The Supreme Court of Canada takes trafficking in maple syrup very seriously!

Apparently there is a black market in maple syrup in Quebec. Who knew?

Well, Richard Vallières, it seems. He managed to organise a theft of maple syrup with a street value of $18 million!

He got caught and the question was the penalty. The Criminal Code allows for a fine based on the amount stolen.

The trial court fined him $10 million, because that was the total value of what he managed to steal.

No, no, he said, he said on appeal. Ten million was the gross value, but I had a long distribution list, with different people taking their share. I only netted $1 million, so that’s what the fine should be.

Well, okay, says the court of appeal. Fine is reduced based on a net profit of $1 million.

Not so fast, says the Supreme Court of Canada. Fine is based on gross, not net (less some adjustments for a few details).

Total fine: $9.1 million. And don’t you be trying that fancy accounting stuff again!

Innerestin’. In more detail, does the Crim Code give any indication about whether fines are allowed to be set this way to:

  • compensate the victim, or
  • prevent criminals from profiting from their crime?

Seems to me that’s the crux of it. If it’s the first reason the decision makes sense. But if it’s the second reason then as a matter of logic "net’ seems correct.

Don’t forget

  • deterrence

I thought about that but deterrence has always been the aim of fines, and the value of the crime has always been a discretionary factor taken into account when setting a fine. So I’m assuming this specific provision allowing fines to be set on the basis of the amount stolen is intended differently.

So would every person who was involved in the theft also be eligible for a $10 million fine?

Well, at least they didn’t waffle on the ruling.

What a sap!

This is a sticky situation.

Seems like Canada takes their maple syrup seriously, what with the 94,000 barrel “strategic reserve.”

Maybe he should have tried buttering up the trial judge more.

Sounds like the defendant was barking up the wrong tree.

Does this mean he’s come to a sticky end?

Sweet!

No passes for grasses passing off molasses?

The decision makes sense to me. Not really because you are taking the thief at his word. But more because if you are selling stuff which fell out of a van or whatever, you are probably doing so cheaply to get rid off it fast, no? That does not mean it is value is the price sold. (I do not buy stuff out of vans, but I did enjoy Only Fools And Horses.)

Ssssst! We’re not allowed to talk about the s(€**,.# fg~>>>>. . a^

** Carrier lost **

Sweet, sticky justice, eh?

They take the strategic reserve very seriously too. I wonder if the thieves considered dressing up like pancakes or woodpeckers?