Thomas W.G. Pratt

The accused was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime and money laundering after receiving $348,751.57 from a sophisticated phishing fraud and immediately dispersing the funds.

The Crown sought 30 months' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the significant impact on the corporate victim and the accused's rapid diversion of the funds.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration, two years' probation, and ordered to pay $348,751.57 in restitution.

The accused, Fattah Abdel, was charged with possession of money obtained by an indictable offence and transferring money with intent to conceal or convert it, knowing it was derived from a designated offence, contrary to section 462.31(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that Abdel received illicit funds totaling $348,751.57, which were obtained through an email hacking fraud committed against Air Palace and Rotor Maxx.

Abdel deposited these funds into a company account he controlled and then quickly dispersed them via bank drafts to pay off his personal and business debts.

He provided conflicting and false explanations for the funds' origin to his business partners.

The court found Abdel guilty on both counts, concluding that he either had actual knowledge that the funds were illicit or was wilfully blind to their illicit nature, given the unusual transaction, his desperate financial circumstances, and his deceptive actions.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions for temporary relief.

The responding party sought various interim orders including increased spousal support, rental income sharing, and enforcement-related relief, while the applicant and additional respondents brought a counter-motion for questioning and an affidavit of documents.

The court found that each side achieved partial success on different issues, including reimbursement of certain s. 7 expenses and a business valuation order in favour of the responding party, while other claims were unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that success was divided and that certain issues should have been resolved without court intervention.

In the circumstances, no order as to costs was appropriate.

The court determined costs following competing family law motions for temporary relief.

The responding party sought various interim orders including increased spousal support, rental income sharing, and enforcement-related relief, while the applicant and additional respondents brought a counter-motion for questioning and an affidavit of documents.

The court found that each side achieved partial success on different issues, including reimbursement of certain s. 7 expenses and a business valuation order in favour of the responding party, while other claims were unsuccessful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court held that success was divided and that certain issues should have been resolved without court intervention.

In the circumstances, no order as to costs was appropriate.