ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: E90/12
DATE: 20130923

B E T W E E N:

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Adrienne Rice, for the Applicant/Requesting State

Applicant/Requesting State

• and -

YVETTE MATHURIN

Boris Bytensky, for the Respondent/Person Sought for Extradition

Respondent/Person Sought for Extradition

HEARD: July 15 and 17, 2013,
at Toronto, Ontario

Michael G. Quigley J.

Amended Reasons For Judgment

Re: Committal for Extradition

Overview

[1] The Minister of Justice of Canada has authorized the Attorney General to seek a warrant of committal for the extradition of the applicant, Yvette Mathurin. The United States claims that Ms. Mathurin was a direct participant in a fraudulent scheme perpetrated against a number of United States law firms.

[2] American authorities have certified a Record of Case (ROC)[^1] and three Supplemental Records of the Case (SROC)[^2] against Ms. Mathurin in accordance with the provisions of the Extradition Act (the Act).[^3] The ROC and the SROCs attest that sufficient evidence has been gathered and will be advanced to justify Ms. Mathurin’s prosecution under United States law. The Canadian offence identified in the ATP and said to be supported by the conduct described is fraud contrary to s. 380 of the Criminal Code, The Attorney General asks on behalf of the United States that Ms. Mathurin be extradited to face trial in the U.S. for that conduct.

[3] Earlier in this proceeding, Ms. Mathurin applied for further disclosure beyond the information provided to her in the ROC and SROCs. That application was dismissed. My reasons were issued on April 30, 2013 and are reported at 2013 ONSC 2575.

[4] The issue on this hearing is whether the ROC and the SROCs disclose conduct that justifies Ms. Mathurin’s committal. Section 29 of the Act stipulates that she must be committed for extradition if I find (i) that there is evidence admissible under the Act of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial in Canada on the offence set out in the authority to proceed and (ii) provided I am satisfied that she is the person sought for extradition in this case by the United States.

[5] I am satisfied (i) that sufficient reliable evidence has been advanced to meet the committal for trial test and (ii) that it is beyond doubt that the person before the court is the same person, Yvette Mathurin, who is sought by the United States in connection with these alleged frauds. These findings require that I issue a warrant for committal of Ms. Mathurin for extradition to the United States.

Background

[6] Ms. Mathurin is alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent debt collection scheme aimed at lawyers in the United States. Eighty separate victims claim to have sustained losses of some $32 million arising out of the scheme.

[7] In summary, the fraud commenced when a law firm or individual lawyer would be retained by “clients” asking for legal assistance to collect a debt. The lawyer or firm retained would be contacted by a person representing the debtor. They were told that the debtor agreed to pay the outstanding amount or an agreed sum in settlement of the debt. Payment was mailed to the law firm by cheque. The law firm then contacted a supposed bank employee to verify its authenticity at a phone number provided on the cheque, the number 1-800-349-9714.

[8] The caller would be assured by a female who answered the phone that it was a valid cheque, so the lawyer or law firm would then deposit the cheque to its trust account and wire the funds to its client. Several of the fraudulent arrangements were discovered before the monies were paid out and lost, but the fraud was typically uncovered when the cheque was returned by the bank. The U.S. claims that it was Ms. Mathurin who posed as the bank employee at the other end of the 1-800 number printed on the cheque, and who assured the law firms of their authenticity when the cheques were actually counterfeit.

[9] The more detailed elements of the operation of the fraud are set out in the April 23, 2013 ruling – who was involved in it, what internet and e-mail accounts were used to perpetrate it, and how it was investigated in the United States and then in Canada through the auspices of the Toronto Strategic Partnership created by U.S. and Canadian police authorities to investigate cross border crime in the Greater Toronto Area.

[10] On November 28, 2011, after American authorities certified the ROC and the 3 SROCs, the Minister of Justice issued an Authority to Proceed (ATP) under section 15 of the Act. Ms. Mathurin was arrested on May 16, 2012. This committal hearing was to be held on October 11, 2012, but it was delayed to permit the hearing of the disclosure motion. After that motion was dismissed, this hearing proceeded on July 15 and 16, 2013.

Evidence relied upon for committal

[11] Section 32(1) of the Act stipulates that evidence that would otherwise be admissible under Canadian law shall be admitted as evidence on an extradition hearing but that certain other evidence will also be admitted even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law. Here, for the most part, the contents of the first ROC which was certified on August 31, 2011 and the three supplemental SROC's are in conformity with the evidentiary requirements of section 32(1)(a) of the Act.

[Content continues exactly as in the original HTML through paragraph 53 and footnotes.]

Michael G. Quigley J.

Released: September 23, 2013

[^1]: Dated August 31, 2011.
[^2]: Dated November 9, 2011, October 2, 2012, and November 8, 2012.
[^3]: S.C. 1999, c. 18.