R. v. Mohebtash

R. v. Mohebtash

The trial judge accepted the bank officer's identification that the accused was the person who presented and used the forged Power of Attorney on March 4 and March 18, found the document and lawyer's stamp to be forged and knowingly used, and concluded the accused's actions placed the bank's pecuniary interests at risk; the belated, uncorroborated and inconsistent alibi was rejected, leading to convictions on both counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation
2006 BCSC 1930
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mohammad Mohebtash
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Forgery and Attempted Fraud / Trial Oral Reasons for Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty on both counts
Legal Topics
Forgery, Attempted Fraud, Uttering Forged Documents, Eyewitness Identification, Alibi Disclosure, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Law Forgery Attempted Fraud Uttering Forged Documents Eyewitness Identification Alibi Disclosure Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mohammad Mohebtash

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Forgery and Attempted Fraud / Trial Oral Reasons for Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Identity of the person who presented the Power of Attorney on March 4 and March 18, 2004
  2. 2 Whether the Power of Attorney was forged and knowingly used (uttering)
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved attempted fraud by placing the bank's pecuniary interests at risk

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge accepted the bank officer's identification that the accused was the person who presented and used the forged Power of Attorney on March 4 and March 18, found the document and lawyer's stamp to be forged and knowingly used, and concluded the accused's actions placed the bank's pecuniary interests at risk; the belated, uncorroborated and inconsistent alibi was rejected, leading to convictions on both counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Guilty on both counts