Jump To Navigation

Vancouver Employee Theft Lawyers

Defending People Throughout British Columbia Who Have Been Charged With Theft and Fraud From Their Employers

Courts in Canada view cases involving employee theft and fraud cases as serious breach of trust situations. As a result, there is a strong likelihood that Crown Counsel will seek a jail sentence in order to denounce the act and deter others from committing these types of offences. Additionally, the Crown will seek orders requiring that the accused makes full restitution of all misappropriated money to his or her employer.

Often, employee fraud and theft cases involve a thorough examination of accounting records and require precise attention to detail. The Vancouver employee theft defence lawyers at Mines & Company are experienced when it comes to working with accounting experts to determine the actual losses that Crown counsel is alleging. In some cases we have succeeded in greatly reducing the amount of alleged theft or fraud from employer.

Conditional Discharges: Negotiating a Successful Resolution

Notwithstanding the breach of trust issue in employee theft cases, we have been successful in obtaining conditional discharges for our clients. Rather than a jail sentence or a conditional sentence order (house arrest), many of our clients have been granted a Conditional Discharge and not only avoided jail, but have avoided a criminal conviction.

 

In one of our recent successes (R. v. K.H. in North Vancouver Provincial Court), our client was charged with misappropriating in excess of $10,000 from her employer. The Crown argued for house arrest, but after hearing Mr. Mines's submissions, the court granted his client a Conditional Discharge. No criminal conviction.

Facing Embezzlement Charges in British Columbia? We Are Here to Help

In more serious theft and fraud cases, there are other options. We will help you explore possible outcomes and help you make educated decisions. In defending against all charges, whether through negotiation with Crown prosecution or in jury trials, we will work hard to minimize the consequences and protect your rights and freedom.

Start With a Free Initial Consultation

To schedule a free initial consultation with one of our Vancouver employee theft lawyers, call 877-467-1804 or contact us via email.

recent successes | click to view

  • April 7, 2014
    R. vs. G.G. - Burnaby RCMP Investigation 
    Charge: Sexual Interference; Sex Assault. 
    Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction.
    Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the police investigation. Ultimately Crown Counsel declined to approve any charge.

  • April 4, 2014
    R. vs. S.K. et al - Surrey Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault x3. 
    Issue: Given various conflicting accounts of the incident, whether there was a substantial likelihood of criminal convictions. 
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to stay all charges upon our clients entering into Peace Bonds. No criminal records.

  • March 13, 2014
    R. vs. D.L. - Vancouver Provincial Court 
    Charge: Assault (Domestic). 
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge. 
    Result: Based on the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, we were able to persuade Crown counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

  • February 28, 2014
    O.B. vs. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles 
    Charge: Review of Driving Prohibition. 
    Issue: Whether it was reasonable for the Superintendent to issue our client a four month driving prohibition. 
    Result: We were able to persuade the Superintendent to reduce the prohibition from four months to one month.

  • February 24, 2014
    R. vs. M.B. - Vancouver Provincial Court 
    Charge: Driving While Prohibited. 
    Issue: Whether our client would be sentenced to the mandatory 12 month minimum driving prohibition. 
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown to proceed on the lesser charge of driving without a valid licence. Three month prohibition imposed.

  • February 4, 2014
    R. vs. A.S. - Coquitlam RCMP Investigation 
    Charge: Sexual Interference. 
    Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction. 
    Result: We were able to successfully steer our client through the investigation. No charges recommended.

  • January 24, 2014
    R. vs. T.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Arson
    Issue: Whether our client had the necessary mental capacity to be convicted of a criminal offence.
    Result: After hearing Mr. Johnson's submissions, the trial judge found that our client was Not Criminally Responsible on account of a Mental Disorder. No criminal record.

  • January 23, 2014
    R. vs. S.M. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Breaking and Entering; Participating in a Riot.
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
    Result: Notwithstanding our client's participation in the infamous Stanley Cup Riot, after hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the Court granted a conditional discharge. No criminal conviction.

  • January 14, 2014
    R. vs. C.E. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Fraud Over $5000 (from employer).
    Issue: Whether a jail sentence was appropriate in this $36,000 emloyee fraud case.
    Result: Notwithstanding the breach of trust, the Court granted the "unusual result" of a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and a restitution order. No jail or house arrest.

  • January 9, 2014
    R. vs. G.S. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Uttering a Threat.
    Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial. No criminal record.

  • January 8, 2014
    R. vs. C.C. - Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Theft Under $5000 (shoplifting).
    Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to allow our client into the Alternative Measures Program prior to any charge being approved. No criminal record.

  • December 19, 2013
    R. vs. A.O. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Asaault.
    Issue: Whether there was a reasonable likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interst to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: We were able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a complete stay of proceedings. No criminal record.

  • December 16, 2013
    R. vs. L.H. - North Vancouver Provincial Court
    Charge: Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
    Issue: Given the rehabilitative steps our client had taken and given the support of the complainant, whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal charge.
    Result: Mr. Johnson was able to persuade Crown Counsel to enter a stay of proceedings prior to the trial commencing. No criminal record.

free initial consultation

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an lawyer-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close