United States of America v. Chandler

United States of America v. Chandler

The certified ROC, viewed with the appropriate restrained role of the extradition judge, established a prima facie case of fraud on five bases (fake cheques, forged loan commitment letter, assurances that investors' property was safe, misrepresentations about settlement funds, and diversion of loan proceeds to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 BCSC 361
Parties
Requesting State: The Attorney General of Canada on Behalf of the United States of America; Person Sought: Mark John Chandler
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Extradition / Extradition Hearing Committal Decision
Outcome
Person committed for surrender to the United States of America
Legal Topics
Fraud, Committal, Evidence Admissibility, Extradition Act S.32(1)(c), Section 29(1) Committal Test
Source Language
english
Extradition Criminal Law Fraud Committal Evidence Admissibility Extradition Act S.32(1)(c) Section 29(1) Committal Test

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General of Canada on Behalf of the United States of America

Requesting State

Mark John Chandler

Person Sought

Procedural Posture

Extradition / Extradition Hearing Committal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence evidence under s.32(1)(c) is admissible
  2. 2 Whether the Record of the Case establishes a prima facie case equivalent to fraud under s.380 Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether alleged acts (fake cheques, forged loan commitment, misrepresentations re safety of investments and settlement funds, conversion of loan proceeds) constitute deceit or other fraudulent means

Ratio Decidendi

The certified ROC, viewed with the appropriate restrained role of the extradition judge, established a prima facie case of fraud on five bases (fake cheques, forged loan commitment letter, assurances that investors' property was safe, misrepresentations about settlement funds, and diversion of loan proceeds to personal use); the defence affidavits did not meet the s.32(1)(c) relevance threshold because they did not demonstrate the ROC was so unreliable or defective as to be disregarded, therefore s.29(1) was satisfied and the person was committed for surrender.

Court Disposition

Person committed for surrender to the United States of America

Orders

  • Application to adduce evidence under s.32(1)(c) denied insofar as it sought to render the ROC unreliable
  • Affidavit number 3 inadmissible