× Home Our Services   About Us   Recent Successes Testimonials News And Videos   Contact Us 中文
Contact Our Firm

Fraud Theft Breach Of Trust And Financial Crimes

Book Your Free Consultation

The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.

Contact Our Firm



R. v. X.C. (2023)

X.C. was charged with Fraud Under $5,000 out of Toronto courthouse. X.C. was looking at deals to book a hotel in downtown Toronto. X.C. found an agent through WeChat that offered her to use hotel points and save significantly on the hotel costs. X.C. agreed and went on to stay at a hotel in downtown Toronto. While there, an owner of the hotel points contacted the hotel and advised that she has not authorized the use of her hotel points. X.C. was arrested for illegally using the hotel points to stay at the hotel. X.C. retained Mariya Protsenko and Daisy Zhang of Neuberger and Partners LLP. Mariya and Daisy went through WeChat messages and organized them for the Crown Attorney. Furthermore, Mariya and Daisy put together a package that included X.C.’s background, her excellent grades, future aspirations and reference letters. Together with the WeChat messages and carefully drafted X.C.’s version of events, a package was presented to the Crown Attorney. After X.C. made a restitution to the hotel, the charge of Fraud Under was withdrawn.

Rex v. J.C. & K.D. (2023)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 x 2, Utter Forged Document x 2 and Obtain Credit under False Presences all withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in Newmarket. Both individuals were starting a business and were approached by a financial broker to assist with equipment financing and grants. The broker seemed perfectly professional and assisted J.C. and K.D. to obtain various grants and loans to assist with the business startup. The business became a success and expanded. The broker took a percentage of the financing and then years passed. An OPP investigation into the broker in question uncovered that all supporting documentation had been falsified to obtain the said loans and grants. J.C. and K.D. were identified as allegedly part of the scheme to defraud the government and banks. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko, Neuberger & Partners LLP, York Region Criminal Lawyers, were retained to defend the charges. After obtaining the disclosure, including co-accused statements, and the source documents for the loans and grants, Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko, engaged in multiple meetings with the clients and then the assigned Crown to sort out where the supporting information came from. Eventually, the defence established that the documentation completed was subsequently altered by the broker and the defence obtained hundreds of text messages between the clients and the broker to establish the broker was misleading them and likely many other people she had approached. After providing important defence disclosure to the Crown, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. K.Z. (2022)

Client found not guilty of seven counts of Fraud Over $5,000.00 and seven counts of Possession of Stolen Property over $5,000.00 after a five-day trial in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. K.Z. was working with a car exporting company and was alleged to have defrauded seven people of funds when they were allegedly used to purchase Mercedes Ben vehicles that were transferred in ownership to the exporting company and then sent overseas. K.Z. allegedly had the seven complainants purchase the vehicles, finance them, and then turn them over to him with the understanding he would pay out the loans before the vehicles were exported. Christopher Assie of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend K.Z. At trial, each complainant could not establish that they were not paid for their assistance in obtaining the cars and that their loans were to be paid by K.Z. K.Z. was merely an employee of the export company who was the main party to the agreement with each complainant. Cross-examination focused on the agreements, the details, who was the signatory, and what funds were paid to the complainants. In addition, through cross-examination each complainant reluctantly agreed that they were aware of the risk but wanted to make money for assisting. Each were paid a fee to assist. Further, identification was an issue as K.Z. had only dealt with two of the complainants whereas the other seven appeared to have deal with the owner of the export company. After detailed written closing submissions, the Crown conceded a not guilty finding and K.Z. was found not guilty on all charges of Fraud Over and Possession Over.

Regina v. S.K. (2022)

Charges of Fraud over $5,000.00 withdrawn during pre-trial discussions, Brampton. S.K. entered into an investment deal with the complainant and another party for the purchase of two plots of land for development of residential homes. The deal was just under $1,000,000.00. Funds were transferred to a holding company controlled by the third party. Land was purchased but the funds were used for the purchase of a third property and no construction financing was obtained and no construction commenced. The complainant commenced civil litigation but when no settlement was reached went to the police and S.K. was charges with Fraud Over $5,000.00. Joseph Neuberger of Neuberger & Partners LLP, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, was retained to defend the charge. Joseph Neuberger obtained all of the civil litigation documents and proceedings. The investment agreement between the complainant, herself and the third party, was in fact deficient as to stipulations for the purpose of the advance of the $1,000,000 investment. It clearly contemplated the purchase of land and development but DID NOT mandate S.K. or the holding company seek financing and commence construction. In fact, upon the defence reading of the agreements, the funds could have been used for the purchase of other land. Joseph Neuberger worked with the civil lawyer acting for S.K. to try and settle the civil action. The civil action was settlement, and the signed release was then sent to the assigned Crown on the criminal prosecution. Joseph Neuberger then conducted a further judicial pre-trial, and with the interpretation of the agreement and the settlement, the Crown agreed to withdraw the fraud over charge.

Regina v. S. N.P. (2022)

The client was charged with Theft Under $5,000 out of Newmarket courthouse. It was the second time he had been charged. The client retained Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners LLP to defend him. Mariya Protsenko put together information about the client, a letter of apology, a cheque to a charity organization and had numerous discussions with the assigned Crown Attorney. As a result, the charge against the client was withdrawn.

Regina v. N. G. (2022)

N.G. was charged with Theft Under $5,000. She mistakenly walked out of the store with the store’s coat on her arm. The store’s security officer detained N.G. which left bruises on her arms. Later on police arrested and charged her. N.G. only spoke Mandarin. She retained counsel Mariya Protsenko and paralegal Daisy Zhang of Neuberger & Partners LLP. Together Mariya and Daisy drafted the client’s version of events and obtained photos of the bruises from the client. Mariya conducted a pre-trial with the Crown Attorney and the Crown agreed to withdrawn charge.

Regina v. A.L. (2021)

Charges of Assault and Theft Under withdrawn prior to setting trial date, Barrie, Ontario. It was alleged that A.L. was walking from a party while under the influence of alcohol. Furthermore, A,L. saw a person smoke a cigarette on the porch. A.L. wanted to borrow a cigarette but the person at the porch refused. The altercation ensured where A.L. allegedly kicked and hit the person on the porch. A neighbour called 911 and police arrived. What complicated the matter was that A.L. had a serious criminal record. A.L. hired Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partner, Toronto Criminal Lawyers, to represent him. Mariya conducted extensive pre-trials with the prosecutor and then a Judicial pre-trial. Mariya convinced the prosecutor to withdraw the charges after the client completed 4 counselling sessions. Upon entering into a peace bond, all charges against A.L. were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.S. (2021)

Charges of Fraud Over, Conspiracy to Commit Fraud, Proceeds of Crime, Possession of Stolen Property and Obtain Credit by False Pretences, withdrawn prior to setting a trial date. The client was hired by an alleged building contractor and his job was to order materials and equipment for projects. The client was paid in cash and went made orders at various businesses across Ontario including Kingston, Belleville, Toronto and Newmarket. Partial payments were made for the materials, and all invoices were made out to M.S. Thus, M.S. was legally obligated to pay for the materials and equipment. M.S. delivered to his employer who then paid M.S. in cash for his work. The invoices were never paid, and the materials and equipment were sold. M.S. was eventually charged as being willfully blind as to the scheme to defraud numerous businesses. Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete were retained as the criminal defence lawyers. After obtaining disclosure, it appeared that M.S. attempted to explain his situation and assist the police. In addition interviews with the complainant yielded concerns as to his level of understanding of how he was used in the scheme and an expert psychologist was retained to assess M.S. The report demonstrated certain cognitive defects that impacted M.S.’s vulnerability to be influenced and manipulated by the more sophisticated operators of the Fraud. A restitution order was made and all charges withdrawn.

R. v. K.K. (2021)

Client charged with Fraud Over after having received over $350,000 in loans from 9 individuals in an alleged Ponzi Scheme. The client retained John Navarrete of Neuberger & Partners LLP to represent him on these serious charges. Mr. Navarrete set out a strategy beginning at the preliminary inquiry to the judge alone trial in Superior Court in Brampton demonstrating that loans were legitimate, no representations or deceit were made in obtaining the funds, and that the Crown could not prove that the client gambled the funds received away. Ultimately, the client was acquitted of all charges after the trial.

R. v. OG (2021)

Client charged with Theft Over $5,000 after having been caught in possession of a stolen mini-tractor. Mr. Navarrete discussed with the Crown the weaknesses in their case, specifically the lack of knowledge or the ability to prove that client knew the tractor was stolen given the passage of time from its original date of theft. Mr. Navarrete also provided stellar character references and a statutory declaration which culminated in the criminal charge being withdrawn against the client.

R. v. X.K. (2020)

Client was charged with theft under $5,000 after being caught on video surveillance at a grocery store for stealing a significant amount of baby formula. Mr. Navarrete had the client perform some volunteering hours, attend some counselling and then provided the Crown Attorney’s office in Newmarket with other materials in order to show the Crown that continuing the prosecution was not in public interest. Criminal charge withdrawn.

Regina v. Y.L. and H.S. (2020)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. Y.L. and H.S. decided that they wanted to purchase a Porsche. They attended Porsche and although they qualified financially they required a co-signer due to their age. H.S. searched on WeChat and found a person who offered to be a co-signer for a fee. Y.L and H.S. used the co-signer and the co-signer attended Porsche and signed the papers. It was discovered that the co-signer was using fraudulent identification and account information for the financing. Y.L. and H.S. were charged with conspiring to defraud Porsche. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the Criminal Defence Lawyer. Joseph Neuberger requested a very detailed list of disclosure including the financing agreement; internal checks at Porsche for the original authorization of the co-signer; a statement from the financial advisor and other source documents. The defence alleged that there was nothing illegal about the clients paying a co-signer as long as Y.L. and H.S. were financially viable and capable of paying for the vehicle and had no knowledge of the co-signer presenting fraudulent information. In addition, the defence sought evidence/particulars of how the Crown could prove Y.L. and H.S. knew or were willfully blind as to the co-signer using fraudulent information. Joseph Neuberger and Mariya Protsenko reviewed over 700 pages of information and discovered that in fact the co-signer attended Porsche on a different date, yet the agreement of purchase and sale was dated the same date as Y.L. and H.S. attended. It was further discovered that the co-signer was involved in a large scheme completely unrelated to Y.L. and H.S. – which seemed to be rather obvious as Y.L. and H.S. were duped by the co-signer. As such, a proposal was put forth for Y.L. and H.S. to draft and sign Affidavits to the effect of their lack of knowledge of any fraud and were not cooperating with the co-signer. The Affidavits were drafted and provided to the Crown. The charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 were withdrawn.

Regina v. J.B. (2019)

Charges of Theft Under x 4, Fraud Under x 4, Traffic in fraudulent credit card data x 4 and Utter forged Documents, all withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket, after extensive pre-trials.  J.B. was charged with fraudulent related offences arising from the use and theft of money and credit information from co-workers at his employment.  Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer.  Joseph Neuberger interviewed J.B. and it was apparent that at the time of the alleged offences, J.B. was heavily using alcohol and drugs, in likely an effort to self-medicate related to an underlying mental health issue.  A forensic psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist were retained to conduct therapy and a full assessment.  The assessments noted that J.B. was suffering a psychosis prior to and at the time of the offences.  All reports were turned over to the Crown with extensive medical records.  After numerous pre-trials with the assigned Crown a plan was set out for continued therapy and then if successful in therapy for J.B. to sign a common law peace bond and all charges withdrawn.  J.B. did well in therapy and treatment. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. A.K. (2019)

Charge of Fraud Over and Theft Under withdrawn after the prosecutor found no reasonable prospect of conviction, Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. The complainant, a friend of A.K., made a statement to police that A.K. used his credit card without authorization to make large purchases. The complainant made further allegations that A.K. never delivered an expensive item to the complainant. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained by the client on this matter. Mariya carefully reviewed disclosure that was provided and requested from the client all correspondence about the transaction as between the client and the complainant.  Mariya conducted a pre-trial with the prosecutor where she explained to the prosecutor that given the correspondence between A.K. and the complainant, the prosecutor will not be able to make out the elements of offence.  After multiple follow ups with the prosecutor, the prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charges of Fraud and theft as there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. S.O.E. (2019)

Charges of Counterfeiting mark – sell/possess x 6, Fraud Under x 5, Utter Forged Document x 6, Possession and Sale of identify documents x 6, and Possession of Property Obtained by Crime x 5, withdrawn prior to setting a date for trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Oshawa. The client was alleged to be involved in a scheme to use counterfeit bonds, and other financial instruments over a period of several weeks. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger retained a defence expert to assess various disclosed documents and the items seized from the client. A number of documents turned out to not have been related to the Counterfeit mark seized from the client and through a greater investigation of the scheme, S.O.E. appeared to have been duped by a childhood friend into cashing the fraudulent financial instruments. A defence designed rehabilitation program was put into place for S.O.E. to complete and when presented to the Crown with the additional evidence from the defence, the Crown agreed to withdraw all charges.

Regina v. A.M (2019)

Charge of Extortion withdrawn after extensive pre-trial negotiations. A.M. operated a high end contract valet and limousine service. His contract was terminated by a certain high end hotel and the client was charged after he sent a video to the company about cash payments to the manager of the hotel. The alleged extortion was to expose cash payments unless his contract was reinstated. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained to defend the charge. Joseph Neuberger conducted a detailed defence investigation and there were videos of numerous cash payments totaling over $200,000. The client was directed to a civil litigation lawyer by Joseph Neuberger to commence an action for breach of contract and that all payments were commission for the agreement. In fact A.M. paid the cash funds as commission for the agreement and it was to the knowledge of the hotel. During the criminal and civil proceedings crucial evidence emerged to assist the defence. After detailed discussions about the implications of such evidence and the fact that the hotel failed to cooperate with the police investigation, the charge was withdrawn.

Regina v. B.L. (2019)

Charges of Fraud Over and Breach of Trust withdrawn after extensive negotiations with the Crown. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. B.L. was a manager at store and was alleged to have conspired with a customer and other employees to set up false sales and to provide cells phones for cash. Full restitution was made and due to extenuating circumstances the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.

R.K. (2017)

Charges of Fraud Under $5,000 x 3 withdrawn. Criminal defence lawyer Christopher Assie was retained. R.K. was alleged to have operating a fake lending service over the internet that required prospective borrowers to pay administrative fees to process their loan applications. The complainants in the case were residents of another province. On the morning of trial, the defence learned of potentially exculpatory disclosure that the police had failed to provide. The defence advised the Crown that he would be seeking an adjournment of the trial on the grounds of failure of the police to disclose important evidence and would bring a stay application at a future date. The Crown conceded the failures on the part of the police and withdrew the charges.

Regina v. X.W. (2017)

Charges of Fraud Under, Attempt Theft Under, Utter Forged Documents x 2 and Fraudulent use of Credit Card x 2 withdrawn prior to setting trial dates. The client was alleged to have transferred credit card information from another person and used the fraudulent information to a number of purchases at various stores. The Crown was originally seeking a conviction and a probation order. The client was a Visa student and any finding of guilt would have resulted in the client being removed from the country. Defence lawyer Mariya Protsenko sent the client for therapy as the client had expressed considerable stress from being ain Canada alone and from his studies. In addition, the client was instructed to complete 15 hours of community service. After extensive negotiations, the Crown agreed with defence counsel that there were mitigating circumstances as the report did show the client exercised poor judgement but within the context of situational depression and anxiety and in light of the report and community service, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. M.K. (2016)

Charges of Theft Over $5,000.00 and Breach of Trust withdrawn prior to trial. M.K. was a distribution manager for a sport equipment manufacturer. He was alleged to have removed several thousand dollars of merchandise from the distribution centre. There was video surveillance showing on one day that M.K. removed a number of boxes in a suspicious manner for which the company and the Crown asserted were boxes of the stolen merchandise. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger sought disclosure of all inventory lists before and after the alleged theft and particulars of what exact items are alleged to have be stolen. The complainant company could only produce one set of inventory that they stated was the missing merchandise but the listing was weeks before the equipment went missing and no documents to establish inventory control. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger asserted that the Crown could not in any way prove the actual merchandise stolen. A trial of seven days was set. Prior to the trial a new Crown was assigned to the file and after a proper review agreed with the defence position and all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. X.G. (2016)

Charges of Utter Forged Credit Card, and Fraud Under $5,000.00 withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. X.G. was a student from China living in Canada on her own. An older lady had befriended her via WeChat and convinced her to use a credit card to purchase a very expensive bottle of cognac from the LCBO. When the credit card was discovered to be forged, X.G. got scared and ran from the store. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was convinced that his client was lonely and taken advantage of by an older person who X.G. viewed as a friend and parental figure. X.G. attended counselling where is it was learned that she was extremely lonely and had great difficulty in saying no to people. In addition, Joseph Neuberger had the client complete 45 hours of community service. After several pre-trials and a judicial pre-trial, the Crown withdrew the charges as it was not in the public interest to prosecute the case. The Crown agreed with the therapy report and thus withdrew the charges.

Regina v. X.L. (2016)

Charge of Fraud over $5,000.00 and Possess Credit Card obtained by Crime withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions. X.L. was alleged to have attempted to purchase high end items at Holt Renfrew with fraudulent credit cards. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger, and the firm’s senior paralegal Grace Condello, obtained WeChat messages between X.L. and the person who provided her with the credit cards. All the messages were translated and established that X.L was led to believe that the cards were legitimate and she was helping this person who posed as a friend. Although X.L. was naïve about this, she was young and very inexperienced. The chats were turned over to the Crown. X.L. completed 40 hours of community service and after negotiations with the Crown, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. S.N. (2016)

Charges of Theft and Fraud withdrawn after extensive pre-trials. The client was alleged to have forged a number of gift cards and then stole items in an ongoing scheme from various high end stores. Defence lawyer, Joseph Neuberger obtained surveillance footage from a number of the stores which did not show any thefts as alleged and in fact for items seized by police from the client’s car, there was no warrant. A resolution was worked out for 40 hours of community service and all charges were withdrawn.

R. v. M.K. (2014)

Client was charged with various counts of fraud resulting from an allegation that the client had squandered funds entrusted to him by his employer in his capacity as manager of one of the employer’s construction sites. The allegation was that the client had used company funds to purchase personal items in the amount of $15,000. After reviewing the voluminous disclosure in preparation for an upcoming preliminary hearing at the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmarket, Mr. Navarrete met with the Crown Attorney and provided him with various receipts, emails and company policies that brought into question the claims made by the employer. As a result, the Crown Attorney’s office withdrew all the charges against the client.

R. v. G(S.) 2013

Client charged with fraud and breach of trust as a result of an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police. At the commencement of the preliminary hearing, after discussions with Neuberger & Partners, all charges are withdrawn.

Regina v. C (N) 2013

The client was charged with making false declarations under the Customs Act as a result of the seizure of a luxury automobile by Canada Border Services at the Canada US Border. Neuberger & Partners applied at trial to exclude evidence seized from the client on his cell phone, which was examined while the client was not detained or under investigation. After Neuberger & Partners cross-examined the officer who seized the phone, the Crown stayed all charges.

Regina v. P.H. (2013)

Charges of Fraud Over $5000.00 and Conspiracy to Commit Fraud withdrawn prior to the commencement of the preliminary hearing. P.H. was alleged to have used false information, including false financial statements, financing agreements and equipment leases to obtain a business loan of approximately $350,000.00. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through extensive discussions with the Crown as the loan remained in good standing at the time that the charges were laid and in fact, the bank manager had not only approved the loan but noted in documents to have confirmed the financial statements and validity of the equipment leases. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

H(T) 2012

Client charged with Possession of forged credit cards, and possession of instruments of credit card fraud. Neuberger & Partners challenged the search warrant, and method of search by the Durham Police into the client’s house. On the eve of the preliminary hearing the Crown withdrew all charges against the client and returned $26,000.00 in currency seized in the client’s house.

Regina v. B.M. (2012)

Charges of Utter Forged Document, Fraud Over $5000.00, and Obtain Credit by False Pretense, were withdrawn in court prior to setting a trial date. The client was alleged to have conspired with others to obtain funds from two banks on the basis of false financial documents. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was able to establish that B.M. was not the author of any of the supporting financial documents and that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the alleged transactions. Accordingly, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. P.B. (2012)

Charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, fraud over $5,000.00, utter forged documents, and other charges related to a scheme alleged in the range of $17 million, withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after extensive pre-trial meetings. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the thousands of pages of disclosure and was able to establish during meetings with the Crown that the evidence fell far short of connecting the client to any documents used in obtaining any of the fraudulent financing. As a result, the charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. R.T. and L.S. (2011)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00, Obtain Credit by False Pretence Over $5,000.00, and False Documents x 2 dismissed after three week trial in the Ontario Superior Court. The clients were allegedly involved in a multi-million dollar corporate fraud scheme where credit was allegedly obtained from banks and supplies based on false trade references and financial statements. The credit was used to obtain financing for the purchase of various items including computer components, furniture and painting and manufacturing equipment. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger conducted the defence and extensively cross-examined each prosecution witness undermining the Crown theory that both clients were involved and knowledgeable about the scheme. Joseph Neuberger was able to establish through cross examination that the director of the accused corporation was the main perpetrator of the fraud and acted in concert with one other employee not related to R.T. and L.S. Accordingly, the clients were found not guilty.

Regina v. A.(A.) (2010)

Client acquitted of Fraud Over $5,000 after a lengthy trial in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Trial Judge accepted evidence presented by defence counsel Stacey Nichols which showed that client was under duress at the time the offences were committed.

Regina v. R.K. (2010)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 and Public Mischief withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, prior to setting date for trial. The client was charged with allegedly arranging the theft of his Range Rover SUV and then to have made a false report to police about the theft. A claim was made to the insurance company upon which full payment was received by the client for the value of the vehicle. The police alleged the client arranged the theft and then had the car sold through an associate. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger carefully analyzed the Crown’s evidence, including the expert report on the theft of the vehicle, and the chain of evidence leading to the recovery of the vehicle. After extensive pre-trials, Joseph Neuberger was able to convince the Crown that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the theft was not legitimate and to involve his client in the scheme to de-fraud the insurance company. Accordingly, all charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. I.M. (2009)

Charges of Public Mischief and Obstruct Police Officer withdrawn at the judicial pre-trial after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided a detailed pre-trial brief on legal issues that undermined the Crown’s chances of successfully prosecuting the client. Statements taken from the client by police were not admissible as well as difficulty on the facts for sustaining a prosecution. As such, both charges were withdrawn.

Regina v. J. K. (2009)

Client charged with Conspiracy to commit Fraud and Fraud Over $5,000.00 withdrawn at the Ontario Court of Justice prior to trial as a result of no reasonable prospect of conviction after detailed presentation of the facts to the Crown by defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger.

Regina v. R.R. (2008)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00, False Statement in Writing and Utter Forged Documents regarding alleged fraud in the amount of $2.8 million, withdrawn prior to preliminary hearing in light of failure of Crown to adequately provide disclosure. Defence counsel Joseph Neuberger through detailed disclosure requests and repeated court appearances, pursued full and complete disclosure.

Regina v. A.D. (2008)

Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 regarding multi-million dollar financing fraud withdrawn at the preliminary hearing as a result of detailed defence forensic investigation establishing no reasonable prospect of conviction.

Regina v. A.D. (2008)

Charges of Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Fraud Over $5,000.00 regarding large scale financing fraud of HRDC withdrawn in the Ontario Court of Justice after defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger aggressively negotiated that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Detailed and thorough review of all disclosure and financing records, together with creative defence strategy resulted in the withdrawal of all charges.

Regina v. R.S. (2006)

Client found not guilty on charges of fraud over $5,000.00, breach of trust and theft over $5,000.00 after three day trial before the Ontario Court of Justice.

Regina v. H.P. (2006)

Charge of fraud under $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. J.G. (2006)

Charges of fraud and counterfeit money withdrawn prior to trial.

Regina v. Mohammadi (2003)

Charges of fraud under and theft under. Client acquitted after a successful 11(b) Charter Application.

Regina v. Huc (2000)

Charges of Fraud Over $5000 withdrawn as a result of defence application alleging improper search and violations of client’s right to counsel.

Regina v. D. Singh (2000)

Client acquitted of Fraud Over $5000 charges.

Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.


PHONE: (416) 364-3111
FAX: (416) 364-3271