R v A O & D (2015)
In this mega case of money laundering and criminal organization charges, the defendants are alleged to have been involved in a fraudulent telemarketing scheme that targeted citizens of the United States. The RCMP Commercial Crime Section in Calgary was alerted when two parcels containing undeclared cash were intercepted by the Canada Border Services Agency. It is alleged that individuals contacted in the United States were told they had won a lottery but that they had to pay taxes or administration fees in order to collect their winnings. They were directed to forward funds to various individuals at UPS boxes and other locations in Calgary. The state contends that the money was then funnelled through bank accounts controlled by the defendants. The pretrial motions in this case are scheduled throughout 2015 and the trial date is set in 2016.
R v F M & F (2012)
Mr Rice’s client in this case was alleged to be a member of an identity theft ring in Alberta and British Columbia. The state asserted that his client was in possession of information obtained from the theft of computer transactions and identity data stolen during the break in of a business near Vancouver and that he was involved in the manufacturing of bogus credit cards. During pretrial preparation it became apparent that the Crown Attorney was withholding significant information that formed the basis of applications for search warrants. Mr Rice filed a pretrial disclosure motion under ss 7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge granted the application and when she began ordering disclosure of a large volume of specific materials the Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v D (1997)
In this multi-million dollar case of fraud and money laundering two insiders employed by an international Calgary company were charged with skimming money from currency transactions. The money trail led to D who was a successful businessman. The theory of the prosecution was that a conspiracy existed among the three men who all knew what was being done. D retained Mr Rice. At trial, during cross-examination of T, one of the insiders, T said he was unaware whether D knew how the money was being diverted. And under cross-examination of E, the other insider and a former banker, E conceded to Mr Rice that he never told D where the money came from and he did not know if D was ever aware of the scam. The trial judge agreed with Mr Rice that the evidence did not establish that D ought to have been suspicious about where the money came from and the evidence was insufficient to apply the doctrine of willful blindness. D was found not guilty of all charges.