R. v. Manasseri, 2014 ONCJ 683

Information No. 12-30452 Citation: R. v. Manasseri , 2014 ONCJ 683 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN v. BENEDETTO MANASSERI ******** REASONS FOR SENTENCE HEARD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H. FRASER On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 at Ottawa, Ontario ********* APPEARANCES : Scott, J. Counsel for the Crown Edelson, M. Counsel for the accused

Table of Contents ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Page EXHIBIT NUMBER 1: Transcript Ordered: November 3, 2014 Transcript Completed: December 10, 2014 Ordering Party Notified: December 12, 2014 Approved by Fraser, J. December 12, 2014

Tuesday, October 14, 2014 REASONS FOR SENTENCE FRASER, J. (Orally): These are my reasons for sentence. Mr. Benedetto (Benny) Manasseri pled guilty to one count of knowingly, directly or indirectly, instructing Gary Saikaley to commit the indictable offence of aiding or assisting in anything that is an offence under section 202(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada for the benefit of the said criminal organization to wit, the criminal organization of Benny Manasseri contrary to

section 467.13(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. An agreed statement of facts was entered as Exhibit One in these proceedings, and I’ll read from that agreed statement of facts at this time. Agreed Statement of Facts Project Luten was a project commenced by the Ontario Provincial Police Organized Crime Enforcement Bureau Legal Gaming Unit, East Team, in April of 2011. It intended to uncover by way of an undercover infiltration an illegal organization controlling an organized sports gambling group operating in the Nation Capital Region.

The gaming group was managed by Eric (Rick) Russell, William Hamel and later by Dan Landreville part of the Russell Landreville group. Detective Constable Roch, R-O-C-H Whitton, W-H-I-T-T-O-N embedded himself in this group by becoming friends with William Hamel over the course of several months. Infiltration of the Russell Landreville group revealed ties to an organized crime group in Ottawa involving Gary Saikaley, Benny Manasseri, and Domenico Arecchi.

Further investigation demonstrated that Saikaley was the main booking agent for the organization, looking after the issuance of passwords for bettors, enabling them to access online gaming websites 613SB.net and also to settle the bottom line by collecting, and paying with the bettors.

Investigation further revealed that Benny Manasseri was at the head of the bookmaking organization for a period of time that was managed on a day-to-day basis by Saikaley. By early 2012 Benny Manasseri left the bookmaking organization and Mr. Saikaley replaced him. In October of 2011, Detective Constable Whitton in an undercover capacity, met with Hamel. He had established a relationship with Hamel over a seven-month period. Hamel was the backroom operator for the Russell Landreville group. Hamel operated from his residence which was set up to accommodate bookkeeping operations.

His role was to register all the wagers from the bettors incoming calls.

Hamel engaged Whitton in conversations which revealed that they, being Russell, Landreville, and Hamel, were laying off with the group referred to by Hamel as “Italians.” Hamel explained that laying off means that the group is not keeping the entire bets placed by clients, i.e. if a bettor wagered $1,400 on a team, one organization would keep $600 and lay off the other $800 to the other organization, in this case the “Italians.” This ensures that their books are balanced in such a way that the bookmaker would not suffer a loss regardless of the outcome of the sports game.

Investigation by Whitton revealed that the phrase “The Italians” was a reference to the Manasseri, Saikaley, Arecchi group. Hamel explained that in one case his group registered a bet from a client of the “Italians” while the Italians website was down. The Italians called Russell and requested to meet with him, and that if he failed to show up they would go and pick him up. At the meeting Benny Manasseri was accompanied by two other individuals who are described by Hamel as looking intimidating. One of the two was later identified as being Gary Saikaley.

During the meeting the Italians requested 50 percent of Russell’s bookmaking business and that all of the Russell, Landreville bettors switch over to their website www.40wager.com . Russell then agreed to lay off with the Italians organization. In addition to laying off Russell had to pay $25 per bettor who was granted an account on the website. This was so that the Italians could monitor the business from the Russell, Landreville group and thus collect 50 percent of the business. Hamel added that the Italians are known as the Car Wash Boys because they owned a car wash business in the city of Ottawa.

On October 14, 2011, Detective Constable Whitton attended Hamel’s residence where he explained that the Russell, Landreville group was still laying off with the Italians. Hamel revealed that one of the Italians was Benny Manasseri, known as the Car Wash Boy. Hamel confirmed that Benny Manasseri was the guy that met with Russell and requested 50 percent of Russell’s profits. Hamel added that Benny Manasseri and Russell went to school together and that Russell had to pay Benny every Friday and that currently they only lay off NFL wagers.

On October 26, 2011, Detective Constable Whitton met with Hamel at his residence. Hamel explained that it was the status quo with the Italians, however, during this past week one of the Italian’s regular clients placed an unusually big bet with the Russell group. Hamel explained that his group laid off the entire wager with the Italians. Hamel showed Detective Constable Whitton the website used by the Italians. It was called 40Wager. On the home page it showed a list of all sports with an empty check box next to it.

Hamel checked the box for the NHL which subsequently displayed a page with all of the NHL games in lines, odds, listed next to each team. Hamel entered $100 next to Philadelphia which took him to another page that showed the amount of the bet and in red was “Risk amount” i.e. how much money one would have to pay if one would lose the bet. Hamel’s bet showed negative $140 in red. Hamel explained that for the wagers in which they lay off with the Italians there was no other choice but to use the lines from their website.

Through judicial authorizations call patterns were noted between Benny Manasseri and Gary Saikaley between August 2011 and December 2011. An increase was noted on Thursdays and Fridays. Further exchanges revealed contacts and patterns between Saikaley and Russell meeting for the purpose of settling accounts on Fridays, consistent with the information supplied by Hamel. Physical surveillance was established and revealed numerous encounters between Gary Saikaley and Eric Russell. These were on Fridays, consistent with the information supplied by Hamel. These meetings were short, consistent with exchanging money.

Subsequent to the arrest Eric Russell made a statement to police. He was requested by Benny Manasseri whom he had known for 30 years, to lay off with their website. Russell confirmed the meeting with Manasseri as described by Hamel and that Saikaley would collect from him on Fridays. Russell also explained that he had fears of Benny Manasseri and as a result would later get stress headaches. However, no threats were ever made against him. Upon arrest, Hamel was interviewed. Although he revealed that he had fears in relation to speaking about the Italians, he confirmed that he had not received any threats.

Throughout the investigation it was learned that until early 2012 Benny Manasseri and Dominic Arecchi oversaw the administration of the Ottawa criminal organization’s bookmaking

activities representing the bookmarking websites known as www.40wager , then www.613sb.com and finally www.613.net . In February 2012, Benny Manasseri was no longer directly involved with the activities of the Ottawa criminal organization’s bookmaking activities stating to bettors and associates that they would in the future, be dealing with Gary Saikaley. Benny Manasseri remained involved but less visibly.

During the course of the investigation a forensic accounting report was prepared and it revealed that the profits made by the entire 613sb.net website which was used by Benny Manasseri, Domenico Arecchi, and Gary Saikaley for the period between February 2012, to July 2012, was $842,245. Issues There are two discreet issues to be considered in this sentencing. The first is the appropriate sentence for this offender in these circumstances. The second issue is the appropriate period of parole eligibility that should be served. The Crown is seeking a period of three years jail for this offence, and pursuant to

section 746.3(1.2) of the Criminal Code the Crown requests that parole eligibility for Mr. Manasseri begin after one half of his sentence has been served. The defence seeks a sentence of two years in imprisonment with no reduction in parole eligibility. Circumstances of the Offender Mr. Manasseri is a married 50 year old father with a dated criminal record. The last entry is from 1988. He maintains that he voluntarily withdrew from the enterprise while it was ongoing and now has legitimate employment.

He states that he is firmly committed to living a law abiding life and will return to a pro-social law abiding lifestyle upon his release from prison. Mitigating Factors With regard to mitigating factors, this matter has been resolved with a plea of guilt to the one charge. A trial would have been very lengthy, perhaps running for several months notwithstanding the thoroughness of the police investigations. Mr. Manasseri indicated at a fairly early stage in the proceeding that he intended to resolve the matter without going to trial. The facts indicate that Mr.

Manasseri voluntarily withdrew from the enterprise while it was still ongoing. He has complied with strict bail conditions while waiting for this matter to resolve, including seeking permission from the Crown to attend his father’s funeral. Aggravating Factors The fact that Mr. Manasseri was part of a criminal organization whose primary purpose was to secure profit from the enterprise, is an aggravating factor.

Section 718.2(a)(iv) specifically recognizes the committing of an offence for the benefit of a criminal organization as an aggravating factor. And as mentioned before, Mr. Manasseri has a criminal record, although it must be acknowledged that the last entry was 25 years ago and it was for an unrelated offence. Applicable Statutory Provisions

Section 467.13 of the Criminal Code indicates that this is an indictable offence subject to a penalty of imprisonment for life.

Section 743.6(1.2) of the Criminal Code states that where an offender is convicted of an offence under the section, one half of the sentence shall be served in custody unless the court orders otherwise. The

section reads as follows:

Notwithstanding

section 120 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act , where an offender receives a sentence of imprisonment of two years or more, including a sentence of imprisonment for life, on conviction for a terrorism offence or an offence under

section 467.11, 467.12, or 467.13, the court shall order that the portion of the sentence that must be served before the offender may be released on full parole is one half of the sentence or 10 years, whichever is less, unless the court is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that the expression of society’s denunciation of the offence and the objectives of specific and general deterrence would be adequately served by a period of parole ineligibility determined in accordance with the Correction and Conditional Release Act.

Principles that are to guide the court are listed in sub two of that section: For greater certainty the paramount principles that are to guide the court under this

section are denunciation and specific or general deterrence, with rehabilitation of the offender in all cases being subordinate to those paramount principles. Both Crown and defence counsel have pointed out that there are no precedent cases to guide the court. There is no precedent for the sentencing of an offender charged with bookmaking as part of the criminal organization. However, counsel have provided a number of cases that deal with certain general factors to be considered when a criminal organization is found to exist. In R. v. Palfrey [2014 S.J. No. 2 (Sask. C.A.) para. 46 , the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal noted: There is no doubt that a contravention of

section 467.13 of the Criminal Code can be a grave offence. Nonetheless, the seriousness of any individual conviction under that provision must be assessed with reference to the particular facts bearing on it. Here, there are several factors which must be considered in order to properly assess the gravity of Mr. Palfrey’s breach of

section 467.13 . In assessing the gravity of the criminal organization the factors listed by the court in Palfrey were as follows: The size and sophistication of the organization (number of people, hierarchy, spread); The operational style and ethic of the organization. Does it threaten violence, use or have access to weapons; The raison d’etre of the organization. For what purpose does it exist; The place that the offender occupies in the hierarchy of the criminal organization; The particulars of the “instruction” which forms the gravamen of the offence.

In Palfrey the accused was given a global sentence of 18 years after pleading to a criminal organization offence and several drug trafficking offences. The Court of Appeal while maintaining the 18 year sentence apportioned two years to the 467.13 criminal organization offence and 16 years to the drug offences. In R. v. Fraser, [2011] B.C. J. No. 834 , the accused was convicted of trafficking in cocaine as well as with a criminal organization offence. Fraser was the leader of an organization that trafficked in cocaine. The drugs were distributed by members of the organization.

They would also resell their drugs from lower level dealers. The organization had revenues of between $50,000 and $70,000 per month and it was large in scale. Fraser had a prior drug related record but his prospects for rehabilitation were good. He was sentenced to two and a half years on the drug charge and one year consecutive on the criminal organization charge. In R. v. Wagner, [2008] O.J.

No. 5490 , Ontario Superior Justice McMahon imposed a six year sentence, four years for the offence of criminal organization and two years and two years concurrent for two counts of trafficking in cocaine and possession of stolen property. Wagner was a full patch member of the Hells Angles. He had instructed other members of the Hells Angels to conduct business that had been arranged by someone superior to him in that criminal organization. He was found to have “quarterbacked” the transactions.

Wagner had no criminal record, but given the sophistication of the organization, the directions issued and association to violence, the court determined that four years for the criminal organization offence consecutive to the two year sentence on the trafficking and possession of property offences was appropriate. In R. v. Beauchamp , [2010] O.J. No. 1435 , three accused were convicted of various credit card offences and criminal organization offences. Robert Cattral was found to be the leader of the organization.

As the mastermind, he was responsible for a significant amount of fraud on the Canadian public as well as on various financial institutions. The operation was very sophisticated. Cattral was given a four year sentence for the fraud offences and three years consecutive for the criminal organization offence. Catherine Brunet who was Cattral’s business partner was sentenced to two years on the credit card fraud and two years consecutive on the criminal organization offence. In R. v. Glasner, [2011] B.C.J. No. 5472 , Power, J. sentenced the accused t 3.5 years for trafficking in various

schedule 1 drugs and a further 3.5 years consecutive for a criminal organization offence. The accused and two others were members of an organization that trafficked in kilograms of drugs while being in possession of various firearms. The Crown submits that Parliament and the community as a whole abhors this type of conduct because criminal organizations acquire a level of sophistication that poses an enhanced threat to the surrounding community. The Crown notes that Gary Saikaley’s involvement takes place after the period covered by the indictment. And although Mr.

Manasseri withdrew from his involvement in 2012, until that time he and Domenico Arecchi oversaw the operation and the conduct ascribed to Mr. Manasseri includes intimidation which forced Mr. Hamel to change his website and to pay $25 for each bet. The Crown also notes that between February 2012 and July 2012, the organization earned profits of $842,205 from 613sb.net. The Crown submits that the Palfrey case is helpful because of its consideration of the factors associated with a criminal organization. The Crown also asks this court to find that Mr.

Manasseri falls on the more serious side of the equation given his lengthy involvement in a sophisticated operation. In considering the factors enumerated in Palfrey, Ms. Scott on behalf of the Crown maintains that the organization headed by Mr. Manasseri was a complex one which was run as a business with its own websites. Mr. Manasseri, according to the Crown, was involved in a hostile takeover of another cell which was then required to pay a form of tax in order to remain in business.

The Crown acknowledges that there were no overt threats made, there was no brandishing of weapons but the Russell-Hamel- Landreville group clearly felt that they were being directed to conduct themselves in a certain manner. With regard to to the raison d’etre of the organization, the Crown submits that profit from gaming was the only reason for the existence of this organization. They were not accountable to the community and not obligated to return any profits to the community. With regard to the fourth and fifth factors, the Crown maintains that Mr.

Manasseri was by all accounts at the top of the pyramid and as the head of the organization should receive the highest sentence. He was the person providing direction to his subordinates, including Mr. Saikaley, and Mr. Saikaley received an 18 month sentence from this court. Mr. Edelson on behalf of the defence submits that in arriving at an appropriate sentence, the court must focus on what the accused has agreed to plead to, and not the various offences that he was charged with which have not been proven.

The defence also submits that notwithstanding the inferences that the Crown asked the court to draw, there is no evidence of any intimidation on the part of Mr. Manasseri. On the evidence presented to the court, the only “layoff” (as that term is understood in bookmaking parlance), was NFL wagers. The defence also submits that Mr. Saikaley has two prior convictions for bookmaking, and that Mr. Manasseri left the organization in

2012 where Mr. Arecchi never did. The defence also points to the fact that the website 613sb.net was involved at a point where Mr. Manasseri had already left the organization. In fact Mr. Edelson argues that according to the agreed statement of facts, the websites referred to did not belong to Mr. Manasseri but were websites operated by others. He adds that the use of websites does not tell us much about the sophistication of the operation in that this has become a common method of operating for all gaming sites given the reality of modern technology and the ease with which websites can be created.

Another submission made by the defence is that the majority of cases referred to by both counsel have a predicate or substantive offence which runs alongside the criminal organization charge. In the case at bar, the accused will be sentenced only on a criminal organization count. There is no other offence. DECISION In arriving at what I believe to be an appropriate sentence for the charge under

section 467.13 , I will turn once again to a consideration of the five factors referred to in R. v. Palfrey. 1 . The size and sophistication of the criminal organization. The organization involved three people, Mr. Manasseri, Gary Saikaley, and Domenico Arecchi. It consisted of three websites referred to earlier, www.613sb.net ; www.613.net ; and www.40wager.com . These sites allowed bettors to place bets on various sporting events. The website would indicate the risk or the odds that were offered and bettors had to log in with a password. The password was supplied by Mr. Saikaley.

Bettors could bet on any combination of sporting events, from hockey to football, baseball, and basketball. The evidence indicates that the organization ran the websites and took bets. It paid the winners and and collected from the losers. There is no evidence that the organization operated outside of Ottawa and Rockland. 2 . The operation style and ethic of the group. There is no evidence that the group engaged in any sort of violence, threat of violence, or use of weapons. The Hamel group upon arrest admitted that no threats of violence or actual violence was ever made or received by the group.

Those who placed bets did so voluntarily, knowing the risks involved in gambling. 3 . The raison d’etre of the organization. This was a gaming organization created to make money from taking bets on sporting events. Other than the obvious goal of financial gain, there was no other rationale behind the group’s creation. 4 . The place that Mr. Manasseri held in the group and the directions that he gave. The agreed statement of facts indicates that Mr. Manasseri was the head of the bookmaking organization that Mr. Saikaley managed on a day-to-day basis. By early 2012, Mr.

Manasseri left the organization and was replaced by Saikaley as the leader. It can be inferred that for the period of time in which Mr. Manasseri was at the head of the criminal organization he was giving directions to his subordinates when required. Both counsel have argued that

section

section 718.2 (

b) of the Criminal Code requires the court to consider the principle of parity when arriving at an appropriate sentence for this offender. This entire project involved 17 men, 14 of whom were prosecuted in Ottawa. There were essentially three different groups. Individuals at the bottom of the pyramid were the bettors. Their level of culpability was lesser. These individuals along with three others in Prescott-Russell resolved their matters by paying charitable donations of varying amounts.

The next group which included Landreville and Russell resolved their matters with the payment of fines. Landreville forfeited the sum of$46, 120 and was fined $4,000. Eric Russell forfeited the sum of $3,756 and was fined the sum of $12,500. William Hamel forfeited thesum of $485 and was fined $10,000. The top rung on the ladder was reserved for the key members of the Manasseri organization. Robin Golby was given a suspendedsentence with 12 months probation and he paid a charitable donation of $1,500. Domenico Arecchi has made a charitable donation of$20,000.

He received a suspended sentence with two years probation and will making a further non receipted charitable donation of$30,000. Daniel Ranieri was sentenced to 30 days in jail with a restitution order for $15,000. Stephen Parrish was sentenced to 90 daysjail intermittent followed by 36 months of probation. Gary Saikaley was sentenced to 18 months in jail. It is noteworthy that Mr. Saikaley is the only other individual who pled guilty to the offence under

section 467.13 of the Criminal Code.It is also noteworthy that Mr. Saikaley has a related record for gaming type offences. In his plea Mr. Saikaley indicated that he was themain agent of the bookmaking organization even prior to becoming its head in early 2012. Saikaley was responsible for issuingpasswords and settling payments with bettors. Although Mr. Manasseri relinquished his position as the head of the organization in 2012, he was the head of the enterprise betweenSeptember 2010 and February of 2012. The offence for which Mr. Manasseri has entered his guilty plea is a serious one.

While hisinvolvement in the criminal organization did not involve drugs or weapons, this is clearly more than a pure gaming case. As the Crownhas correctly stated, Parliament has sent a clear message about its abhorrence of this type of activity because of the potential threat that itpresents to the community. In R. v.

Venneri 2012 SCC 33 , [2012] S.C.J. 33, the Supreme Court of Canada stated at para. 36: Working collectively rather than alone carries with it advantages to criminals who form or join organized groups of like-minded felons.Organized criminal entities thrive and expand their reach by developing specializations and dividing labour accordingly; fostering trustand loyalty within the organization; sharing customers, financial resources, and insider knowledge; and, in some circumstances,developing a reputation for violence.

A group that operates with even a minimal degree of organization over a period of time is bound tocapitalize on these advantages and acquire a level of sophistication and expertise that poses an enhanced threat to the surroundingcommunity. Thus, criminal organization offences due to their more sophisticated structure and their incentive to circumvent the law tend to attractpenitentiary type sentences. When sentencing offenders for these types of offences courts have repeatedly stated that denunciation anddeterrence are the primary sentencing objectives.

On the issue of parity of sentence, I am of the view that Mr. Manasseri’s sentence should be higher than that given to Mr. Saikaleybecause for most of the period referred to in the information Mr. Manasseri was the head of the organization. Mr. Saikaley may haveplayed a pivotal role throughout with regard to the establishment of the websites and the issuing of passwords, but that may speak to thespecialization and the division of labour that the Supreme Court of Canada makes reference to in the Venneri case rather than supportingany suggestion that Mr. Manasseri was only the titular head.

Having said that, I am not persuaded that in these circumstances, Mr. Manasseri’s involvement is such that he should receive a sentencetwice as long as that of Mr. Saikaley. As it did with Mr. Saikaley, this court must acknowledge the significant saving of time andresources involved with this guilty plea. An attack on the search warrant could have taken several weeks and a trial itself could havelasted a number of months. The early indication from Mr. Manasseri that he wished to resolve this matter must be taken as a clearexpression of responsibility and remorse.

After closely examining the agreed statement of facts, and having considered the above caselaw, the aggravating and mitigating factorsmentioned above, the principles of sentencing contained in

section 718 of the Criminal Code and the submissions of counsel, I find that asentence of 26 months jail on the criminal organization conviction under

section 467.13 is appropriate. Parole Eligibility The Crown has asked that this court not grant an exception to

section 743.6(1.2) of the Criminal Code which provides that every person

convicted to this offence who received a sentence of two years or more will be ordered to serve at least 50 percent of their sentence priorto being considered for parole. In R. v. Smith, 2008 SKCA 20 , [2008] S.J. No. 97, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal considered the effect of section743.6(1.2). Reading from paragraph 71 and 72 of that decision: 71 The

section allows the courts to consider, where they could not previously, that there are dual considerations when it comes toeffectiveness of punishment – that is, in the length on the one hand, and the time actually served in custody on the other. The fact thatdenunciation and deterrence have been considered in arriving at the length of sentence does not mean that they cannot, or should not, beconsidered again under

section 743.6. 72 Where denunciation and deterrence are the primary objectives,

section 743.6 is to the sentencing exercise what the totality principle isto the length of sentence. While the totality principle is about the fairness to the offender,

section 743.6 is about fairness to society. Itaffords the court the opportunity to step back and consider the larger picture – to ask itself “knowing what I know about the paroleprocess, does this sentence sufficiently express society’s denunciation and interest in deterrence?” Not surprisingly there is very little caselaw to guide a sentencing judge where someone in Mr. Manasseri’s situation has received asentence slightly over the two year threshold for the 743.6(1.2) consideration where the offence involves gaming and not drugs orterrorism.

Section 743.6(1.2) mandates that I order that Mr. Manasseri serve at least one half of his 26 month sentence unless I am satisfied havingregard to the circumstances of the commission of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, the expression ofsociety’s denunciation of the offence, and the principles of denunciation and deterrence would be adequately served by the period ofparole ineligibility determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. The circumstances of the offence were set out earlier. Mr.

Edelson submits that these circumstances are not the type which should attractthe implementation of the provisions of this section. He points to the fact that government sanctioned sports betting through Pro-line isan accepted practice in our society. He notes that certain U.S. States have moved to legalize on line gambling. It is not difficult to imagine situations in which an offender would have difficulty meeting the onus contained in

section 743.6(1.2). forexample, someone with a lengthy criminal record who has a history of parole violations and violations of other forms of conditionalrelease. Terrorism offences have for obvious reasons been highlighted as those which would invoke this provision. Within the sphere ofcriminal organization offences contemplated under

section 467.11, 467.12 or 467.13, there may be offenders involved in criminalorganizations dealing with high-level drug trafficking, or human smuggling. An individual who has repeatedly committed criminaloffences with little deterrent effect from the previous sentence might be challenged to fall under the exception stated in this

section of theCode. However, the circumstances of this offender are such that he is a 50 year old man whose last entry on his criminal record was for anunrelated offence dating back to 1988. He has no prior history in relation to organized crime or gaming. Gaming is a very serious activity,but crimes involving violence, drug trafficking, weapons and other offences committed by organized crime are considered to be at aneven higher level of seriousness.

The rehabilitation of the offender is subordinate to the principles of denunciation as well as specific or general deterrence, but it must beacknowledged once again that this individual has ceased his involvement in the criminal organization prior to his arrest and has beeninvolved in legitimate employment. For these reasons, I am satisfied that in these unique circumstances as they apply to Mr. Manasseri, general deterrence is properlyaddressed without requiring this accused to serve one half of his sentence before being eligible for parole.

His period of paroleineligibility will therefore be determined in accordance with the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I believe that there was one further order requested by the Crown which is that Mr. Manasseri provide a sample for DNA analysis. I will

make that order at this time. This matter goes back before the more recent amendments. That being the case this would have been a situation in which the court could have exercised its discretion to impose the victim fine surcharge. Given the amount that’s involved of $100 on the one count, I will order that Mr. Manasseri make payment. I think in these circumstances, I don’t think that the court needs to extend the time. I recognize that Mr.

Manasseri will be incarcerated for a period of time, but we’ll leave that as it is then, and order the payment of the victim fine surcharge of $100. ***** CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT EVIDENCE ACT , subsection 5(2) I, Debi Lascelle, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcription of the recording of R. v. Benedetto Manasseri in the Ontario Court of Justice held at Ottawa, Ontario, taken from Digital Recording No. CD#0411_CR10_20141014_085330__6_FRASERH.dcr which has been certified in Form 1. December 10, 2014 _______________________ ____________________ Date Debi Lascelle

* This certification does not apply to the Reasons for Sentence which were were judicially edited.