R. v. Skorobohach Date:, 2011 BCPC 303

Citation: R. v. Skorobohach Date: 20111024 2011 BCPC 0303 File No: 84124-2C Registry: Port Coquitlam IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. BRENT GORDON SKOROBOHACH ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE BULLER BENNETT Counsel for the Crown: A. Baldwin Counsel for the Defendant: K. Mirsky Place of Hearing: Port Coquitlam , B.C. Date of Hearing: October 24, 2011 Date of Judgment: October 24, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT : Mr.

Skorobohach has pleaded guilty to a charge on Information 84124-2C: Count 1: that from the 21st day of July, 2006 to the 10th day of June, 2010, inclusive, at or near Maple Ridge, in the Province of British Columbia, he did by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means, defraud Dolly Steyer and Robert Dwayne Anderson of monies of a value in excess of $5,000, contrary to Section 380(1) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] This offence is what is often referred to as telemarketing fraud. Mr. Skorobohach targeted elderly and infirm people in the United States. He was able to persuade these people, more specifically, Ms. Steyer and Mr. Anderson, to send money to him. He told the complainants that there was money owing to them and if they would send him cash or money orders for fees and border taxes, he would be able to forward the funds to them. The funds were transferred to Mr.

Skorobohach via Western Union and Canada Post. [ 3 ] Between July 2006 and June 2010, by way of Canada Post documents, investigators were able to find approximately 20 victims. The total amount that they were able to trace going to Mr. Skorobohach was $96,900. [ 4 ] Many of the victims were difficult to contact, could not be contacted, were ill or had passed away. However, Ms. Steyer was able to speak with the investigators. She is in her eighties. She lives in California. By over 170 transactions, she paid Mr. Skorobohach $23,132.69. Apparently at the time she was living with her daughter in California.

[ 5 ] Ms. Steyer really had no concept of the number of transactions involved and the amount that she had sent. She was on Social Security and I gather really was not aware of the total amount of money and transactions that had occurred as I have stated. [ 6 ] Mr. Anderson lives in Iowa. He is younger than Ms. Steyer. Between September 2003 and June 10th, 2010, he sent money 71 times to Mr. Skorobohach. Those transactions totalled $11,447.95. [ 7 ] As a result of sending these funds, Mr. Anderson fell behind in his mortgage payments and the bank started foreclosure on his own home.

I do not have an update as to whether the foreclosure completed. [ 8 ] Over the years, Mr. Skorobohach involved his girlfriend and one of his brothers in this enterprise. They would pick up the envelopes and other things from the Canada Post office at the Shoppers Drug Mart in Maple Ridge. [ 9 ] This fraud came about as a result of earlier employment. In 2003, Mr. Skorobohach was present when the Port Moody Police executed a search warrant at a location in Port Moody. They were investigating telemarketing fraud as well. In his statement to the police, Mr.

Skorobohach said that he took some of the contact information he had received while working at this Port Moody telemarketing fraud with him and he was able to start his own telemarketing fraud out of his own home in Maple Ridge. [ 10 ] Those are the circumstances of the offence. [ 11 ] I have the benefit of a pre-sentence report. The author describes Mr. Skorobohach as follows. [ 12 ] Mr. Skorobohach was born in 1966. He grew up in Vancouver, B.C. and I understand Mr. Skorobohach's father is still alive and lives in the family home in Maple Ridge. Mr.

Skorobohach lives in another house that his father owns and Mr. Skorobohach pays rent to his father. In the last few years, Mr. Skorobohach's mother, as well as his two older brothers, have passed away. [ 13 ] Mr. Skorobohach does have one post-secondary school course. He did graduate from high school. He worked for his mother's catering company after graduation from high school. He worked for this company for about four years then he went on to a series of companies involved in catering and special events. The last job that he had was working for one of his brothers doing this type of work. [ 14 ] Then, Mr.

Skorobohach answered an ad in the newspaper and began working for a Port Moody telemarketing company. This is the company in which the police were interested in Port Moody. This telemarketing company was perhaps the last somewhat legitimate employment that Mr. Skorobohach had. [ 15 ] Mr. Skorobohach has related to the author of the pre-sentence report that he is on income assistance but he is looking for employment in the roofing business. I do have a letter filed from a potential employer who is willing to take Mr. Skorobohach on as an apprentice for roofing. [ 16 ] Mr.

Skorobohach also told the author of the pre-sentence report that he has no diagnosed history of mental health issues but he has been badly affected by the deaths of his mother and brothers. [ 17 ] Mr. Skorobohach was quite candid with the author of the report. He said that he has a history of alcohol abuse. Apparently, his father was also a heavy drinker at one time and both his brothers had problems with alcohol. Mr. Skorobohach denies any history of drug use. [ 18 ] At the time of the report, Mr. Skorobohach was attending two different AA meetings a week.

I also understand that he has started counselling at Alouette Addictions. Apparently, Mr. Skorobohach is committed to dealing with his alcohol abuse issues, and he is willing to go for residential treatment should that option become available to him. [ 19 ] Mr. Skorobohach does have a criminal record. In 1989, there is a conviction for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample. In 1993, there is a conviction for possession of a narcotic, and finally in 1993 an impaired driving conviction. Apparently, Mr.

Skorobohach denies the narcotic conviction as one of his brothers was using his identification. [ 20 ] Mr. Skorobohach has been on bail since December of 2010. He has reported properly and without incident and he has attended for all of his interviews for the preparation of the pre-sentence report. [ 21 ] Mr.

Skorobohach is willing to pay restitution, to attend residential treatment, and to comply with any Court orders or conditions on his sentence. [ 22 ] I just want to read into the record Attitude and Understanding regarding offence: When discussing the offences with Brent, he presented as vague, in this officer's opinion, somewhat misleading in his explanations. Some of the information provided in his first two interviews was contradictory. Initially, he was not clear in his willingness to take responsibility for his actions indicating that he did not know initially that what he had done was altogether wrong.

During the second and third interview, this officer found Brent to be more forthcoming about his offences and also found him willing to take more responsibility for what he had done. Brent completed his third interview taking responsibility for his actions, expressing disappointment in himself for having committed his criminal acts, and stating he was determined to make a positive change in his life. He is expecting to pay restitution and expresses a willingness to do so.

He also accepts the role his alcohol addiction played in his poor decision making and in his offending, and expresses a willingness to deal with this issue by going into residential treatment. [ 23 ] I will just refer back to the victim information on the pre-sentence report: Robert Anderson was contacted by telephone for the preparation of this report. When asked if there was anything he wished the Court to know, he stated he wished the Court to make sure this type of offence never happened to anyone else. Mr.

Anderson also advised that he would very much like to receive restitution for the money that was taken from him. This officer was not able to reach Dolly Steyer, the

other victim. [24] The principles of sentencing are set out in s. 718 and following of the Criminal Code. Also, the applicable principles ofsentencing are set out in a variety of cases, and I take from those that general and individual deterrence as well as denunciation are theprimary considerations or principles for sentencing. Protection of the public in my view is also to be given some weight. [25] Defence counsel has referred to several decisions and I will read the citations into the record: R. v. Gasparetto, (Ont. S.C.); R. v. Dickson, 2007 BCCA 561; R. v. Taipow, (Ont. C.A.); R. v.

Ali (1997), (BC CA), 98 B.C.A.C. 239; R. v. Bradbury, 2004 NLCA 82; and R. v. Kirk, (Ont. C.A.). All of these cases stand forthe principle that in some circumstances a conditional sentence can be imposed and that sentence can address all of the relevantprinciples of sentencing. I will refer to the Dickson, supra, case in more detail momentarily. [26] There are mitigating circumstances. [27] Mr. Skorobohach has pleaded guilty to the charge. He has an unrelated and dated criminal record.

I note for the record also thathe has done well on bail without incident and was cooperative with the preparation of the pre-sentence report. [28] There are numerous aggravating circumstances. [29] First, in my view, there is a large sum of money involved. Elderly and infirm individuals were exploited over a long period oftime. These types of offences are very difficult to detect and investigate. This was a planned and deliberate enterprise and Mr.Skorobohach had help through his girlfriend and his brother to carry out the fraud. The impact on the victims is quite moving.

Mr.Anderson found his home in foreclosure and Ms. Steyer had really no understanding of just how much money she had sent and howmany times she had sent it. [30] Mr. Skorobohach initially told the police that it was their choice, being the complainants' choice, and therefore not a fraud,however, I have read into the record relevant sections of the pre-sentence report. [31] Mr. Skorobohach acknowledges the fact that he is an alcoholic and that his alcoholism helped contribute to his poor decisionmaking. I do not see that as a mitigating circumstance at all. [32] In the R. v.

Dickson, supra, decision from our Court of Appeal, the offender had an undiagnosed bipolar disorder and I will readinto the record at para. 67 of that decision: [67] In my opinion, the appellant's mental condition at the time of these offences is the most important of the many considerations inthis case. The offences were committed when the appellant's bipolar disorder was undiagnosed and untreated. Dr.

Dryer drew a directcausal connection between the mental illness and the commission of the offences. [33] In the matter before me, I do not have any such opinions from a doctor although I do accept that there was some poor decisionmaking that was fuelled by amongst other things alcoholism. [34] It is clear from Mr. Skorobohach's work history that he is habituated to this criminal lifestyle. In the pre-sentence report and inCrown counsel's submissions, there are references to many contacts by the police at the residence. Mr.

Skorobohach has not had anylegitimate employment for many yeas. [35] In my view, there has to be a jail sentence to address the principles of sentencing, specifically deterrence and denunciation,because the aggravating circumstances are serious and far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. [36] Defence counsel asks me to consider amongst other things an 18-month conditional sentence order aimed at rehabilitation, andCrown counsel asks me to consider a three-year penitentiary sentence. [37] As I have already stated, jail is required to address the principles of sentencing.

Can the sentence be in the range for aconditional sentence? In my view, no, for these reasons: the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances. Ihave already read those into the record. [38] In my view, the appropriate sentence is as submitted by Crown and that is a three-year penitentiary sentence. [39] There will be a DNA sample; it is a secondary offence. There will be forfeiture of any items seized. [SUBMISSIONS] [40] THE COURT: There will be separate restitution orders under s. 738 of the Criminal Code for the benefit of Mr.

Anderson inthe amount of $11,447.95, and for the benefit of Dolly Steyer in the amount of $23,132.69. (ORAL REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)