Cyber-Enabled Property Offences
1. Overview of Identity and Credit Card Fraud
Identity and credit card fraud are types of financial and property crimes. They generally involve using someone else’s personal information or financial instruments without consent to obtain money, goods, or services.
Relevant Laws in Canada
Criminal Code of Canada (CCC)
Section 402.2 – Identity fraud (possession or use of personal identifying information to commit an offence)
Section 403 – Fraud over $5,000 or under $5,000
Section 342 & 403 – Credit card fraud and unauthorized use of credit cards
Definition
Identity fraud: Using someone’s personal information (name, SIN, credit card, bank account) to gain financial or material benefit without consent.
Credit card fraud: Using a credit card without authorization, including theft, forgery, or counterfeiting.
Penalties
Fraud over $5,000: Maximum 14 years imprisonment.
Fraud under $5,000: Maximum 2 years imprisonment (summary or indictable).
Identity fraud can carry up to 10 years depending on circumstances.
2. Elements of Identity and Credit Card Fraud
To secure a conviction, the prosecution must prove:
Unauthorized use
The accused used someone else’s information or card without permission.
Intent to defraud
There must be intent to deceive and gain a benefit or cause a loss.
Knowledge
The accused knew that the information or card was stolen or obtained illegally.
3. Important Case Law
Case 1: R v. Hamilton [2003] O.J. No. 3292
Facts: Hamilton used stolen credit card information to make multiple online purchases.
Issue: Did Hamilton commit fraud or just a minor misuse?
Decision: Court held that unauthorized use of a credit card constitutes fraud under Section 342 and 403.
Significance: Clarified that even online transactions with stolen card data are serious offences.
Case 2: R v. MacKinnon [1996] B.C.J. No. 1532
Facts: Accused impersonated another person to open a bank account and withdraw money.
Issue: Was impersonation sufficient to prove identity fraud?
Decision: Court ruled that using another person’s identity with intent to obtain money or goods is identity fraud, regardless of physical theft.
Significance: Established that fraud can occur even without taking physical property; the deception itself is enough.
Case 3: R v. Majeed [2009] O.J. No. 2165
Facts: Majeed stole multiple credit cards, made fraudulent purchases, and was caught.
Issue: What factors affect sentencing for multiple offences?
Decision: Court emphasized totality principle: sentence must reflect the aggregate harm without being excessively punitive. Majeed received a combined 4-year sentence.
Significance: Shows how courts handle multiple counts of fraud and cumulative impact.
Case 4: R v. Singh [2014] B.C.C.A. 187
Facts: Singh obtained personal information from a database and opened multiple fraudulent credit card accounts.
Issue: Does access to confidential databases increase the severity of the offence?
Decision: Court ruled that aggravating factors include sophistication and premeditation. Sentenced to 5 years imprisonment.
Significance: Emphasizes that large-scale, systematic identity theft carries harsher penalties.
Case 5: R v. Leung [2011] O.J. No. 4503
Facts: Leung used a stolen credit card to withdraw cash from ATMs.
Issue: Whether using ATM withdrawals constitutes aggravated fraud.
Decision: Court found that ATM withdrawals from stolen cards show clear intent to defraud and cause loss, resulting in a 3-year sentence.
Significance: Reinforces that even small-value but repeated unauthorized transactions are taken seriously.
Case 6: R v. Tapp [2007] O.J. No. 2792
Facts: Tapp hacked email accounts to steal credit card details and buy goods online.
Issue: Does digital fraud count under the same provisions as physical card theft?
Decision: Court held that digital identity theft and credit card fraud are treated identically to physical theft if intent to defraud exists.
Significance: Recognized the growing threat of cyber fraud under Canadian law.
4. Key Principles from Case Law
Unauthorized use is sufficient to establish the offence; the actual loss need not be high (R v. Hamilton, Leung).
Intent to defraud is critical—the accused must knowingly misuse information (R v. MacKinnon, Tapp).
Scale and sophistication matter in sentencing (R v. Singh, Majeed).
Digital and online methods of committing fraud are treated as seriously as traditional methods (R v. Tapp).
Cumulative sentencing is applied when multiple offences occur (R v. Majeed).
Summary Table
| Offence Type | Legal Section(s) | Key Element | Case Example | Max Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Credit Card Fraud | 342, 403 | Unauthorized use, intent to defraud | R v. Hamilton 2003 | 14 yrs |
| Identity Fraud | 402.2 | Using personal info without consent | R v. MacKinnon 1996 | 10 yrs |
| Fraud over $5,000 | 380 | Intent to deceive for gain | R v. Singh 2014 | 14 yrs |
| Digital/Cyber Fraud | 342, 403 | Unauthorized online transactions | R v. Tapp 2007 | 14 yrs |
| Multiple Offences | 380, 342, 403 | Totality principle | R v. Majeed 2009 | Aggregate 4-5 yrs |
RELATED Blog
comments