R. v. Glassco Date:, 2017 BCPC 423

Citation: R. v. Glassco Date: 20170227 2017 BCPC 423 File No: 206040-1 Registry: Surrey IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Criminal REGINA v. EUGENE GLASSCO ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J.I.S. SUTHERLAND Counsel for the Crown: A. Jantunen Counsel for the Defendant: J. Whysall Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: September 8, 9, 29, November 17, 2016 Date of Sentence: February 27, 2017

[ 1 ] Eugene Glassco was found guilty on November 17, 2016 in a decision that I rendered at the conclusion of a trial of two counts, one that he, by deceit, falsehood and other fraudulent means, defrauded Luo Jian Dong of $65,000, contrary to s. 380(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code , and a second count that he committed theft of the property of Mr. Dong in that same amount, contrary to s.334 (

a) of the Criminal Code. I have, pursuant to the Kienapple principle, directed a conviction on the fraud count and a conditional stay on the theft count. These are my reasons for sentence on the fraud count for which a conviction has been entered. [ 2 ] I will not go into extensive detail of the circumstances of the offence as detail is provided in my reasons for conviction. However, I will provide an overview of the circumstances. [ 3 ] The conviction arises from Mr. Glassco's involvement in what is commonly referred to in Canada and the United States as a "black money" scam. Mr.

Glassco, together with another man, approached the victim, Mr. Dong, in November 2013 at Mr. Dong's toy store that he owned at the Guildford Mall. Mr. Glassco introduced himself by the name "Goodwin", and together with the other man, who was introduced as "Nelson", offered to buy Mr. Dong's whole stock of toys to sell in Africa. Mr. Glassco, in the course of that discussion and discussions that followed, was clearly the leader of the two in terms of perpetrating this fraud, and it was Mr. Glassco who, according to Mr.

Dong, did all the talking over the course of the approximately three weeks that the scam was perpetrated. [ 4 ] Mr. Glassco told Mr. Dong that he wanted to pay for the toys in cash, but that the cash he had was unusable as it had been covered with a black coating as a safety precaution against theft in Africa where Mr. Glassco, as Goodwin, claimed he was from. Mr. Glassco then informed Mr. Dong that the procedure for removing the black coating required real, uncoated dollar bills to be put against the black-coated money while a special chemical was applied. Mr.

Glassco and his associate, known as Nelson, then demonstrated this procedure for Mr. Dong with small amounts of money on two occasions. Following these demonstrations, Mr. Glassco persuaded Mr. Dong to withdraw $65,000 from his personal and business accounts. In a storage room at Mr. Dong's store, Mr. Glassco and Nelson mixed these bills with a number of apparently black-coated dollar bills and applied a chemical, and then put the bills in a portable safe for which Nelson and Mr. Glassco jointly retained the only key. [ 5 ] On the evening of that same day, Mr.

Dong drove from his store to his home in Surrey with his wife, Mr. Glassco, Nelson, and the safe. In Mr. Dong's basement the safe was opened and Mr. Glassco appeared to make an attempt at pouring a chemical on some of the money to facilitate the removal of the coating, but then announced that the chemical was defective. The following day, Mr. Glassco told Mr. Dong that he had found a company which could sell them the chemical that would remove the coating on the money. He brought a small bottle of what he claimed was the chemical and the two men, Mr.

Glassco and Nelson, opened the safe and applied the chemical to a single, black-coated bill, removing the coating. [ 6 ] Mr. Glassco then informed Mr. Dong that he required a further $120,000 to purchase the chemical. Mr. Dong refused, and over the course of several conversations with Mr. Glassco, Mr. Glassco proposed lower amounts. Mr. Dong became suspicious, hired a locksmith to open the safe which was still in Mr. Dong's house, and discovered packages of construction paper in the shape of dollar bills in place of the $65,000 that had been stored in the safe. Mr.

Dong called the police and subsequently met with Mr. Glassco one more time at his store. After speaking with Mr. Dong, Mr. Glassco fled the store. He was subsequently apprehended and arrested but the money was never recovered. [ 7 ] Crown counsel says that Mr. Glassco ought to be sentenced to three-and-a-half years' jail. Defence counsel suggests a sentence of six months. [ 8 ] To place those sentencing submissions in context of the ultimate sentence that I will impose on Mr. Glassco, it is important to consider the facts I have just mentioned in the context of the purposes and principles of sentencing and Mr.

Glassco's background. Before doing so, I will make these general characterizations of the offence: It was sophisticated; it was extensively planned; it was persistent; it was calculated and resulted in an extensive deceit of a large amount of money to Mr. Dong and his family, and it was all for Mr. Glassco's own advantage to the detriment of Mr. Dong. [ 9 ] Not surprisingly, this incident has had a profound effect on Mr. Dong and his wife, Ms. Zheng. A victim impact statement was filed with the court that I have considered. Mr.

Dong describes the whole incident, and I might add that English is a second language for Mr. Dong, as heartbreaking. His wife has suffered, as has he, significant mental and emotional trauma, as well as physical distress. His wife has had to travel back and forth to China to stay with family members in order to feel safe and to assist in her reconciling the psychological trauma that she has endured and that she is grappling with. For the past year-and-a-half, apparently, she has been unable to work on a regular basis. [ 10 ] Economically, Mr.

Dong says that they now have no money to maintain their everyday lifestyle and they had to borrow money from a financial institution at significant interest rates. They sold their house for economic and safety reasons and they moved to another city. He says they have changed their life to live a more affordable one and so that his wife can come back to live and work and feel safe. He describes the hurt as being deep, and causing him "terrible pain and hurt", that he has difficulty putting it into words. [ 11 ] Mr. Glassco is 35 years of age. He came from Liberia as a refugee.

There is a civil war in Liberia that sadly claimed the lives of his parents when Mr. Glassco was just 12 years of age. He came to Canada in 2004 at the age of 22. About four years later he was convicted of committing a similar fraud which I will touch on in more detail in a moment. He has worked in warehouse work and he has formed and operated his own shipping company where North American products would be shipped to Africa for sale. [ 12 ] Mr. Glassco has three children, one daughter, age eight, who lives with her mother in Toronto. Mr.

Glassco no longer is in a relationship with that daughter's mother, however he does have a common-law spouse of 10 years, approximately, and two daughters from that relationship, aged five and two. They are together although these criminal charges did provide some challenges for them. [ 13 ] Mr. Glassco was convicted in 2006, as mentioned, of a similar fraud. It was a fraud over $5,000 in Montreal on September 13th, 2006. Of the circumstances, I will not go into detail.

The fraud was ultimately unsuccessful, there was no deprivation, but when I say it is similar, it was the "black money" scam again, and the victim had the wherewithal to have the police involved early. The police

then acted in an undercover capacity and apparently had direct dealings with Mr. Glassco, although Mr. Glassco states that he was simply a party to the scam. Nevertheless, it involved the same dollar bills, only in that case U.S. dollars bills, coated in a black substance and a need for money to purchase chemical to remove the black substance and replacing money that had been deposited with construction paper was part of it, although that was not done, as mentioned, because the fraud was ultimately unsuccessful. [ 14 ] Nevertheless, Mr. Glassco received a one-year conditional sentence order.

That conditional sentence order would have expired in September of 2007. The offence dates for the offences that I am sentencing Mr. Glassco on are November 12th to November 29th, 2013, about six years and two months between Mr. Glassco's commission of the black money scam in this case and his involvement back in 2006 in Montreal. [ 15 ] The effect of his conviction in 2006 on his immigration status, I am advised by Crown counsel who has received information from Canada Border Services Agency is that a deportation order was issued in 2006. This does not appear to be in dispute between Crown and defence. Mr.

Glassco apparently was not granted refugee status and at the time of the offence it is unclear what his status was in Canada. Nevertheless, a deportation order was issued in 2006 deporting him back to Liberia. The order was not executed because of a number of appeals, apparently, by Mr. Glassco. Mr. Glassco's current status in Canada is that he is inadmissible. In other words, he has no status here currently and he has been ordered to be removed without appeal. [ 16 ] Defence counsel has stated that it is not entirely clear what will happen to Mr.

Glassco as a result of this conviction and upon his sentencing in this matter, but it appears that he will be deported to Liberia which will ultimately end his relationship with his children and make continuing his relationship with his common-law spouse very difficult. [ 17 ] I have some sympathy for the collateral damage to those who were not directly involved in Mr. Glassco's decision and ultimately may end up without a father as a result. As for Mr. Glassco, he must have known of his perilous immigration status, the deportation order having been issued even before he chose to commit a similar fraud on Mr.

Dong. He must have known, as he was determining his involvement in this matter, that committing this offence was certainly not going to enhance his chance of staying in Canada but was placing it at an incredible risk and could only scuttle his chances of remaining in Canada if the deportation order already existed. Mr. Glassco's deportation, apparently that is the likely consequence, ought to be no surprise to Mr. Glassco, and the effect on his family ought to have been a consideration. [ 18 ] Turning to the analysis.

The court must consider the purposes and principles of sentencing in s. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code , an offender's personal circumstances and the circumstances of the offence, in order to assess his moral blameworthiness for its commission. This assessment will guide the court to arrive at a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's degree of responsibility.

The process is individual to each case and each offender. [ 19 ] The purposes and principles of sentencing take into account the needs of the community and the offender, and in the end the sentence must balance these needs giving weight to some more than others depending on all the circumstances of the individual case. [ 20 ] In Mr. Glassco's case, I agree with the comments made in Her Majesty the Queen and McNaughton , an unreported decision provided to me from April 12th, 2001, Supreme Court of British Columbia, where in a fraud case, different circumstances, however, Mr.

Justice Smith, speaking for the court, mentioned that the primary objectives in that case were to denounce the fraudulent conduct and to deter others who may be of a mind to take financial advantage of people in similar circumstances. [ 21 ] I certainly find in the case before me that the objectives of denunciation and general deterrence require emphasis, along with specific deterrence to Mr. Glassco given his previous conviction. However, I cannot ignore the other principle such as rehabilitation of Mr. Glassco.

Ultimately, as mentioned, I must reach a proportionate sentence. [ 22 ] In terms of the seriousness of the offence, it is obviously a serious offence. As I have described; it was sophisticated and well- planned. Mr. Glassco played a leading role that resulted in continued suffering by Mr. Dong who lost $65,000 and has not received it back, after having a similar conviction that he finished serving six years previously. I have given consideration to Mr. Glassco's background. [ 23 ] In R. v. McNaughton, Mr.

Justice Smith said the range of sentence was approximately 15 months plus two years probation at the low end, and three-and-a-half years plus restitution -- 15 months plus two years probation, up to three-and-a-half years plus restitution was the range of sentence. In that case Mr. McNaughton had no criminal record. [ 24 ] In R. v. Kwaidah , a "black money" scam case out of Newfoundland, Mr. Kwaidah, who had no criminal record, received the equivalent of a 12-month jail sentence for fraud and attempted fraud that ultimately turned into two convictions for attempted fraud after going to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal did not rule on the appropriateness of the sentence given Mr. Kwaidah had completed the sentence by that point. Those positions give some idea and context to what the appropriate sentence ought to be for Mr. Glassco. [ 25 ] Defence counsel submits that a sentence of six months would be appropriate and says that the sentence ought to be reduced in terms of the amount of jail time because the parties are ad idem that a restitution order ought to be imposed of $65,000 to the victim. It also does not appear to be overly contentious that Mr.

Glassco paying that restitution order, seems to be a long shot. Nothing has been presented to the court of a plan by Mr. Glassco to pay it. If he is deported to Liberia, which seems a likely result, the chances of him paying it are remote. I do not find the imposition of a restitution order ought to dramatically alter what would be an appropriate sentence in all the circumstances. [ 26 ] It has also been urged upon the court to treat Mr. Glassco, in sentencing today, as an offender who has not served a jail sentence previously. In other words, because a conditional sentence order is not available to Mr.

Glassco, this will be his first jail sentence. However, I find that I cannot treat Mr. Glassco in such a fashion. Indeed, a conditional sentence order is a jail sentence. In fact, the language in s. 742.1 states, and I will quote the first paragraph: If a person is convicted of an offence and the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment of less than two years, the court may, for the purpose of supervising the offender's behaviour in the community, order that the offender serve the sentence in the community.

[ 27 ] A conditional sentence order is a sentence of imprisonment. It is a determination that the proper sentence is imprisonment, however, the offender has the opportunity to serve the sentence in the community provided certain prerequisites are met. R. v. Proulx , a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada that carefully analysed conditional sentences, also makes it clear that a conditional sentence is a sentence of jail served in the community. I treat Mr.

Glassco as an offender who has a previous record for a similar offence for which he received one-year jail but that was served in the community as a Conditional Sentence Order. [ 28 ] When I consider all of the factors that must be considered in the course of pronouncing this sentence, I find the appropriate sentence to be as follows. [ 29 ] Stand up, Mr.

Glassco. [ 30 ] The appropriate sentence, in all the circumstances, is two years and three months, and I sentence you accordingly. [ 31 ] With respect to ancillary orders I will order, pursuant to s. 738 of the Criminal Code , that you pay restitution in the amount of $65,000 to Mr. Dong. [ 32 ] With respect to the DNA, Mr. Whysall, I did not hear submissions on your behalf from you on that ancillary order. Do you have any submissions? [ 33 ] MR.

WHYSALL: No, Your Honour. [ 34 ] THE COURT: Given the nature of the offences, their similarity, and the dates of them, also considering your privacy interests in the balance, I will order that you provide a sample of your DNA while you are in custody. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)