Criminal Charge after Cr-1 rec'd

[YuAndDan 153]

It depends on the canadian statute under which he is convicted, for example "theft with an intent to temporarily deprive" need not make him inadmissible if the potential sentence is short.

I like the sound of that one, sounds like "Borrowing" with full intent to return shortly after, only to get caught.

[olympic 0]

Sometimes the statute is too broad and covers cases that do not always make you inadmissible. So if you are convicted, you can argue that the court never found you guilty of "theft with an intent to permanently deprive" cause the statute under which you were convicted was too broad - so you are not inadmissible...

That's why a good lawyer can make a huge difference in these cases.

I like the sound of that one, sounds like "Borrowing" with full intent to return shortly after, only to get caught.

Edited February 4, 2011 by olympic

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

It depends on the canadian statute under which he is convicted, for example "theft with an intent to temporarily deprive" need not make him inadmissible if the potential sentence is short.

Yeah, there are a myriad of different ways it could go. For example, he could admit he's guilty and agree to make restitution in return for the prosecutor dropping the charges. No conviction, but an admission of guilt. He'd still be deportable.

[Abby62 23]

That truly sucks for him.

I know that he did pay back all misappropriated funds as well as every single penny in severance they had paid him. They had even let him go "without" cause. Then they still charged him, doesn't make sense that they would still do that even though every penny was paid back.

I wish I knew more about the charge, but that's all he told me so far.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

That truly sucks for him.

I know that he did pay back all misappropriated funds as well as every single penny in severance they had paid him. They had even let him go "without" cause. Then they still charged him, doesn't make sense that they would still do that even though every penny was paid back.

I wish I knew more about the charge, but that's all he told me so far.

Double edged sword. On the one hand, paying back the funds amounts to an admission of guilt. On the other hand, depending on the circumstances, it might indicate he never intended to keep the money.

[Abby62 23]

Well in either case sounds like he was just trying to "right" a wrong. I have no idea why this company still wants to prosecute even after they got all their money back. Guess i'll have to wait till I hear more from him on this to see what happens.