Ex-financial adviser gets four years for fraud
A high-profile financial adviser who preyed on trusting family and friends to defraud them of more than $3.1 million has been sentenced to four years in federal prison.
Scott Reeves, who owned Reeves Financial Services Inc. and three other companies, was sentenced on Wednesday following drawn-out court proceedings since he was first charged in 2014 and 2015 with 16 counts of fraud, theft and uttering forged documents.
At the time, the financial loss to all victims was said to be about $5 million.
The case got closer to an end when Reeves, 47, pleaded guilty last October to one count of fraud over $5,000.
Justice Andrew Goodman, in sentencing Reeves to prison on Wednesday, also fined him $3.1 million — a fine that must be paid within five years of his release from jail.
If Reeves does not pay it, he must serve another five years of imprisonment, Goodman ruled Wednesday.
But before he pays the fine, Reeves must give his victims their money back as restitution. Goodman said the restitution will take priority over the fine. And, if restitution is made, the fine will be reduced proportionate to whatever Reeves pays back to his victims.
Goodman made the order despite what he said were his “robust reservations whether Reeves has the willingness or ability to repay the amounts.” Both Reeves and his lawyer stressed several times that Reeves had a strong desire to repay his victims.
The victims include a niece and three longtime friends — two of them left destitute and forced to work well into their retirement years.
Outside court, Dr. Peter Vignjevic, 50, who lost more than $2 million to Reeves, said he was pleased with the sentence, but thinks restitution is unlikely.
Gayle Meehan, 69, who lost almost $300,000 and is now forced to continue working full time despite health issues, said she may be too old to ever see restitution, but is satisfied with the sentence.
“Today, I feel like justice has been served,” she said.
Her sister, Marcia Martin, said she feels Reeves tried to manipulate the court by changing lawyers several times to delay a trial and then sentencing, and by blaming his behaviour on his victims.
But Martin feels the sentence shows that “blatant manipulation of the courts will not be tolerated.”
Widow Donna Aiken, 66, is also forced to work beyond retirement because Reeves defrauded her of $378,000.
“I wish he had got more (jail time), but I’m glad it’s over and that I can move on, at least a little bit,” she said.
Aiken, now without her life savings, cannot afford to take time off her dog grooming business to spend time in the U.S. with her dying son suffering from cancer or with her 93-yearold mother in a nursing home.
“He has definitely ruined my life and my future,” Aiken said of Reeves.
Reeves’ niece Rachel Reeves, 26, the youngest victim, did not attend court.
Goodman noted earlier that she trusted her uncle with $180,500 she inherited on the death of her mother and grandparents, and is now “deeply troubled at having lost their money.”
Goodman was unaffected by Reeves’ defence and apology.
“I remain unimpressed with Reeves’ apology to the court and to the victims seated in the gallery, who were all anticipating some demonstration of contrition,” he said.
“Frankly, it seems to me that Reeves is an individual who promises everything and delivers nothing. He takes advantage of others, those who had trusted him with their life savings.
“He has conned or duped individuals in his quest to benefit or maintain a lifestyle to which he is neither entitled nor merited by virtue of education, experience, or hard and honest work.”
Goodman noted his clear breach of trust and impact of the fraud on his victims being “severe and devastating.”
While Reeves did eventually plead guilty, Goodman noted it came “at a very late stage” and in the middle of a trial when it became apparent he would be found guilty.
Goodman also “categorically” rejected a suggestion by Reeves — through forensic psychiatrist Dr. Julian Gojer — that his behaviour was partly a fault of sexual misconduct by one of his victims.
“The foundation and nature of these statements are entirely self-serving and without merit,” Goodman said.
Goodman also said despite evidence of depression in Reeves, “there is a lingering question as to how much his depressive illness actually impacted upon his continued pattern of fraudulent conduct ... over the course of many years.”
In the end, Goodman seemed angered by the fraud.
“Take Mr. Reeves away please,” he said abruptly at the end of his lengthy rulings.