R. v. C.A.

The accused, C.A., was charged with four separate counts of fraud over $5,000.00. Police spent years investigating C.A. and her co-accused, and the strength of the evidence against C.A. in terms of witnesses and bank statements was substantial. There were hundreds of pages of disclosure and documents, and the paper-trail of evidence against C.A. was significant. The Crown had proof showing sizable amounts of money were allegedly transferred directly into C.A.’s individual bank account, subsequent withdrawals were allegedly made, and cheques were purportedly signed by her. C.A.’s co-accused started several companies, one of which the complainants purportedly purchased shares from. That company, however, was not registered with the Ontario Securities Commission and therefore should not have been selling any shares. There were multiple victims who bought shares in the company. Under the Criminal Code, however, it does not matter if the Crown can ascertain specific victims affected by the alleged fraud. Instead, they must prove there was an actual risk of prejudice to the victim’s economic interest. Once the complainants purchased shares in what they thought was the company, there was a money trail of the funds going directly into C.A.’s personal bank account and not used to invest in the company. The charges against C.A. spanned over a year and a half, but the victims of the alleged fraud claimed they had been frauded by her co-accused as early as ten years prior. C.A. and her co-accused failed to attend the police department to turn themselves in as they had previously arranged, so a warrant was issued for their arrest. If found guilty on one count of fraud over $5,000.00, the convicted accused is automatically exposed to a maximum prison sentence of fourteen-years. C.A. eventually turned herself in to the police department where she was arrested and charged. The Crown was asking the court for a two-year jail sentence. After several months and numerous Crown judicial pre-trials, the night before a week-long preliminary hearing Jonathan Pyzer successfully convinced the Crown to withdraw all four of C.A.’s fraud charges unconditionally with no peace bond upon receiving a signed statutory declaration. Having your charges withdrawn is the best possible outcome when you are charged with fraud over $5,000.00. Jonathan Pyzer recognized the significant impact a criminal record would have on all aspects of C.A.’s life, and vigorously fought for her charges to be withdrawn. If you are charged with fraud, hire a Pyzer Criminal Lawyer
 to assure yourself you have the best attorneys who are well versed in complex issues concerning the laws of evidence. This is specifically important if you are charged with fraud because there are specific and complex requirements the Crown and police must comply with when they are seeking to introduce business banking records or other documents as evidence at trial.