R. v. Blumenthal

R. v. Blumenthal

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made deceptive representations to induce the victims to return the vehicle and deliver $11,500, that he intentionally failed to pay out the loan and retained proceeds (including sale of the vehicle and commissions), thereby causing deprivation in excess of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2018 NSSC 282
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Darren Hersh Blumenthal
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
15 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)
Outcome
Guilty on counts 1 and 2; count 3 dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code), Theft/failure to Account (s.330(1) Criminal Code), False Pretense (s.362(2)(a)), Actus Reus and Mens Rea, Credibility of Witnesses
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Banking/finance Fraud (s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code) Theft/failure to Account (s.330(1) Criminal Code) False Pretense (s.362(2)(a)) Actus Reus and Mens Rea Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Darren Hersh Blumenthal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment (conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed fraud contrary to s.380(1)(a) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the accused committed theft/failure to account contrary to s.330(1) Criminal Code
  3. 3 Whether the Crown proved actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused made deceptive representations to induce the victims to return the vehicle and deliver $11,500, that he intentionally failed to pay out the loan and retained proceeds (including sale of the vehicle and commissions), thereby causing deprivation in excess of $5,000 and satisfying both the actus reus and mens rea of fraud under s.380(1)(a) and the offence under s.330(1); intermediary involvement or civil remedies did not negate criminal responsibility.

Court Disposition

Guilty on counts 1 and 2; count 3 dismissed

Orders

  • Found guilty of fraud contrary to s.380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code (count 1)
  • Found guilty of failing to account/ theft contrary to s.330(1) of the Criminal Code (count 2)