Personation at examina tions. Penalty. Personating owner of Government stock. Company stock. Dividends. Grant of land or scrip. Person under power of attorney. Transfer under per sonation. prisoner had bought from the soldier personated the prize-money to which the latter was entitled. R. v. Lake (1869), 11 Cox C.C. 333. 409. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable, on indictment or summary conviction, to one year's imprisonment, or to a fine of one hundred dollars, who falsely, with intent to gain some advantage for himself or some other person, personates a candidate at any competitive or qualifying examination, held under the authority of any law or statute, or in connection with any university or college, or who procures himself or any other person to be personated at any such examination, or who knowingly avails himself of the results of such personation. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 457. 410. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment who falsely and deceitfully personates, (a) any owner of any share or interest of or in any stock, annuity or other public fund transferable in any book of account kept by the Government of Canada or of any province thereof, or by any bank for any such Government; or, (b) any owner of any share or interest of or in the debt of any public body, or of or in the debt or capital stock of any body corporate, company, or society; or, (c) any owner of any dividend, coupon, certificate or money (d) any owner of any share or interest in any claim for a and thereby transfers or endeavours to transfer any share or time, is deliverable to the owner of any such stock or fund, or to the person authorized by any such power of attorney. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 458. Origin of enactment.]-The corresponding English statute is the Forgery Act, 1861, 24-25 Vict., ch. 98, secs. 3, 4, 14 and 35. un Form of indictment.]—The jurors, etc., present that J.S. on the day of in the year of our Lord at the of lawfully did falsely and deceitfully personate one J.N., the said J.N. being the owner of a certain share and interest in certain stock and annuities which were then transferable at the Bank of , to wit (here state the amount and nature of the stock), and that the said J.S. thereby did then transfer (or endeavour to transfer) the said share and interest of the said J.N. in the said stock and annuities as if he, the said J.S., were then the true and lawful owner thereof, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, the Criminal Code sec. 410. strument in 411. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Acknowto seven years' imprisonment who, without lawful authority or ledging inexcuse, the proof of which shall lie on him, acknowledges, in false name. the name of any other person, before any court, judge or other person lawfully authorized in that behalf, any recognizance of bail, or any cognovit actionem, or consent for judgment, or judgment, or any deed or other instrument. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 459. Fraud and Fraudulent Dealing with Property. false ticket. 412. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Obtaining to six months' imprisonment who, by means of any false ticket passage by or order, or of any other ticket or order, fraudulently and unlawfully obtains or attempts to obtain any passage on any carriage, tramway or railway, or in any steam or other vessel. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 362. 413. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable Penalty. to seven years' imprisonment who, being a director, manager, public officer or member of any body corporate or public company, with intent to defraud, (a) destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, Official writing or valuable security belonging to the body corpor- destroying ate or public company; or, security. (b) makes, or concurs in making, any false entry, or omits Making or concurs in omitting to enter any material particular, in false entry any book of account or other document. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 364. in book. False pro spectus, etc., by directors, etc. Penalty. Indictment.]-An indictment charging bank officials with having made a monthly report, etc., "a wilful, false and deceptive statement" of and concerning the affairs of the bank, with intent to deceive, sufficiently charges the offence, under the Bank Act, of having made, "a wilfully false or deceptive statement in any return or report" with such intent. R. v. Weir (No. 1) (1899), 3 Can. Cr. Cas. 102, R.J.Q. 8 Q.B. 521. 414. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment who, being a promoter, director, public officer or manager of any body corporate or public company, either existing or intended to be formed, makes, circulates, or publishes, or concurs in making, circulating or publishing any prospectus, statement or account which he knows to be false in any material particular, with intent to induce persons whether ascertained or not to become shareholders or partners, or with intent to deceive or defraud the members, shareholders or creditors, or any of them, whether ascertained or not, of such body corporate or public company, or with intent to induce any person to entrust or advance any property to such body corporate or public company, or to enter into any security for the benefit thereof. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 365. Fraudulent official statements.]-Where the offence charged was the making, circulation and publication of false statements of the financial position of a company, and it appeared that the statements were mailed from a place in Ontario to the parties intended to be deceived in Montreal, the offence, although commenced in Ontario, is completed in the Province of Quebec by the delivery of the letters to the parties to whom they were addressed. R. v. Gillespie (No. 2) (1898), 2 Can. Cr. Cas. 309. In such case, the courts of the Province of Quebec have jurisdiction to try the accused, if he has been duly committed for trial by a magistrate of the district. Ibid. If a director or manager of a public company publishes a false statement of account knowing that it is false, with the intent that it shall be acted upon by those whom it reaches, he is guilty in law of publishing such statement with intent to defraud. R. v. Birt (1899), 63 J.P. 328 (Central Cr. Court). Judicial notice will be taken of the statutory law of a province, other than the one in which the charge is laid, whereby the "president" of a company must necessarily be one of the "directors," and on proof of the manner of incorporation a description of the accused as the "president" of the company seems to be sufficient. R. v. Gillespie (1898), Î Can. Cr. Cas. 551 (Que.). It was held in Rex v. Lawson, 21 Times L.R. 231, that under sec. 84 of the Imperial Larceny Act, 1861, imposing criminal liability on any "director, manager, or public officer of any body corporate or public company" who publishes a false statement with intent to defraud, etc., a person who is in fact the "manager" of a company, may be convicted, and that a formal appointment to the position is not a pre-requisite. 415. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to seven years' imprisonment who, being or acting in the capacity of an officer, clerk, or servant, with intent to defraud, mutilating (a) destroys, alters, mutilates or falsifies any book, paper, Official alterwriting, valuable security or document which belongs to ing or or is in the possession of his employer, or has been received of book. by him for or on behalf of his employer, or concurs in the same being done; or (b) makes, or concurs in making, any false entry in, or Making omits or alters, or concurs in omitting or altering, any false entry. material particular from or in, any such book, paper, writing, valuable security or document. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 366. In The King v. Oliphant, [1905] 2 K.B. 67, the prosecution was against a clerk for falsifying the accounts of his employer under a similar English statute. The defendant was employed by an English firm to manage their branch establishment in Paris. It was his daily duty to enter on slips an account of all sums received by him in Paris for his employers and transmit these slips to them in England in order that the amounts might be entered in their cash book there. On a certain date the defendant received three sums in Paris which he fraudulently appropriated to his own use and omitted to enter on the slips forwarded by him to England, knowing and intending that, in consequence, the amounts so received would be omitted from the cash book as they in fact were. Upon the trial the question was raised, whether in view of the fact that part of the alleged offence had been committed in France, there was any jurisdiction in the English court to try the case. The defendant was convicted and a case was reserved. The court for Crown cases reserved affirmed the conviction. The majority of the court held that the fact that the prisoner knew and intended that the effect of his omission from the slips of sums received by him would lead to a falsification of his employers' books was sufficient to warrant his conviction, and that on the authority of Rex v. Munton, 1 Esp. 62, 8 R.R. 556, the fact that part of the offence was committed abroad did not oust the jurisdiction of the English court. The prisoner in Rex v. Drewett, 21 Times L.R. 164, was charged with omitting to enter in the cash book of her employers a sum received from a customer. She alleged that she had, without the knowledge of her employers, used money of her own in the business, and that she had omitted to enter the receipt of the sum in question because she thought she was entitled to repay herself in this way. A direction to the jury that even if believed her story was no defence was held to be improper, the belief, if honest, being sufficient to negative the intent to defraud, and that being a question for the jury. An entry in an official cash book as "balance in hand" of an amount which correctly represented the amount which the defendant should have had in his possession but did not then have, is not a "false entry" if the cash book is not one kept to shew the state of account between the defendant and his employer, but between his employer and the employer's superior as to whom the entry correctly represents the amount he is entitled to receive. R. v. Williams (1900), 63 J.P. 103, 19 Cox C.C. 239. Blackstone's definition of forgery is "the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another's right." The possibility of prejudice to another is sufficient. R. v. Ward (1727), 2 Str. 747, 2 Ld. Ray 1461. A clerk, representing his superior, makes a correct entry in official books, and afterwards without authority and malo animo changes the entry for his own gain; yet so to make it appear to be still the offi False return by public officer. Penalty. Disposal of property, etc., with intent to defraud creditors. Receiving property. Being a trader fails to keep accounts. cial record; such an act constitutes forgery. Re Hall (1883), 3 O.R. 331; but see R. v. Blackstone, 4 Man. R. 296. 416. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to five years' imprisonment, and to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, who, being an officer, collector or receiver, entrusted with the receipt, custody, or management of any part of the public revenues, knowingly furnishes any false statement or return of any sum of money collected by him or entrusted to his care, or of any balance of money in his hands or under his control. 55-56 V., c. 29, s. 367. Intent.]-The wilful intent to make a false return may be inferred by the jury from all the circumstances of the case proved to their satisfaction. R. v. Hincks (1879), 24 L.C. Jur. 116. 417. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of eight hundred dollars and to one year's imprisonment who, (a) with intent to defraud his creditors, or any of them, or (ii) removes, conceals or disposes of any of his property; or, (b) with the intent that any one shall so defraud his credi- Transfer with intent to defraud.]-It is not essential that the debt of the creditor should at the time of assignment be actually due. R. v. Henry (1891), 21 O.R. 113, following Macdonald v. McCall, 12 A.R. 393. It is properly left to the jury to say whether the defendant put the property out of his hands, transferred or disposed of it for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, although in the course of that transaction he satisfied a debt due to the creditor to whom the property was assigned. R. v. Potter (1860), 10 U.C.C.P. 39 (Draper, C.J., and Hagarty, J.). |