• 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. V.B. – Vancouver Provincial Court

.Charges: Assault; Uttering Threats (domestic).
Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps we were able to guide our client through, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to Crown counsel on our client's behalf which resulted in Crown deciding to enterr a stay of proceedings on both charges. Stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.C.C. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charges: Assault of a Peace Officer.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a discharge for his actions in spitting in the face of an RCMP officer at the Vancouver Airport.
Result: Mr. Gauthier presented information to the Court and after hearing his submissions, the Court granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal record.

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

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.

R. vs. M. G. – Sechelt RCMP investigation

Charges: Criminal harassment; Distributing intimate images without consent.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the circumstantial evidence they sought to rely on and whether jail was the  appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to convince Crown counsel to not rely on much of the aggravating evidence and, on our client's guilty plea to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence with probation. No jail.

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

Charges: Criminal harassment; Distributing intimate images without consent.
Issue: Whether the Crown could prove the circumstantial evidence they sought to rely on and whether jail was the  appropriate sentence.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to convince Crown counsel to not rely on much of the aggravating evidence and, on our client's guilty plea to not seek a jail sentence. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions, the Court granted our client a suspended sentence with probation. No jail.

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

Charge: Assault (domestic).
Issues: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel that resulted in Crown electing to stay the proceedings and to end the prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. H.S. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charge: Assault with a weapon.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to provide information to Crown counsel which resulted in Crown deciding to end the prosecution not approve any charges.  No criminal record.

R. vs. J.L. – UBC RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of obtaining a criminal conviction and whether it was in the public interest for police to recommend charges.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to provide information to police whic resulted in police closing their investigation. No charges recommended. No criminal record.

R. vs. T.A. – West Shore RCMP investigation

Charge: Assault (Domestic).
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Crown to proceed with a criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Gauthier provided information to Crown Counsel that convinced them not to approve charges against the client. No criminal prosecution. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.S. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault (reduced to common assault.)
Issue: Whether Crown counsel could prove that our client touched the complainant for a sexual purpose.
Result: Mr. Mines was able tp persuade Crown counsel that our client did not intend to touch the complainant in a sexual manner. The Crown agreed to proceed on the lesser charge of common assault and, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Judge granted our client a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction. No jail. No sex offender registry.

R. vs. N.R. – Sechelt Provincial Court

Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
Issue: Whether it was in the pubic interest for our client to be sentenced to a conditional discharge for this offence which resulted in a serious facial cut to the complainant.

R. vs. S.K. – Surrey Provincial Court

Charges: Assault; Assault with a Weapon, Breach of a Release Order.
Issue: Whether our client could be released on bail given Crown's concerns for his willingness to attend court and potential to commit further offences.
Result: Mr. Johnston was able to persuade the Judge to release our client on the least onerous conditions.

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.