exchanged for promissory notes.

[4] On the real estate fraud, the trial judge found that both the appellant and her husband repeatedly represented to potential investors that they could make large sums of money with relatively small initial investments, and that these claims were false. He also found that the appellant was an active participant in the fraudulent scheme, as she occupied management or executive positions in the various corporations involved in the fraud.

[5] On the promissory note fraud, he found that while there was no evidence the appellant was directly involved in the negotiation of promissory notes, there was evidence that she aided her husband.

[6] We see no error in the trial judge’s factual findings or reasoning. We do not agree that the verdict was unreasonable or that it could not be supported by the evidence.

[7] The evidence was unequivocal that the appellant was an active participant in the fraudulent scheme with her husband. She occupied management or executive positions in the various companies that committed the frauds. She actively participated in the marketing of the various fraudulent transactions and made statements in support of her husband’s credibility to prospective investors, in the face of obvious misleading information. She also assisted with promotional materials that she knew were deceptive.

[8] Similarly, there was clear evidence that the appellant knew that the promissory notes were useless, or at least that she was willfully blind as to their fraudulent nature, yet aided her husband anyway.

Sentence appeal

[9] We see no merit in the appellant’s argument.

[10] This was a large scale fraud with multiple victims who were duped into trusting the appellant so that she and her husband could take advantage of their vulnerability.

[11] In our view, in a case such as this, there was a real need to emphasize denunciation and general deterrence: R. v. Dobis (2002), 2002 CanLII 32815 (ON CA), 58 O.R. (3d) 536, at para. 42. The appellant’s conduct had devastating consequences on the victims. The sentence was fit and within the acceptable range. Accordingly, there is no basis to interfere.

Disposition

[12] The conviction appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence is granted, but the sentence appeal is dismissed.

“M. Tulloch J.A.”

“M.L. Benotto J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”