• Vancouver at night

Theft or Fraud Over $5000

The Charge

People charged with the offence of theft or fraud over $5000 are in a serious situation because the Criminal Code no longer permits a jail sentence for these offences to be served conditionally, under house arrest, in the community.  Crown counsel will usually take the position that people charged with significant theft offences should be incarcerated; the greater the theft or fraud is, the more severe the sentence Crown will seek. Additionally, Crown will consider whether there are aggravating factors present – such as a breach of trust, the scope of the offence, or the amount of planning and deception involved. Where the value of theft is over $5000, the maximum sentence for a conviction is up to 10 years in prison; for fraud over $5000, the maximum sentence is 14 years in jail. Because people charged with theft or fraud over $5000 face such serious consequences, it is imperative that they seek the assistance of experienced defence counsel.

The Investigation

Every case is unique, but in the majority of the Theft/Fraud over $5000 cases that we see, our client has been accused of stealing from or defrauding a business associate, an employer or a client. Sometimes the complainant is an insurer. Rather than being confronted by police, it is often the business associate, client or employer that first accuses our client. Because this is not yet a police investigation, the accused person is not entitled to be advised of their right to a lawyer or to remain silent. The suspect in these cases certainly stands a good chance of incriminating themselves while trying to explain what they did. We certainly advise anyone who is being investigated for a theft or fraud over $5000 offence to call our office for advice at the earliest opportunity.

A person being investigated for theft or fraud over $5000 usually faces the prospect of both criminal charges and a civil action for recovery of the misappropriated funds. Where civil repayment is possible, we will attempt to settle the matter promptly with the goal of avoiding a criminal prosecution. Where clients are charged criminally, our goal is to negotiate a quick release from police custody and, where necessary, to obtain our client’s release from custody in court at a show cause (bail) hearing.

Recent Successes

R. vs. A.S. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving while prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this charge which carries a mandatory one year driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that concluded our client was not at all responsible for the motor vehicle accident and persuaded Crown to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without aa valid license. Our client was sentenced to a fine and a 3 month driving prohibition.

R. vs. L.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Mischief Over $5000; Assault Police Officer.
Issue: Whether the sentence ought to emphasize punishment or rehabilitation in this matter where our client was alleged to have caused over $100,000 in damage to his building.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide Crown counsel with materials confirming the rehabilitative steps our client had taken for his mental health. The cRown stayed the assault police officer charge and, after hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation. No jail.

R. vs. D.R. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings on the assault charge. Our client entered into a 12 month Peace Bond. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.Z. - Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to direct our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with this prosecution.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to provide Crown counsel with information that allowed him to persuade Crown to enter a stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. M.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for Crown to proceed with the prosecution of this offence which carries a 12 month mandatory minimum driving prohibition.
Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser offence of driving without a valid licence. Our client received a $500 fine and a 30 day driving prohibition.

R. vs. M.L. - Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Sexual Interference.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove that our client sexually interfered with his niece.
Result: After a 6 day trial, Mr. Johnson was able to persuade the trial judge that there was reasonable doubt as to the complainant's credibility and reliability. Not guilty. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. R.R. - Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide Crown counsel with information that led Crown to resolve this matter with a Caution Letter. No charges were approved. No criminal record.

R. vs. B.R. - Vancouver Youth Court

Charges: Assault Causing Bodily Harm; Assault with a Weapon.
Issue: Whether our client was acting in self defence when he injured the complainant with a knife during an altercation.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that resulted in Crown declining to approve any charges. No criminal record.

R. v. C.C. - Surrey provincial Court

Charges: Impaired Driving, Dangerous Driving Causing Death. Issues: Whether police breached our client's Charter rights during the investigation; whether the court would accept the Crown's sentencing submission.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel that police breached our client's right against an unlawful seizure of his breath samples. This resulted in the Crown's inability to prove the Impaired Driving / Over .08 offences.  The Crown had originally been seeking up to 4.5 years jail, but sought a one year jail sentence on the Dangerous Driving Causing Death charge. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court found that 5 months was the appropriate sentence.

R. vs. B.S. - North Vancouver RCMP Investigation

.Charge: Uttering Threats.
Issue: Whether there was a public interest in proceeding with the proposed charge.
Result: After Mr. Johnson made  representations to the investing officer, police advised that no charges would be forwarded to Crown counsel. No criminal record.

R. vs. C.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge, which carries a one year mandatory minimum driving prohibition upon conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid drivers license. The court agreed with Mr. Mines' submissions and imposed a fine but did not impose any driving prohibition.

R. vs. N.A. - Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Driving While Prohibited.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the charge.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to allow our client to plead to the lesser offence of driving without a valid driver's license. Rather than face a mandatory minimum 12 month driving prohibition, our client was sentenced to a fine. No driving prohibition.  

The Defence

We are always happy to hear from clients at the earliest stage of a theft or fraud over $5000 investigation because we can offer these clients the very best potential outcome – the chance of no charges being approved at all. In our many years of defending financial crimes, we’ve learned that many complainants are more interested in recovering their loss than they are in pursuing a criminal conviction. In these cases, as well as those cases in which Crown has approved charges, our goal is to negotiate and obtain a civil settlement, which involves our client repaying the complainant on the complainant’s promise to provide a full release from any further civil liability. We find that in many cases, a complainant that has been compensated is no longer interested in pursuing criminal charges. In cases that do proceed, the courts will consider restitution and civil settlement to be mitigating factors upon sentencing.

Where Crown has approved theft/fraud over $5000, we have been successful in obtaining non-custodial sentences for our clients. For example, we have successfully persuaded Crown to break down “theft over” charges into a series of “theft under” charges so that a suspended sentence or conditional sentence became available.

In the event that the Crown’s case is very strong and it isn’t possible to negotiate a non-custodial sentence, we will prepare for trial to defend our client. Theft/Fraud over $5000 cases can involve fairly complex issues regarding the laws of evidence. We are well versed in the various technical rules of evidence as set out in the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act and case law precedent. These rules involve the various requirements police and Crown must comply with when they seek to introduce business banking or other documentary evidence at trial. Our experience allows us to develop arguments at trial aimed at protecting our clients’ rights to have a fair trial as guaranteed by the Charter.

Start with a free consultation.

If you are being investigated by police or if you’ve been charged with a criminal or driving offence, don’t face the problem alone. Being accused of an offence is stressful. The prospects of a criminal record or jail sentence can be daunting. Even if you think there is no defence, we may be able to help. To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver lawyers, contact us now.