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also provided stellar character references and a statutory declaration which culminated in the criminal charge being withdrawn against the client.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 Criminal charge withdrawn.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Charges of Fraud Over $5,000.00 withdrawn prior to trial, Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket.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.
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.
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.