RE:AMF Introductory Motion - public documentAfter reading the AMF document. There is one crucial thing missing. In order to get a fraud conviction you have to prove there was an intent to commit fraud? I really think Peter thought he was doing the right thing for both parties. I don't believe there was any intent there to comit fraud..for this reason I think AMF'S allegations are on shaky ground....I am not a laywer... this is...JMHO
Fraud According to the Criminal Code
Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code uses a two-part definition to describe fraud: 1) a prohibited act of “deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means;” and 2) that this act deprives the public or specific person of “any property, money or valuable security, or any service.”
Ensuing sections of the Code describe “intent” as a crucial component of fraud charges and subsequent legal precedents set by Canadian courts mandates that the Crown has to prove intent to secure a conviction. While this is helpful for defending against fraud charges, it also means that people can be charged for their intent to commit fraud, even if they were unsuccessful in their efforts.