Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has a new target in the Conservative government’s long-running bid to clamp down on crime.
After tackling conditional sentences and, more recently, announcing plans to introduce “truth in sentencing,” Nicholson is now turning his attention to the latest justice issue Canadians are talking about: white-collar crime.
He offered few specifics but said the reforms would include both mandatory minimum jail terms and longer sentences for fraudsters.
The comments come, of course, amid revelations of another alleged Ponzi scam that bilked investors out of millions of dollars. Last week, police announced they had charged two Alberta men, Gary Sorenson and Milowe Brost, in a scheme that allegedly took in more than $100 million from thousands of people.
Already, observers expressed concerns over another case involving Montreal investment dealer Earl Jones, who faces fraud charges over an alleged Ponzi arrangement that also cost people millions.
Those cases have rekindled concerns that Canada is lax in stopping financial crimes. But while Nicholson’s vow will be sure to revive the familiar debate about whether tougher sentences deter crime, critics will likely have a hard time getting the public onside.
Certainly, the fact that our parole laws often allow white-collar criminals to serve what end up being relatively short periods of time in jail is a concern that longer prison terms would go some way to addressing.
Nevertheless, this is an area where Canadians need to look beyond the usual rhetoric. Already, reports have surfaced showing that in the Alberta case, the province’s securities commission had been on it for years and had in fact levied an administrative fine against Brost in 2007.
Despite those investigations, the scheme continued while the RCMP looked into criminal charges.
It took until now for that to happen, a fact that highlights the need for new procedures and resources so the Mounties can speed up their investigations.
It has been acknowledged for years that our national police force has found itself hampered in laying criminal charges in fraud cases due to everything from a high vacancy rate in its commercial crime units to the challenges of collecting documentary evidence from sources such as banks.
The Conservative government has said it’s working on the issue, but the Alberta case makes it obvious that authorities continue to struggle in investigating fraudsters.
Of course, given that people with money have a particular interest in protecting their reputations, this is one area where the certainty of prosecution can be an especially effective deterrent. So, while it’s fine to toughen sentences, Nicholson should think more broadly.
After tackling conditional sentences and, more recently, announcing plans to introduce “truth in sentencing,” Nicholson is now turning his attention to the latest justice issue Canadians are talking about: white-collar crime.
He offered few specifics but said the reforms would include both mandatory minimum jail terms and longer sentences for fraudsters.
The comments come, of course, amid revelations of another alleged Ponzi scam that bilked investors out of millions of dollars. Last week, police announced they had charged two Alberta men, Gary Sorenson and Milowe Brost, in a scheme that allegedly took in more than $100 million from thousands of people.
Already, observers expressed concerns over another case involving Montreal investment dealer Earl Jones, who faces fraud charges over an alleged Ponzi arrangement that also cost people millions.
Those cases have rekindled concerns that Canada is lax in stopping financial crimes. But while Nicholson’s vow will be sure to revive the familiar debate about whether tougher sentences deter crime, critics will likely have a hard time getting the public onside.
Certainly, the fact that our parole laws often allow white-collar criminals to serve what end up being relatively short periods of time in jail is a concern that longer prison terms would go some way to addressing.
Nevertheless, this is an area where Canadians need to look beyond the usual rhetoric. Already, reports have surfaced showing that in the Alberta case, the province’s securities commission had been on it for years and had in fact levied an administrative fine against Brost in 2007.
Despite those investigations, the scheme continued while the RCMP looked into criminal charges.
It took until now for that to happen, a fact that highlights the need for new procedures and resources so the Mounties can speed up their investigations.
It has been acknowledged for years that our national police force has found itself hampered in laying criminal charges in fraud cases due to everything from a high vacancy rate in its commercial crime units to the challenges of collecting documentary evidence from sources such as banks.
The Conservative government has said it’s working on the issue, but the Alberta case makes it obvious that authorities continue to struggle in investigating fraudsters.
Of course, given that people with money have a particular interest in protecting their reputations, this is one area where the certainty of prosecution can be an especially effective deterrent. So, while it’s fine to toughen sentences, Nicholson should think more broadly.
- Glenn Kauth
