Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Charges dropped because of a resource problem? Maybe, but I'm not convinced

This is a rather unlikely story -- tracing back to its source it doesn't seem the information as to why the Crown dropped charges comes from the Crown but rather from a lawyer for a disappointed investor. It strikes me as most unlikely that significant criminal charges with a viable chance of conviction would be dropped for resourcing reasons. But even if that did happen, there would not be a significant problem relaying the charges -- there is no limitation period for indictable offences in Canada:



Attorney General Chris Bentley says he wants to know why charges were dropped against a Toronto man accused of bilking dozens of investors out of $27 million.

Police charged Tzvi Erez with fraud last year, alleging he was running a Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay returns to his original investors.

However, Crown prosecutors opted to drop the charges, blaming a lack of resources to go ahead with the complicated case.

Bentley says the province takes fraud very seriously, and “doesn’t walk away” from important criminal cases.

The attorney general says reports of the charges being dropped cause him a “great deal of concern,” and he has asked the chief prosecutor “to get to the bottom of it.”

NDP justice critic Peter Kormos says there should be a much broader investigation into how the case was handled, and he thinks there are other cases being thrown out because of a lack of resources.

Bentley couldn’t say if charges against Erez could be reinstated, but Kormos says the victims of the alleged Ponzi scheme likely won’t get justice.

No comments: