You are here: / / Commercial Crime Charges
  • Vancouver at night

Commercial Crime

The Charge

People charged with commercial crime are generally charged with Fraud over $5000 offences, pursuant to s. 380 of the Criminal Code. Commercial crime offences may includes offences contrary to the Bankruptcy Act, the British Columbia Securities Act or the British Columbia Insurance (Vehicle) Act. Over the years our firm has defended clients charged with bankruptcy fraud, counterfeiting and insurance fraud. Depending on the scale of the fraud, Crown counsel often seeks significant jail time for commercial crime offences. Often, there is a breach of trust element to commercial crime charges. When an employee or business partner is accused of using their position of trust to commit an offence, Crown will rely on s. 718 of the Criminal Code which deems breach of trust to be an “aggravating circumstance” which can increase the sentence of a person convicted of a commercial crime offence.

The Investigation

All cases are unique, but in the majority of commercial crime cases the suspect is confronted with an investigator working for the organization that claims to have been victimized. Typically, this is an official from the BC Securities Commission, the bank or the insurance company. Because this is not yet a police investigation, the suspect is not usually advised of their rights under the Charter to be able to immediately contact a lawyer or to remain silent. It is certainly not uncommon for people in this situation to be tempted to explain themselves and they often end up making some incriminating statements. We certainly advise anyone who has been confronted with an accusation of commercial crime to call our office for advice at the earliest opportunity possible.

A person accused of a commercial crime offence often faces the pressure of both a criminal charge and a civil action being taken by the Securities Commission, bank, insurance company or other body. It is certainly prudent to obtain legal advice from counsel that has experience defending these types of charges.

Recent Successes

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

Charges: Aggravated Assault; Breach of Undertaking; Assault police officer; Mischief to property.
Issue: Given the seriousness of the facial injuries to the complainant and the ensuing assault of the arresting police officer, whether a lengthy prison sentence was appropriate.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to steer our client through an extensive program of rehabilitation and, after gearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions in a contested hearing, the Court granted our client a conditional sentence of only 3 months, followed by 2 years probation. No jail.

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

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. M.S. – Burnaby RCMP Investigation

Charges: Assault, mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the criminal prosecution.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade the investigating  RCMP officer to allow our client tp apologize to the complainant through Restorative Justice. Police did not seek to have any criminal charges approved. No criminal record.

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

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. K.Y. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault by choking (x2); assault (x2); mischief under $5000.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for the Court to enter a conviction against our client.
Result: Mr. Mines was able to persuade Crown counsel to proceed on only one count of common assault and to stay all remaining charges. After hearing Mr. Mines' submissions, the court granted our client a conditional discharge and placed him on probation for 12 months.No criminal conviction.

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

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.K. – Port Coquitlam Provincial Court

Charge: Assault.
Issue: Whether it was in the public interest for our client to be granted a conditional discharge.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel to make a joint submission without the necessity of our client being required to complete counselling. After hearing Mr. Gauthier's submissions the court granted our client the discharge. No criminal conviction.

R. v. R.L. – New Westminster Supreme Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. J.H. – Richmond Provincial Court

Charge: Sexual Assault.
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of a conviction and whether it was in the public interest to continue with the prosecution in this retrial after a deadlocked jury decision.
Result: upon considering all of Mr. Mines' representations, Crown counsel entered a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.

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

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. A.M. = Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Assault with a Weapon; Assault Causing Bodily Harm.
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 provided Crown counsel with information about our client’s circumstances, including his lack of prior criminal offending, his efforts at rehabilitation, and the fact that a conviction for either offence could result in the client’s deportation, an outcome which Mr. Johnston argued would be disproportionate to the seriousness of alleged offences. At the same time, Mr. Johnston pointed out weaknesses in the evidence against our client. The Crown directed stays of proceedings on both charges. No jail. No criminal record.

R. vs. A.V. – Vancouver Provincial Court

Charges: Uttering Threats x3; Criminal Harassment; Breach of Release Order (domestic).
Issue: Whether there was a substantial likelihood of conviction and whether it was in the public interest to proceed with the prosecution of these matters.
Result: Mr. Gauthier was able to persuade Crown counsel that it was more appropriate to deal with these matters in the context of Family Court. Ultimately Crown did not approve the uttering threats and criminal harassment charges and Mr. Gauthier persuaded Crown that there was no public interest in prosecuting the breach charge and to enter a stay of proceedings. No jail. No criminal record.
View All

The Defence

Clients that contact us early in the investigation (before charges are forwarded to police) have the best chance of obtaining the best result – the chance of no charge being approved at all. In our many years of practicing criminal law, we’ve learned that many complainants are primarily interested in recovering their losses through civil means rather than pursuing criminal charges. In such cases – and even in cases where charges have been approved – our goal is to try and obtain a civil settlement which involves our client making civil restitution to the complainant in exchange for obtaining a release for any further civil liability.

In some cases, in the face of strong Crown evidence, we have no alternative but to go to trial to defend our client. Often, commercial crime cases involve complex issues in the law of evidence. We are well versed in the various laws that involve search warrants, production orders and the various Canada Evidence Act provisions involving the rules Crown must comply with when they want to introduce banking records, business records, or any other documentary evidence. Our experience allows us to develop arguments at trial which are aimed at protecting our clients’ rights to be treated to 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.

Connect