You are here: / / Theft and Fraud Successes
  • False Creek at night

Our Successes

Theft & Fraud

R. vs. Q.G. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Theft Over $5000 (from employer).

Issue: Whether Crown counsel had sufficient evidence to meet the charge approval standard.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that important evidence would be missing from a cenrtal witness and to not approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. vs. Z.Y. – Healthcare Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud Under $5000.

Issue: Given the prompt repayment of restitution that we made on our client’s behalf, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade the investigator to not forward any charges for prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.B. and M.L. – Surrey RCMP Investigation

/in , , /by

Charges: Possession of Stolen Property over $5000.

Issue: Whether police had sufficient grounds to recommend criminal charges against our clients.

Result: After Mr. Gauthier consulted with the investigator, RCMP decided to refer the case for civil forfeiture and to not pursue  any criminal charges against our clients. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.M. – ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with us, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC deciding to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. D.C. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Theft (from employeer) Over $5000.

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Upon Mr. Mines providing information to Crown counsel that our client had fully settled the matter civilly and that there was a significant chance that a key Crown witness would be unavailable at trial, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings.No criminal record.

R. vs. T.E. ICBC Insurance Fraud Investigation

/in , /by

Charges: Fraud/misrepresentation.

Issue: Whether our client actually intended to make a misleading or fraudulent automobile accident claim.

Result: After consulting with Mr. Gauthier, our client provided an explanation to the investigator that resulted in ICBC electing to not recommend any charges.  No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. G.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charges: Theft Under $5000 9shoplifting).

Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with a criminal prosecution.

Result: Mr. Gauthier was able tp rovide information about our client’s circumstances and the circumstances of the offence that led to Crown deciding to not approve any charges. No prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.J. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Theft Under $5000.

Issue: Whether there was substantial likelihood of a conviction.

Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information and made representations to Crown counsel which ultimately led Crown to agree that there was no reasonable likelihood of a conviction. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. I.K. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Fraud Over $5000.

Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to a jail for this $10,000 fraud from his employer.

Result: Notwithstanding that our client had a previous criminal conviction for a similar breach of trust offence, Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier’s submissions, the Court sentenced our client to a term of house arrest. No jail.

R. vs. T.F. – Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , , /by
Charges: Theft Under $5,000, Obstructing a Peace Officer, Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to direct our client to the appropriate community supports with respect to his rehabilitation. Given the positive change in our client’s circumstances, the sentencing judge accepted Mr. Johnston’s submission that a community based sentence was appropriate rather than the 60 jail sentence sought by the Crown. No jail.

R. vs. B.J. – Downtown Community Court

/in , , /by

Charge: Theft of property of a value not exceeding $5,000

Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.

Result: Mr. Johnston identified weaknesses in the available video evidence which persuaded the Crown to direct a stay of proceedings on the charge. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. F.S. – North Vancouver Provincial Court

/in , /by

Charge: Theft Under $5000.

Issue: Whether Crown could prove the number and value of the electronic devices they alleged our client stole from his workplace.

Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allege that the theft involved  only 7 devices worth only $1000. After hearing Mr. Mines submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

Title Here

Refine by Category