Donich Law - Jordan Donich - Courtroom Sketch

Fraud Defence Lawyers

In 2020, the Firm represented an individual accused of defrauding his employer out of more than $52,000.00 U.S. dollars in R. v. S.G. [2020]. The client’s sophisticated scheme involved the creation of a false company and false invoices. When the scheme was uncovered, the client erroneously believed he would be shown mercy due to his close relationship with management. This was not the case and the client was charged. The Firm litigated the file for two years before successfully resolving the case, avoiding jail time.

In 2017, the Firm represented an individual charged with fraud under $5,000 after selling fake concert tickets online in R. v. A.L. [2017]. The client was arrested several years after financial records associated with the transactions were traced back to the him. The Firm litigated the matter, discovering various issues with the Crown’s evidence. The charges against the accused were ultimately withdrawn as a result.

In 2023, the Firm represented an individual charged with theft under $5,000 after stealing from his employer in R. v. M.F. [2023]. The client was charged after it was discovered that he had taken a box containing $2,000 worth of gift cards out of his employer’s warehouse. Given that the theft occurred at the accused’s job, the Crown sought a period of incarceration upon conviction. The Firm thoroughly reviewed the disclosure finding several weaknesses in the Crown’s case. After completing upfront work, the charges against the accused were withdrawn by the Crown.

In 2022, the Firm defended an individual alleged to have attempted to cash a fraudulent $40,000 cheque in R. v. R.A. [2022]. The client was arrested after staff at the financial institution grew suspicious and contacted police. The client initially provided false identification to police, leading to charges of fraud over $5,000, possession, sale, etc. of identity documents, identity theft, and utter forged documents. Given the value of the cheque and the fact that the accused had a prior record for a similar offence, the Crown sought a period of custody upon conviction. The Firm negotiated with the Crown for approximately a year before securing the withdrawal of the three most serious charges and avoiding a jail sentence for the accused.

We have defended complex internal fraud rings, such as sophisticated fraudulent TTC Metropass and Token schemes in its R. v. I.B. [2014] where all charges of fraud, uttering forged documents and possession of property obtained by crime were withdrawn. These police stings often involve elaborate searches and seizure of office computers, mobile devices and files. The accused was allegedly using fraudulent transit passes to gain access to the TTC. She was a student and purchased them from who she thought was a friend. Unfortunately the friend was not arrested and the accused had to deal with the full impact of the crime. The Firm was able to defer the blame to the other party, challenging the Crown case which resulted in the charges being dropped.

Punishments for Fraud Depend on the Value of the Property

Donich Law - Assault Punishments

The Firm secured a withdrawal of eight (8) charges of fraud related charges, attempt fraud and conspiracy charges in its R. v. K.L. [2015], where the accused was allegedly involved in a Staples and Target commercial fraud ring. Shoplifting can become addictive because of the thrill of stealing and quick financial gain. The Firm was able to challenge the Crown’s ability to prove the case because Target was leaving Canada. This meant it would have been harder for witnesses to attend trial and provide evidence. Procedural defences are an important strategy to defending cases where there is overwhelming evidence of a crime.

In May 2018, in the Firm’s R. v. Z.U. [2018], it stayed nine (9) fraud charges, including money laundering foreign proceeds of crime from the United States in an approximate $1 Million international Gold Bullion investigation. Money was allegedly being stolen from senior citizens and converted to gold bullion for cross-border transport and sale. There was some evidence implicating the accused in the scheme, however, it wasn’t entirely admissible which impacted the Crown’s case. The arresting officer tried to get a statement from the accused to complete the case, but was unsuccessful after the Firm was retained. Section 13 of the Charter gives the accused a right against self-incrimination.

How to Defend Fraud Under $5000

The Firm also secured a withdrawal of a $56,000.00 Royal Bank of Canada fraud in its R. v. A.N. [2013]. The accused from a small town in Ontario was alleged to have deposited a fraudulent bank draft issued by a publicly traded Canadian corporation. The accused’s bank account was frozen by law enforcement and assets seized. The Firm was able to establish that even though the accused temporarily had possession of the money, he was unaware the funds were stolen. All counts of fraud, uttering forged documents and possession of property obtained by crime were withdrawn. The Firm also recovered all frozen financial assets.

The Firm has extensive experience defending internal employee fraud allegations. In its R. v. S.C. [2015], the Firm resolved a $60,000.00 Home Sense fraud ring without a criminal record. The Firm defended two family members who were co-accused in the allegation. They were allegedly attending the cash register where another employee would pretend to scan several thousand dollars of merchandise without collecting payment. Over time loss prevention amassed a significant amount of video surveillance which was used to apprehend the accused(s), trace their license plates and execute a warrant.

Law Newbie is a free AI research assistant that can help you safely answer questions about criminal law.

Learn More

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Considered Fraud in Canada?

Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code outlines the offence of fraud, separating the offence into fraud under $5,000 and fraud over $5,000. The Code states that an individual is guilty of fraud when they use deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means to defraud the public or any person or any property, money, service, or valuable security.

This means that an individual is guilty of fraud when they take something that does not belong to them using deceit. Fraud is different from theft in that there is the added element of deceit in taking the thing of value. It is not necessary that the accused was successful in taking the thing of value. Instead, the Crown need only prove that the accused took enough steps to create a risk of loss.

What if I did not Receive any Money from the Fraud?

Whether or not an individual was successful in their attempt to commit fraud does not change whether the accused is guilty of the offence of fraud. The Criminal Code does not require that an offender actually receive money from their fraudulent scheme. To prove that an accused is guilty of fraud, the Crown must only prove that the accused had the necessary intent to commit fraud and took steps that placed victims at risk of loss.

For example, an individual who attempts to fraudulently cash a cheque using false identification but is caught before the cheque clears is still guilty of fraud. This is true even though the individual did not actually receive the money. Since the victim risked a loss had the bank not flagged the transaction, the offence was completed.

Whether or not there was an actual loss may come into play during sentencing should the offender be convicted of the offence. While it may not be mitigating that the offender did not receive any money from the offence, it may be noted as the absence of an aggravating factor. The Court will consider with whether anyone suffered a loss as a result of the offender’s crime and if so, how that loss impacted the victim(s). Where the offender’s actions did cause a loss to someone or to the public, that may be considered aggravating.

How does the Crown Prove Fraud Charges?

As with any criminal case, when an individual is charged with fraud, the burden lies with the Crown to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. With fraud charges, one of the most common pieces of evidence is financial records. These may include financial records of the accused, of the complainant, or otherwise related to the fraudulent transactions. The Crown will use this evidence to prove that the accused used deceit to take money or other valuable items from the complainant.

In addition to financial records, the Crown may also use the statements of witnesses including the complainant or the accused. Many criminal cases will hinge on the statement of a witness alone. In fraud cases, witness testimony is typically tendered alongside documentary financial evidence to show the Court exactly how the accused committed the offence.

To gain a conviction, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused used deceit or other falsehood to take something of value and that the accused’s actions caused the complainant or the public to risk a loss. As outlined above, the Crown is not required to prove that the complainant actually suffered a loss or that the accused actually received money or something else of value as a result of the offence. Whether or not the accused’s attempts were successful is irrelevant as long as the accused went far enough to cause a risk of loss to someone.

How to Defend Fraud Charges?

When developing a defence for a fraud case, a thorough disclosure review must first be conducted. As noted above, the burden lies on the Crown to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In some cases, the Crown will be unable to do so with the evidence they have, and the defence will not need to advance an actual defence. To determine whether the Crown has enough evidence to gain a conviction, counsel will review the disclosure material to determine if there are any issues with the Crown’s case. If issues are uncovered, they can be brought to the Crown’s attention during a Crown pre-trial. Depending on the nature of the issues and their severity, the Crown may agree in some cases to withdrawal the charges or to allow the accused to plead to a less serious charge.

Another common defence strategy in fraud cases is to launch a Charter challenge. To determine whether there is a viable Charter challenge in a fraud case, defence counsel will review the disclosure to determine if the police violated the accused’s rights at any point during their investigation. If they have, the defence can launch a Charter challenge asking that the Court exclude certain evidence. Where such a motion is successful, the Court will exclude any evidence that was derived from the Charter breach which can include inculpatory statements made by the accused. In many cases, evidence being excluded can cause the Crown’s case to fail.

If you have been charged with a fraud offence, experienced counsel can assist in reviewing your disclosure to determine the best defence for your case. A successful defence will be specifically tailored to your case and will address and refute the Crown’s evidence.

Will I go to Jail for Fraud in Toronto?

Custodial sentences for those convicted of fraud are not at all uncommon in Toronto and throughout Canada. This is especially true where the offender is convicted of fraud over $5,000. Pursuant to the Criminal Code, fraud offences are separated into two categories: fraud under $5,000 and theft over $5,000.

Fraud under $5,000 is considered a hybrid offence which means the Crown will elect to proceed either by way of summary conviction or by indictment. Where the Crown proceeds by indictment on a fraud under $5,000 charge, the accused may face increased penalties. The maximum penalty for fraud under $5,000 is two years’ imprisonment. Fraud over $5,000, on the other hand, is much more serious. Fraud over $5,000 is a straight indictable offence with a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison, far longer than fraud under $5,000. Where the value of the fraud exceeds one million dollars, an offender will be sentenced to a minimum of one year in custody.

In practice, the sentences for those convicted of fraud under $5,000 vary significantly from one case to the next. An individual convicted of a lower value fraud may be able to resolve their case without a criminal record with a discharge. Others convicted of fraud under $5,000 may face jail time depending on the facts of the case. These convicted of fraud over $5,000 are far more likely to be sentenced to a period of custody, with jail sentences being common. The higher the value of the fraud and the larger the loss to the complainant(s), the higher the offender’s sentence will be.

Donich Law - In the News
Donich Law - In the News - Media Logos

Breakfast Television

Mental Health Concerns in the Justice System.

CP24

The Difference between Criminal and Civil Liability.

CTV News National

The Rise of Gun Violence in Toronto.

Global News

New Changes to Pardons in Canada.

Recent Cases

R. v. R.B., 2026 ONSC 846

In the 2026 case of R. v. R.B., the offender was convicted after trial of 5 counts of fraud over $5,000 and 12 counts of fraud under $5,000 totaling over $82,000in losses to 17 victims. The offender had duped various people in his life into hiring him for construction or purchasing products, never to deliver on services or products paid for. Given the large amount of money taken and the significant impact the fraud had on the victims, the Crown sought a 4–5-year prison sentence, citing denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing principles. The Crown also noted the offender’s significant criminal history for similar offences. The Court sentenced the offender to 34 months in prison and ordered him to pay $81,675 in restitution to the victims as well as $66,675 fine.

R. v. B.B., 2024, ONCA 181

In the 2024 Ontario Court of Appeal case of R. v. B.B., the offender appealed both her conviction and sentence in relation to a fraud over $5,000 and utter forged document charges after fraudulently cashing cheques belonging to the law firm she was employed at. The total loss was valued at over $100,000. After convicting her at trial, the Court sentenced the offender to 18 months in prison. The appellant argued in her appeal that her sentence was unduly harsh and that custody was not appropriate in the circumstances. The Court dismissed the appeal on both the conviction and sentence. Regarding sentence, the Court noted that the sentence imposed by the sentencing court was not on the high end of the spectrum for similar cases and fell at the rough mid-point between the sentence proposed by the defence and the sentence proposed by the Crown. The sentence was upheld.

About the Author

Jordan Donich Profile Photo

Jordan Donich

Jordan Donich has been a Lawyer for over 10 years and is a trusted legal analyst by Canadian Media. He is as a leader in Canada’s tech sector for lawyers and developer of Law Newbie. Jordan is a Black Belt with the Japan Karate Association and trained in Krav Maga. He won a Gold Medal at 2004 Canadian National Championships and was published in the National Newspaper Awards.

Jordan has been featured in Forbes, Canadian Lawyer and is a member of DMZ Angels in Toronto.