r v. Ali, 2015 QCCQ 723

R. c.

Dayfallah 2015 QCCQ 723 COURT OF QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC CITY OF MONTRÉAL "Criminal and penal division" N° : 500-01-053587-116 500-01-022985-094 500-01-102789-143 500-01-056362-111 500-01-058697-118 500-01-066910-115 500-01-097841-131 500-01-102773-147 500-01-097840-133 500-01-097836-131 500-01-097837-139 500-01-097838-137 500-01-102783-146 500-01-106643-148 500-01-097839-135 DATE : January 22, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ THE QUEEN Prosecutor v.

Ali Dayfallah Accused ______________________________________________________________________ SENTENCE ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr Dayfallah pleaded guilty to a significant number of charges set out in 15 different files, spanning from 2008 to 2013, some of which have been transferred from Ontario. The following

summary of facts is based on an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered by the parties (S-4). 500-01-053587-116 Between April 15 th and June 16 th , 2009 Failure to comply with a probation order (section 733.1 Cr. Code) [ 2 ] In December 2008, Mr Dayfallah was sentenced to 90 days in jail and a 2-year probation with follow-up for fraud-related offences. Beginning on April 15 th 2009, Mr Dayfallah rescheduled his meetings with the probation officer 4 times and failed to report 3 times.

As of June 12 th 2009, there had been no contact with Mr Dayfallah and his whereabouts were unknown. [ 3 ] A warrant for his arrest was issued. [ 4 ] Mr Dayfallah pleaded guilty in April 2011. 500-01-022985-094 May 3 rd , 2009 Failure to comply with a probation order (section 733.1 Cr. Code) [ 5 ] Mr Dayfallah was stopped pursuant to a traffic violation. Upon his arrest, he was found to be in possession of several credit cards, banking documents and identification cards in others’ names, contrary to his probation order. Mr Dayfallah pleaded guilty to this offence in April 2011. 500-01-102789-143

Between March 15 th and March 31 st , 2010 3 counts of fraud (sections 380, 362 and 368 Cr. Code) [ 6 ] On March 15 th 2010, Mr Dayfallah contacted the company La fée des grèves, pretending to be interested in buying their products. In the following days, he placed 9 orders. For the first 8 of them, a cheque drawn from an account of Allied Ventures was deposited in the account of La fée des grèves. [ 7 ] All of those cheques were subsequently returned with the mention ”account closed”. By the time the bank was informed, the orders had already been picked up by Mr Dayfallah.

The loss suffered was US $187,000. [ 8 ] Mr Dayfallah pleaded guilty in June 2011. 500-01-056362-111 June 10 th , 2010 2 counts of fraud (sections 380 and 368 Cr.

Code) [ 9 ] Mr Dayfallah, pretending to be Sam Defela (his cousin), went to an RBC branch and deposited a cheque in the amount of $18,500 drawn from the account of Amira Entreprise inc. and written in the name of Sam Defala. [ 10 ] The following day, Mr Dayfallah went to another RBC branch and attempted to deposit a second cheque, again drawn from the account of Amira Entreprise inc. [ 11 ] An employee of the first RBC branch was contacted and she verified the authenticity of the first cheque. She came to the conclusion that it was forged.

While both employees, one in each branch, were investigating, Mr Dayfallah ran out, leaving the cheque behind. A warrant for his arrest was issued. The amount of potential loss is $43,200. [ 12 ] Mr Dayfallah pleaded guilty in April 2011. In the 4 files referred to above, Mr Dayfallah failed to appear for sentencing. A bench warrant was issued in each case on September 26, 2011. 500-01-058697-118 Between January 26 th and February 2 nd 2011 1 count of fraud (section 380 Cr. Code) [ 13 ] On January 26 th 2011, the victim, Fromagerie Hamel, was contacted by a man claiming to be interested in buying cheese.

The first order was in the amount of $26,500. Mr Dayfallah wrote 2 cheques drawn from an account of Allied Ventures and written in the name of Fromagerie Hamel, in the amounts of US $14,900, and US $12,500. [ 14 ] A second order was placed on January 31 st 2011, for an amount of $26,500. Mr Dayfallah wrote 2 cheques drawn from the account of Allied Ventures and written in the name of Fromagerie Hamel, in the amounts of US $14,500 and US $12,500. The order was picked up by unidentified persons. [ 15 ] On February 1 st 2011, a third order was placed in the amount of $26,300.

Mr Dayfallah wrote a cheque drawn from the account of Allied Ventures and written in the name of Fromagerie Hamel, in the amounts of US $13,187.00 and US $ 13,187. Fromagerie Hamel was informed that the bank put a hold on the cheques and no order was picked up. A few days later, Fromagerie Hamel was informed that all the cheques came back with the mention "no funds". The loss suffered was $53,000, with a potential loss of $79,300. [ 16 ] A warrant for arrest was issued. 500-01-066910-115 Between May 13 th and May 26 th , 2011 1 count of fraud (section 380 Cr. Code) [ 17 ] Mr Dayfallah contacted DeBoer Poultry.

He made a few orders between May 16th and May 26th, each time depositing cheques drawn from an account of Allied Ventures. All of the cheques were returned with the mention “account closed” on June 2 nd . By the time the bank was informed, the orders were already picked up by Mr Dayfallah. The company was left defrauded and suffered a loss of $142,341.54. Between December 10 th and December 13 th , 2010 1 count of fraud (section 380 Cr. Code) [ 18 ] The modus operandi is the same as that involving DeBoer Poultry, but with a different victim, Volaille Natura, also a company that sells chicken.

The loss suffered was $23,562.50, with a potential loss of $61,562.50.

[ 19 ] A warrant for arrest was issued. 500-01-097841-131 Between May 19 th and July 28 th , 2011 8 counts of fraud (sections 380, 463 and 368 Cr. Code) [ 20 ] Mr Dayfallah contacted the victim, Cyr Distributing, claiming to be interested in purchasing meat. The first order was paid in cash without incident. On July 19 th 2011, a second order was placed and Mr Dayfallah was given the company’s Desjardins commercial bank account in order to deposit the cheques directly into the account. Mr Dayfallah deposited a cheque drawn on a Bank of America account in the amount of $10,603.34.

The order was picked up by Mr Dayfallah on the same day. [ 21 ] On July 20 th 2011, a third order for the amount of $32,000 was placed. On July 27 th , Mr Dayfallah deposited 2 cheques each in the amount of $14,600 and the order was picked up. On July 28 th 2011, 2 more cheques were deposited, each in the amount of $14,900. At the time of the pick up, Mr Dayfallah was asked to wait there for a few minutes and he was finally arrested on the spot. The fraudulent cheques had been drawn from an account that was closed in February 2011.

The loss suffered was $42,603, with a potential loss of $72,403. [ 22 ] Mr Dayfallah was released on an undertaking. 500-01-102773-147 April 26 th 2012 1 count obstruction (section 129 Cr. Code) 1 count impersonation (section 403 Cr. Code) [ 23 ] Mr Dayfallah was stopped for a traffic violation. He falsely claimed to be Sam Bassam Defela, following which he was charged with obstruction, at which point he fled. An endorsed warrant was issued. 500-01-097840-133 Between May 9 th and May 18 th , 2012 12 counts involving fraud and forged documents (sections 380, 368, 463 Cr.

Code) and 4 counts of breaching an undertaking (section 145 Cr. Code) [ 24 ] Osama Dukhan (the plaintiff) was contacted by Mr Dayfallah who claimed to be interested in buying construction equipment. Mr Dayfallah gave 2 cheques to the plaintiff as a payment for his purchase. The cheques were in the amount of $27,500 each and were written in Dukhan’s name and drawn from the account of Allied Ventures. Mr Dayfallah convinced Dukhan to return $5,000 of the funds to him in cash. [ 25 ] On May 17 th 2012, Dukhan withdrew $3,100 from the funds, before there was a hold on the account.

Dukhan took $1,900 of his own money to give to Mr Dayfallah. The next day, Mr Dayfallah asked for another $3,000 and the plaintiff told him he did not have it. On May 18 th 2012, Mr Dayfallah gave Dukhan 2 bank drafts, each issued to him for $27,800 by Groupe Alimentation DMD. [ 26 ] Both cheques and both drafts were fraudulent. On his first appearance at the bank in July 2012, Dukhan was arrested and explained the whole story to the police. He said he had no reason to believe the cheques were forged. Mr Dayfallah states that Dukham is a co-conspirator and that their plan was to defraud his BMO and RBC accounts.

The loss suffered by Scotia Bank was $5,000, with a potential loss of $110,600. [ 27 ] A warrant for arrest was issued. 500-01-097836-131 Between May 11 th and May 22 nd 2012 4 counts of fraud (sections 380, 368 Cr. Code) and 1 count of breaching an undertaking (section 145 Cr. Code) [ 28 ] Ramzi El-Khatib approached a friend, Ali Defela, in order to borrow money from him.

Defela asked El-Khatib for his banking information to deposit money owed to him by a third party, Mr Dayfallah, and asked him to withdraw money from his bank account. [ 29 ] On May 11 th 2012, Mr Dayfallah deposited a forged cheque drawn from an account of Allied Ventures in an amount of $7,500 into El-Khatib’s account. The Allied Ventures account had been closed prior to August 2011. On May 16 th 2012, Mr Dayfallah deposited a second cheque in the amount of $7,860 drawn from the same Allied Ventures account.

Under direction of the co-accused, Ali Defela, El-Khatib conducted a series of cash withdraws totalling $10,300. The proceeds were handed to Mr Dayfallah. [ 30 ] El-Khatib was informed that the cheques were forged and that he owed $10,300 to Canada Trust. He reimbursed the complete amount. El-Khatib contacted Defela about the money owed and Defela gave him a cheque from Groupe Alimentation DMD in the

amount of $17,450 to offset the loss. A hold was put on the cheque and funds were never released after it was determined that the cheque was forged. [ 31 ] Mr Dayfallah states that Ramzi El-Khatib was approached through a mutual contact who is not Ali Defela. Ramzi El-Khatib was a TD Canada Trust employee and wanted to use his employee account to commit fraud. They both agreed, and conspired, to defraud his account.

Mr Dayfallah claims that Ramzi El-Khatib was a willing participant in the fraud. [ 32 ] A warrant for arrest was issued. [ 33 ] The loss suffered was $10,300, with a potential loss of $32,810. 500-01-097837-139 June 6 th 2012 Failure to attend court (section 145 Cr. Code) [ 34 ] Mr Dayfallah failed, without lawful excuse, to attend court as required. A warrant for arrest was issued. 500-01-097838-137 November 6 th , 2012 Failure to attend court (section 145 Cr. Code) [ 35 ] Mr Dayfallah failed, without lawful excuse, to attend court as required.

A warrant for arrest was issued. 500-01-102783-146 Between December 1 st 2012 and January 4 th , 2013 2 counts of fraud (section 380 Cr. Code) [ 36 ] On December 11 th 2012, Mr Dayfallah placed an order to Benson Group Inc. in the amount of $84,964 for the purchase of tires. On December 18 th 2012, 2 cheques drawn from an account of Allied Ventures were deposited into Benson’s account. Both cheques were returned with the mention "account closed".

The tires were picked up (by someone other than Mr Dayfallah) before Benson Group Inc. received the confirmation about the cheques. [ 37 ] A warrant for arrest was issued. [ 38 ] The loss suffered was $84,964. 500-01-106643-148 December 20 th , 2012 2 counts of fraud (sections 380, 342 Cr. Code) [ 39 ] On December 20 th 2012, Mr Dayfallah attended a location of Pennzoil and had his car serviced using a fraudulent credit card. [ 40 ] The loss suffered was $318. 500-01-097839-135 June 20 th , 2013 1 count obstruction (section 129, Cr. Code) [ 41 ] Mr Dayfallah was the victim of an assault.

When police officers arrived at his home, he gave them a false name and birthdate. Subsequently, Mr Dayfallah was identified and the police discovered that he was wanted on 3 arrest warrants in Ottawa, Brockville and Montreal for fraud-related offences. [ 42 ] Following this arrest, the Mr Dayfallah was detained and has remained so since June 20, 2013. Evidence presented at the sentencing hearing 1. Criminal record [ 43 ] The parties tendered the prior criminal record of Mr Dayfallah (S-1). His record begins as a minor, in 1985 with a charge of theft.

From 2000 to 2008 he accumulated no less than 33 charges, most of which are fraud-related. He thus has served several prison terms and some conditional sentences. His longest period of incarceration was an 18-month term in jail in 2002. Finally, in 2008, he received a 90- day sentence with a 2 year probation for several fraud-related offences.

2. Testimony of Mr Dayfallah [ 44 ] Mr Dayfallah read a letter that he prepared for the Court (SD-1), in which he blames his fraudulent activity on his serious drinking and drug abuse. It was not until his incarceration in these files that he began in earnest a program of AA and NA, which continue to serve him well. He now recognises that fraud is not a victimless crime. In accordance with his “12-step program” he has taken full responsibility for his crimes and wrongdoings.

Although he is not able to reimburse his victims, he asks forgiveness and wishes to express his remorse for the harm he has caused to hard- working people. He has plans to maintain a healthier and law-abiding lifestyle upon his release. He has a job lined up at a construction company, and has renewed his ties with family members. He also has the support of his girlfriend, who will accompany him in his new spiritual and healthy lifestyle. He gave a direct and heartfelt apology to Mr Ismail, one of his victims, who was present in the courtroom. 3.

Victim impact statements [ 45 ] Two Victim Impact Statements were filed, in relation to file no 500-01-066910-115 (S-2 and S-3). [ 46 ] Mr Chris DeBoer explains that he lost over $130,000 due to the fraud of Mr Dayafllah. In order to avoid losing his poultry business altogether, he had to borrow money from his parents “just to survive”. Some three years after the fact, he still suffers from stress and insomnia which in turn cause health issues. He is still struggling to pay his parents back. [ 47 ] Mr Arif Ismail testified, in addition to tendering his Victim Impact Statement.

He explains that he invested in a poultry business with financial help from his father. It was a difficult industry to break into, but this fraud, causing the loss of over $20,000, was the final blow that forced him to close the business. He still owes money to several creditors and he no longer has contact with his father who blames his son for squandering his retirement savings. Three years after the fact, Mr Ismail still suffers from stress and insomnia. He feels that he has lost “everything” and describes feeling anxious, distracted, and prone to stuttering.

The stress is also a source of headaches and back pain. As he puts it, “cet acte criminel a bouleversé ma vie”. The positions of the parties The Defence [ 48 ] The Defence argues that a global sentence of 30 months would be appropriate, taking into consideration all of the elements in the present matter. He asks the court to consider the following important factors: - he has pleaded guilty in every one of his files and in order to do so, has transferred all of this files to one jurisdiction.

His plea of guilt reflects true remorse and an acceptance of responsibility for the harm done by his actions; - although the sentence must reflect the numerous counts of fraud , the total amount of loss at issue is approximately $550,000. Thus, the appropriate sentence cannot be measued in relation to matters involving multi-million dollar frauds; - Mr Dayfallah is 46 years old.

He has a daughter and looks forward to renewing ties with her and his other family members; - his last sentence for similar crimes was one of 18 months; - he has now spent more time in preventive detention than any jail term previously served.

During this time he has dealt with his addiction problems in a meaningful way, found spirituality, and reflected on his errors with a view to planning a better future. [ 49 ] The prison term of 30 months suggested by the Defence can be broken down as follows: - for crimes of fraud: 24 months; - for crimes of obstruction and impersonation: 6 months, consecutive; - for breaches of probation and/or undertakings: 3 months, concurrent. The Crown [ 50 ] The Crown suggests that an appropriate global sentence would be a 6 year penitentiary term.

This would take into account the relevant sentencing factors for crimes of fraud, including the fact that the penalty for fraud was increased by the legislator in 2004. The Crown asks the Court to consider the following elements: - the amount of the fraud is $800,000, with an actual loss of $550,000.

The discrepancy is only due to the fortunate actions taken by certain banks in response to suspicious transactions; - the planning and forethought involved in every one of the fraudulent schemes; - the deliberate choice admitted by Mr Dayfallah not to seek legitimate employment, preferring to seek easy money through crime; - Mr Dayfallah’s remorse, and his adherence to AA and NA programs, while relevant, have arrived too late.

His drug problem began in 2002 and no steps were ever taken until this incarceration to deal with it; - the numerous counts and criminal record indicate that he is a true fraud artist; - even once arrested for various crimes, and even after pleading guilty to certain offences he fled his responsibility; - there are 10 victims of fraud in 10 different files, generally using the same M.O.;

- no restitution will be made by Mr Dayfallah; - certain victims are still suffering the serious effects of theses crimes; - the evidence suggests that Mr Dayfallah is incorrigible, given his numerous priors for fraud and the repeat offences at issue here, committed while he was on probation, under conditions of an undertaking, and facing bench warrants for failing to appear. ANALYSIS [ 51 ] Both parties have diligently provided the court with extensive caselaw to review [1] . This jurisprudence sets the applicable guidelines and gives a wide array of examples of sentences in individual cases.

As the parties have correctly noted, no single case presents identical features to the present matter. [ 52 ] Certain important distinguishing features of this case must be recognised. First is the fact that we are dealing with numerous, repeated crimes, over a 4 year period. The overall potential loss amounts to $800,000. The defence has referred the court to a number of cases where sentences in the six-year range were imposed, but where the amounts at issue were much greater than in the present case.

The range of “6 to 10 years for large-scale frauds” as suggested in Chicoine by the Quebec Court of Appeal are reserved for cases of “fraudes importantes”. An overview of the cases cited in the footnote of Chicoine at par. 76 .1 indicates that the Court was refering to cases involving multi million dollar frauds [2] . [ 53 ] Another important distinguishing aspect of this case is Mr Dayfallah's prior record, including some 25 fraud-related offences.

Some of the leading cases on sentencing for major frauds note that the absence of a criminal record is not a significant mitigating factor, particularly where the upstanding reputation of the offender is what enabled the offender to perpetrate the crime on trusting victims [3] . [ 54 ] This certainly does not mean that the prior criminal record is not an aggravating factor in these matters.

When reviewing similar cases in order the gauge the applicable range of sentence, the Court must be mindful of the chasm that separates the situation of an offender facing his or her first jail time and that of a repeat offender, particularly when reoffending in similar offences. [ 55 ] The annals of jurisprudence are replete with examples of sentences imposed for serious fraud matters, each one taking into account its specific facts. The recurring theme in these cases is the need to underscore the principles of denunciation and deterrence through the imposition of significant jail terms [4] .

Deterrence is particularly effective in cases where crimes such as these are committed after considerable planning and forethought, including the assessment of risks and benefits. As such, the bright line, predictable consequence of serious jail time becomes an incontrovertible reality in this risk-benefit analysis. As for the imperative of denunciation, as the Ontario Court of Appeal aptly notes in R. v.

Drabinsky [5] : The appellants' argument that longer sentences do not enhance general deterrence ignores that the proper sentence quantification in cases like this is also driven by the need to publicly denounce the appellants' criminal conduct. The length of the sentence imposed is reflective of the appropriate level of denunciation. [ 56 ] Every sentence must be tailored to the specific offender and the specific crime.

As such, It is no small task for the Court to take into consideration all of the applicable sentencing principles combined with the aggravating and mitigating factors singular to the case in question, in order to impose a just and appropriate sentence. [ 57 ] The Criminal Code sets the goals of sentencing at sections 718 and following. The fundamental purpose of any sentence must be to contribute to the respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society.

This goal is met by imposing sentences that seek to denounce unlawful conduct, deter the offender and others from committing crimes, separate offenders from society where necessary, assist in the rehabilitation of the offender, provide reparation for harm done to the victim or to the community, and to promote a sense of responsibility in the offender. The sentence imposed must reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility.

More specifically, in matters of fraud, the Criminal Code underscores other aggravating circumstances to be considered, such as the magnitude, complexity, duration or degree of planning of the fraud; the number of victims and the impact on them (

section 380.1 ). Mitigating factors [ 58 ] Mr Dayfallah has pleaded guilty to all of his charges. This allowed the court to deal with multiple files at once and avoid complicated and lengthy trials on the fraud counts. [ 59 ] This guilty plea is a recognition of Mr Dayfallah's acceptance of his responsibility for the crimes committed. [ 60 ] Mr Dayfallah has found some family support and has realistic plans for his future upon his release. He claims to have true remorse for his crimes and an understanding of the harm he has done. He describes a sincere willingness to change his behavior.

On this point, without wishing to minimise the importance of his testimony, nor to question the earnestness of his remarks, this recognition arrives after many years of a life dedicated to criminal activity. It can also be noted that Mr Dayfallah had previously registered guilty pleas, thus seeming to accept responsibility for the earlier crimes in 2011, and yet he continued to commit fraud at a remarkable pace despite these guilty pleas.

On this issue, the Quebec Court of Appeal in Chicoine cites Clayton Ruby who writes: The behaviour of the offender is usually a better indication of his character and attitude then what he or his counselor say about him [6] Aggravating factors [ 61 ] Mr Dayfallah's deception and fraudulent behaviour in these matters spans a period of 4 years. [ 62 ] Mr Dayfallah was motivated by greed. He admits that it was easier to continue to defraud victims than to commit to a steady job.

[ 63 ] Most of his fraudulent schemes involved considerable forethought and planning. With his experience as a seasoned fraud artist, he knew how to initially gain the confidence of his targeted victims by starting out with seemingly legitimate orders, before actually defrauding them of important sums. [ 64 ] Mr Dayfallah has a long criminal record for offences of the same nature. From 2002 to 2008, his record indicates a steady stream of repeated convictions for fraud.

An 18-month jail term was of no deterrence in 2002, as he was convicted, less than 18 months later in 2003, for fraudulent use of credit cards, while still on probation. The conditional sentence he received in 2006 indicates that the sentencing judge must have believed that Mr Dayfallah was turning over a new leaf, despite his prior record.

But that 12-month conditional sentence for 7 counts of fraud-related offences and breach of probation again failed to have a significant impact on his behaviour, as he was yet again convicted in 2008 for similar offences, while still on probation. [ 65 ] The Victim Impact statements provide a glimpse into the profound effect these crimes can have on their victims and more specifically, the actual hardship Mr Dayfallah has caused hard-working men trying to provide for their families and who have received no restitution whatsoever. [ 66 ] Mr Dayfallah committed many of these offences while he was either on probation for fraud offences, subject to an undertaking for fraud offences, or the object of several warrants for his arrest.

The spree of offences for which he has now pleaded guilty is indicative of a disconcerting lack of respect for any court orders whatsoever. A review of the timeline of these offences in enlightening. His last sentence imposed in December 2008, was a 90-day jail term for fraud related offences followed by two years of probation with follow-up. Four months later, it was clear that he had no interest in meeting with his probation officer and he was thus charged accordingly. Still under the terms of that probation order, he is found unlawfully in possession of banking documents and credit cards.

Some 15 months after the imposition of that 2008 sentence, and while still under probation, (March 2010), he commits an elaborate fraud (against La fée des grèves), by approaching an unsuspecting company with the sole purpose of defrauding it, and in fact leaving it with a loss of US $187,000. Three months later, (June 2010), another planned fraudulent scheme has him defrauding the Royal Bank of Canada for potentially $43,000. Six months later, he defrauds Volaille Natura (Decemeber 2010) using a scheme to initially gain the trust of the sellers before defrauding them in the amount of $61,000.

In February 2011, Mr Dayfallah uses the same successful M.O. to defraud Fromagerie Hamel of almost $80,000 (the actual loss suffered was $53,000). In April 2011, Mr Dayfallah registers guilty pleas for breaching probation in two files and for the fraud committed against the Royal Bank of Canada. While awaiting a date for sentencing, he commits the devastating fraud on Mr DeBoer’s company, DeBoer Poultry, in the amount of $142,000, in May 2011. During this same period, in June 2011, he registers guilty pleas for the fraud committed against La fée des grèves.

In the same period (May-July 2011) Mr Dayfallah commits 8 counts of fraud in the amount of $72,000, using a similar scheme against Cyr Distributing, a meat company. The company is left with a loss of $42,000. He is rereleased on an undertaking for this crime in July 2011. Not surprisingly, Mr Dayfallah fails to appear in September 2011 for his sentencing and his subsequent crimes are committed while a bench warrant is issued for his arrest. While stopped for a traffic violation in April 2012, Mr Dayfallah escapes arrest by providing a false name, following which a warrant for obstruction is issued.

In May 2012, with these warrants pending, and while he is subjected to conditions of an undertaking signed in July 2011, Mr Dayfallah commits several other important fraud-related crimes, involving schemes designed to defraud two different banks. His crimes of fraud continue in December 2012 and January 2013 (frauds of $85,000 and of $300), while he was also charged in two other files with failure to attend court in June and November 2012.

Even upon his ultimate arrest, when he was the victim of a serious assault requiring police intervention, he again gave a false name to the police and was thus charged with obstruction in June 2013. [ 67 ] This overview indicates clearly that Mr Dayfallah was inured to arrest, and indifferent to, if not contemptuous of court orders. His early guilty pleas in the 2009 and 2010 offences were nothing more than shams, allowing him to continue to operate as a true fraud artist.

Despite a heartfelt testimony by Mr Dayfallah, it is hard to imagine that he is now completely reformed, although it is certainly to be hoped that this can be the case.

CONCLUSION [ 68 ] Considering all of these factors, and recognising the need to impose individual sentences which globally amount to a fair and appropriate sentence, the overall sentence is 66 months, explained as follows: 500-01-053587-116: 6 months; 500-01-022985-094: 6 months concurrent; 500-01-102789-143: 4 years concurrent on each count, consecutive to the 1 st file; 500-01-056362-111: 3 years concurrent on each count, consecutive to the 1 st file; 500-01-066910-115: 5 years concurrent on each count, consecutive to the 1 st file;

500-01-058697-118: 5 years, concurrent with the previous files, consecutive to the 1 st file; 500-01-097841-131: 5 years concurrent on each count, consecutive to the 1 st file; 500-01-102773-147: 6 months on each count, concurrent; 500-01-097840-133: 5 years concurrent on counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11, 6 months consecutive on counts 3, 6, 9 and 12, concurrent with the other files; 500-01-097836-131: counts 1, 2 and 4, 4 years concurrent, counts 3 and 5: 6 months concurrent; 500-01-097837-139: 6 months, concurrent; 500-01-097838-137: 6 months, concurrent; 500-01-102783-146: 4 years concurrent; 500-01-106643-148: 1 year, concurrent; 500-01-097839-135: 6 months, concurrent.

For a total of 66 months from which I will deduct time served in preventive detention. Mr Dayfallah has been incarcerated for 19.5 months which, at a ratio of 1:1.5 is equivalent to 28.5 months of time served. The total sentence as of today is thus 37.5 months. __________________________________ LORI RENÉE WEITZMAN, J.C.Q. M e Bianca Catherine Rossi Attorney of the DPCP M e Debora DeThomasis Attorney of the accused Dates of hearing: December 3, 2014.