[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: date(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
[phpBB Debug] PHP Notice: in file /viewtopic.php on line 1002: getdate(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected the timezone 'UTC' for now, but please set date.timezone to select your timezone.
Misconduct and malpractice. Investment industry "best and worst practices". Information to improve public protection. Expert witness services for industry and investors. Forensic investment analysis. • View topic - Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Index of forum topics, talk to us.

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Tue May 22, 2012 6:59 pm

20080108121139_00013.jpg
HOW MANY CRIMES, FRAUDS, ABUSES OF THE PUBLIC TRUST, CAN WE COUNT IN ONE SINGLE CANADIAN BUSINESS DEAL? How much willful blindness can we count on from every authority right up to and including the RCMP?

In the $32 billion dollar theft of money using ABCP (toxic sub prime mortgage paper http://www.albertafraud.com ) the first crime was the breach of public trust when securities commissions in Canada gave their friends in finance, permission to "exempt" themselves from the law to sell products known to not meet our laws (proof of mens rea (guilty mind) anyone?) They do not want to "talk about it" now.

The second crime was the $32 billion dollars that was put into the pockets of investment banker types selling this crap.

The third crime was when American authorities got involved from the president on down, to fine, punish and gain some compensation for victims within months, while every Canadian authority did nothing.

What we did do was the fourth crime, letting a Canadian lawyer get the crooks immunity from lawsuits, the same man who was in on Canada's previous largest crime in the country, the $5 billion dollar tobacco smuggling operation. (source of largest crime figure is RCMP) ( The man and his smuggling op was fined $1 billion.......and he was our sole Canadian solution to this financial crime?)

The fifth crime was in members of the Securities Commission not stepping in until the dust was settled, and the public well screwed, and then levying fines of less than one half a penny for every dollar stolen, against those "bad people" to whom they gave permission to "exempt"the law.

The sixth crime was letting the criminals, from our trusted Canadian financial institutions KEEP 99.6% of any ill gotten gains, or alternately, not have to compensate customers for these losses. (government bailouts had to be arranged)

The seventh crime was watching the RCMP get involved, who then invited in their Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) person who "advises" them on large scale financial crimes. (did I mention this OSC gave the fraudsters the permission.......?) The file was quickly closed without interview of experts or expert information who offered help to understand the crime.

The eight crime was letting OSC persons help the RCMP close the file and write their final report, despite having twice been given official complaint of criminal code violations by this same OSC in the granting of the legal exemptions (Breach of Trust, sec 122) The RCMP, in a naive fashion that some have come to expect and some find quite insane, actually allowed persons named to be criminally complicit in a $32 billion dollar theft, to participate in the investigation and final report of the $32 Billion dollar crime. Such power and trust that the "reputation protection system" for this money industry has in our Canada.

The ninth crime, is that while the RCMP lets members of the OSC and other self regulatory bodies onto their joint management committees, to share with them information and help "solve" the crime, when the reverse is required, the RCMP do not even have the ability, nor the right to even ask the OSC, or other bodies representing investment dealers, to share with the RCMP details of their own investigations, fines, and/or any information. A one way street exists, allowing the most trusted fraudsters in Canada INTO the RCMP and nothing OUT for benefit of the RCMP.

I could go on, but it seems to be enough for now. Your pension plan was robbed robbed. Your Canadian economy was defrauded. Your "Harper" government bailed out Canadian banks up to $186 Billion with your money (in secret no less) Judges (public service pension) robbed, postal workers, University of Calgary, Governments from top to bottom (again your tax dollars chipped in) two or three suicides resulted, depression, mental anguish, domestic problems, alcoholism, etc. Minor detail for a big operation. "Thanks for the money Canada". We will be back in a month or two with another "great idea" for you. Signed, your Canadian Bankster.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:50 am

Screen shot 2011-12-20 at 9.43.37 AM.png
The RCMP’s white-collar crime units have “their strategy all wrong” and need to adopt more-traditional policing methods to crack down on corporate wrongdoing, says the new head of the police force. (Globe and Mail, Monday, Dec. 19, 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/new-rcmp-head-takes-tough-line-on-white-collar-crime/article2276986/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2276986

“They got their strategy all wrong,” Mr. Paulson said told The Globe and Mail’s editorial board Monday. “They’ve got it all wrong. We sit around waiting for people to throw us bones out of the regulatory bodies. And we’re not being police officers.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:08 pm

320128_167110316710346_161343323953712_348315_443759693_n.jpg
the police budget for the city of Lethbridge (population 80,000) is about the same ($15 mil in 2004) as the RCMP IMET budget for ALL of Canada ($16 mil for 2008/2009)

(update November 8th, 2011. I just found out that the budget for the City of Lethbridge Police department is now up to $32 million dollars per year. Thus I have to amend my statement that the RCMP IMET (major economic crimes unit) has about the same as my police in my city of 78,000. They have in fact, about HALF of what we have. Makes me start to think that it might be intentional on the part of politicians, bankers, regulators and lawyers, to spend fractions of hundredths of percents of pennies on the kind of crime that they commit, while spending about ten cents of every crime dollar policing the kind of crime that OTHERS commit) (That Stephen Harper guy is no dummy. He is no ethical leader, but he is no dummy)

This is the total spent to fool Canadians that they can stop $1 billion a week from being siphoned to our most trusted criminals in Canada, most of them who have the ear of your prime minister. It looks a little like the lack of police resources is planned for those doing the planning.....and the billion a week is still flowing.

Mere fractions of a penny spent on investigating Canada's most trusted criminals, while $6 billion a year is spent on policing the less fortunate criminals. For about a similar amount of financial damage. Lesson for criminals........get into finance if you are going to steal. Police cannot generally get up the elevators.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:40 pm

Screen shot 2011-09-22 at 8.34.09 PM.png
From http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/imets-ei ... 07-eng.htm

comes this four year old report on the RCMP IMET force.

I will cut and paste in some highlights and quotes from Nick LePan's report as they are important to understanding why this process does not work. Perhaps there will come a day when a political fixer can create or implement the necessary improvements.........before the entire country is broke from high level white collar fraud. Right now it is a free for all for financial fraudsters.

1. "Federal and provincial Crown prosecution offices are also part of the timeliness issue as, depending on the province, they must separately approve or review the police case, before charges are laid. In contrast to the U.S., Canadian legal tradition does not permit prosecutors to be in charge of investigations or participate in them on a day-to-day basis."

2. "The Program is ‘playing in the big leagues’ and needs to act that way."

3. "Expectations for IMET sometimes confuse regulatory enforcement with criminal enforcement, without realizing that the latter has a much higher bar for laying charges or for conviction. Expectations of U.S.-style results are unrealistic, given Canada’s different legal environment. For example, our lack of ability to compel those not being investigated to provide information, documents and data pre-trial, hampers investigations compared to the U.S. or U.K.. Also, as an example, charging people in stages in a major investigation, as is done in the U.S., is not feasible in Canada due to rules on full disclosure of the Crown’s case to accused.

Under-promising and over-achieving should become the watchwords for IMET, not the other way round."

4. "In some provinces, there are moves for IMET to undertake more joint investigations with provincial police and regulators, and some Commissions want closer information sharing."

5. " it is clear to me that Canada’s legal system hampers timely investigation compared to what is possible in the U.S. or the U.K."

6. "there are problems of leadership, accountability, oversight, management, timely focus, timely support for investigations, internal and external communications, and human resources that must be addressed. Some of these are RCMP issues, but there are also in my view some issues with the participation of the PPSC and Provincial Crowns and securities commissions."

7. "With separate funding of $1 million per year, IMET took over and re-vitalised the Joint Securities Intelligence Units (JSIU), starting in 2005. They work in cooperation with Securities Commissions and others in gathering intelligence about emerging capital markets fraud issues, and engage in preventative activity" (advocate comment, this sounds great in principle, however it might come to be recognized that the securities commissions are somewhat captured and even complicit in some very large and clear capital markets fraud issues themselves. This a major wrench in the spokes of the operation.)

8. "in 2003, the U.S. developed and published guidelines for investigators and prosecutors as to when corporate or other business organisations have involvement in an alleged fraud, and non-cooperation, that was serious enough to justify charging the corporation itself (as opposed to individual corporate officers or employees). This practise, coupled with deferred prosecution and cooperation agreements with corporations who were charged, was a major contributor to changing corporate behaviour and to successful investigations."

9. "The U.S. and U.K. also seem to me to be more organised than Canada to link pursuit of proceeds of crime and restitution to primary investigations."

10. "Recent survey data released by the Canadian Securities administrators show

70% of people think fraudsters "get away with it"
71% of people think jail terms are "light"
68% strongly agree that economic crime is a serious as robbery
Many people take for granted the integrity of the financial system. Many times I was told that capital markets fraud is not the same as other serious crimes against people. This is both wrong, and misses the point. Fraud is not a victimless crime."

11. II. Enhance Priority within the RCMP, PPS ........to be continued
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Sun Aug 28, 2011 6:39 pm

Picture 4.png


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Gg7IB-7Fk

Watch a short one minute trailer about how the rich get to steal from the rest, without the police getting involved.

Then read the true story here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... i&hl=en_US
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:40 pm

Dear MP Wong:
I am very interested in your work as the Secretary of State for Seniors, and I am hoping that it may be possible to speak with you in the near future. I live in Kelowna, but I am visiting my sister on Salt Spring Island this week. It would be very good if it were possible to confer with you on how we may get the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) recognized as the primary regulative tool of the financial brokerage industry. This would safeguard the financial interests of vulnerable seniors, since the CCC prohibits even a trace of deception in the sale of securities in Canada.

With the chief CEOs of the financial industry lobbying for the financial industry to be seen as "self regulating", police officers have been conditioned to disregard evidence of predatory dishonesty perpetrated against elderly persons in Canada. I have had personal knowledge of this problem, in researching the histories of my Dad's experiences with two brokerages in Kelowna, and the behavior of the RCMP when my Dad has asked for their assistance.

I would greatly appreciate your letting me know if you have a person in your constituency office who is studying issues relating to predatory abuse of the savings of the elderly.

Your reply is greatly appreciated,

Alan Blanes
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Tue Aug 23, 2011 8:02 pm

Hi Larry
cc Garth

Thanks very much for your message by phone yesterday Larry. My Dad and I will be calling you early this afternoon about the issues that relate to the police refusing to address the factual demands covered by the Criminal Code on matters pertaining to deception in the sale of securities. I am ccing this message to Garth Rustand of the Investor Aid Cooperative. We are very interested in talking with you about the experience of the woman whom you referred to in your phone message.

I have been following the gang of four's objection to having to abide by the mandatory use of the OBSI when complaints arise. I feel that the only way that investors and the industry that want to act in good faith can politically prevail in this matter, is if an actual coalition of investment companies is created that adheres to the following goals:

* No fine print in contracts

* Supremacy of the Criminal Code in matters of rules on securities sales

* Contradiction in a contract means the contract is null and void

* "The best interest of the client" is a contractual obligation that is real and enforceable

* That verbal representations by the broker, describing the contents of a proposed signed contract, must be conguent to what is written in the contract text.

* The term "guarantee" must mean what the average reasonable person presumes is meant by that term, i.e., full underwriting for the full value of the liability. The idea of 75% coverage, and only after the client dies, is not a satisfactory
use of the term "guarantee".


I am going to be bringing this up at the meeting on Poverty and Prosperity using CED (community economic development) that will be held a the end of next week in Red Deer. I am proposing that a business plan for a coalition of financial organizations that adhere to the above principles in Canada be created. I see this as the best tool that could be created for the Federal Government to have an identified alternative to the laissez-faire regulatory capture model that would prevail if the gang objecting to mandatory invokation of OBSI in the event of complaints is allowed to have their way.

I am proposing that the networks that are in place to provide guidance and protection of investors become part of the creation of this coalition.


Looking forward to talking with you soon.
Alan
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:14 pm

not legal advice, but you CAN file private criminal charges yourself if the police refuse to get involved:
from http://www.bcrevolution.ca/filing_priva ... cution.htm

If you have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed contrary to a provincial or federal statute [i.e. Criminal Code of Canada], a regulation made under that statute, or a municipal bylaw, you may prosecute the offender yourself. Before launching a private prosecution, you may want to make a complaint to the police. If the police refuse to lay charges and you believe there is enough evidence of an offence to support a conviction, you may lay your own charges.

Prosecutions consist of five (5) basic parts:

Laying the information

issuing the summons

serving the summons

setting the trial date

the trial

1. Laying the Information

The first step is to go to a justice of the peace (JP) at your local court and sign a form on which you set out the details of the alleged offence. This form is called an "information," and you are referred to as the "informant." The JP then asks you to swear that this statement is true, and the JP signs his or her name as a witness. This process is called "swearing the information." Formal charges have now been laid.


Draft the charges with care, because inaccurate information may hurt your chances of a successful prosecution. Often the JP will draft the charges for you, or you may wish to fill out the form with the help of a lawyer. Here are some tips:


The forms used for provincial offences are different from those for federal offences, so be sure you get the right one.

Be sure to lay the information promptly. Under the Ontario Provincial Offences Act and the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code, you have only six months from the time an offence occurred to lay the charges. Some statutes have shorter or longer limitation periods.

Be precise. It is safest to follow the wording of the statute describing the offence (e.g., the Highway Traffic Act) as closely as possible.

State the specific date and place where the offence occurred, and give the name of the accused in full. If the accused is a corporation, use the full corporate name.

When the information relates to more than one breach of the law, set out each offence in a separate "count" (separately numbered paragraphs each setting out all the details of one offence).

When laying charges under the Highway Traffic Act against the registered owner of a motor vehicle, set out not only the section of the Act that was violated but also that the violation occurred contrary to section 207, the section that makes the owner liable for violations by the driver.

2. Issuing the Summons

The JP has no discretion in swearing the information – he or she can't refuse to do it. However, the JP does have discretion not to take the next step: issuing the summons to the accused. The summons is a copy of the information that also states the time and place where the accused must appear to answer the charges.


JPs are mainly used to issuing summonses for the police, and some JPs may be reluctant to issue a summons requested by a private citizen. The JP can ask you probing questions, so it is advisable to be well prepared when you visit the JP to swear the information, and even to bring a lawyer with you if you anticipate difficulty.


If the JP issues the summons, he or she will usually make it "returnable" in about two to four weeks' time. At least two weeks should be allowed, so there is enough to serve the summons on the accused. The "return date" will not be the trial date, but the date when the prosecutor and the accused appear in court to set a date for the trial.


3. Serving the Summons on the Accused

Serving the summons means delivering the summons to the accused. Serving a summons is generally valid only if it is done by a designated person – usually a police officer. [The staff of the county and district sheriff's offices are also peace officers, and for a fee they may serve summonses for you. Give them the summons as early as possible and follow up with them to check that the summons has been filed.]


To be on the safe side, it's a good idea to also personally deliver or mail a copy of the summons to the accused. Even though the accused is not required to respond, many people do not know this and will come to court. Once the accused or his or her lawyer appears in court, the accused is bound by the summons, even if he or she need not have appeared.


Once a summons has been served, the person who served it must fill out and sign an "affidavit of service" on the back of a copy of the summons. This affidavit sets out the identity of the person served with the summons, and the time and place the summons was served. It is then up to you to make sure the copy of the summons with its affidavit of service is filed in the proper court before the return date (this will mean chasing up the police officer or whoever served the summons).


4. Setting the Trial Date

On the return date, the informant and the accused or their lawyers meet to set a trial date. Choose a date far enough away to give you time to prepare, and to give the accused written notice of all the documents you intend to use as evidence. (Otherwise the documents may be inadmissible.) Also make sure you choose a date when all your witnesses are available.

The court will set a trial date and adjourn the case to that day.


If the accused does not turn up on the return date, the court will go ahead anyway and set a date for the trial. But if the affidavit of service has not been filed with the court, the court will not proceed, and a new summons will have to be issued.
==============================


A brief glance at the broader history of criminal prosecution may help
to put this article in its proper context. For the purposes of this section,
it is useful to divide English history into four periods. 12
1. The first age of private prosecution (seventh to tenth
centuries). During this period criminal prosecutions were almost entirely
private. Prosecution was at least partially motivated by the possibility of
monetary compensation. Until at least the late tenth century, those
convicted of crime were not ordinarily hanged, incarcerated, or otherwise
punished, but instead owed the victim compensation (bot) or, in homicide
cases, owed the victim's family the deceased's wergild, a monetary payment
that varied with the deceased's social status.6 13

2. The rise of presentment (tenth to fourteenth centuries).
Starting in the late tenth century, Anglo-Saxon kings began to change the
nature of criminal prosecution. Aethelred's third code, promulgated around
1000, required the twelve leading thanes (nobles) of a wapentake (district)
to accuse and arrest those suspected of crime in their locality.7 This
procedure seems to foreshadow presentment, which, according to some
historians, did not became a routine part of judicial administration until
almost two centuries later, during the reign of Henry II. Under the
presentment procedure, leading men were chosen from each locality and were
required to present (that is, report) on oath crimes committed in their
neighborhoods. These leading men were known as the presenting jury, which is
the ancestor of the grand jury. Like the medieval trial (petit) jury, the
presenting jury was self-informing.8 Little or no evidence was presented in
court. The jurors were expected to gather information informally before they
came to court and to present their conclusions to the judges. 14

The nature of criminal penalties also began to change during this
period. As early as the late tenth century, bot seems to have been payable
to church, king, or community at large rather than to the injured kin.9
There is also archaeological evidence that the death penalty was frequently
imposed in the eleventh century.10 By the late twelfth century, these
changes were firmly entrenched and are regularly attested to by the
surviving records. Hanging and fines payable to the king were the only
criminal penalties regularly imposed in royal courts. In addition, hanging
was usually accompanied by forfeiture of land and chattels. 15

Although presentment and noncompensatory punishments were
becoming increasingly important, no English king even attempted to abolish
private prosecutions, which by the late eleventh century were called
"appeals." In fact, until the turn of the fourteenth century, presentments
were confined almost exclusively to homicide and theft,11 and nearly all
accusations of rape, mayhem,12 wounding, false imprisonment, assault and
battery were brought by way of appeal, as were large numbers of homicide and
theft cases. Although the legal sanction for crime was death or fines
payable to the king, victims (and their families) could appeal and use the
threat of legally imposed hanging or fines to induce compensatory monetary
settlements. By the end of the thirteenth century, however, the appeal was
becoming much less common, and presentment had become the way nearly all
crimes were prosecuted. 16

3. The return of private prosecution (fourteenth to nineteenth
centuries). As noted above, twelfth- and thirteenth-century juries (both
presenting juries and trial juries) were largely self-informing. During the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, for reasons that have yet to be
fully explained, juries became more passive.13 Trial juries began to rely on
evidence that parties presented in court, and the presenting jury (now
called the grand jury) less frequently made accusations based on its own
knowledge. Instead, the grand jury primarily screened accusations made by
others, declaring "true bill" of accusations ("indictments") it approved.14
Although these prosecutions were formally brought in the name of the Crown,
the predominance of victim initiative suggests that they are properly
classified as private prosecutions.15 Nevertheless, royal officials did
provide investigative assistance. From the late twelfth century, the coroner
had been gathering evidence in homicide cases.16 Justices of the peace
performed a similar function for other crimes from, at latest, the sixteenth
century, and possibly as early as the fourteenth.17 17

4. The age of public prosecution (nineteenth century to present).
In the nineteenth century, partly in response to the growing problem of
urban crime, pressure began to mount for public prosecution. Victims
frequently did not prosecute because it was expensive, time consuming, and
brought few benefits other than the satisfaction of revenge or justice.18 As
a result, by the mid-nineteenth century, most prosecutions were private in
name only, as the "private" prosecutor was in most instances a policeman.
Nevertheless, public prosecution was perceived as a threat to liberty, and
Parliament did not pass legislation to set up a national system of public
prosecutors until 1879.19 Even this statute did not fundamentally undermine
private prosecution, because public prosecutors had very limited
authority.20 It was only with the passage of the 1985 Prosecution of
Offenses Act that England established an effective system of public
prosecution, and even this legislation preserved a limited right of private
prosecution.21 In America, public prosecution seems to have become common
somewhat earlier.22 18

=========================


26.1 Introduction
The relationship between the private citizen, as prosecutor, and the
Attorney General, who has exclusive authority to represent the public in
court1, has been described as follows2:

The right of a private citizen to lay an information, and the right
and duty of the Attorney General to supervise criminal prosecutions are both
fundamental parts of our criminal justice system.

The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law
has been called "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or
partiality on the part of authority"3. However, this right can be abused. It
is sometimes necessary for the Attorney General to intervene and conduct or
stay the prosecution to prevent the harms that may flow from such
prosecutions, for example: 1) the harm suffered by a defendant who is
factually innocent; 2) the harm to the court system caused by a frivolous
prosecution4.


Please note that it is a well known fact in the Province of British Columbia, the secret policy directive of the Attorney General's office, is "not to proceed on any private prosecution", and there are many examples of their interference in cases where of overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing was demonstrated to a Justice of the Peace. [Stay in tune with BCREVOLUTION for examples]

Both of the excuses raised above, on behalf of the Attorney General to quash a private prosecution, fail to consider that the private party must FIRST present his/her evidence of the charge(s) to a Justice of the Peace, who themselves are already direct appointees of the government.

It therefore belies all common sense for the Attorney General to assert that "Private Prosecutions" are in any way MORE harmful to the innocent, or frivolous, than the thousands of Prosecutions THEY themselves commence on a daily basis.

An impartial Justice of the piece is more than qualified in making the lawful determination of facts; AS IS A JURY, WHICH OUR LAW OF THE LAND (Eternal Magna Carta) states is our inherent right before we can be imprisoned, or our property seized.

It is THE JURY OF OUR PEERS that is our greatest safeguard against harm to the innocent.

See below (as you read this government document) how the government is continuing to obstruct justice, and encroach on your unalienable right to bring the guilty to justice under our common law, as preserved in our Great Charter of Liberties, 1215, 1297.
=============================================================



This chapter explains the law on initiating and conducting private
prosecutions. It also explains when the Attorney General of Canada may and
should intervene either to conduct or stay such prosecutions.

26.2 Origin of Private Prosecutions
A private citizen's right to initiate and conduct a private prosecution
originates in the early common law. From the early Middle Ages to the 17th
century, private prosecutions were the main way to enforce the criminal law.
Indeed, private citizens were responsible for preserving the peace and
maintaining the law5:

[U]nder the English common law, crimes were regarded originally as
being committed not against the state but against a particular person or
family. It followed that the victim or some relative would initiate and
conduct the prosecution against the offender ...

Another feature of the English common law was the view that it was not
[actually] the privilege but the duty [by right] of the private citizen to preserve the
King's Peace and bring offenders to justice6.

Because of the increase in courts and cases in the Middle Ages, the King
began to appoint King's Attorneys to intervene in matters of particular
interest to the King. Intervention took two forms. The King could initiate
and conduct certain prosecutions through a personal representative. The King
could also intervene in cases begun by a private prosecutor where the matter
was of special concern to the King. By intervening, the King's Attorney
could then conduct or stop the proceedings7. As the English common law
developed, the role of Crown law officers grew. Still, private prosecutions
were allowed. To this day they are recognized in several English statutes8.

26.3 Foundation for Private Prosecutions in Canadian Law
No Criminal Code provision expressly authorizes private prosecutions.
Several provisions, however, impliedly recognize such proceedings. Except
where the Attorney General's consent is required, section 504 of the Code
permits anyone to lay an information. As well, the definitions of
"prosecutor" in sections 2 and 785 make it clear that someone other than the Attorney General may institute proceedings. These provisions apply to
proceedings under the Code and all other federal acts9.

Prior to the 2002 amendments to the Criminal Code10, courts had held: a) a
private citizen may institute and conduct a prosecution under federal
legislation without the knowledge or participation of the Attorney General
of Canada;11 b) clear and specific language is required to abolish private
prosecutions under a federal statute.12

Pursuant to the 2002 amendments, however, important limitations were
introduced on the right of a private citizen to institute proceedings.
Section 507.1 of the Code requires a justice receiving such an information
to refer it to a judge or designated justice, and requires notice to the
Attorney General and an opportunity for the Attorney General to participate
in a hearing to determine whether a summons or warrant for the arrest of the
accused shall issue. In summary conviction proceedings, the private
prosecutor controls the proceedings from start to finish unless the Attorney
General intervenes. In indictable matters, a private prosecutor may conduct
the trial, including the preliminary inquiry. However, the private
prosecutor requires a judge's consent under subsection 574(3) of the Code to
prefer an indictment.

26.4 Authority of the Attorney General of Canada to Intervene in Private
Prosecutions

At common law the Attorney General could intervene in private prosecutions
and either conduct the prosecution or enter a nolle prosequi (the
traditional power of the Attorney General to stop proceedings)13. Under
section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada
is "entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the
Office of the Attorney General of England by law or usage, insofar as those
powers and duties are applicable to Canada".

[There is absolutely no such thing as a "common law" right of an "Attorney General" to stop a proceeding at their whim. Our common law has always been based on Rule of Law, and the equality of ALL under the law.

Their assertion is a complete fabrication, and misdirection of the true common law, which is the law for the people, not the re-written half-drunken ramblings [precedents] of government puppet judges who will sell their own soul for 30 pieces of silver.] [LINK to Judges]


The Criminal Code provides that the Attorney General of Canada and Attorneys
General of the provinces share responsibility for conducting prosecutions.
However, several Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made it clear that
the authority of provincial Attorneys General to prosecute under federal
statutes, including the Criminal Code, is given by the Code. Their authority
does not flow from any constitutional principle based on subsection 92(14)14
or from some historic role15. The provincial prosecutorial role is assigned
through legislation by Parliament, not constitutionally entrenched.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code assigns prosecutorial roles as follows:

"Attorney General"

1.. with respect to proceedings to which this Act applies, means the
Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those
proceedings are taken and includes his lawful deputy, and

2.. with respect to

1.. the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or

2.. proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada
and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a
contravention of a conspiracy or attempt to contravene or counselling the
contravention of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation
made under any such Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes
his lawful deputy.
Under this definition, it follows that if a private individual lays an
information, the Attorney General of Canada lacks authority to intervene in
the case, whether to conduct or stay the proceedings. This is because the
proceedings were not "commenced at the instance of the Government of
Canada"16.

This lack of authority for the Attorney General of Canada to intervene
applies only to prosecutions brought in a province. According to the
definition set out above, the Attorney General of Canada has full authority
to start and stop proceedings and intervene in private prosecutions brought
in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, and Nunavut.

"Attorney General" is defined somewhat differently for drug prosecutions.
Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states as follows:

"Attorney General" means

1.. the Attorney General of Canada, and includes their lawful deputy; or

2.. with respect to proceedings commenced at the instance of the
government of a province and conducted by or on behalf of that government,
the Attorney General of that province, and includes their lawful deputy.
Pursuant to this definition, the Attorney General of Canada has authority to
intervene in private prosecutions of drug matters throughout the country.

Another source of the Attorney General's power to intervene in private
prosecutions may be found in section 579.1 of the Criminal Code. This
section was added in 1994 to give the Attorney General of Canada authority
to intervene in private prosecutions commenced under federal statutes other
than Criminal Code, where the provincial Attorney General has not
intervened.

Section 579.01 was added to the Criminal Code in 2002 to permit the Attorney
General to intervene in the proceedings without staying them. Under this
provision the Attorney General may call witnesses, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, present evidence and make submissions without actually conducting
the proceedings.

26.5 Statement of Policy
26.5.1 Private Prosecutions in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest
Territories, and Nunavut
The Attorney General has the responsibility to ensure that all criminal
prosecutions are in the public interest. The Attorney General must also
ensure that it is appropriate to permit private prosecutions to remain in
private hands.

When considering whether to intervene, Crown counsel should consult with the
Prosecution Group Head and consider the following:

1.. the need to strike an appropriate balance between the right of the
private citizen to initiate and conduct a prosecution as a safeguard in the
justice system, and the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada for
the proper administration of justice in the territories;

2.. the seriousness of the offence - generally, the more serious, the more
likely it is that the Attorney General should intervene;

3.. whether there is sufficient evidence to justify continuing the
prosecution, that is, whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction
based on the available evidence;

4.. whether a consideration of the public interest criteria described in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute", leads to the conclusion
that the public interest would not be served by continuing the proceedings;

5.. whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision to
prosecute was made for improper personal or oblique motives, or that it
otherwise may constitute an abuse of the court's process such that, even if
the prosecution were to proceed, it would not be appropriate to permit it to
remain in the hands of a private prosecutor; and

6.. whether, given the nature of the alleged offence or the issues to be
determined at trial, it is in the interests of the proper administration of
justice for the prosecution to remain in private hands.
Whenever the Attorney General intervenes, the decision to continue or stay
the proceedings should be made in accordance with the criteria set out in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute".

In some cases, it may be difficult to assess whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify continuing the proceedings, because no police
investigation preceded the laying of charges. If so, it will in most
instances be appropriate for the Attorney General to intervene, request an
adjournment, and ask the RCMP to investigate. It may, in some situations, be
necessary to stay proceedings while the investigation is conducted. After
the investigation, Crown counsel should assess whether to commence
proceedings in accordance with the criteria set out in Part V, Chapter 15,
"The Decision to Prosecute". If a decision is reached not to prosecute,
subsequent proceedings brought privately should, in the absence of unusual
circumstances, be taken over on behalf of the Attorney General and stayed.

26.5.2 Private Prosecutions in the Provinces
As noted above, the Attorney General of Canada has a limited authority to
intervene in private prosecutions in the provinces. Where such authority
exists, it should be exercised on the same basis as outlined in s. 26.5.1
above.

The Government of Canada may still have an interest in certain proceedings.
Many private prosecutions are commenced on the basis of an enforcement
scheme found in regulatory enactments such as the Fisheries Act. Charges of
this nature ought to be brought to the attention of the Regional Director,
as it may be appropriate to bring enforcement or policy concerns to the
attention of the Attorney General of the province so that provincial
authorities can then make an informed decision about intervening.

26.6 Consultation With Senior Management
Where an issue concerning the conduct or potential termination of a private
prosecution needs to be resolved, Crown counsel should refer the matter to
the Senior Regional Director who, in cases of particular public interest,
should confer with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law)
before making a decision.

26.7 Case References
Re Bradley and The Queen (1975), 9 O.R. (2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.): Where the
interests of justice require, the Attorney General may intervene and take
over a private prosecution of a summary conviction offence.

MacIssac v. Motor Coach Ind. Ltd., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 391 (Man. C.A.): Since
the word "prosecutor" includes the informant or counsel for the informant,
it is incontestable that a private prosecution can take place in the absence
of intervention by the Crown.

Re Hamilton and The Queen (1986), 30 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (B.C.S.C.): An
intervention by the Attorney General in a private prosecution does not
contravene section 7 of the Charter.

Campbell v. A.G. of Ontario (1987), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 289; aff'd. 35 C.C.C.
(3d) 480 (C.A.): The court cannot review a decision by the Attorney General
to stay a private prosecution, absent flagrant impropriety.

Re Faber and the Queen (1987), 38 C.C.C. (3d) 49 (Que. S.C.): A decision to
stay does not infringe sections 7 or 15 of the Charter.

Chartrand v. Quebec (Min. of Justice) (1986), 55 C.R. (3d) 97 (Que. S.C.):
Ministerial decisions, whether based on a statute, a prerogative, or the
common law, are reviewable by virtue of section 32 of the Charter.
Therefore, the Attorney General's decision to intervene and stay a private
prosecution is also reviewable.

R. v. Cathcart and Maclean (1988), 207 A.P.R. 267 (N.S.S.C.): A superior
court judge does not need to approve a private prosecution of a hybrid
offence. An order under subsection 504(3) [now subsection 574(3)] of the
Criminal Code is required only after the accused has been committed to stand
trial on an indictable offence.

Osiowy v. Linn (1988), 67 Sask. R. 215 (Sask. Q.B.), sub nom. R. v. Osiowy
(1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 189 (Sask. C.A.): The Attorney General's discretion
to intervene and stay a private prosecution was upheld.

Kostuch (Informant) v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1995), 101 C.C.C. (3d)
321 (Alta. C.A.): The court will not interfere with the Attorney General's
exercise of discretion to intervene in a private prosecution unless there
has been a "flagrant impropriety".

Werring v. B.C. (Attorney General) (1997), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 343 (B.C.C.A.):
An informant seeking judicial review of Attorney General's decision to stay
a private prosecution is not entitled to cross-examine the prosecutor who
entered the stay without showing a basis for the belief that such
cross-examination would show flagrant impropriety by the Crown


source:http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/fps/fpd/ch26.html#26
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:46 pm

Money laundering going largely unpunished in Canada
JULIAN SHER
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le2077931/
Published Monday, Jun. 27, 2011 8:33PM EDT

For the first time, a federal agency has crunched the numbers on money laundering in Canada – and the scorecard shows that, so far, the criminals remain largely unknown and unpunished.

The Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics says while the reported number of money-laundering crimes has “increased considerably” in the past decade, law enforcement has had little success in finding the culprits, much less putting them behind bars.

RELATED TO THIS STORY
RCMP neglecting its core duties as cuts take toll

A recent bulletin by the Statscan agency reveals that police have been able to identify the suspects in less than a fifth of the cases and, even when they do, prosecutors have succeeded in getting convictions only a third of the time.

“It comes down to a tremendous weakness in our investigative and prosecutorial forces,” said Garry Clement, the former director of the RCMP`s Proceeds of Crime program, who has been an expert witness at a dozen money-laundering trials in recent years.

Canada has been harshly criticized for its poor record of cracking down on money laundering and corruption by several international monitoring organizations this year, including Transparency International, the OECD and the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force.

The RCMP estimates that between $5-billion and $15-billion is laundered in Canada every year, as criminals try to “clean” their dirty money through the financial system.

But the Statscan report found that police were able to identify the suspects only 18 per cent of the time, about half the proportion of suspects identified for crimes in general. Even if a suspect is identified, in only a third of the cases where money-laundering was the most serious charge did the Crown succeed in getting a guilty verdict, compared to a two-thirds success rate for adult court cases in general.

The study also found money-laundering cases were stayed or withdrawn at more than double the proportion of court cases in general.

But Simon William, who co-ordinates proceeds-of-crime cases for the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, said it is misleading to compare complex money-laundering files with other offences. “We have to be really careful,” he said. “You have to look at it case by case.”

He said even if there is a plea bargain or a stay, the Crown seizes the goods and assets involved in the crime. “We always get the forfeiture of properties,” he said.

Mr. Clement, who has been involved in one ongoing case in Montreal that has dragged on since 2005, said overburdened prosecutors will frequently plea bargain away the money-laundering charge in exchange for a more certain and less complicated conviction on the underlying offence, such as drugs.

“They are long and arduous trials,” said Mr. Clement.

The Statscan study found the rate of reported money-laundering crimes shot up five-fold between 2004 and 2006, and has levelled off since then; that led to police recording 525 “incidents of money laundering” in 2009, the latest year the agency was able to study.

It takes resources to prosecute those cases. But the budget for the RCMP’s Proceeds of Crime work has been frozen since 1996 – despite 15 years of salary increases, a flurry of new laws and the explosion of Internet-related financial crime.

“On paper, Canada has built a Rolls-Royce when it comes to fighting money laundering,” said Mr. Clement, noting an elaborate system of regulations and reporting agencies has been put in place. “But we forgot to put in the engine – an effective law enforcement that can take on these complicated cases.”
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Wed Apr 13, 2011 4:51 pm

amazing to think that the RCMP IMET cannot catch a $32 billion dollar crime.

Cannot investigate it without "hard evidence" provided to them by others.

Cannot "request" the information from investment industry participants.

Did not even attend investment industry hearings on the matter.

What ARE we paying these guys for again? The "pretense" of crime fighting? A "facade"?

Those experts who call for dedicated financial experts and a specialized securities industry crime unit are right on. It is just NOT the RCMP by any stretch of anyone's imagination.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Wed Apr 13, 2011 2:28 pm

Hello Everyone,

It seems like a long time since we have talked. I hope you are all well and have recovered from ABCP related stress.

A number of us wrote a letter to Superintendent Dean Buzza of the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team (or IMET) on December 24, 2009 requesting an investigation into the rating, manufacture and sale of ABCP following the announcement by the Ontario Securities Commission/Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (OSC/IIROC) that they had imposed fines of $139 M for breaches of securities regulations (see attached letter). Wynne and I, along with help from Diane and Hugh, assembled the information available to us and I met with IMET in Vancouver last spring to provide a briefing. IMET has now concluded their investigation and the attached letter dated March 31 summarizes their results. They conclude that "no evidence of a criminal offense has been identified" and that "no further investigation will be conducted on this matter".

On the basis of a number of telephone discussions with IMET's Staff Sargeant Fozzard, it is my understanding that IMET did not have access to any of the investigations conducted by OSC or IIROC. This information would apparently only be available if OSC or IIROC had found evidence of criminal activities and had provided this information to IMET. IMET also did not apparently attend the OSC/IIROC hearings into the activities of Coventree and Deutsche Bank. My impression is that IMET tried but that they simply don't have the tools, mandate, horsepower and technical expertise to undertake an investigation into something as big as the ABCP fiasco. They repeated requested 'hard evidence' or the name of an 'informant'; this something that is very difficult for a 'victim' to provide. Diane and Hugh have been advocating for an independent national securities enforcement unit and the present results indicate why this is needed.

We all need to consider what we do next. The election may provide an opportunity to raise the profile of this issue. I look forward to hearing form you and apologize for not being able to achieve more useful results (however the lack of results may give us the ammunition we need to pursue this matter further.)

With best wishes to all.

Mike Miles

--
Mike Miles, M.Sc. P.Geo.
Principal
M. Miles and Associates Ltd.

IMET March 31, 2011  ABCP No Fraud.jpg
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar? Nope.

Postby admin » Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:49 am

"The IMET program operating budget for the 2008/2009 FY was $16,124,805"

Wow. A whole $16 million to police securities crime on the entire country of Canada. That is fantastic!

Considering that estimates place the number of financial industry related employees nearer to one million people in Canada, it is also amazing to see that there are less than 200 employees at the RCMP to police the behaviours of nearly one million financial types. Of those 200 RCMP financial experts, less than 20% of them have five years of experience. The RCMP IMET is where officers go to die, career wise. With nothing for a budget (they did purchase a new vehicle according to their 2007/2008 annual report), backed by government prosecutors who are reported to not be the sharpest or most motivated lawyers in the business (they find it easier to prosecute crimes under $5000 than crimes over $50 million) it combines to make Canada a country

I am just reading the annual report of the RCMP IMET http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/imets-eipmf/2009-eng.htm

and it is telling me nearly everything I need to know about why the RCMP do not get their man unless the crime is small time. Leaving large crimes, and powerful bank type financial abusers with an absolute "stay out of jail" card. This force, even with its new vehicle in 2008, is having a hard time catching billion dollar corporations. Can you imagine it? I cannot. The new car should allow them to solve anything...........

I will spare you the rest of my rant, but the point seems to be that Canadians are being more than slightly mislead if they believe in the power and the quality of their most specialized financial crime police force. They have less resources than a really poorly made Canadian film project.........thats right.......one lousy Canadian movie. I just looked up the budget for the movie DUMB AND DUMBER, and found out that it cost $19 million to make this film. It is ironic that for the cost of all the brightest financial crime investigation in Canada, we could have made DUMB AND DUMBER. Reading the results in Canada and watching the $30 to $60 billion in financial crime and abuse occur each and every year in Canada it occurs to me that perhaps maybe we have created our own dumb and dumber.

read the entire content of a financial abuse bulletin (a fair warning to investors) from http://www.canadianfundwatch.com
thanks to ken K for his work on behalf of investors.........why is it that unpaid volunteers in Canada are more effective and productive than all the salaried investment industry people......................
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?

Postby admin » Mon Dec 27, 2010 5:42 pm

Theresa Tedesco, Financial Post · Monday, Dec. 27, 2010

Fifty-two days of testimony over the course of six months, for a high-profile, white-collar crime case that began six years ago and ended with a resounding acquittal.

What’s worse, Ontario Court of Justice Richard Blouin was so underwhelmed by the Crown’s evidence against Vittorio (Vic) De Zen and six of his former business associates at Royal Group Technologies Ltd., that he ruled from the bench declaring he was “satisfied” there was no fraud. De Zen and his former business associates at Royal Group were famously charged in 2004 with two counts of fraud for allegedly personally pocketing about $8.5-million from the sale of land and warrants that belonged to the company.

In a 49-page written judgment just released by Judge Blouin, he explained his decision. Apparently, the only fault he could find in the criminal fraud case against De Zen and his cohorts was that prior to 2003, “the corporate governance, management structure, and disclosure practices [at Royal Group] were fundamentally deficient.”

No reprimands from the bench, no lengthy prison terms, no message for public consumption, just corporate governance deficiencies.

“I am unable to conclude the defendants committed any dishonest acts, were deceitful, or employed any other fraudulent means to deprive, or put at risk of deprivation, the company,” Judge Blouin wrote in his judgment.

Not exactly the resounding victory for white-collar deterrence the RCMP’s Integrated Markets Enforcement Teams (IMETs) had hoped to secure.

Instead, Judge Blouin’s unceremonious dismissal of the fraud charges is like a direct hit on the force’s reputation as capital-markets cops. Add to that, “there will be ripple effects” — both in the form of legal precedence and police morale — the loss and the ruling will likely have on future cases, admits Superintendent Dean Buzza, director of IMETs.

Supt. Buzza must be already thinking about the RCMP’s next major case — alleged accounting fraud by three former executives of Nortel Networks, scheduled to play out in an Ontario court in 2011.

Since the inception of IMETs in 2003, the much vaunted white-collar criminal investigators have had mixed success, to put it kindly. As of mid Dec. 31 alleged offenders have been criminally charged with 1049 counts of breaches of the law, which accounted for an estimated loss of more than $500-million to investors. Apparently, 10 of those resulted in convictions (some by plea agreements), although the force’s annual report cautions that many are still not resolved and thus “have not seen convictions.”

When the program was launched six years ago, Supt. Buzza concedes, “We knew it would take some time to see results.” In an interview with the National Post, he defended the record, saying “economic integrity is one of the force’s top priorities.”

The problem for Supt. Buzza is that the expectations of Canadian investors don’t coincide with his message.

IMETs was created because the federal government was concerned that Canada didn’t have an authority in place to handle large-scale financial fraud investigations the size of Enron Corp., which collapsed in a heap of infamy in 2001.

Any police force in the country could — and still can — deal with white-collar crime, but most would rather patrol the streets, issue speeding tickets and chase bank robbers than follow a complicated, labour-intensive paper trail that could take years to build a case.

Still stinging from the international reputational thrashing this country took for its handling of the scandals at Bre-X Minerals Ltd. and Livent Inc., the new capital-markets fraud unit was designed to quell the criticism and act as a deterrent to future miscreants.

Another five years elapsed before units were fully operational across Canada. By 2008, IMETS established 10 teams with about 100 investigators, lawyers and forensic accountants — three in Toronto, and two each in Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary — to work on major investigations.

With an annual budget of just under $20-million, the IMETs teams work on one major project per team at a time.

Inevitably, as a government initiative with fenced-in financing, IMETs has performance targets and expectations.

“The program works to ensure that those who commit capital markets fraud offences are brought to justice within the realm of the Canadian judicial system in an effective and timely manner,” Supt. Buzza says in his annual report.

Unfortunately, the judicial system in this country works at glacial speed.

Having said that, four years to bring criminal charges against Livent co-founders Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb in 2002 — years after U.S. law enforcement — surely can’t be considered timely. What about the case against De Zen and his former Royal Group associates, which took about five years to come to trial, and the coming accounting fraud case against three former Nortel Networks Corp. executives, set for next year?

“I understand the breakdown of a file into segments and the progress it’s making,” Supt. Buzza explains. “People see four years and they always think it’s the police’s fault. Capital-markets crime is still something that is relatively new in the Canadian judicial system,” he adds, choosing his words carefully. “It’s not just the judges, the Crown, the defence lawyers and the police. I’m talking about the whole package.”

Even so, some of the blame for the slow march to justice in Canada rests with the RCMP.

For one, the IMETs teams operate on a 90-10 ratio: The bulk of their time is supposed to be spent on white-collar crime, while a small portion is to be committed to other types of policing. On paper, that doesn’t look like a bad tradeoff, except when you consider that most of the Toronto offices spent months seconded to plan and execute security for the G8 and G20 economic meetings in June and before that, a good chunk of RCMP personnel across the country were tied up at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.

Even now, some of the IMETs teams in Vancouver are tied up in sorting out the Sri Lankin asylum seekers who arrived off the coast of British Columbia last summer. That case will take months, if not years, to sort out.

Making matters more frustrating is the high turnover rate, which interferes with the effectiveness of an investigation. It’s hard enough attracting interested officers with the financial acuity, and experience to work in an area that is not yet considered career enhancing, only to see someone else leave for a promotion or retirement. To wit, the longest serving member of the IMETs Toronto team assigned to the Nortel fraud case was borrowed from another regulator.

“It’s always been an issue of resources and a question of ability,” Supt. Buzza told the Post.

Fair enough, but why does the RCMP insist on piling on the charges? It’s hard to know whether those 1,049 counts levelled against 31 individuals since 2004 are the result of overzealousness or diligence. Couldn’t a couple of charges resulting from a focused probe do the trick? It would certainly cut down on the amount of time spent on investigations and those pesky demands for disclosure from defence counsel, not to mention the mountain of paperwork.

One other thing: Toning down the publicity goes a long way toward tamping down public expectations. After all, the case against former stock-market darling Nortel is up next.

Financial Post



Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/news/RCMP+ ... z19MXQPh3Q
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?

Postby admin » Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:56 pm

I will add a few more thoughts towards a response of some kind to the letter to RCMP IMET Vancouver to my asking them if any progress......

I thought that their reply make it pretty clear that they had NOT made any progress. The tone also turned a bit unprofessional, defensive and churlish. That seems to be standard procedure for someone who has not done a capable job, to turn on some insecurity, and spew it back at who caused it in the form of anger. So Inspector Fozard has nothing positive to show for some of the largest financial crimes or abuses in Canadian history, and that appears clear. Please correct me if you have the courage to stand behind your work. Please berate me again if you have done a hugely under-average job and would like to try and hide it. I can take it.

Second, I made offers, (as did others) to provide decades of insight and financial industry experience into the nature of these crimes and abuses to Mr. Fozard, and he did NOT take me up on this, I am not aware of whether others were taken up on their offers or not. Repeat, he did NOT take me up on any such offer of help, assistance, meeting or interview. I will check with others with Bay street expertise who made similar volunteer (non payment expecting) offers to see if they were invited to assist the RCMP on this. They may be as sick of the RCMP "see no evil" approach to financial crime as I am, but who knows. Mr Fozard is now, after one year putting some kind of onus on myself to step forward (something I obviously did one year ago with not so much as a reply from him) and acting again as if it is I who have done something offensive.

Third, in his reply to me, he has inserted some of his own words "conspiracy and fraud" which I simply do not recall being in my original or any correspondence. I am wondering if he is confusing me with someone else, if I have forgotten something, or if he is making these up as he goes along.

Again, I am unable to grasp the level of dysfunction involved, but I am getting a good front row seat into watching it in action.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

Re: Do the RCMP get their man if he is white collar?

Postby admin » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:07 pm

Below is a condensed version of some of the press and public comments about the RCMP or more particularly, the RCMP IMET division and it's mandate to fight financial crime in Canada.
------------------------------------


I’ll be anxious to hear their reply – if they send one. As you know, the RCMP refused to investigate the Mount Real case because it was “too complicated”. As a result there will never be any criminal charges laid against the perpetrators – there is virtually no policing of this industry and no oversight. Thank you for your tireless efforts in this cause.


Janet Watson
Quebec
-----------------
Hi Larry -
Thanks very much for linking us with Mr. S and the Post. I would like to send you a number of my Dad's recent summaries that I have typed for him. He is particularly concerned with RCMP in Kelowna refusing to allow him to take evidence of violations of the Criminal Code by the Canaccord broker - to them. My

Alan Blanes
Kelowna

---------------
I am the chair of the Shire Victims Group, a group of 3000 alleged victims
of white collar crime. I am embarrassed daily to report back to our the
Shire Victims Group that the RCMP have not taken significant action in
starting an investigation into the crimes of Shire International.........................
......The RCMP response to repeated requests to further an investigation into
Shire International is that there are not sufficient resources and that such
an investigation with be both costly and long..................

Jenn Lofgren

email: investor@telus.net
blog: http://shireinvestor.blogspot.com
-----------------------------

Victims burned while RCMP fiddled for years
Alberta Ponzi scheme

BY DAVID BAINES, VANCOUVER SUN SEPTEMBER 18, 2009

--------------------------------

These poor guys no longer even get their man if he is right inside their own organization. It is sad to see such blind adherence to "worst practices".

Globe editorial

---------------------------

Garry Breitkreuz

Chairman of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security

Roger Préfontaine

Clerk of the Committee of Public Safety and National Security

House of Commons

Ottawa ON K1A 0A6


"There are a number of issues surrounding the investigation and prosecution of securities crimes in Canada. It has become obvious to Canadians that securities crime policing is abysmally weak, and as a consequence, the public safety of Canada's pension funds and personal retirement savings are being damaged. "

Gary Logan and Diane Urquhart

----------------------

Canadian Business Online, September 24, 2007
Editor's Note: A national scandal
When will Canada's justice system take financial crimes seriously?

By Joe Chidley

---------------------------------

Vancouver Sun
Mounties' stock-market fraud squads a disaster

David Baines
December 20, 2008 1:06 AM

Today I am providing a list of charges laid by the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Teams in Vancouver and Calgary since they were inaugurated in 2003 and 2004, respectively, as part of a national program to fight stock market fraud. It could be the shortest column I have ever written.

HERE'S THE LIST:

Vancouver: Two people charged (one convicted, the other on the lam).

Calgary: No charges.
While those statistics are depressing enough, they still don't adequately quantify what a disaster this program has been.

------------------------------------------------

OSC and RCMP IMET News Releases August 6, 2008
Please see the attached news releases from the Ontario Securities Commission and the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Team released on August 6, 2008, which announce the following:

TORONTO  The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) today announced the appointment of Michael Watson, Q.C. as Special Advisor Capital Markets Enforcement to the RCMP Integrated Market Enforcement Program. (great. A guy who is paid by and whose loyalties go toward the financial industry, sneaks inside our criminal enforcement teams. No conflict of interest there........)

-----------------------------

IMET should be ashamed and the MFDA should news release the fact that
victims were the real driving force.Not to do so would be like crediting
Canaccord for resolving the ABCP scandal rather than victim Brian Hunter [CB magazine did recognize his heroic work on behalf of all retail "investors" infected with the ABCP virus!Another question: How come the MFDA didn't refer the case to the RCMP/IMET in BC?

ken k
Kenmar Associates
-------------------------------

The Canadian Center for Justice Study of Seniors as Victims of Crime - 2004 and 2005 compared to the December 2007 Justice Canada EKOS Survey on Seniors Concerned About Fraud suggests that there is about ten times higher victimization of seniors by fraud than by physically violent crimes.

(and the RCMP is unable to prosecute one in one thousand such crimes)

-----------------------------

The Highest Priority Solution to Fix Canada's Third World Securities Crime Enforcement
We have to do a complete overhaul of Canada's complaint intake process for white collar
securities crime since the current approach is failing and is designed to fail.
Prepared by Diane A. Urquhart
Independent Analyst

--------------------------

Why white-collar crime team fizzled
Launched four years ago to clean up
markets, police squad is now best known
for its failures
December 02, 2007
MADHAVI ACHARYA-TOM YEW
BUSINESS REPORTER TORONTO STAR

---------------------------

John Sliter, Superintendent
Director, IMET, RCMP

John: Thank you for your letter dated 28nov07 written in response to my letter to Commissioner Elliott dated 29aug07. I spoke to Sgt. Richard Bergman, as per your suggestion.

I am extremely concerned that you have recommended to me that I contact one of the industry created and controlled associations to discuss matters that are within the purvue of a government agency. The fact that you have referred me to this private sector association, with respect, is a significant part of the problem.

As I mentioned to Sgt Bergman, the RCMP and local police forces do not partner with the mafia to gain a better appreciation of the criminal world;........

Jim, Otttawa
--------------------------------

IMET 's are part of a seriously dysfunctional regulatory chain.

Ken K

Fraud squad lacking credibility

DICK LOEK/TORONTO STAR
Nick Le Pan, appointed by Ottawa to probe the RCMP’s Integrated Market Enforcement Teams, says the units are bogged down by bureaucracy.
RCMP teams fighting white-collar crime stymied by
poor leadership and complicated cases: Report

December 04, 2007

---------------------


Canadian Press

December 3, 2007 at 2:28 PM EST

OTTAWA — Canada has to rethink its approach to investigating and prosecuting securities fraud or continue to be outwitted by the smartest and best equipped white collar criminals in the country, says a new report.
--------------------

TORONTO STAR
Why white-collar crime team fizzled

COLIN MCCONNELL/TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
The media were out in force when IMET raided downtown offices in February, 2005.

THE SERIES

YESTERDAY: How regulators have failed to crack down on stock market miscreants while developing an international reputation for inaction and ineffectiveness. http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/281645

TODAY: How a big-budget police squad set up to take on corporate crime degenerated into a bureaucratic mess with few results. http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/281772
--------------------------------------------

Police liable for inadequate work, Supreme Court rules
Hamilton man's suit loses but sets precedent for negligence in police investigations
KIRK MAKIN

Globe and Mail Update

October 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM EDT

Police investigators can be sued if they conduct an investigation negligently, the Supreme Court of Canada said Thursday in a ruling that will send shudders through police ranks.
---------------------------------

A GOOD COUNTRY FOR CROOKS
Welcome to La-La land.

John Gray
September 24, 2007
Canadian Business Magazine


They were top cops on the RCMP's elite IMET squads. Now Bill Majcher and Craig Hannaford are blowing the whistle on a justice system that is losing the war on white-collar crime

----------------------------

Thursday » September
20 » 2007
B.C. Securities chair blasts RCMP's white-collar
offensive
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The RCMP offensive designed to combat white-collar crime in Canada has "achieved
almost nothing," the chairman of the British Columbia Securities Commission said
today.

----------------------------

Canada lax on fraudsters, Teachers CEO says
LORI MCLEOD

Globe and Mail Update

Tuesday, September 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM EDT

TORONTO — Canada is failing everyday investors through a lack of enforcement against white collar crime, says Claude Lamoureux, chief executive officer of Ontario Teachers Pension Plan.
-------------------

RCMP 'horribly broken': report
PENSION FUND FALLOUT

Meagan Fitzpatrick
CanWest News Service


Saturday, June 16, 2007

--------------------

Today's Globe, Thursday, May 17, 2007, front page shows the RCMP charging a Finance Canada bureaucrat who made a whopping $7000 profit from allegedly trading on inside knowledge of the tax treatment by Ralph Goodale's govt on income trusts.

He allegedly made his trade the morning of the announcement after sitting in on a meeting the previous day. Good catch guys.

Just as an afterthought, did anyone happen to look into the millions upon millions of dollars of spikes in volume in these shares and dividend paying shares traded by members of the Investment Dealers Associaiton?

Mr. Goodale was also in meetings with this organization on the morning of his announcement to the public, and this is the same day of the volume spikes. Obviously the Finance Canada bureacrat was not responsible for millions and millions in spiked trading volumes that day.

Did the RCMP just happen to miss out on the major culprit and satisfy itself on prosecuting a flea instead?
-------------------------

Sun, June 5, 2005

Canada's puppet police force



Don't ask Mounties to get their man if he is connected to the Liberal party

By Licia Corbella

....... how diligently can we expect the RCMP to investigate AdScam when it's known the RCMP helped launder money for the federal Liberals to help Liberal-friendly advertising companies in Quebec, who then funneled the money back into Liberal party coffers?
-----------------

January 24, 2006

The Mounties give up

The RCMP is walking away from serious investigations, and failing to snag fraudsters, drug traffickers and white collar criminals

CHARLIE GILLIS
Macleans Magazine
--------------------

From THE AUSTRALIAN

Canada doesn't always get its man, and corporate crims know it
Madelaine Drohan
25nov05

CONRAD Black may live in Canada and run his businesses from the country, but it was US - and not Canadian - authorities that filed charges against the former media baron.

The reason, critics of the Canadian justice system say, is that Canada is soft on corporate crime.
------------------------

Are the RCMP part of the problem, or the solution?
by admin » 22 Dec 2005 10:06 am

RCMP held in check

Terence Corcoran
Financial Post

Thursday, December 22, 2005

-------------------


by Dell » 20 Dec 2005 10:21 pm

This business of IMET's taking referrals only from regulators is no good because the public doesn't trust them.

--------------------


RCMP Gets Cases from the Regulators & Not Taking New Cases
by urquhart » 16 Dec 2005 06:44 am

Individual investors are concerned about whether the RCMP conducts securities investigations based upon complaints brought to it from members of the public. We have now received two recent RCMP communications indicating that the RCMP directs complaints from the public to the provincial securities commissions or the self-regulators and that the RCMP will only investigate matters referred to it from these securities regulators.

--------------------

by Donald » 08 Dec 2005 08:51 pm

I don't even bother sending complaints to the OSC anymore, instead I go directly to the police, RCMP. My only concern is IMETs thinks the OSC is legit.

------------------


Our cases generally come from referrals from regulators or SRO's and some of our larger cases have come to us in that manner. Unless the matters you are concerned about are referred to the RCMP IMET through one of our participating agencies (OSC, IDA, MFDA,MRS) it will not be considered for investigation.

Yours truly,


Supt. Craig S. Hannaford
Officer in Charge
GTA Integrated Market Enforcement Team
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
3389 Steeles Avenue East
3rd Floor
Toronto, Ontario

E-mail: Craig.Hannaford@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
urquhart

-------------------
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2834
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada

PreviousNext

Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron