Podcast Library

This episode introduces the basic structure of fraud in Canadian criminal law. It explains how the Criminal Code offence of fraud is built around conduct involving deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, combined with deprivation or risk of deprivation to a person, the public, or another economic interest. Section 380 of the Criminal Code is the central statutory offence. The episode also explains why fraud law cannot be understood from the Criminal Code alone — the courts have shaped the practical meaning of dishonesty, deprivation, risk of loss, and the accused's mental state through major Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

This episode explains R. v. Théroux, one of the most important Canadian fraud cases. Théroux sets out the modern structure of fraud by separating the offence into the prohibited act and the required mental state. The case explains that fraud requires dishonest conduct and deprivation or risk of deprivation, along with the accused's subjective awareness of the prohibited conduct and its possible consequences. A failed business deal is not automatically fraud — the evidence must show the dishonest act, the deprivation or risk, and what the accused knew at the relevant time.

This episode explains R. v. Riesberry and the importance of risk in Canadian fraud law. Riesberry confirms that fraud may involve not only actual financial loss, but also conduct that places economic interests at risk. Investigators should not only ask 'How much money was lost?' — they should also ask, 'What economic interest was put at risk, how was it put at risk, and what evidence proves that risk?'

This episode brings the four core fraud cases together. Olan explains dishonesty and deprivation. Théroux gives the modern fraud test. Zlatic develops the idea of other fraudulent means. Riesberry confirms the importance of risk to economic interests. Together, these cases form the backbone of modern Canadian fraud law. The episode is designed as a synthesis episode to help listeners move from the Criminal Code wording to a practical investigative framework.

This episode focuses on the actus reus of fraud — the prohibited conduct and its consequences. Under s. 380, fraud may be committed by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, and the prohibited act must be connected to deprivation or risk of deprivation. The episode explains the difference between direct deceit, false statements, and broader dishonest conduct, and why investigators need to identify exactly what the accused did and how that conduct caused loss or risk.

This episode focuses on the mens rea of fraud: what the accused knew. Under the modern fraud framework, the Crown must prove subjective knowledge of the prohibited act and subjective knowledge that the act could cause deprivation or risk of deprivation. The Crown does not need to prove the accused intended the victim to suffer the final loss in every case. The key issue is whether the accused knew the conduct was dishonest and knew it could put another person's economic interests at risk.

This episode explains the deprivation element of fraud. Deprivation can include actual economic loss, but it can also include risk of loss or prejudice to an economic interest. The major fraud cases make clear that investigators must pay attention to both completed loss and risk-based harm. Deprivation is proven through bank records, transaction history, contracts, invoices, business records, victim statements, and expert evidence where appropriate.

This episode explains the difference between fraud over $5,000 and fraud not exceeding $5,000. Section 380 separates fraud by value, which affects how the offence is charged and the seriousness of the case. The core elements of fraud remain the same regardless of value — the Crown still needs to prove dishonest conduct and deprivation or risk of deprivation. The value issue affects classification, seriousness, sentencing context, and investigative documentation, including factors under s. 380.1.

This episode explains the difference between identity theft, identity fraud, and fraud-related misuse of personal information. Section 402.2 addresses obtaining or possessing another person's identity information with intent to use it to commit an indictable offence involving fraud, deceit, or falsehood. Section 403 addresses fraudulently personating another person. Identity information may be used to open accounts, obtain credit, impersonate victims, receive funds, create fake profiles, or support broader fraud schemes.

This episode explains the relationship between fraud, forgery, use of forged documents, and false pretences. Section 362 addresses false pretence or false statement. Section 366 addresses forgery. Section 368 addresses use, trafficking, or possession of forged documents. These offences can overlap with fraud when false documents or false representations are used to obtain money, property, credit, services, or another benefit. A false document may support a forgery-related offence, but the larger scheme may also support fraud if dishonest conduct causes deprivation or risk.

This episode explains investment fraud, Ponzi-style schemes, and dishonest business representations. The key distinction is between legitimate business failure and criminal fraud. A failed investment is not automatically a crime, but dishonest representations, misuse of investor money, concealment, fake returns, or intentional exposure of investor funds to risk may support a fraud investigation. Théroux helps distinguish failed business from dishonest conduct. Zlatic helps with dishonest business conduct and other fraudulent means. Olan helps with deprivation and economic prejudice.

This episode brings the fraud series together and focuses on practical investigation. It explains how investigators move from a complaint to evidence, from evidence to legal elements, and from legal elements to a chargeable fraud case. It summarizes the core fraud framework — dishonest conduct, deprivation or risk of deprivation, the accused's knowledge, and the evidence needed to prove each element — and connects fraud investigations to identity offences, false documents, business records, banking evidence, digital evidence, and proceeds of crime issues. Section 380 remains the central offence, while sections such as 402.2, 403, 362, 366, 368, 380.1, and 462.31 may become relevant depending on the facts.

This episode examines when tax evasion can also be understood through the lens of Canadian fraud law. It explains that tax offences are often prosecuted under the Income Tax Act, but the same conduct may raise broader fraud principles where dishonest behaviour exposes public revenue to deprivation or risk. The episode focuses on how Criminal Code fraud is built around dishonest conduct, economic prejudice, and the accused person's knowledge, and applies those concepts to cases involving alleged cheating of the public treasury. Using the Schreiber litigation as the central case-law example, the episode explains why the government can be treated as the victim of economic harm when public revenue is dishonestly withheld or put at risk. For investigators, the practical value of this episode is learning how to separate ordinary tax non-compliance, mistakes, aggressive tax planning, and regulatory violations from conduct that may support a criminal fraud theory.

This episode explains how fraud mens rea can be proven when the accused person claims they did not know the full truth. Canadian fraud law requires proof that the accused knew about the dishonest conduct and knew that deprivation or risk could result, but that knowledge is often proven through circumstantial evidence rather than direct admissions. The episode examines recklessness, wilful blindness, ignored warnings, suspicious circumstances, and red flags that may show the accused was aware of risk or deliberately avoided confirming the obvious. It also explains the important distinction between negligence and criminal fraud: careless conduct alone is not enough, but deliberate avoidance or conscious risk-taking may support the required mental element. For investigators, the episode is a guide to building the state-of-mind portion of a fraud file through communications, warnings, transaction history, victim evidence, and the accused person's own explanation.

This episode examines the "dupe defence" in fraud investigations — the claim that an accused person was merely used by others and did not knowingly participate in the fraud. It explains that not every person connected to a fraudulent transaction is automatically a fraudster. Some people may be innocent intermediaries, employees, nominees, account holders, or participants who did not understand the broader scheme. At the same time, the law requires investigators to examine role, knowledge, benefit, repeated conduct, suspicious circumstances, and whether the accused person's explanation is consistent with the evidence. The episode helps investigators separate innocent participation from knowing assistance, wilful blindness, or dishonest involvement. Its practical value is showing how to test the accused person's claim of innocence against records, communications, money flow, instructions, benefit, and the timeline of events.

This episode explains why a person cannot justify fraudulent conduct simply by saying they were owed money. Many fraud files begin with a real or alleged debt, but Canadian fraud law does not permit a person to use deceit, false documents, false complaints, pressure tactics, or dishonest means to collect what they believe they are owed. The episode distinguishes civil debt collection, claim-of-right arguments, commercial disputes, and improper self-help remedies from Criminal Code fraud. It focuses on the difference between a legitimate effort to recover money and dishonest conduct that exposes another person's economic interests to risk. For investigators, the episode provides a practical framework for assessing debt-related complaints: identify the alleged debt, the collection method, the representation made, the economic consequence, and what the accused person knew when they acted.

This episode addresses one of the most important boundaries in fraud law: the line between business failure and criminal fraud. Not every failed business, unpaid invoice, broken promise, aggressive sales tactic, or sharp commercial practice is a Criminal Code offence. Fraud requires proof of dishonest conduct, deprivation or risk of deprivation, and the accused person's knowledge. The episode explains how courts distinguish civil disputes, poor judgment, breach of contract, negligence, and unethical business conduct from criminal fraud. It also focuses on timing: what was true when the representation was made, what the accused knew at that moment, and whether the complainant's economic interests were dishonestly exposed to risk. For investigators, this episode provides a screening tool for commercial complaints and helps identify when a file belongs in civil court, regulatory channels, or criminal investigation.

This episode focuses on deceit and falsehood as core forms of fraudulent conduct under Criminal Code s. 380. It explains that fraud is not proven merely because something was inaccurate or because a person later suffered a loss. Investigators must identify the specific representation, prove why it was false or misleading, show that it mattered to the victim's decision, and connect it to deprivation or risk of deprivation. The episode also explains how courts approach deliberate lies, known falsity, false personal or business representations, and the use of funds for a purpose different from what was represented. For investigators, the practical value is learning to build a "representation chart" that links the statement, the speaker, the evidence of falsity, victim belief, money movement, and the accused person's knowledge.

This episode explains why a victim's carelessness, trust, embarrassment, or failure to detect deception does not automatically excuse fraud. Fraudsters often argue that the victim should have asked more questions, checked the documents, refused the transaction, or protected themselves better. Canadian fraud law does not reward dishonest conduct simply because the victim was trusting, vulnerable, or slow to discover the truth. The episode focuses on the accused person's conduct, the victim's belief, the economic interest affected, and the connection between deception and deprivation or risk. It also explains why this issue matters in romance fraud, insurance fraud, online scams, consumer fraud, and cases involving institutional victims. For investigators, the practical lesson is to avoid victim-blaming and instead document what was represented, what the victim believed, what changed financially, and what the accused knew.

This episode examines how false invoices and false accounting documents can become both evidence of fraud and part of the fraudulent conduct itself. In many fraud investigations, the key deception is not a dramatic lie but a document that creates a false picture of work performed, goods supplied, money owed, or financial activity. The episode explains how Criminal Code fraud applies where invoices, ledgers, receipts, or accounting entries are used dishonestly to obtain payment or expose another person's economic interests to risk. It also distinguishes clerical errors, poor bookkeeping, billing disputes, and negligence from deliberate false billing or false records. For investigators, the episode provides a practical document-based approach: compare the record to the real-world transaction, trace the payment, identify who created or approved the document, and prove what the accused knew.

This episode explains how welfare and social assistance fraud can arise from false forms, false eligibility information, income misrepresentation, non-disclosure, or dishonest benefit claims. It emphasizes that the legal issue is not poverty, benefit receipt, or administrative error. The Criminal Code fraud analysis focuses on whether false or incomplete information was knowingly used to obtain public money or expose public funds to risk. The episode explains how government benefit files are often document-heavy, involving applications, renewal forms, declarations, case-worker records, payment records, and income or household information. It also distinguishes honest mistakes, misunderstanding, language or literacy issues, and administrative overpayment from criminal dishonesty. For investigators, the episode provides a respectful and practical framework for proving what was said, what was known, what benefit was paid, and whether public money was dishonestly put at risk.

This episode examines how false insurance claims and false supporting documents can amount to Criminal Code fraud. It explains that insurance fraud is not simply a private disagreement between a claimant and an insurer. Where a person knowingly submits a false claim, false receipt, false proof of loss, or misleading supporting document to obtain payment, the insurer's economic interests may be exposed to deprivation or risk. The episode distinguishes legitimate disputed claims, coverage disagreements, mistakes, and exaggerated but honestly believed claims from deliberate deception. It also explains why an insurer's ability to investigate does not give a claimant permission to lie, and why victim failure to detect deception is not automatically a defence. For investigators, the episode highlights the need to connect the claim, supporting documents, insurer reliance, payment or risk, and proof of the accused person's knowledge.

This episode explains the difference between a failed investment and investment fraud. Investments can fail for legitimate reasons, and loss alone does not prove criminal conduct. The fraud question is whether investors were dishonestly induced to part with money or expose their economic interests to risk through false representations, misleading promises, hidden risks, false security, or misuse of funds. The episode connects investment files to the core Criminal Code fraud framework: dishonest conduct, deprivation or risk, causation, and the accused person's knowledge. It also explains why hope that a project might succeed does not necessarily defeat fraud if the accused knowingly exposed investors to dishonest risk. For investigators, the episode provides a practical method for testing investment complaints by comparing what investors were told, what was true at the time, how funds were used, and what the accused knew.

This episode explains how romance and relationship-based deception can become Criminal Code fraud when trust is used to obtain money, credit, property, or another financial benefit. It emphasizes that romance fraud is not only about emotional betrayal. The criminal law issue is whether dishonest personal representations caused the victim to part with money or expose their economic interests to risk. The episode examines how false personal circumstances, false financial emergencies, relationship-based manipulation, and repeated requests for money may fit within the fraud framework of deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means. It also explains why victim trust, embarrassment, vulnerability, or failure to verify the accused person's story is not automatically a defence. For investigators, the episode provides a respectful, victim-sensitive approach focused on messages, timelines, financial transfers, identity evidence, victim belief, and accused knowledge.

This episode examines when repair scams and service fraud cross the line from poor service or consumer dissatisfaction into Criminal Code fraud. It explains that a failed repair, high price, or unhappy customer does not automatically create a criminal case. Fraud requires proof that the accused dishonestly misrepresented something important — such as the need for work, the cost of work, whether work was performed, the condition of goods, or the nature of the service — and that the misrepresentation caused payment, loss, or economic risk. The episode distinguishes civil disputes, negligence, bad workmanship, overcharging, and aggressive sales from deliberate deception. For investigators, the practical value is learning how to assess service-related complaints using estimates, invoices, work orders, expert opinions, customer communications, payment records, and proof of the accused person's knowledge.

This episode explains how dealership and consumer misrepresentation can amount to fraud when a buyer is dishonestly misled about goods, services, vehicle condition, history, value, or transaction terms. It distinguishes buyer's remorse, warranty disputes, poor service, sales pressure, and civil misrepresentation from Criminal Code fraud. The episode focuses on the legal requirement to prove a false or misleading representation, accused knowledge, reliance or causal connection, and deprivation or risk of deprivation. In dealership and consumer files, the issue is not simply whether the buyer regretted the deal, but whether the transaction was built on a dishonest representation that mattered economically. For investigators, this episode provides a practical framework for assessing consumer complaints through advertisements, contracts, inspection records, repair records, sales communications, expert evidence, payment records, and repeated-pattern evidence.

This episode examines how fraud can occur inside a company when insiders misuse corporate funds, property, or authority. It explains that access to company accounts, control over corporate assets, or status as a director or officer does not automatically create personal entitlement to use those assets for any purpose. The Criminal Code fraud issue is whether corporate assets were dishonestly used, diverted, or exposed to risk in a way that prejudiced the corporation, shareholders, creditors, clients, or another economic interest. The episode distinguishes poor business judgment, shareholder disputes, civil fiduciary issues, policy breaches, and failed business decisions from criminal fraud. For investigators, the episode provides a framework for examining authority, ownership, intended use, actual use, personal benefit, concealment, corporate records, bank records, and the accused person's knowledge of economic risk.

This episode explains how breach of trust, abuse of authority, vulnerability, or dependence can become relevant to fraud law as "other fraudulent means." Fraud is not always based on a direct lie or false document. In some cases, the dishonest conduct comes from using a position of trust, confidence, control, or influence to expose another person's economic interests to deprivation or risk. The episode carefully distinguishes criminal fraud from civil breach of duty, professional negligence, relationship breakdown, ethical misconduct, and ordinary disputes. It focuses on the relationship between the parties, what was entrusted, what authority existed, how that authority was used, and whether the accused person knew the conduct could cause economic harm. For investigators, the episode provides a practical method for analyzing relationship-based financial exploitation, elder fraud, employee misuse, public-sector trust, and other files involving vulnerability or dependence.

This episode examines when silence, omission, or material non-disclosure can become fraud under Canadian criminal law. Fraud is often imagined as a direct lie, but dishonest conduct may also involve withholding a material fact where the accused person had a duty to disclose it. The episode explains that silence is not automatically fraud, and not every incomplete statement or civil disclosure problem creates criminal liability. The key questions are what fact was withheld, why it was material, whether there was a duty to disclose, how the omission affected the victim's economic interests, and what the accused knew. The episode is especially important for investigations involving forms, contracts, benefit claims, investment pitches, business relationships, insurance claims, and trust-based dealings. For investigators, it provides a structured approach to proving non-disclosure through records, communications, disclosure duties, victim evidence, and economic risk.

This episode explains how fraud can occur when money or property is diverted from the purpose for which it was provided, entrusted, authorized, or represented. In many fraud files, the money was not stolen through a dramatic act; it was received through a real relationship or transaction and then used for a different purpose than the one that justified receiving it. The episode connects unauthorized diversion to the broader fraud concepts of dishonest conduct, deprivation or risk, and accused knowledge. It also distinguishes fraud from theft, breach of contract, unpaid debt, cash-flow problems, poor accounting, and business failure. For investigators, the practical value is learning how to prove the source of funds, intended use, actual use, authority, concealment, economic interest affected, and whether the accused knew the diversion could expose someone else to loss or risk.

This episode explains why fraud does not always require final actual loss. Under Canadian fraud law, deprivation can include economic risk, prejudice, loss of control over money or property, or loss of opportunity to protect one's financial interests. The episode addresses common defence arguments that "the money was paid back," "the investment might still succeed," "the victim had security," or "no one lost money in the end." It explains that the real issue is whether dishonest conduct exposed an economic interest to risk at the relevant time. The episode also emphasizes that risk must still be real, legally connected to the dishonest conduct, and known to the accused. For investigators, this episode provides a practical framework for documenting when funds were transferred, what risk arose, what opportunity was lost, whether repayment occurred, and what the accused knew when the risk was created.

This episode brings the fraud foundation series together by focusing on how investigators turn a fraud complaint into a court-ready file. After understanding dishonesty, deprivation, mens rea, false documents, victim reliance, non-disclosure, diversion, and risk-based loss, the final task is proof organization. The episode explains the practical building blocks of a fraud file: jurisdiction, identity, charge value, victim or public economic interest, dishonest means, deprivation or risk, causation, business records, ownership or value, parties, attempts, and accused knowledge. It also explains why a fraud file is not proven by simply calling something a "scam." Investigators must connect the story to admissible records, witness evidence, transaction history, and a clear theory of how the dishonest conduct caused economic risk or prejudice. This episode serves as a practical checklist for building organized, focused, Crown-review-ready fraud investigations.