R. v. Anderson

R. v. Anderson

Where defendants predict which loads will be selected as samples and deliberately load those sample loads with off‑grade wood to skew sample ratios and reduce stumpage, that conduct causes the Ministry to be misled and deprived of revenue and is both deceitful and, judged objectively, dishonestly stigmatized as 'other fraudulent means' under s.380(1); accordingly Ken Anderson and G. Spyker are guilty and Kevin Anderson participated as a party.

Citation
2012 BCSC 1092
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Kenneth Henning Anderson; Accused: Kevin Leon Anderson; Accused: Gregory Dale Spyker
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal – Fraud Under S.380(1) of the Criminal Code / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Kenneth Henning Anderson, Kevin Leon Anderson and Gregory Dale Spyker found guilty of fraud contrary to s.380(1) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Fraud by Deceit, Fraud by Other Fraudulent Means, Sampling Manipulation, Statutory Scaling Regime, Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Administrative/regulatory Law Forestry Law Fraud by Deceit Fraud by Other Fraudulent Means Sampling Manipulation Statutory Scaling Regime Actus Reus and Mens Rea

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Kenneth Henning Anderson

Accused

Kevin Leon Anderson

Accused

Gregory Dale Spyker

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal – Fraud Under S.380(1) of the Criminal Code / Trial Judgment (oral Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether loading pre‑identified sample loads with off‑grade logs constitutes fraud under s.380(1) by deceit or other fraudulent means
  2. 2 Whether Kevin Anderson was a party to the fraud
  3. 3 Whether the Ministry consented to any deprivation

Ratio Decidendi

Where defendants predict which loads will be selected as samples and deliberately load those sample loads with off‑grade wood to skew sample ratios and reduce stumpage, that conduct causes the Ministry to be misled and deprived of revenue and is both deceitful and, judged objectively, dishonestly stigmatized as 'other fraudulent means' under s.380(1); accordingly Ken Anderson and G. Spyker are guilty and Kevin Anderson participated as a party.

Court Disposition

Kenneth Henning Anderson, Kevin Leon Anderson and Gregory Dale Spyker found guilty of fraud contrary to s.380(1) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted of fraud contrary to s.380(1) of the Criminal Code
  • Proceed to sentencing; quantum of deprivation to be addressed at sentencing