Title Is the RCMP protecting a financial scam along the Yellowhead?
An officer in the Smithers Detachment has implicated the RCMP in the protection of an embezzlement scheme which preys upon U.S. and other foreign citizens.
Last week U.S. citizen Daniel Morris lodged a request for an independent government investigation of the Smithers officer with the Commission for Public Complaints Against Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Surrey.
Morris filed the request after the officer refused to pursue proper investigative action on his claims against a law firm which he alleges is at the center of the embezzlement.
According to Morris, he sold a property last September in the northern part of the province, in the Stewart District.
The buyers of the Stewart property, Claus and Lynnda Rygaard of Dease Lake, were represented by the Smithers law firm of Perry and Company.
Morris represented himself in the sale. Records show that he had no legal services contract or written agreement with the Perry firm to represent him in the property transaction or in any other legal matter. Per a fax of early October, Morris specifically notified the firm that he did not want to enroll their services.
He had been told by a solicitor in Terrace that in B.C., a lawyer's dual representation of both a seller and a buyer in a land transfer conveyance is prohibited [ Law Society of British Columbia, Disciplinary Rules, Appendix 3, Real Property Transactions, 2(b), 5(d), 6. ]
Perry came into the sales equation only as the interim holder of the Rygaards' payment money. Under Canadian law, a non-resident seller of property like Morris is initially able to collect only seventy-five per cent of the sales proceeds. The remaining twenty-five per cent must be retained by the buyer's attorney in a bank trust account.
Once a T2062 compliance certificate application form subsequently is submitted to Canada Revenue and the amount of the seller's estimated capital gains tax is calculated , that estimated tax is paid from the trust account; the balance of funds in the account is then wired or mailed to the seller.
Morris claims that in his instance he was never wired the entire remaining balance from the sales trust funds once Ca Revenue's taxes were paid.
The trust account had been set up by Perry, the Rygaards attorney, in the Smithers branch of the Royal Bank of Canada. Morris states that after Ca Revenue was paid, the Perry firm withdrew money from the account for its own enrichment without his written or verbal permission and then authorized the bank to wire him only what was left.
Morris contends that the RBC in Smithers allowed the firm to make the withdrawal only because of the misrepresentations of firm owner John Perry and because of his influence within the bank .
Perry seemingly duped the local RBC president, Ian Grieve, into believing that his firm had a written agreement to represent Morris as a client; and that it had done extensive legal work for him with Canada Revenue.
Perry told Grieve that the firm spent an exorbitant amount of its time in preparing and submitting to the Canada Revenue Agency in Surrey Morris's application for the T2068 tax compliance certificate which was needed for the sale to finalize.
Perry managed to convince Grieve that his firm thus had the legal capacity to withdraw supposed “ fees ” for its services from the RBC account in which the sale proceeds had been deposited several months earlier.
But Canada Revenue's records for the Morris/Rygaard sale demonstrate the opposite of what Perry told the bank.
It was Morris personally who prepared and submitted the paperwork, and transacted the telephone business with Canada Revenue's Surrey office, in obtaining the estimate for the due capital gains taxes and ultimately the compliance certificate which Canada Revenue mailed to his home in the States.
The agency's Surrey files show that the only Ca Revenue-related action in which the Perry firm ever became involved was in releasing a check from the RBC sale trust account funds to Canada Revenue for the payment of its estimated taxes.
Note that Canadian law required that the 25% reserve of the sales proceeds be kept within the account of the buyer's attorney rather than that of the foreign seller .Morris could not have opened the trust account himself, only Perry, the Rygaards' attorney.
No contract with Morris, no written permission to impose any kind of fees on Morris, no permission to withdraw any money from his sales proceeds: none of those essential legal requirements were of apparent consequence to the Perry firm.
John Perry knew that Morris was not represented by legal counsel. Morris was a prime target for an unauthorized withdrawal of money from the sales proceeds trust account to which Perry had access.
Perry apparently assumed that his clout with RBC was great enough to allow him to remove money from the trust account, for his personal profit, without suspicion or criminal ramifications.
Quite simply Perry assumed that he could get away with the misappropriation of Morris's money though he had no real legal foundation upon which to do so: no actual written authorization to charge any firm deductions against Morris's sales proceeds; no court judgment for supposed “ fees ” to be paid by Morris; and no other pretext for withdrawing the funds.
John Perry just evidently believes that he and his firm are above the law.
Every one commits theft who, having received , either solely or jointly with another person, money or valuable security or a power of attorney for the sale of real or personal property ,
with the direction [stipulation] that the money or a part of it, or the proceeds or a part of the proceeds of the security or the property shall be applied to a purpose or paid to a person specified in the direction,
fraudulently and contrary to the direction applies to any other purpose or pays to any other person the money or proceeds or any part of it. Criminal Code of Canada, Art. 322(1).
John Perry knew that his firm had a victim ripe for the picking.
Morris was enraged. He contacted the RCMP in Smithers.
The detachment was requested to investigate Perry's unauthorized withdrawal of money from the sales funds account, and his giving of false information to RBC that he had performed “ extensive work ” in preparing and submitting a T2062 application to Canada Revenue in behalf of Morris.
From the outset, the detachment staff was reluctant to investigate the Perry firm. According to Morris, the very first Smithers constable with whom he spoke on the Perry complaint “ told me, you realize how powerful that man is? He's got buddies in the court.”
Morris had to file a complaint against the RCMP and obtain the input of a neighboring detachment in Houston in order to compel the Smithers unit to even look at what Perry had done.
Smithers Sergeant Sean Wadelius prepared a formal written agreement between Morris and Smithers Staff Sergeant Sheila White; White agreed that a full and proper investigation of the Perry allegations would be conducted and appropriate action taken.
Corporal Andrew Hunter of the Smithers detachment was assigned to investigate the Perry case.
“ Hunter told me ,” says Morris, “ that if Perry didn't come clean and return all funds which he had no permission to withdraw, he was going to court and get a warrant for Perry's arrest .”
The situation then deteriorated further for Perry, by his own doing . Perry could furnish Hunter with no documentation which showed that he ever had a contractual legal representation relationship with Morris.
Nor could Perry produce documentation in which Morris agreed to pay him fees for anything. Nor could Perry document written permission from Morris to withdraw funds for his own personal profit from the Royal Bank of Canada property sales monies .
Hunter was seeking any evidence that could support Perry's supposed “ defense ” to Morris's complaint: Hunter needed any substantiation that the firm's withdrawal of funds from the trust account for its own enrichment was “ legally authorized ” .
Hunter was seeking any substantiation that the withdrawal of funds in any reasonable manner could be construed as a “ fee dispute ” in a “ civil agreement” which Perry was claiming to have had with Morris.
Hunter's task was straightforward: either John Perry could produce a legal agreement with Morris or he couldn't.
Without such a written agreement, without express written permission from Morris under which he could withdraw money from the sale proceeds, Perry's removal of the funds from the account constituted an from a trust account. See EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS.PDF
Perry's excuse for the unauthorized withdrawal was akin to a robber who breaks into an automatic teller machine.
When he gets caught, he then incredulously tells the RCMP that he was just “ borrowing money ” , that he was just having a “ civil loan disagreement ” with the bank. The bank didn't “ owe ” its robber; Daniel Morris didn't owe John Perry; he wasn't John Perry's client.
“ Desperation breeds disaster .” Perry foolishly presumed that he could pull the same deceptive stunt on the RCMP and Hunter which he used upon Ian Grieve at the RBC.
Perry had asserted his original excuse for the withdrawal w ithin a facsimile transmission to the detachment, ie. that he “allegedly” had done an extensive amount of work in getting the Canada Revenue certificate of compliance for Morris; See PERRYRCMPFAX.PDF
that Morris had authorized him to do so; that Morris should be responsible for “ fees ” whether or not there was a legal contract between them.
Perry then resubmitted a copy of the T2062 application form which he stated that his staff had manually completed and sent to Canada Revenue as part of that “ extensive ” work for Morris in obtaining the agency's compliance certificate.
But recall: Canada Revenue's records show that no such T2062 application was received by the agency from Perry . The only T2062 application which Ca Revenue has on file is that which Morris himself completed, typed, and mailed to the agency as part of his own personal steps in obtaining the certificate.
The T2062 application form which Perry transmitted to the Smithers RCMP detachment was bogus.
Perry's act of submitting the false document to legal authorities revealed just how criminally far he would go to fight a complaint over his “misconduct” which had been brought by a non-lawyer, by an ordinary person. John Perry was willing to fabricate evidence during the course of an RCMP criminal investigation to avoid admitting his original wrongdoing.
There was no issue of fact with whose interpretation he could play lawyer games. Canada Revenue Agency's records confirmed that no application to act in Morris's behalf was ever transmitted to it by the Perry firm. Morris never signed the T2062 application which Perry claimed his firm sent to the agency.
Perry had complicated the issue of theft of property sales proceeds with the issue of his submitting false and misleading evidence to the RCMP during an official investigation.
Linked is the fabricated a pplication to delude the RCMP and the Royal Bank of Canada about his supposed “time-consuming work as Morris's attorney”. There was no such work . There was only John Perry's siphoning of money from the sales proceeds which had been temporarily escrowed in an RBC trust account. See BOGUST2062.PDF
Also linked is the actual C anada Revenue T2062 application form which Morris prepared and transmitted himself to the agency in October, 2009. See ACTUALT2062.PDF
The files of the Surrey Canada Revenue Office turn out to be John Perry's Waterloo in this scam. Embezzlement has been compounded by the crime of perversion or obstruction of justice. See PERVERSIONOFJUSTICE.PDF
Corporal Hunter was faxed complete paper work on Perry's fabrication of the Canada Revenue T2062 application form.
MAY, 2009: it was five months since Morris first reported the Perry scam to the Smithers RCMP. Morris demanded that the detachment either compel Perry to return the stolen funds or that the RCMP institute criminal proceedings against him and his firm.
Hunter suddenly went silent on the Perry investigation. For two weeks, Morris claims, Hunter would not return his telephone calls. Then, on May 7, 2009 Hunter sent Morris an email.
Dear Mr. Morris. I am sorry but . . . " Unfortunately, there is not much more we can do in our investigation. Your options are to either sue PERRY and Co civilly or contact Revenue Canada and speak to V. SUEN. We at this time cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any fraud or misrepresentation occurred."
Hunter had been pressured into dropping the Perry firm investigation. Hunter was using his position in the Smithers detachment to protect John Perry from prosecution.
There is another grossly disheartening realization which everyone reaches after reading this story. Morris is not Perry's only victim. The people of B.C. also now are his prey.
The Smithers RCMP detachment, at least Corporal Andrew Hunter, and the prosecutor who worked with Hunter in falsely “disposing” of this case as a “civil” issue, epitomize the extent of John Perry's attack on the institutions of this province. The entire law enforcement and judicial process has been compromised by Mr. Perry.
Mr. Perry got himself into such a deep web of confabulations and lies that he corrupted the very men whom we normally rely on and trust to make the judicial process work.
Embezzlement is a crime. Falsifying documentary evidence during the course of an RCMP investigation is a crime.
So also is it a grievous offense against the state for a law enforcement officer and a prosecutor to conspire to undermine an honest investigation and prosecution of one who has broken the criminal code.
Morris as noted has requested the review of the way that the Smithers RCMP detachment “ deliberately contrived to conceal” Perry's criminal misconduct.
Foreign visitors much like Canadians have reached their wit's end over the incredible lying by a small segment of mounties during official investigations. Th e memory of Robert Dziekanski won't go away. Nor will the other occasions where we have seen that some of our mounties think that loyalty to their community equates with “ cover ups ” of crime by the high and mighty in their towns .
Morris's request also remains pending for the special direct personal intervention of E Division Commander Gary Bass. See LETTERBASS.PDF
“ You know, “, says Morris, “ I used to watch Sergeant Preston when I was a little boy. The mounties were the tops for honesty; they were the good cops from up north . “
“ What Corporal Hunter did in this cover up has sure changed my perception of the RCMP. I hope that Commander Bass can reverse that. I hope that he can intervene in this situation and see to it that justice is done, to show that no man can, like Perry did, abuse his power and influence in a local community to circumvent the law and government “
<ul><li>Explain the steps that now need to be taken </li></ul>
This account is based upon an interview with Daniel Morris and with a second witness to Perry's scam. When he was given the opportunity Perry refused to issue a contrary truthful statement of facts. This Internet account is presented here because it needs to be presented.
Perry's victimization of a foreign citizen who was not represented by a lawyer was unethical, indecent, and illegal. It represents another instance in which the legal profession in Canada much like its counterpart in the U.S. , appears to be rapidly losing grip over the social conscience of many of its members.
What John Perry did in this situation was deliberate. There was no inadvertent mistake or oversight here. John Perry and his law firm knew exactly the wrongs which they were committing.
Morris spoke via telephone with Perry's paralegal, Hayley Catton, in mid December, 2008. The conversation occurred when Morris first learned of Perry's unauthorized withdrawal of personal funds from the RBC property sale account.
When he voiced his dismay over the withdrawal of the trust account funds without a factual or legal basis, Catton became embarrassed. Her words ?
“ Mr. Morris, I told John [Perry] we weren't the ones who got the compliance certificate. He told me to charge the fees anyway. I will ask him to call you when he returns from lunch .“
BEWARE To all non-Canadians, be on your guard when dealing with Canadian solicitors who are representing the buyers in a property sale when you yourself do not have an attorney.
Like John Perry, the buyer's attorney may just be getting his hands on the buyer's check, depositing it in his lawyer trust account, and then absconding part of the proceeds from you.
As the games arrive, and travel and property sales transactions increase, foreigners should be increasingly vigilant of scams like Perry's. They also should be especially aware of the wrongful influence of many of these wealthy swindlers on their local RCMP detachments.
and BEWARE. DO NOT USE THE ROYAL BANK OF CANADA for foreign property sales transactions.
Even after discovering that John Perry had lied about his legal relationship with Morris and his supposed capacity to withdraw funds for his personal use, the RBC refused to allow Morris to file an insurance claim for recovery of the unlawfully absconded trust account funds.
The Royal Bank of Canada clearly has shown us a policy where it will protect its major corporate customers like Perry & Company no matter how criminal the company's misuse of its trust accounts. This is not the first instance in which RBC shows us that compliance with the law is not one of its main priorities .
Your comments, feedback and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Please email [email_address]
If you find these lawyer scams and RCMP cover ups becoming politically intolerable, discuss them with your local RCMP detachment. Remember, most of our mounties are well-respected, honorable public servants.
And contact Commander Bass's office over this incident. The Commander is truly honorable “old school”. As in actually caring about his and the RCMP's integrity. With your encouragement and support he will deal sternly and quickly with this cruel attack by Perry, Hunter and pals on the Canadian legal, judicial and law enforcement system.
Also follow the news about similar incidents of RCMP corruption and cover ups of criminal misconduct.