Analysis Of The R. V. Boghossian Case

Subject
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions

It will first do so by giving a summary of the R. v. Boghossian case and explain any relevant criminal code sections. Secondly it will connect the common themes of past literature reviews to Mr. Remy Boghossian's case. Lastly, it will apply the General Strain Theory to the case of R. v. Boghossain to further attempt to explain Mr. Boghossian's behavior. Based on the findings of the literature reviews and evidence found when applying general strain theory, it can be concluded that Mr. Boghossain's behavior parallels the behavior of people who commit

Boghossian and his associates did indeed commit both fraud and knowingly possessing a stolen item (R. v. Boghossian, 2015a). Mr. Boghossian and his defense counsel upon hearing this judgment decided to appeal the decision made by Justice Alfred O'Marra on the ground that his rights guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedom were violated. Specially his right to a trail within a reasonable amount of time guaranteed under section 11(b) as the court took over 22 months and within this time, Mr. Boghossian argued that it was unreasonably lengthy and he lost plenty of business because of it (R. v. Boghossian, 2015b). The appeal though was dismissed as they decided that section 11(b) was not infringed as 22 months was deemed as reasonable due to the complex nature of the case (R. v. Boghossian,