ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: 2025 07 31
COURT FILE No.: 21-45001307
Toronto Region
Parties
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
Glenda Marie ESTEVES
Court Information
Before: Justice C. Faria
Heard on: September 12, November 18, 2022, February 14, June 8, 9, August 16, October 30, December 11, 2023, March 15, April 26, July 5, October 4, and December 14, 2024
Reasons for Sentence released on: July 31, 2025
Counsel:
Kene Canton & Andrew Weafer — counsel for the Crown
Mark Andrew Reynolds — counsel for the accused Glenda Marie ESTEVES
Reasons for Sentence
Faria J.:
I. Introduction
[1] On September 12, 2022, the first day of her Preliminary Inquiry, Glenda Esteves pled guilty to Fraud Over $5000, Uttering a Forged Document, and Committing Theft Under False Pretenses, between January 2015 and October 2019.
[2] The facts were agreed to, and the parties proceeded with a Gardiner hearing for the next 30 months. The dispute is whether the amount defrauded is readily ascertainable and whether a fine in lieu should be ordered.
[3] In addition to hearing evidence for several days over the course of the two and half years, numerous adjournments were granted for numerous reasons: Ms. Esteves gave late disclosure of "thousands of" pages to her lawyer; the defendant was ill; counsel was ill; the witness mis-diarized; the parties mis-diarized; schedules were challenging, and even the court required more time to review the evidence.
[4] The day has come, and these are my reasons for sentence.
II. Agreed Facts
[5] Between 2015 and 2019, Glenda Esteves operated an elaborate fraud.
[6] She was the sole owner of "Mac Glamour Inc." Both before and after she incorporated this company, she enticed investors to invest in her venture with high rates of return.
[7] She purported to make and sell lipstick. She claimed to obtain materials from MAC, a well-known cosmetics company, mix these materials, create her own lipstick, and then sell these lipsticks to a modelling company called Q Modelling NYC. Ms. Esteves claimed the profit margin was the difference between the cost of the raw materials from MAC, and the sale price of the finished product to Q Modelling.
[8] The actual production of lipsticks did not exist. Ms. Esteves never made lipsticks. The money investors provided her was never invested in the company called Mac Glamour as she claimed.
[9] Ms. Esteves obtained investment money by forging various banking documents and used them to persuade investors that Mac Glamour had millions of dollars in a corporate account. Mac Glamour had no such account.
[10] These forged bank documents eased investors who were owed money and persuaded them to invest further amounts.
[11] Money that was paid out as an "investment return" was money received from other investors. The business model was thereby operated as a Ponzi scheme.
[12] Many of the victims she targeted to invest in her company, and who became victims, were from her ethnic community of Filipino origin.
[13] The total number of victims Ms. Esteves defrauded has never been quantified.
III. Glenda Esteves' Circumstances
[14] Born in the Philippines in 1974, Ms. Esteves is an educated 50-year-old married woman with two adult children.
[15] Pursuant to her Pre-Sentence Report (PSR), Ms. Esteves is the oldest of 8 siblings, 6 of whom still live in the Philippines, while she cares for and provides for the youngest sibling who lives with her in Toronto. She grew up in poverty and left her country of origin to make a better life for herself.
[16] She has a long-term supportive marriage. Her husband is a co-accused on these charges, but whom she says she deceived and is not responsible for any fraudulent conduct. Her daughter has completed university and has a job. Her son has just done the same.
[17] Ms. Esteves first immigrated to the United States where she continued her education in Computer Science while her husband immigrated to Canada with the two children in 2014. She joined them in Toronto, and shortly after that became a Canadian citizen in 2019.
[18] She has been successfully employed, has no medical conditions, nor any substance use issues.
[19] In 2017 she registered Mac Glamour, the company through which she defrauded people, and operated until her arrest in 2020.
[20] The author of the PSR notes that Ms. Esteves has lost support in her Filipino community as many were her victims. She has become sad and depressed as a result, decreasing her social interactions, and focusing on her family.
[21] Ms. Esteves admits she was in "full control of the operation" and "takes full responsibility." When she addressed the court, she was remorseful. She stated that she progressed from borrowing money, accumulating debt, and then, when she was unable to pay her loans, she started the elaborate scheme to obtain money. She lied to people and her lies became bigger. She said she began to believe her own lies which spiraled her out of control. She apologized to the victims, her family and her community accepting the entirety of her blameworthiness.
IV. Victim Impact
[22] The Crown filed 22 victim impact statements from 24 victims. Reading these statements is to read a litany of heartache and hardship, broken promises and broken dreams, deep betrayal, and significant financial loss. The impact has been wide-ranging, including not only negative economic consequences, but psychological damage so severe that some victims became physically ill.
[23] The amounts, from as low as $8,750 to as high as $273,578.15, were the life savings they lost, or the debts they incurred to invest and are now liable to pay for. Their voices deserve to be heard:
i. Anthony Wang lost his savings which made him unable to buy a home for his 6-person family. They were all forced to live in an 800 sq foot apartment during the pandemic. He had to move to Alberta to be able to afford a home. He became physically ill and developed a medical condition that cost him financially and made him miss work. He does not trust his own family anymore as they were the ones who invited him into the scheme.
ii. Bonifacio Sales, a university student at the time, was recruited by Ms. Esteves' niece. He lost his savings and his girlfriend's savings. His grades went down, he became ill, and feels traumatized, embarrassed, and scared of people.
iii. Christine Magno was unable to afford the flight to see her father for a final time, or to settle his hospital bills and pay for his funeral. She begged for her money back and never got it.
iv. Darwin Aguilera has been traumatized and does not trust people with money.
v. Daryl Desouza's relationship with his wife, both his parents and his younger brother, all who invested their life savings with Ms. Esteves, has deteriorated. They all have to work harder to pay their bills and are unable to pay for the "extras" such as physiotherapy and home maintenance, which are not extras at all.
vi. David Yao is paying interest on the loan he took out to invest with Ms. Esteves in addition to his initial loss.
vii. Delmar Villamor lost the money he was investing for his son. He lost his home, his car, and his job because he became too anxious to work. He is now living with family and struggling with alcoholism.
viii. Ellen Grace Calla struggles with shame for persuading others to invest with Ms. Esteves. She has developed physical symptoms of stress and is paying off the loan she borrowed from family to invest with Ms. Esteves.
ix. Gloria Natividad was defrauded of the money she was saving to support her daughter with severe disabilities.
x. Jerone Martinez's financial loss has caused him depression and stained his relationship with his wife.
xi. Luz Marina Estrada became a despondent recluse after she was defrauded of her life savings. She had to downsize her apartment and give up her dream of buying a home for herself and her son. She is afraid and has lost trust in everyone.
xii. Marial Lailani de Leon invested her own money, borrowed money at the request of Ms. Esteves to invest, and persuaded her employer and family to invest with Ms. Esteves. Not only was she defrauded, but she was sued by her employer who also invested, and for whom she must continue to work for because she has no other options. She experienced serious suicidal ideation.
xiii. Maribel Bulatao, working for minimum wage, and living pay cheque to pay cheque was defrauded of her life savings, that was going to be the down payment for a home she will never own.
xiv. Maryna Karpenko was defrauded of her father's pension money and her inheritance which was meant for her to buy a home. She required mental health help and is now working double shifts to be able to pay her bills. She feels guilt that she was duped and lost her father's legacy for her.
xv. Noemi Arizo and her husband now work extra shifts and will retire later than expected, in order to pay the interest on the loan they took to invest with Ms. Esteves.
xvi. Nomelita & Reychard Laguisma borrowed on the equity of their home from a private mortgage to invest with Ms. Esteves. Their family and friends invested and lost their investments as well. They are now working all the time to pay the interest on the loan and have lost those relationships. They can no longer afford their children's extra-curricular activities and family vacations.
xvii. Precious Jade Darang, the mother of three, borrowed money to invest with Ms. Esteves. She was evicted after she was defrauded.
xviii. Roliynada and Michael Aduca now work 7 days a week, and double shifts to pay their increased mortgage as they had to refinance their home.
xix. Roman Dzyuba became bankrupt. He persuaded his widowed mother to invest his father's insurance money after his death. She now has no retirement funds. He feels shame, guilt and unbearable pain that requires him to go to psychotherapy.
xx. Virginia Aduca had to sell her home and her close relationships have all suffered.
xxi. Vishal Gandhi, a single father, cannot afford to get help for his depression, his problem with alcohol and his fear of being defrauded again. He is now in debt and unable to work or function as a result of his victimization.
xxii. Yvanna Shane Laurilla became paralyzed with anxiety, unable to get out of bed. She blamed herself, became isolated and unable to speak to anyone about her victimization. She missed work and is now in debt.
V. Legal Principles
[24] Sections 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code guide judges with the sentencing task.
[25] Every sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
[26] The sanction must have one or more of the following objectives:
• to denounce unlawful conduct;
• to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
• to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
• to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
• to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community;
• and to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.
[27] In arriving at a fit sentence, the Court must consider the principles of restraint, as well as ss. 718.2 (c) to (e), and parity, s. 718.2 (b). A sentence must also consider relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, s. 718.2 (a).
[28] Section. 462.37(3) states:
Fine instead of forfeiture
(3) If a court is satisfied that an order of forfeiture under subsection (1) or (2.01) should be made in respect of any property of an offender but that the property or any part of or interest in the property cannot be made subject to an order, the court may, instead of ordering the property or any part of or interest in the property to be forfeited, order the offender to pay a fine in an amount equal to the value of the property or the part of or interest in the property. In particular, a court may order the offender to pay a fine if the property or any part of or interest in the property:
(a) cannot, on the exercise of due diligence, be located;
(b) has been transferred to a third party;
(c) is located outside Canada;
(d) has been substantially diminished in value or rendered worthless; or
(e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be divided without difficulty
Imprisonment in default of payment of fine
(4) Where a court orders an offender to pay a fine pursuant to subsection (3), the court shall
(a) impose, in default of payment of that fine, a term of imprisonment
(vii) of not less than five years and not exceeding ten years, where the amount of the fine exceeds one million dollars; and
(b) direct that the term of imprisonment imposed pursuant to paragraph (a) be served consecutively to any other term of imprisonment imposed on the offender or that the offender is then serving.
[29] A fine in lieu of forfeiture thus carries with it, the risk of a jail term on a sliding scale commensurate with the amount of the fine.
[30] Section 738(1)(a) governs the making of restitution orders. It provides the court discretion to order the offender to make restitution by paying the victims
"an amount not exceeding the replacement value of the property as of the date the order is imposed, less the value of any part of the property that is returned, where the amount is readily ascertainable".
[31] Where there are disputed facts, such as the quantum of the loss, the Crown must prove the relevant aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt, pursuant to ss. 724(3)(e) and R. v. Gardiner.
VI. Position of the Parties
[32] The parties jointly recommend 4 years in the penitentiary.
[33] The Crown seeks a fine in lieu of the total amount of $4,998,831.78 based on Form 34.1 documents filed and the evidence of a witness.
[34] Though Ms. Esteves agrees she defrauded victims of at least $250,000, Mr. Reynolds for Ms. Esteves submits the Crown did not demonstrate any of the amounts on any of the Form 34.1 from any of the victims were accurate and reliable and neither was the evidence of the Crown witness. Therefore, he submits there is no "readily ascertainable" amounts, and no fine in lieu should be ordered.
VII. ANALYSIS
A. Aggravating Factors
[35] The aggravating factors include:
(i) Ms. Esteves developed a very sophisticated scheme that required extensive planning to execute. She created an elaborate business that consisted of a company for source materials, her expertise in lipstick creation, and a buyer for her product. She substantiated her scheme with contracts, fraudulent banking documents and complex processes.
(ii) She sustained the fraudulent scheme for 4 years.
(iii) Ms. Esteves lured a large number of victims, only some of which were located.
(iv) The impact of her crimes on the victims is long lasting, and wide ranging. Not only were victims financially ruined, but their personal relationships became strained, their employment negatively impacted and even their health was affected. Some victims developed medical conditions requiring medication and psychotherapy, and some became ill to the point of suicidal ideation and becoming alcoholic. Some will never recover.
(v) Many of the victims were targeted and victimized because of their connection to Ms. Esteves as a member of her Filipino community, and even as personal friends and family. This breach of their trust had a significant impact on their ability to trust people going forward.
(vi) Although Ms. Esteves explained her initial motivation was desperation to pay a debt, it soon became greed and self-indulgent grandiosity when she started to defraud people using false documents. She simply wanted more money than she could acquire honestly.
B. Mitigating Factors
[36] The mitigating factors include:
(i) Ms. Esteves is a first-time offender with no criminal record.
(ii) She has a pro-social history with consistent employment and family support.
(iii) She plead guilty which demonstrates accountability. The Crown's case was a strong one, and her plea was not an early one. She entered it on the first day of the scheduled preliminary hearing. The sentencing has proceeded over a long period of time, and although she saved the victims from having to testify, the benefit to the system's resources is attenuated.
(iv) During her allocution, Ms. Esteves did display remorse, did apologize to all those she harmed and did seem to have some sense of the devastation she caused because she has been ostracized from her community, her friends, and her own life has been significantly impacted.
C. Jurisprudence
[37] Sentencing principles do not include a principle of revenge. Offenders are not incarcerated to establish an equivalence between the loss victims experienced and the sanction imposed by the court. Rather, the court is required to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of the offender and, balance the principles provided by the Criminal Code to determine a fit sentence in the circumstances of the case.
[38] The purpose of a fine in lieu of forfeiture is to replace the proceeds of crime so that an offender does not benefit from criminal conduct, rather than to punish the offender.
[39] It is an error to decline to order a fine in lieu of forfeiture out of concern for the accused's rehabilitative prospects and ability to satisfy restitution orders made against her.
[40] The ability to pay is not the predominant factor. Where the circumstances of the offence are particularly egregious, a restitution order may be made even where there does not appear to be any likelihood of repayment.
[41] The circumstances of this case are clearly egregious.
[42] The starting point for any discussion of the objectives and factors that inform the exercise of discretion in making a restitution order is Castro and Zelensky.
[43] While these decisions deal with predecessor legislation, they nevertheless serve as a blueprint for what is to be considered in making a restitution order under s. 738(1). I also take them to be guiding principles in the exercise of discretion under s. 432.67 (3). The discretion applies to the decision whether to impose a fine and to the determination of the value of the property.
[44] No single factor is itself determinative of whether a compensation order should be granted and the weight to be given to individual considerations will depend on the circumstances of each case. Those circumstances include two considerations that were emphasized by the Court in Castro: the nature of the offence and, when money has been taken, what has happened to the money.
[45] The statutory pre-requisite to any restitution order is that it must be readily ascertainable, (Castro, at para. 24 relying on Zelensky) and the court must consider the following in its exercise of discretion:
An order for compensation should be made with restraint and caution;
The concept of compensation is essential to the sentencing process: (i) it emphasizes the sanction imposed upon the offender;
(ii) it makes the accused responsible for making restitution to the victim;
(iii) it prevents the accused from profiting from crime; and
(iv) it provides a convenient, rapid and inexpensive means of recovery for the victim;
- A sentencing judge should consider:
(i) the purpose of the aggrieved person in invoking s. 725(1);
(ii) whether civil proceedings have been initiated and are being pursued; (iii) the means of the offender.
A compensation order should not be used as a substitute for civil proceedings. Parliament did not intend that compensation orders would displace the civil remedies necessary to ensure full compensation to victims.
A compensation order is not the appropriate mechanism to unravel involved commercial transactions;
A compensation order should not be granted when it would require the criminal court to interpret written documents to determine the amount of money sought through the order. The loss should be capable of ready calculation.
A compensation order should not be granted if the effect of provincial legislation would have to be considered in order to determine what order should be made;
Any serious contest on legal or factual issues should signal a denial of recourse to an order;
Double recovery can be prevented by the jurisdiction of the civil courts to require proper accounting of all sums recovered; and
A compensation order may be appropriate where a related civil judgment has been rendered unenforceable because of bankruptcy.
D. Summary of Evidence & Findings of Fact
[46] The Crown filed a Form 34.1 from 29 victims as exhibits totaling $2,416,589.28.
[47] The only witness, Brian Wang, provided a list of victims and the amounts he believed each victim was defrauded. This amounted to $2, 582, 242. 50.
[48] The Crown thus submits it has filed credible and reliable evidence and proven beyond a reasonable doubt the total loss is $4,998,831.78 for which a fine in lieu should be made.
[49] There is no dispute, on the evidence filed and heard, and admitted, that all the money, from all the victims defrauded, flowed to, and/or through the hands of Glenda Esteves over the entire 4-year period of her fraudulent scheme.
[50] I find Ms. Esteves is entirely responsible for the financial loss of every victim of her fraudulent scheme. She was the sole beneficiary of the millions of dollars she fraudulently obtained. The location of the money is unknown.
The evidence of Brian Wang
[51] The Crown submits Mr. Wang was credible and reliable. His evidence should be accepted, and the court can rely on the accuracy of his list.
[52] The Defence takes the opposing view that his evidence is neither credible nor reliable for the purpose of determining specific amounts specific victims were defrauded, and he is not to be believed.
[53] Mr. Wang admitted he was heavily involved in recruiting his friends, family, and people he knew to invest in the Mac Glamour enterprise and Ms. Esteves. He played a key role in her scheme and explained how he assisted her to obtain investments, create documents and grew, what he thought, was a legitimate organization. He admitted the investment returns were higher than any other regular investment. He admitted he was greedy. He was detailed about the evolution of his role within Ms. Esteves's scheme. He was forthright about his growing concerns, his financial loss, as well as how he became implicated in her scheme. He described how he came to doubt Ms. Esteves, and how he began to realize he had been duped. Finally, Mr. Wang admitted to threatening Ms. Esteves that he would go to the police in the hopes that she would return the money obtained from the investors whom she had defrauded. He ultimately did go to police and co-operated with the investigation of Glenda Esteves.
[54] Mr. Wang testified over the course of several days on the Gardiner Hearing and was subject to lengthy cross-examination. I find he testified openly and with candour.
[55] I find Mr. Wang credible. He confirmed what Ms. Esteves admitted. All the money that was defrauded flowed to Ms. Esteves, and only Ms. Esteves. He does not know what she did with the millions that flowed through her hands and lost all the money he himself gave her, as "investments".
[56] Mr. Wang created a list of individuals and their losses. He provided the list to police and the court. The list is comprised of both victims for whom the Crown filed a Form 34.1, and for victims for whom the Crown did not file a Form 34.1. He included his own loss that he estimated to be "at least $500,000". He listed a loss of $2,582,242.50.
[57] However, Mr. Wang repeatedly testified this list was created to the best of his knowledge but was not accurate. He repeatedly testified each victim was responsible for providing the court with the evidence of their own loss.
[58] As a result, I find Mr. Wang's list of victims, and the amounts of their loss, to be, as he testified, not accurate and not reliable.
[59] I therefore reject the Crown's submission that this list attributing the loss $2,582,242.50 to various people should be relied on. It is of no assistance on the point.
[60] The victims named by Mr. Wang, though they likely did sustain a financial loss at the hands of Ms. Esteves, Mr. Wang's evidence is insufficient and does not meet the Crown's required burden at this Gardiner hearing for any restitution or fine in lieu be issued.
[61] I also reject the submission that any inconsistency between Mr. Wang's list and the information victims filed in the form of a Form 34.1, undermines the reliability of the information on the Form 34.1, for the same reason.
[62] Mr. Wang's list was never intended to be a precise and reliable document. That his numbers are not consistent with the Form 34.1 information filed by victims is of no consequence.
Readily Ascertainable losses
Brian Wang
[63] Mr. Wang did not sign a Form 34.1. He did not testify to his own specific quantum of loss, but rather repeatedly stated "at least" when describing the amounts of money he personally invested with no details as to those amounts.
[64] As a result, Mr. Wang's specific loss is not readily ascertainable, and no fine in lieu will issue for his financial loss.
Form 34.1
[65] The Crown submits that each amount on each Form 34.1 filed is accurate and reliable, and thus the court can find the readily ascertainable total amount of $2,416,589.28 was lost and a fine in lieu of that amount listing the respective losses of each victim should issue.
[66] The Defence submits that the amounts claimed on the Form 34.1s filed are not reliable as they provide insufficient documentation, or information.
[67] I accept that all the victims who filed a Form 34.1 and made a claim as to the amount Ms. Esteves defrauded them to be credible. Many of the victim impact statements provide further information and details that substantiate the claims of financial loss.
[68] The Crown did not obtain and file much of the documentation referred to by victims in either their Form 34.1, and, or their Victim Impact Statements.
[69] In fact, the victims may very well still have documentation to assert a valid claim for their loss in another forum.
[70] Most of the Form 34.1 filed only refer to bottom line losses. Some refer to the type of "investment" or "loan". Many refer to specific dates the funds were provided to Ms. Esteves. Some go into detail even to the point of exact amounts, from what bank, and in what manner the funds were provided. This information leads to the conclusion these victims have the documentation to support their claim. However, these documents were not filed at the hearing.
[71] As the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in Devgan summarizing the objectives in Zelensky, the loss should be capable of ready calculation, and without these documents this court is unable to ascertain the loss at this time and is unable to issue a fine in lieu.
[72] This finding pertains to the following victims:
(i) Christine Magno's Form 34.1 is unsigned. It is dated January 27, 2023, and claims a loss of $100,000 as "Money Glenda taken from myself" and $5,000 from "my partner". The lack of signature, the absence of details, and the unnamed partner are fatal flaws.
(ii) Gloria Natividad provided a signed Form 34.1 dated February 9, 2023, claiming the loss of $25,000 as a "cash investment" with no further documentation.
(iii) Both Jerome Ariel Martinez and Norma Martinez signed a Form 34.1 on January 14, 2023, claiming a "monetary loss" of $25,000.00 with no further documentation.
(iv) Maryna Karpenko signed a Form 34.1 on February 5, 2023, claiming the loss of $118, 000.00 with a notation it is the "total loss of investment" with no further documentation.
(v) Rollynda and Michael Aduca signed a Form 34.1 on February 2, 2023, claiming $81,323.02 as a "loan to 'Mac Glamour' and Glenda Marie Esteves and B+E Investments" with no further documentation.
(vi) Roman Dzyuba signed a Form 34.1 on February 5, 2023, claiming the "total amount of invested money less interest paid out" to be $147,000 with no further documentation.
(vii) Vishal Ghandhi signed a Form 34.1 on January 16, 2023, claiming $273,578.15 with no further documentation.
(viii) Bonifacio B. Sales III signed a Form 34.1 on February 11, 2023, claiming $20,000 for himself as "personal money invested and not returned" and $15,000 on behalf of his girlfriend, Maria Ysabelle Mariscal, who "invested money and not returned". Ms. Mariscal did not sign the Form. Neither party provided further documentation.
(ix) Delmar Villamor signed a Form 34.1 on February 13, 2023, claiming "money estimated", "car estimated" and "other jewelry" to be $89,999, $45,000, and $20,000. Each amount was admittedly only estimated with no documentation.
(x) Ellen Grace Calla signed a Form 34.1 on February 14, 2023, claiming an $80,000 loss as "amount invested" with no further documentation.
(xi) Luz Marina Estrada signed a Form 34.1 on April 22, 2023, claiming the loss of $57,624.11 without providing further documentation.
(xii) Maria Lailani de Leon signed a Form 34.1 claiming a loss of $10,000 from "savings account withdrawn", $60,000 "line of credit", $6,302.58 "lawyers fee" and $20,000 for "settlement amount to lawsuit (Caruana et al)" and claims a total $551,527.00 loss. The specificity of these amounts, particularly in regard to the amounts eligible for claim, such as withdrawn amounts, and those withdrawn from a credit line refer to specific documentation, but it was not provided.
(xiii) Virginia Aduca signed a Form 34.1 claiming a $200,000 loss as "money from the equity of our former residence". The source of the funds is identified and thus likely easily documented, but the documentation was not provided.
(xiv) Yvanna Shane Laurilla signed a Form 34.1 claiming a $25,000 loss for a "loan" to Glenda Esteves with no documentation.
[73] Some victims who signed a Form 34.1 refer to specific dates that funds were provided to Ms. Esteves, but the Crown did not file the supporting documentation and a fine in lieu cannot issue. This finding pertains to:
i. Alan Yao signed a Form 34.1 dated January 29, 2023, claiming the loss of an investment to Glenda Esteves of $150,000 made on January 15, 2019.
ii. Anthony Wang signed a Form 34.1 dated January 16, 2023, claiming a loss of $58,757.50 for an investment made on March 2, 2019.
iii. David Yao signed Form 34.1 dated January 29, 2023, claiming $100,000.00 for an investment loan made to Glenda Esteves on October 29, 2018.
iv. Noemi Arizo signed a Form 34.1 dated January 23, 2023, claiming the loss of $130,000 as "investment amount provided on July 6, 2018".
v. Yu Ling Luo signed a Form 34.1 dated January 16, 2023, claiming the loss of $58,757.50 for an "investment loan" made on March 2, 2019.
vi. It is particularly noteworthy that Guadalupe Gonzaga signed a Form 34.1 dated February 7, 2023, claiming $16,000 with the specific details of the amounts, the nature of the amounts, the dates the amounts were deposited and the bank used that the Crown did not obtain documentation for:
a. $3000.00 cash deposited on March 18, 2017 at TD Bank.
b. $4000.00 cash deposited on August 22, 2017 at the TD Bank.
c. $5000.00 cash deposited on November 25, 2017 at the TD Bank.
d. $2000.00 cash deposited on December 9, 2017 at the TD Bank
e. $2000.00 e-transfer on May 16, 2017.
[74] The remaining victims for whom a Form 34.1 was filed do provide sufficient details in the contracts either provided or testified to by Brian Wang to support a ready calculation of the loss and a fine in lieu will issue.
[75] This finding pertains to:
i. Darwin Aguilera signed Form 34.1 dated February 5, 2023, claiming $113,356 for which he provided an attached loan agreement and referred to Article 2 for $83, 350 and a loan agreement in Article 5 for $30,000, specifically noting he only included what was in the contract.
ii. Daryl Desousa provided a signed Form 34.1 dated January 27, 2023, which itemized his $200,000 loss with specific bank draft numbers as follows:
a. Loan amount invested with "Glenda Esteves" and "Mac Glamour Inc" and "B +E" Investment Inc" on February 9, 2019, by Bank Draft #83897519 in the amount of $60,000.00
b. Loan amount invested with "Glenda Esteves" and "Mac Glamour Inc" and "B +E" Investment Inc" on February 9, 2019, by Bank Draft #83897520 in the amount of $60,000.00
c. Loan amount invested with "Glenda Esteves" and "Mac Glamour Inc" and "B +E" Investment Inc" on February 10, 2019, by Debt Memo Transfer with Ref # 00556137/5-ZYAM for $80,000,00.
iii. Maribel Bulatao signed a Form 34.1 on February 9, 2023, claiming a loss for a "cash investment" of $20,000, and provided her Agreement dated March 25, 2019, with the specific loan amount to be $26,801. 91, which related to the complicated "fee" structure Mr. Wang testified to. The document was signed by the parties.
iv. Normelita Laguisma and Reychard Laguisam signed a Form 34.1 dated February 2, 2023, claiming $210,000 in "invested funds/money" and provided "attached are the loan/investment agreement and Ts."
v. Aaron Tiu and Felonila Tiu provided agreements claiming the total loss of $67,500 broken down as follows:
a. $12,500 cash on June 6, 2019 (Article 2) with an acknowledgement of receipt for the cash.
b. $30,000 cheque May 25, 2019, for May 31, 2019 (Article 2)
c. $25,000 cheque on May 14, 2019, for May 20, 2019 (Article 2) with an acknowledged receipt.
[76] These are ascertainable amounts totaling $610,856.00.
VIII. Sentence
[77] The joint submission of 4 years is on the more lenient side for these offences that have devastated so many. However, as it is a joint submission by experienced counsel, and it is within the range, I will accede to it.
[78] The sentence will be a 4-year penitentiary jail term apportioned as follows:
Count 4: Fraud over $5000, s. 380: 4 years jail.
Count 1: Forged document s. 368(1)(a), 3 years jail concurrent to count 4.
Count 5: Utter false document s. 362(1)(d), 3 years jail concurrent to count 4.
[79] Pursuant to s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code, Ms. Esteves is ordered to pay a fine of $610,856.00. In default of payment, pursuant to s. 462.37(4) she shall serve a sentence of 18 months imprisonment if she does not pay the fine within 5 years, calculated from the date of the expiry of the warrant committing her to prison to serve her sentence.
[80] She will pay the victim fine surcharge for each of the counts.
Released: July 31, 2025
Signed: Justice Cidalia C. G. Faria
Footnotes
[1] R. v. Gardiner, [1982] 2 SCR 368.
[2] R. v. Booker, [2021] O.J. 6853.
[3] R. v. Yates (2002), 2002 BCCA 583, 169 C.C.C. (3d) 506 (B.C.C.A.), at paras. 12 and 17.
[6] R. v. Castro 2010 ONCA 718, [2010] O.J. No. 4573.
[7] R. v. Zelensky, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 940.
[8] R. v. Vallieres, 2022 SCC 10, 2022 Carswell Que 35, 2022 S.C.C. 10.
[9] Exhibits 1A to 1R, Exhibits 3A to 3G.
[10] Exhibit 2: Brian Wang's spreadsheet of investor group names and investment amounts & Exhibit 4: contracts provided by Mr. Wang.
[11] R. v. Devgan, [1999] O.J. No. 1825
[12] Anthony Wang also claimed ineligible medical expenses for a condition he developed as a result of the trauma he experienced as a victim of this fraud.
[13] Daryl Desousa also claimed ineligible accrued interest of $68,019.10 which is not included in the ascertained amount for a fine.