COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00000347-000
DATE: 20210421
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
NADEEM IMTIAZ AHMED
M. Asma and D.M. Garg, for the Crown
P. Genua, for Mr. Ahmed
HEARD: September 14-18, 21-25, 28-30, 2020
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SCHRECK J.:
[1] Between 2009 and 2012, Nadeem Imtiaz Ahmed borrowed significant amounts of money from two private lenders, Anil Kumar Kingrani and Sunil Bhardwaj. Most of the loans were unsecured but personally guaranteed by another individual, Wajid Ali Khan, an established businessman and former Member of Parliament whom the lenders believed to be trustworthy.
[2] Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan offered Mr. Kingrani land in Alberta as security for some of the debt. Later, they persuaded him to exchange the Alberta land for land in Pakistan which they told Mr. Kingrani was being developed and which they purported to transfer to him.
[3] Mr. Bhardwaj agreed to extend unsecured loans to Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan. He said he did so on the understanding that the money was to be invested in land deals in Pakistan which he was assured would be profitable. Later, he was shown certain letters by Mr. Khan which purported to be from a bank in Pakistan and which stated that Mr. Ahmed had assets worth millions of dollars. Those letters persuaded him to loan more money to Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan.
[4] Ultimately, significant portions of the debts incurred by Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan were never repaid. Mr. Kingrani was unable to realize on the security of the Pakistani lands and the bank documents shown to Mr. Bhardwaj turned out not to be genuine.
[5] The unpaid loans led to a police investigation and Mr. Ahmed is now charged on an indictment with three offences: fraud over $5,000 in relation to Mr. Kingrani (Count 1), fraud over $5,000 in relation to Mr. Bhardwaj (Count 2) and knowingly using forged documents, namely, the Pakistani bank letters (Count 3).[^1] Mr. Ahmed has elected to be tried in this court without a jury.
[6] In addition to documentary evidence and testimony from the two complainants, the Crown relies on the evidence of a forensic accountant, Christine Charbonneau, who examined 69 bank accounts for which the police had obtained records. These included accounts held by Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Khan, their wives and a business owned by Mr. Khan, as well as the accounts held by the complainants.
[7] The Crown also relies on a four-and-a-half-hour statement Mr. Ahmed made to the police before his arrest.[^2]
[8] Having considered all of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed is guilty on all three counts in the indictment. Following are my reasons for these conclusions.
I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. The Presumption of Innocence
[9] Mr. Ahmed is presumed to be innocent. He may only be convicted on any count if the Crown proves the essential elements of that count beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden to do so rests with the Crown. There is no onus on Mr. Ahmed to prove anything, least of all his innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a significant standard. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty, it is closer to that standard than it is to proof on a balance of probabilities.
[10] I must consider each count separately and may only consider the evidence that relates to that count in determining whether the Crown has proven its case.
B. Use to be Made of Mr. Ahmed’s Statement
[11] In this case, the Crown has relied on a statement Mr. Ahmed made to the police. That statement may be used as evidence for or against Mr. Ahmed: R. v. Humphrey (2003), 172 C.C.C. (3d) 332, at paras. 18-19 (Ont. C.A.). There is no issue that Mr. Ahmed made the statement. I may consider those aspects of the statement that are inculpatory only if I am satisfied that they are true. Insofar as parts of the statement are exculpatory, I must consider whether they are true but even if I am not satisfied that they are, I must still consider whether they give rise to a reasonable doubt: R. v. Fogah, 2018 ONCA 564, 362 C.C.C. (3d) 4, at paras. 49-56.
C. The Co-Conspirator’s Exception to the Hearsay Rule
[12] The Crown relies on things Mr. Khan said and did in attempting to prove its case against Mr. Ahmed. These acts and declarations of Mr. Khan are only admissible against Mr. Ahmed if they are subject to the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. For that exception to apply, the trier of fact must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy existed and satisfied based only on evidence directly admissible against the accused that he was a probable member of the conspiracy: R. v. Mapara, 2005 SCC 23, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 358, at para. 8. In cases such as this where the alleged conspiracy contains only two members, it is important to distinguish proof of the existence of a conspiracy from proof of the accused’s membership in it: R. v. Puddicombe, 2013 ONCA 506, 299 C.C.C. (3d) 543, at para. 103.
[13] The defence does not take issue with the Crown’s reliance on the co-conspirator’s exception to the hearsay rule. However, I must nonetheless independently determine whether the exception applies. In this case, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy to defraud Mr. Kingrani and Mr. Bhardwaj existed. It is clear that Mr. Khan and Mr. Ahmed were acting in concert to obtain loans from them and did so by misleading them.
[14] At this stage, my conclusion that a conspiracy existed does not mean that Mr. Khan is guilty. I must first determine, based on only evidence that is directly admissible against him, that he was probably a member of the conspiracy before I can consider Mr. Khan’s acts and declarations. In my view, Mr. Ahmed was a probable member of the conspiracy. His statement to the police, his act of signing the debt acknowledgments and other documents, and his participation in the meeting where the Pakistani land was purportedly transferred to Mr. Kingrani establish this.
[15] As a result, Mr. Khan’s statements are admissible against Mr. Ahmed, but only if those statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy: R. v. Baron and Wertman (1976), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 525 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 533; R. v. White (1997), 114 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 274.
D. The Offences
(i) Fraud
[16] The offence of fraud is defined in s. 380 of the Criminal Code:
380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; ….
[17] The elements of the offence of fraud are well established. The actus reus consists of conduct amounting to deceit, falsehood or “other fraudulent means” which causes deprivation of the victim’s pecuniary interests: R. v. Olan, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1175, at p. 1182; R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, at p. 20. In this context, “other fraudulent means” refers to any conduct which a reasonable person would view as dishonest: R. v. Zlatic, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 39 at p. 45; Olan, at p. 1180. The term “deprivation” is not limited to actual loss and also includes situations where the conduct in question creates a risk of loss: Théroux, at pp. 1182-1183.
[18] The mens rea of fraud requires proof that the accused intentionally and knowingly engaged in the conduct amounting to deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means and did so with the subjective knowledge that the conduct could result in deprivation of the victim’s pecuniary interests: Théroux, at p. 20. The fact that the accused believed that the conduct was not dishonest or that the victim would not suffer any loss does not negate the mens rea: Théroux, at pp. 23-24; R. v. Eizenga, 2011 ONCA 113, 270 C.C.C. (3d) 168, at para. 64.
(ii) Forgery
[19] The offence of forgery is defined in s. 368 of the Criminal Code:
368 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, knowing or believing that a document is forged,
(a) uses, deals with or acts on it as if it were genuine; ….
(2) For the purposes of proceedings under this section, the place where a document was forged is not material.
[20] Proof of the actus reus of the offence requires proof that the document was forged and that the accused used, dealt with or acted on it as if it were genuine. Proof of the mens rea requires proof that the accused committed the acts in question intentionally and that he knew that the document was forged and represented it to be genuine: R. v. Fortunato, 2015 ONSC 1845, at para. 11, aff’d 2017 ONCA 328.
III. COUNT 1 – FRAUD IN RELATION TO MR. KINGRANI
A. Evidence
(i) The Beginning of the Relationship
[21] Anil Kingrani operated his own business, Surya Money Exchange, which was in the business of making private loans. Some of the money which he loaned was borrowed from other sources.
[22] According to Mr. Kingrani, Mr. Ahmed began borrowing money from him in 2009 or 2010. The loans were initially small and unsecured, but grew larger over time. Mr. Ahmed initially paid back the loans, which led Mr. Kingrani to trust him. As well, Mr. Ahmed told Mr. Kingrani that his family in Pakistan was powerful and rich. Mr. Ahmed did not tell Mr. Kingrani why he was borrowing the money.
[23] At some point, Mr. Kingrani became concerned and unwilling to extend any more funds absent some sort of security or guarantee of repayment. In response to those concerns, Mr. Ahmed introduced him to Mr. Khan, whom Mr. Kingrani knew to be a former Member of Parliament. Mr. Khan was prepared to guarantee Mr. Ahmed’s debts, which reassured Mr. Kingrani. Mr. Kingrani’s subsequent loans were either made directly to Mr. Khan, or to Mr. Ahmed with Mr. Khan’s assurance that they would be repaid.
[24] It is not clear from Mr. Kingrani’s evidence when Mr. Khan was introduced to him, although it appears from the evidence of Ms. Charbonneau, the forensic accountant, that Mr. Khan began receiving money from Mr. Kingrani in 2010. There was a cheque from Mr. Kingrani to Mr. Khan for $10,000 that was dated April 22, 2010. As well, $69,000 was wired from Mr. Kingrani’s account to an account held by Mr. Khan and his wife on June 16, 2010 and a cheque for $7,300 from Mr. Kingrani was deposited into the same account the following day. According to Ms. Charbonneau, at least 15% of those funds made up part of a series of withdrawals made during the following two weeks. These included a $40,000 payment to Mr. Kingrani on June 18, 2012 and a bank draft to Mr. Ahmed for $36,000 on the same date.[^3]
[25] On October 29, 2010, a cheque from Mr. Kingrani for $25,000 was deposited into the account of Mr. Khan and his wife. Ms. Charbonneau was unable to trace these funds.
(ii) The Alberta Property
[26] In November 2010, Mr. Khan secured Mr. Ahmed’s loans by transferring to Mr. Kingrani a 60% ownership interest in some property in Alberta that was valued at $1,800,000. Mr. Ahmed was a witness to the transfer agreement. The Crown does not allege that this transfer was fraudulent.
(iii) The December 15, 2010 Debt Acknowledgment
[27] On December 15, 2010, Mr. Ahmed signed an Acknowledgment stating that he owed $1,400,000 to Mr. Kingrani (who is referred to in the document as Anil Kumar). The document also stated that Mr. Ahmed received the money “on behalf of Mr. Wajid Ali Khan” and that “[t]his acknowledgment is the against of contract or promissory note from Wajid Ali Khan [sic].” Mr. Khan did not sign the Acknowledgment, although he did later sign a promissory note which incorporated the debt and which is described in more detail later.
[28] Mr. Kingrani continued to lend money to Mr. Ahmed in 2011. According to Ms. Charbonneau, on August 25, 2011, a cheque from Mr. Kingrani for $33,5000 was deposited into an account held by Mr. Ahmed. Some of these funds (between 57% and 93%) were used to make payments to a person named Araish Kumar and a company called Steel Management Co.
[29] On November 15, 2011, a cheque from Mr. Kingrani for $11,000 was deposited into an account held jointly by Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan. According to Ms. Charbonneau, at least 63% of that deposit was used together with other funds to make a series of deposits, including a total of $14,000 paid back to Mr. Kingrani or his company.
(iv) Mr. Khan’s February 21, 2012 Promissory Notes
[30] On February 21, 2012, Mr. Khan signed two promissory notes. The first was for $3,000,000. According to Mr. Kingrani, this was the total amount of outstanding debt (including interest) owed by Mr. Ahmed which Mr. Khan guaranteed would be repaid, including the $1,400,000 that Mr. Ahmed had acknowledged owing on December 15, 2010. The second promissory note was for $195,000, which related to a new loan to Mr. Ahmed. After signing the promissory notes, Mr. Khan sent a text to Mr. Kingrani telling him to release the funds for the new loan to Mr. Ahmed.
(v) The Pakistani Land
[31] In early 2012, Mr. Khan asked Mr. Kingrani to exchange the Alberta property he was holding as security for Mr. Ahmed’s loans for property in Pakistan. Mr. Kingrani was told that the Pakistani property was worth more than the Alberta property, so he agreed to exchange it. These discussions were reflected in e-mail and text correspondence in which Mr. Khan stated that he hoped that the property would give Mr. Kingrani the confidence to loan more money to Mr. Ahmed.
[32] On February 23, 2012, Mr. Khan sent an e-mail to his lawyer, which was copied to Mr. Kingrani, outlining the specific properties in Pakistan which were to be transferred to Mr. Kingrani. On March 2, 2012, Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Khan and Mr. Kingrani went to the Consulate General of Pakistan where an official witnessed Mr. Khan’s signature on documents that were said to transfer 100 plots of land in Pakistan from a company controlled by Mr. Khan to Mr. Kingrani. According to the documents, the properties were worth $5,000,000 (U.S.) and were being transferred in consideration of $1,000,000 (U.S.).
[33] At the same time, Mr. Kingrani was shown documents that stated the properties had previously been transferred from Mr. Ahmed to Mr. Khan’s company. The document stated that Mr. Ahmed “hereby sells, transfers and assigns … all ownership, rights and title to, and power to do whatever it chooses, include the right to re-sell and/or re-transfer” the properties. Mr. Khan testified, however, that title to the properties had never been transferred to him. Rather, power of attorney with respect to the properties had been transferred to him by Mr. Ahmed. Mr. Khan maintained, however, that this gave him the power to transfer the properties to Mr. Kingrani. He acknowledged, however, that the document shown to Mr. Kingrani stated that title to the property had in fact been transferred to Mr. Khan.
[34] In his statement to the police, Mr. Ahmed explained that he and Mr. Khan did not know the value of the properties at that time. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Khan had told him to list the value as being $5,000,000 (U.S.). With respect to the transfer document executed at the Consulate General, Mr. Ahmed said, “It was just a piece of paper, there was no value to anybody, this was only value for Mr. Kingrani.”
[35] After the land transfer, Mr. Khan continued to encourage Mr. Kingrani to lend money to Mr. Ahmed. On March 30, 2012, Mr. Khan sent Mr. Kingrani a text message that said, “You must work with Nadeem” and “Don’t be afraid, everything will be very good for you very soon.” Over the next few months, however, Mr. Kingrani became increasingly upset at not being paid. He sent several texts to Mr. Khan reminding him that he had guaranteed the loans. Mr. Khan continued to assure him that he would be paid.
[36] In October 2012, Mr. Kingrani texted Mr. Ahmed to complain about not having been paid and to tell him that he would not lend him any more money. Mr. Ahmed responded with assurances that Mr. Kingrani would be paid. The following month, Mr. Kingrani contacted Mr. Khan and told him that he needed a commitment from Mr. Ahmed that he would be paid. Mr. Ahmed then contacted Mr. Kingrani and provided him with more assurances
[37] Mr. Kingrani testified that he was ultimately not paid in accordance with the promissory notes signed by Mr. Khan or the acknowledgement signed by Mr. Ahmed. According to him, he could not sell the land in Pakistan that had been transferred to him because his friend had told him that “this was a fraud,” after which he went to the police.
(vi) Mr. Ahmed’s Gambling
[38] There was evidence that throughout the period during which he borrowed funds from Mr. Kingrani, Mr. Ahmed was heavily involved in gambling at casinos. Records from the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (“OLG”) indicate that between January 10, 2009 and May 14, 2012, Mr. Ahmed had net losses at the Woodbine Casino amounting to $349,393.
[39] On some of the occasions where Mr. Ahmed won money at a casino, he used it to repay Mr. Kingrani. According to Ms. Charbonneau, a cheque from OLG for $300,000 was deposited into Mr. Ahmed’s account on January 28, 2010 and almost all of it was transferred to Mr. Kingrani two weeks later. Similarly, a large portion of a $167,000 payment Mr. Ahmed made to Mr. Kingrani on September 17, 2010 was traced to a cheque from OLG that had been deposited two days earlier.
B. Positions of the Parties
[40] It is the Crown’s theory that Mr. Ahmed defrauded Mr. Kingrani in two ways: (1) by signing promissory notes and other acknowledgments of debt while having no intention of honouring them; and (2) by purporting to transfer title of the Pakistani lands to Mr. Kingrani while knowing that they could not be legally transferred. The Crown submits that Mr. Kingrani relied on these representations in deciding to extend loans to Mr. Ahmed that were never repaid.
[41] Mr. Ahmed submits that the Crown has failed to prove that the Mr. Kingrani actually advanced any funds to Mr. Ahmed, either directly or through Mr. Khan. If he did, the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Kingrani gave up his interest in the Alberta land in exchange for the Pakistani land. He submits that the Crown’s case ultimately relies on the testimony of Mr. Kingrani and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Khan, neither of whom are credible witnesses.
C. Credibility of the Witnesses
(i) Mr. Kingrani
[42] I share the defence’s concerns about Mr. Kingrani’s credibility. He was clearly lending money to Mr. Ahmed and likely others at usurious interest rates in excess of 60%, which constitutes an offence contrary to s. 347(1) of the Criminal Code. When confronted with this in cross-examination, he was evasive and initially denied but later admitted knowing that it was illegal.
[43] Mr. Kingrani also clearly had some animus towards Mr. Ahmed. He made allegations against Mr. Ahmed, at first anonymously, to the Canadian Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) in an effort to have Mr. Ahmed’s application for citizenship denied. The Crown points out that Mr. Kingrani’s actions were understandable given his frustration at not being paid what he was owed. That may be, but not all unpaid debts constitute fraud, and the fact that Mr. Kingrani was upset with Mr. Ahmed must be taken into account when evaluating his evidence.
(ii) Mr. Khan
[44] Mr. Khan’s credibility is also in issue. He is charged with the same offences as Mr. Ahmed and has an obvious interest in minimizing his own culpability. The Crown accepts that Mr. Khan should be treated as an unsavoury witness. I agree and do not intend to rely on his evidence except where it is confirmed by other evidence: R. v. Khela, 2009 SCC 4, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 104, at paras. 34-38.
D. Analysis
(i) Was Money Advanced to Mr. Ahmed?
[45] In my view, the evidence establishes that Mr. Kingrani advanced funds to Mr. Ahmed. Mr. Ahmed signed a debt acknowledgement for $1,400,000 in December 2010. I do not accept Mr. Ahmed’s statement that he only signed it to help Mr. Kingrani with his creditors and that it did not reflect an actual debt. Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Kingrani only had a business relationship and were not personal friends, and I do not accept that Mr. Ahmed would put himself at risk by signing a legally enforceable document accepting liability for a debt he did not really owe.
[46] Mr. Ahmed admitted in his statement that he obtained cash from Mr. Kingrani to buy a Mercedes and to go to the casino, although he maintained that he took the money “against that money we had given to him.” The bank accounts examined by Ms. Charbonneau show that at least two cheques from Mr. Kingrani or his companies went to accounts held by Mr. Ahmed, either alone or jointly with Mr. Khan: a cheque for $33,500 on August 25, 2011 and a cheque for $11,000 on November 15, 2011. As well, some of the funds Mr. Kingrani advanced to Mr. Khan were later transferred to Mr. Ahmed.
[47] In addition to this, there were e-mail messages from Mr. Khan to Mr. Kingrani telling him to lend money to Mr. Ahmed. On December 29, 2011, Mr. Kingrani wrote an e-mail to Mr. Khan saying, “… he is asking again around 45K. Shall I give?” to which Mr. Khan replied, “Don’t worry go ahead you can go up to 100K without asking me.’’ Mr. Kingrani then sent a message which said “If I go up to 100k, then u can guarantee? If yes then I borrow and give to him,” to which Mr. Khan replied “Yes no problem.” While Mr. Ahmed is not named in these messages, there is no evidence that Mr. Khan was guaranteeing loans from Mr. Kingrani to anybody else. In my view, these e-mail messages, which were designed to induce Mr. Kingrani to extend further loans, were clearly made in furtherance of the conspiracy and are therefore admissible against Mr. Ahmed.
(ii) Were Misrepresentations Made to Mr. Kingrani?
[48] The next issue that must be determined is whether Mr. Kingrani extended loans to Mr. Ahmed based on misrepresentations. As noted, it is the Crown’s theory that Mr. Ahmed signed acknowledgements of debt and promissory notes without any intention of repaying them and also misled him with respect to the purported transfer of the Pakistani lands.
[49] I am not satisfied that when Mr. Ahmed signed the debt acknowledgement in December 2010, he did not have an intention to repay the loan at that time. This was fairly early on in the relationship with Mr. Kingrani and there was evidence that Mr. Ahmed had repaid some of the money he had borrowed.
[50] I am much more suspicious of the promissory notes signed by Mr. Khan in February 2012. I am satisfied that he signed these with Mr. Ahmed’s knowledge and it is likely that by this point, both he and Mr. Ahmed knew that the loans would not be repaid, or at the very least that there was a significant risk that they would not be. However, I am willing to give Mr. Ahmed the benefit of the doubt on this issue.
[51] I take a different view with respect to the Pakistani land transfer. The transfer of the land was obviously intended to provide security for the loans. There is no other explanation for the transfer. Mr. Khan’s evidence, which is supported by documentation and Mr. Ahmed’s statement to the police, was that Mr. Ahmed had not transferred the land’s title to him, only power of attorney with respect to it. More importantly, Mr. Ahmed acknowledged in his statement that he and Mr. Khan did not have any idea about how much the land was worth at the time. With respect to the documents purporting to transfer the land, Mr. Ahmed said, “It was just a piece of paper, there was no value to anybody, this was only value for Mr. Kingrani.”
[52] I accept Mr. Kingrani’s evidence that he gave up his interest in the Alberta land in exchange for title to the Pakistani land. While the details of when and how the Alberta land was transferred back to Mr. Khan are unclear, there was no other reason why Mr. Kingrani would give up this security. In any event, regardless of any connection between the Alberta land and the Pakistani land, it is clear that Mr. Kingrani’s belief that he had title to the Pakistani land led him to extend further loans to Mr. Khan and Mr. Ahmed and delay efforts to collect existing debts.
[53] The Crown invites me to find that Mr. Ahmed never had any interest in the Pakistani land based on, among other things, Mr. Ahmed’s failure to call evidence on this issue. I decline to do so. Such a finding is not necessary to the Crown’s case. Even if he had any interest in the land, he did not know its value and knew that Mr. Khan could not legally transfer title to Mr. Kingrani.
E. Conclusion
[54] Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed knowingly made misrepresentations to Mr. Kingrani which induced him to loan money that was not repaid, thereby depriving him of that money. As a result, Mr. Ahmed is found guilty on Count 1.
IV. COUNT 2 – FRAUD IN RELATION TO MR. BHARDWAJ
A. Evidence
(i) The Beginning of the Relationship
[55] Sunil Bhardwaj is qualified as a certified financial planner and chartered financial consultant. He has previously worked for Sunlife and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, but at the time of the events at issue was self-employed operating two companies, one of which was S.M.V. Financial Services Inc. (“S.M.V.”). S.M.V. was in the business of providing second mortgages on commercial and residential properties as well as personal loans. Some of the money S.M.V. loaned was from Mr. Bhardwaj’s personal funds and some was borrowed from others, which he had to repay with interest.
[56] Most of S.M.V.’s clients came from referrals from existing clients and others. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that when deciding whether to extend a loan to a new client, he would consider a variety of factors, including the client’s income, the reason for the loan, and information from the person who referred the client. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he ordinarily would not extend unsecured personal loans except to existing clients with whom he had a history.
[57] Mr. Bhardwaj first met Mr. Ahmed through another client, Azeem Muhammed. Mr. Muhammed had approached Mr. Bhardwaj in 2011 seeking a secured loan for a car wash business. He obtained a short-term loan for 90 days, but then asked for more time to pay when the loan came due. At that time, he told Mr. Bhardwaj that he wanted to introduce him to two men, Mr. Ahmed and Wajid Ali Khan. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he had no interest in meeting them. He agreed to extend the time in which Mr. Muhammed’s loan could be repaid, provided he continued to make interest payments. Mr. Muhammed did so, but some of the payments later came from Mr. Khan. Eventually, Mr. Muhammed did introduce Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan to Mr. Bhardwaj. He was told that Mr. Khan was a former Member of Parliament and owned a car dealership.
(ii) The Pakistani Land
[58] Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan told Mr. Bhardwaj about some lucrative land transactions in Pakistan they were involved in and that the money that had been loaned to Mr. Muhammed was being used for this purpose. Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan also asked Mr. Bhardwaj for a loan for the land deal. Mr. Bhardwaj made two secured loans to them, both of which were later repaid.
[59] In June 2012, Mr. Bhardwaj received several documents entitled “Agreement of Purchase and Sale” which were signed by Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan at Mr. Bhardwaj’s office on June 29, 2012. Each related to specific properties in Pakistan that Mr. Khan was said to be purchasing from Mr. Ahmed for millions of dollars. Each document was witnessed by employees of Mr. Bhardwaj’s brother, a lawyer who had an office in the same building. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he believed these agreements related to the Pakistani land deals which he believed the loans had been used to finance.
[60] Mr. Khan agreed that he and Mr. Ahmed had signed the agreements. Although the agreements state that Mr. Khan had transferred the agreed-upon amounts to Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Khan testified that this had not in fact occurred, although he had given Mr. Ahmed millions of dollars in the past. According to Mr. Khan, some of the properties in the agreements could not have been transferred because of existing court orders. Also, it was his understanding that title could not be legally transferred except in person while the parties were in Pakistan.
[61] At the same time that the Agreements of Purchase and Sale were signed, Mr. Ahmed executed two documents entitled “General Power of Attorney” which granted power of attorney with respect to certain property in Pakistan to Mr. Khan. This was also done at Mr. Bhardwaj’s office in his presence. Mr. Khan testified that these documents did not actually transfer any power of attorney to him because they were not executed in Pakistan.
(iii) The April 25, 2012 Promissory Note
[62] On April 25, 2012, Mr. Ahmed signed a promissory note in favour of Mr. Bhardwaj in the amount of $100,000. Mr. Bhardwaj testified, and Mr. Ahmed agreed in his statement, that this was not in relation to a loan and that Mr. Bhardwaj had not in fact extended that amount to Mr. Ahmed. Rather, it was said to represent a gratuitous payment that was to be made to Mr. Bhardwaj once money was made on the Pakistan land deals.
(iv) The May 30, 2012 Promissory Note
[63] On May 30, 2012, Mr. Ahmed signed a promissory note which was back-dated to April 30 which stated that he, Mr. Khan and Mr. Muhammed owed Mr. Bhardwaj $410,000. Of this amount, $350,000 was for repayment of a loan and interest and fees. While the note stated that Mr. Bhardwaj would be entitled to register mortgages on businesses belonging to Mr. Khan and Mr. Muhammed, neither of them had signed it. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, this was because only Mr. Ahmed was available on the day the note was signed. However, he testified that he had been told by both Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan that the money was needed to close land deals in Pakistan.
[64] Mr. Khan testified that Mr. Ahmed had persuaded him to guarantee this loan, which he was told was for a land deal in Pakistan. He initially stated that the money had gone to Mr. Ahmed, but later admitted that he had no direct knowledge of this.
[65] In his statement, Mr. Ahmed agreed that he had signed this promissory note, but denied receiving any money in relation to it. According to him, the money was given to Mr. Khan or Mr. Muhammed and Mr. Khan needed it to cover interest payments for loans he had taken earlier from other lenders.
[66] Mr. Bhardwaj was unable to produce a cancelled cheque or bank draft to prove that the amount in the promissory note had actually been advanced. His explanation for this was that he may have advanced the amount in more than one payment.
[67] This money was not repaid. Mr. Bhardwaj did not register mortgages on Mr. Khan’s and Mr. Muhammed’s businesses. However, the amount was later reflected in an “Acknowledgement of Debt” document signed on May 8, 2013, which is described below.
(v) The June 4, 2012 Promissory Note
[68] Mr. Khan signed a promissory note dated June 4, 2012, which stated that Mr. Bhardwaj was to be paid $85,000 on June 15, 2012. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, he had extended a loan in the amount of $75,000 to Mr. Khan and Mr. Ahmed on May 7 and had been told by them that it was to be sent to Pakistan. Mr. Bhardwaj did not obtain the promissory note until later because Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan told him that they needed this money in a rush. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that Mr. Ahmed was present when this loan was discussed, but that it was Mr. Khan who signed the promissory note because in Mr. Bhardwaj’s view, he had more credibility. Ms. Charbonneau testified that the $75,000 paid by Mr. Bhardwaj to Mr. Khan was later used to purchase a bank draft payable to “EI Telework Global Inc.”
[69] According to Mr. Bhardwaj, the loan was not repaid and was later reflected in the May 8, 2013 acknowledgement of debt.
(vi) The August 6, 2012 Promissory Note
[70] On August 6, 2012, Mr. Khan signed another promissory note agreeing to pay Mr. Bhardwaj $265,000. Mr. Bhardwaj testified that Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan had again asked him for a loan which was needed in a rush to be sent to Pakistan. Mr. Khan agreed that the money had been borrowed, but denied telling Mr. Bhardwaj that it was for a Pakistani land deal.
[71] Mr. Khan also signed three directions outlining how the funds were to be advanced. The amount of $30,000 was to be paid to 989129 Ontario Inc., a company belonging to Mr. Khan; $10,000 was to be paid to Altaf Soorty, a friend of Mr. Ahmed’s; and $60,000 was to be paid to Tracy Nguyen. Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan told Mr. Bhardwaj that the payment to Ms. Nguyen was to repay an earlier loan that was needed for the Pakistani land deal.
[72] Mr. Bhardwaj testified that this loan was not repaid and was later reflected in the May 8, 2013 acknowledgement.
(vii) The August 12, 2012 Promissory Note
[73] Mr. Khan signed another promissory note, dated August 12, 2012, in which he agreed to pay Mr. Bhardwaj $302,500 on February 13, 2013. The note was in relation to a loan of $275,000 in addition to a “lender’s fee.” Mr. Khan agreed in the note to allow Mr. Bhardwaj to place a mortgage on his car dealership’s property if the loan was not repaid. Mr. Khan told Mr. Bhardwaj that the loan was for a business deal in Montréal. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, by this point he had decided not to loan any more money for the Pakistani land deal, but he agreed to this loan because it was for something else. Later, Mr. Khan admitted to him that the loan had in fact been for the Pakistani land deal. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, it was never repaid.
[74] According to Mr. Bhardwaj, Mr. Ahmed was not involved in this loan. Mr. Khan, however, claimed that although he could not recall if he received the money, if he did then all of it went to Mr. Ahmed to be used for the Pakistani land deal.
[75] According to Ms. Charbonneau, on August 13, 2012, $150,000 from Mr. Bhardwaj was deposited into one of Mr. Khan’s bank accounts. Almost all of that amount (99%) was then distributed as follows: $60,000 to Mr. Kingrani (in two payments), $50,000 to a person named Saif Ahmed, $20,000 to a person named Majid Hamed, $15,000 to Mr. Ahmed’s wife and $4,900 in a transfer to another of Mr. Khan’s accounts.
[76] The same account belonging to Mr. Khan had been used to make a payment of $50,000 to Mr. Bhardwaj in July. That amount had come from a bank draft payable to Mr. Ahmed which had been endorsed by him and then deposited into Mr. Khan’s account.
(viii) Other Payments to Mr. Khan
[77] On August 30, 2012, $125,000 from Mr. Bhardwaj was deposited into a joint account held by Mr. Khan and his wife. The same day, all of the funds were transferred to other accounts held by them. One of those accounts was in overdraft as a result of a $36,000 payment that had been made to Mr. Bhardwaj.
[78] Several months later, on July 11, 2013, $116,316 from Mr. Khan’s wife’s account was transferred to her mother’s account. According to Ms. Charbonneau, at least $57,764 of that amount came from Mr. Bhardwaj.
[79] On September 7, 2012, $125,000 from Mr. Bhardwaj was deposited into one of Mr. Khan’s accounts. A few days later, on September 12, another $80,000 from Mr. Bhardwaj was deposited into the same account. That account also had $79,000 in it which had been transferred from the August 30, 2012 deposit. There were a series of payments out of the account: two payments to Mr. Bhardwaj totalling $111,000 and a cheque for $50,000 to Mr. Ahmed’s wife. According to Ms. Charbonneau, at least 86% of the payment to Mr. Ahmed’s wife came from Mr. Bhardwaj.
[80] Two cheques from Mr. Bhardwaj, $80,000 on September 18, 2012 and $10,000 on September 27, 2012, were deposited into one of Mr. Khan’s accounts. A significant portion of these funds was then used to make a payment back to Mr. Bhardwaj by way of a cheque that had a notation on it stating that it was an interest payment.
(ix) The May 8, 2013 Acknowledgement of Debt
[81] Around December 2012 or January 2013, Mr. Khan admitted to Mr. Bhardwaj that he would not be able to repay the loan due on February 13, 2013 on time. At that time, Mr. Bhardwaj, accompanied by Mr. Kingrani, went to Mr. Khan’s home and confronted him. Mr. Khan assured them that the Pakistani land deals would pay off and that there was also a “back up plan” involving the Deutsche Bank. The evidence with respect to the Deutsche Bank plan is outlined later in relation to Count 3.
[82] On May 8, 2013, Mr. Ahmed, Mr. Khan and Mr. Muhammed all signed an “Acknowledgement of Debt” agreeing that they were jointly and severally responsible for repaying debts to Mr. Bhardwaj totalling $1,262,500. They agreed to repay this amount by October 30, 2013. The acknowledgment listed the prior unpaid loans for which promissory notes had been signed as well as a loan for $200,000 for which Mr. Bhardwaj was unable to produce a promissory note or other documentation. The acknowledgement stated that these amounts “were advanced for the personal benefit of the debtors.”
[83] Mr. Khan acknowledged signing the Acknowledgment and testified that Mr. Ahmed signed it as well. According to him, most of the funds were given to Mr. Ahmed for the Pakistani land deals. In his statement to the police, Mr. Ahmed agreed that he had signed the acknowledgment, but denied receiving any of the money that had been loaned. He stated that Mr. Bhardwaj would only advance funds to Mr. Khan or Mr. Mohammed because they owned property. He explained that he had signed the acknowledgement “to make it more strong” and because he, Mr. Khan and Mr. Muhammed were “all working as a group.”
(x) Repayment of Loans
[84] When Mr. Bhardwaj spoke to the police in 2017, he told them that “not a penny” from the unsecured loans had been paid back. At trial, he acknowledged that this was not true and that some of the amounts had been repaid. He explained that the inconsistency was due to the fact that he had suffered large losses and that this had “overpowered my mind.” He maintained that significant amounts had not been repaid.
(xi) Money Sent to Pakistan
[85] Ms. Charbonneau testified that during her review of the bank accounts associated with Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan, she was able to identify only two instances of money being transferred to Pakistan. On May 16, 2011, there was a transfer of $378,749.10 (U.S.) from an account held by Mr. Khan and his wife to a person named Faisal Butt at a bank in Pakistan. Ms. Charbonneau testified that most of those funds could be traced to a payment of $400,000 Mr. Khan had received on May 5, 2011 from a person named Vasu Chanchlani. Mr. Khan testified that he had sent this money at Mr. Ahmed’s direction and that he understood that it was for a land deal.
[86] On August 8, 2011, Mr. Ahmed made a wire transfer of $200,000 (U.S.) to Mr. Butt from his own account. Ms. Charbonneau testified that those funds could be traced to a deposit of a bank draft for $299,590 on July 27, 2011. The identity of the individual who had purchased the bank draft was unknown.
[87] In his statement to the police, Mr. Ahmed said that he had owed money to Mr. Butt, a friend of his who worked as an advisor to the Prime Minister. Mr. Ahmed is unclear in his statement about why Mr. Butt was owed money, although it appears to have been for a loan related to land transactions. Mr. Ahmed said that he had asked Mr. Khan to send money to Mr. Butt.
[88] Ms. Charbonneau acknowledged that she had no way of knowing if Mr. Ahmed or Mr. Khan had sent money to Pakistan through an intermediary whose banking records she did not have access to.
B. Positions of the Parties
[89] The Crown’s theory is that Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan induced Mr. Bhardwaj to loan money by falsely telling him that it was to be used to invest in a Pakistani land deal when in fact none of the money was used for this purpose.
[90] As with Count 1, Mr. Ahmed takes the position that the Crown has not proven that monies were advanced or, if they were, that it was on the basis of any representations about a Pakistani land deal. Even if such representations were made, the Crown has not proven that the money was not used to finance a Pakistani land deal.
C. Credibility of the Witnesses
[91] I have already discussed Mr. Khan’s credibility and the approach I have taken to his evidence. That approach applies equally to all of the counts in the indictment.
[92] Unlike Mr. Kingrani, Mr. Bhardwaj did not charge usurious interest rates. However, he did charge extremely high interest rates as well as exorbitant fees. He was reluctant to agree in his testimony that this was because he was aware of the risk associated with the loans he was advancing. However, the terms of the loans, as well as the April 25, 2010 promissory note for $100,000 in relation to a gratuitous payment, make it clear that Mr. Bhardwaj was well aware of the risk. To be clear, the fact that Mr. Bhardwaj was aware of the risk is not a defence to fraud if the Crown can show that there was misrepresentation leading to deprivation. However, Mr. Bhardwaj’s reluctance to acknowledge this obvious point is a cause for concern, as is his admitted exaggeration to the police in claiming that he had not been repaid any of the money. Based on these concerns, I have approached Mr. Bhardwaj’s evidence with considerable caution.
D. Analysis
(i) Was Money Advanced to Mr. Ahmed?
[93] Mr. Ahmed signed a promissory note for $410,000 on May 30, 2012 and also signed the “Acknowledgment of Debt” for $1,262,500 on May 8, 2013, together with Mr. Khan and Mr. Muhammed. I do not accept Mr. Ahmed’s statement to the police that he acknowledged these debts despite having not received any money from Mr. Bhardwaj. Even if I did, according to his statement, the debt had been incurred by Mr. Khan and Mr. Mohammed and they were all “working as a group.” The Crown is not required to prove that Mr. Ahmed personally received any money.
[94] As well, according to Ms. Charbonneau, some of the money Mr. Bhardwaj paid to Mr. Khan was later forwarded to Mr. Ahmed’s wife. There is no evidence that Mr. Ahmed’s wife ever had any dealings with Mr. Bhardwaj. Given the close relationship between Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan and the fact that they dealt together with Mr. Bhardwaj, I find that this money was intended for Mr. Ahmed.
(ii) Were Representations Made About a Pakistani Land Deal?
[95] Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he had been told by Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan that the loans he was making were to be used to invest in Pakistani land deals. Mr. Bhardwaj’s evidence on this issue is confirmed by other evidence.
[96] First, in his statement, Mr. Ahmed acknowledged signing the gratuitous $100,000 promissory note on April 25, 2012 and explained that Mr. Khan had asked him to give this money to Mr. Bhardwaj “on the side as a kick” if he ended up making “money back home.” This confirms Mr. Bhardwaj’s evidence that representations had been made to him by Mr. Khan and Mr. Ahmed about the prospect of them making money in Pakistan.
[97] Second, Mr. Bhardwaj was shown Agreements of Purchase and Sale and other documents indicating that land in Pakistan was sold by Mr. Ahmed to Mr. Khan. Mr. Bhardwaj witnessed some of these documents being signed and was provided with copies of them.
[98] Finally, the Deutsche Bank letters, which are discussed below in relation to Count 3, also confirm Mr. Bhardwaj’s evidence that the loans were inextricably linked to representations being made to him about Pakistani land transactions.
[99] I am satisfied that Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan led Mr. Bhardwaj to believe that the money he was lending to them would be invested in Pakistani land deals which were expected to generate large returns and that Mr. Bhardwaj relied on the representations being made to him about the Pakistani land deals when deciding to loan money. However, I do not accept that Mr. Bhardwaj was not aware that the loans were risky. The interest he charged clearly suggests otherwise
(iii) Were the Representations False?
[100] While Mr. Ahmed may have been involved in some land transactions in Pakistan, I am satisfied that the representations I find were made to Mr. Bhardwaj to the effect that the money he was lending was going to be used to finance such deals were false. The only funds Ms. Charbonneau found going to Pakistan were the payments in 2011 to Mr. Butt, none of which were traced back to payments from Mr. Bhardwaj. While there may have been other transfers of funds to Pakistan of which Ms. Charbonneau was unaware, it is clear that little, if any of the money borrowed from Mr. Bhardwaj was used for this purpose.
[101] According to Mr. Khan, the Agreements of Purchase and Sale, which purported to represent sales of lands worth millions of dollars, did not actually reflect the payment of any money or the legal transfer of property. I accept his evidence on this point. The signing of these documents, as well as the power of attorney documents, in Mr. Bhardwaj’s presence was clearly designed to create the false impression that Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan were involved in land transactions in Pakistan involving very large sums of money. The Deutsche Bank letters were used for a similar purpose.
[102] In my view, it is clear from all of the evidence that Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan took steps to make Mr. Bhardwaj believe that the money they were borrowing was to be invested in the Pakistani land deals but it was not actually being used for that purpose.
E. Conclusion
[103] Based on the foregoing, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Ahmed knowingly made misrepresentations to Mr. Bhardwaj which induced him to loan money that was not repaid, thereby depriving him of that money. As a result, Mr. Ahmed is found guilty on Count 2.
V. COUNT 3 – FORGERY
A. Evidence
(i) The Deutsche Bank Letters
[104] Mr. Bhardwaj testified that at some point in 2012 (Mr. Bhardwaj was unsure when), he expressed concern to Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan about the Pakistani land deals. In response, they told him about a “backup plan” for repaying the loans from him. They told Mr. Bhardwaj that Mr. Ahmed had an account at Deutsche Bank in Pakistan with a large amount of money in it. The money was “frozen” by the government, but because of political changes in Pakistan, it would be “unfrozen” in the near future. According to Mr. Bhardwaj, being told about this account influenced his decision to loan more money to Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan.
[105] Mr. Bhardwaj was shown three letters and on August 29, 2012 was provided with copies of them attached to an e-mail from Mr. Khan. The three letters were all on the letterhead of the Islamabad branch of Deutsche Bank. The first letter was dated October 21, 2010 and addressed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It referred to an account belonging to “Nadeem Imtiaz” and having an account number of 98217-122. This account was said to have had deposits totalling $29,500,000 (U.S.), but that the total amount “was freezed by the National Accountability Bureau.” The letter was purported signed by a manager at the bank and indicated that a copy was sent to a lawyer named Abdul Basit.
[106] The second letter was dated November 16, 2010 and addressed to Abdul Basit, and purportedly signed by a person identified as a Senior Vice-President. It referred to time being needed to determine the interest on the account.
[107] The third letter was dated November 29, 2010 and also addressed to Abdul Basit and signed by the Senior Vice-President. It stated that the total investment of $29,500,000 (U.S.) had to date accumulated interest totalling $26,890,000 (U.S.).
[108] A declaration from Deutsche Bank which the parties agreed could be admitted for the truth of its contents states that the bank had no record of there ever having been an account with the account number 09217-122 or any account held by Nadeem Imtiaz Ahmed.
[109] Mr. Khan testified that he had received the letters by e-mail from Mr. Ahmed, who asked him to keep them confidential. However, he later persuaded Mr. Ahmed to allow him to show them to Mr. Bhardwaj to reassure him that he would be paid. Mr. Khan testified that he believed the letters to be genuine.
[110] In his statement to the police, Mr. Ahmed said that the only account he had ever had at Deutsche Bank was closed 15 years earlier. He acknowledged that the Deutsche Bank letters were not authentic, but said that they had “nothing to do with me.”
[111] Mr. Bhardwaj testified that he believed the letters to be authentic.
(ii) The Direction
[112] Mr. Bhardwaj was also shown a “Direction” signed by Mr. Ahmed in which he directed Deutsche Bank to pay $15,000,000 (U.S.0 to Mr. Khan out of account number 09217-122. Mr. Khan testified that he had received this from Mr. Ahmed, together with an “Acknowledgement of Indebtedness” stating that Mr. Ahmed owned Mr. Khan $15,000,000 (U.S.). Both the direction and the acknowledgement were drafted and notarized by Mr. Khan’s lawyer and are dated May 11, 2012. Mr. Khan testified that he sent the direction to Mr. Bhardwaj with Mr. Ahmed’s knowledge and consent.
B. Analysis
(i) Were the Letters Forgeries?
[113] As noted, the parties agreed that the declaration from Deutsche Bank stating that the bank had no record of any account with the number referred to in the letters or any account held by Mr. Ahmed was admitted for the truth of its contents. Despite this, Mr. Ahmed takes the position that the Crown has failed to prove that the letters were forgeries. He submits that the fact that the declarant could not find any bank records relating to that account or any account belonging to Mr. Ahmed does not mean that such accounts did not exist. However, Mr. Ahmed acknowledged in his statement that he had not had an account at Deutsche Bank for more than 15 years. He said that the letters had “nothing to do with me.” It is clear that the account referred to in the letters did not exist and whoever created the letters wished to create the impression that they did. The letters are clearly forgeries.
[114] Mr. Ahmed also submits that the letters may be genuine, even if the assertions contained in them are false. In other words, it may be that Deutsche Bank officials may have prepared the letters, even though they do not accurately describe Mr. Ahmed’s frozen assets. This theory is, with respect, entirely speculative.
(ii) Did Mr. Ahmed Use the Letters as if They Were Genuine?
[115] Mr. Bhardwaj testified that Mr. Ahmed was present when the Deutsche Bank letters were shown to him, although it appears from the evidence that he first received them as attachments to an e-mail from Mr. Khan. If Mr. Ahmed was present when they were show to Mr. Bhardwaj in the context of discussions about loans, then he used the documents as if they were genuine.
[116] Even if he was not present, I am nonetheless satisfied that Mr. Ahmed used the documents as if they were genuine. There are two reasons for this conclusion. First, Mr. Khan clearly used the documents as if they were genuine and for the reasons outlined earlier, the acts and declarations of Mr. Khan can be attributed to Mr. Ahmed. Second, Mr. Ahmed signed the direction that expressly referred to the bank account number in the letters. Based on his statement to the police, I conclude that he knew full well that there was no such bank account. The fact that he signed a direction in relation to the non-existent account referred to in the letters leads to the inference that he was aware of their existence and the purpose for which they would be used, namely, to persuade Mr. Bhardwaj to loan more money.
[117] Given my findings, I need not consider the Crown’s alternative argument that Mr. Ahmed had used the forged documents to trick Mr. Khan into believing that they were genuine.
C. Conclusion
[118] For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Ahmed is found guilty on Count 3.
VI. DISPOSITION
[119] Mr. Ahmed is found guilty on Counts 1, 2 and 3.
Justice P.A. Schreck
Released: April 21, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: CR-19-00000347-000
DATE: 20210421
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
NADEEM IMTIAZ AHMED
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
P.A. Schreck J.
Released: April 21, 2021
[^1]: Mr. Khan was also charged. While Mr. Ahmed and Mr. Khan were initially charged jointly, Mr. Khan elected to have a jury trial and has been severed. His trial is yet to take place. [^2]: Mr. Ahmed’s statement was found to be voluntary following a voir dire: R. v. Ahmed, 2020 ONSC 5990. [^3]: Ms. Charbonneau testified about various methods she employed to trace funds. In most cases, she was able to identify a minimum amount of a given deposit that was subsequently used for some purpose, although in many cases the actual amount could have been larger. She was unable to trace the movement of cash unless it was used to purchase a bank draft or wire transfer that was reflected in the bank records she examined. With respect to the June 16, 2010 deposits, Ms. Charbonneau testified that it would be reasonable to conclude that all of the funds from Mr. Kingrani were used for the $40,000 payment back to him and the $36,000 payment to Mr. Ahmed, but she could not say so definitively.