Tuesday, March 2, 2010
B.C. Injustice extends to White Collar Crime
We all know the Canadian criminal code has a very bad reputation for being a joke and that the Judges in B.C. are known for extending that bad joke to the extreme with bizarre decisions that are not consistent with how the other provinces interpret the same federal laws.
The Ian Thow case is another example but deals with white collar crime:
Here's a guy who pleads guilty to 20 cases of fraud and admits to conning clients out of $10 million. (The initial charge was more like $32 million) The guy was an investment advisor and advised clients to buy stock that didn't exist to fund his extravagant lifestyle. He robbed people of their life's savings to waste on decadence. That was cold hearted and malicious.
The crown and defense lawyers recommend a 7 year sentence. Since he's been in custody for a year he'd be given two for one credit for that pretrial time served. I thought they got rid of that. Anyways, the Vancouver Sun claims that parole is routinely given for white collar crime after one third of the sentence is served.
That means he could be out on the street in about four months which would mean he would have served 14 months for serious fraud in the millions that ruined peoples lives for his own personal extravagance. If that is not treason, I don't know what is.
Update: Crown recommends 7 years, Court orders 9.
Well this is a small step forward but it's still a very small step. The underlining problems still exist. Why did the crown recommend 7 years when the maximum was raised to 14? Compared to what Throw did, what kind of fraud would qualify someone for 14 years? That's hard to imagine. http://www.vancouversun.com/Investment+guru+Thow+sentenced+nine+years+multimillion+dollar+fraud/2641705/story.html
Why did he get two for one credit for the year served when two for one credit was supposed to have been done away with? Will he get instant parole after serving one third of his sentence like most others do for white collar crime?
That remains to be the underlining problem. Parole after one third of the sentence is served. What this guy did was horrible. He needs to be held accountable. So here's the math. If the one third factor is true, then one third of 9 years is 3 years. Less two for one credit for the first year leaves one year left to serve for a total of two years served for serious fraud in the millions destroying many peoples lives. So he getting nine years instead of seven means he serves 2 years instead of 14 months. Is that justice?