Court orders to repay fraud victims are ‘lip service’

Because thieves are often broke, victims may never see a dime

Thieves jailed in several high profile Hamilton fraud convictions — where millions were embezzled — were also ordered to pay back the money they stole.

Disgraced lawyer John Findlay was given a restitution order to pay back $1.7 million.

High-profile financial adviser Scott Reeves was directed to repay $3.1 million in 2018.

In 2011, businessperson Bob Waxman was ordered to pay back $17.9 million (U.S.).

Now, Ruth Seguin faces a $3.4million fine — because she already has a restitution order in a lawsuit against her.

But the victims’ likelihood of ever seeing a dime is remote.

In almost each case, the judges heard that the swindlers blew all the money. But they still imposed restitution orders.

“It’s lip service, really,” says Université de Montreal criminology professor Jo-Anne Wemmers — because the orders are unenforceable.

Restitution orders are “clearly not there to serve the victims.” But they do “improve public perceptions of the criminal justice system,” says Wemmers, one of three co-authors of a 2017 research paper on restitution orders.

Restitution orders are made despite a criminal’s inability to pay because the courts “never know what will happen in the future, and also, they may not know the whole picture of where the money is,” says Western University associate law professor Chris Sherrin.

If the justice system was serious, maintains Wemmers, it would go after offenders who don’t pay — the same way the government does when it is defrauded.

The court’s priority, however, is on rehabilitating and reintegrating offenders back into society — not on helping victims, says Wemmers.

In Ontario and most of Canada, a victim’s only recourse is to ask civil courts to enforce restitution orders.

But this is arduous, complicated and expensive, says Wemmers.

Seizing bank accounts or putting liens on property is difficult, according to Kathryn Adams on the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime website.

Adams’ “dreadful experience” in trying to recoup money stolen from her business shows that, “while it can initially seem like a victory for a crime victim to be awarded a restitution order … in reality, it usually is not.”

Collecting is “frustratingly elusive due to the many protections that offenders enjoy …” The deck is stacked in their favour, Adams says. “Restitution orders are rendered largely useless to a victim and issuing them becomes little more than a formality.”

Says Sherrin, “No question, the victim has to take a number of steps to make the order useful.”

Canada’s federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, Heidi Illingworth, says making victims responsible for collecting restitution “is a serious form of revictimization.”

The justice system has a responsibility to ensure offenders are accountable, she says.

“We actually know from the experience of Saskatchewan that if you dedicate permanent staff to assisting victims ... that it works. Saskatchewan has successfully collected a lot of funds for victims.”

Illingworth, despite her title, says she cannot intervene for victims because restitution is outside of her mandate.

Justice Department spokesperson Ian McLeod says restitution is a provincial matter, but says the Canadian Victim Bill of Rights gives every victim the right to a restitution order — and the right to enforce it through a civil judgment.

Wemmers says it’s obvious the bill has no teeth.

“The research is quite clear. Often the winners in civil cases are the losers in the end.” And criminals, she adds, are often “really smart at hiding their money.”