INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
This section makes it a criminal offense for employees entrusted with the handling of items in government or municipality service to refuse or fail to deliver them as demanded by authorized individuals, with a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment.
SECTION WORDING
337 Every one who, being or having been employed in the service of Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province, or in the service of a municipality, and entrusted by virtue of that employment with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, refuses or fails to deliver it to a person who is authorized to demand it and does demand it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.
EXPLANATION
Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the offence of theft by employees of the government or municipalities. It states that any person who is employed by the government or a municipality and entrusted with the receipt, custody, management or control of anything, and refuses or fails to deliver it to a person authorized to demand it shall be guilty of an indictable offence. This section aims to safeguard against theft, embezzlement, or misappropriation of funds or property by public servants who are in positions of trust and authority. The provision does not limit the scope of entrusted property to any specific type of asset, as long as it is entrusted to the employee in their capacity of service to the government or municipality. It covers any property, including money, documents, land, and other valuable items. Any such property that a public servant unlawfully retains could easily be used for their own gain. The law is quite broad in its scope, and penalizes any act that involves dishonesty with regard to entrusted property. The punishment for this offence is severe, as an offender could face imprisonment for up to fourteen years. Such punishment reflects the severity of the crime and serves as a deterrent to others in similar positions who may be tempted to act dishonestly. The law thus seeks to uphold public trust in government and municipal institutions and to maintain the integrity and transparency of these entities. Overall, section 337 provides a means to ensure that individuals who abuse their position of power and trust can be held accountable for their actions.
COMMENTARY
Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision aimed at protecting public property from theft, misappropriation, or embezzlement. The section imposes criminal liability on employees of the government or a municipality who are entrusted with the receipt, custody, management, or control of anything and refuse or fail to deliver it to a person authorized to demand it. The rationale behind this provision is twofold. Firstly, it recognizes that public employees have a duty to exercise fiduciary responsibilities when managing public assets. They have been entrusted with the responsibility of managing public resources fairly, responsibly, and transparently. By refusing or failing to deliver an item upon demand, such employees undermine the trust placed on them and breach their fiduciary duty. Secondly, by criminalizing the refusal or failure to deliver public property, Section 337 serves as a deterrent to corrupt or unethical practices among public employees. It sends a clear message that public officials entrusted with public resources cannot use their positions for personal gain. The language of Section 337 is broad and covers a wide range of scenarios. It applies to employees at various levels of government, including federal, provincial, and municipal levels. It covers anything that is entrusted to employees' control, such as money, documents, and other valuable items. In instances where an employee refuses or fails to deliver an item to a person authorized to demand it, the employee is guilty of an indictable offence and could face imprisonment for up to 14 years. While Section 337 is a crucial provision in protecting public property and promoting ethical conduct among public employees, it is not without its challenges. One of the primary hurdles is determining the authorized person entitled to demand the item. The provision is vague on this matter, and as a result, it may be difficult for law enforcement agencies to identify the rightful person entitled to demand the item. Another challenge is determining the intent of the employee who refuses or fails to deliver the item. For instance, an employee who has lost the item or misplaced it may not be guilty under Section 337. The refusal or failure to deliver must be deliberate, and the employee must have had the requisite intent to keep the item for personal gain. In conclusion, Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada serves as an essential tool in promoting ethical conduct among public employees and protecting public resources. However, a delicate balance must be struck between protecting public resources and ensuring that public employees are not unfairly penalized. As such, there should be clarity in terms of who constitutes an authorized person to demand an item and what constitutes the requisite intent for a conviction under Section 337.
STRATEGY
Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a serious offence that has the potential to result in a long-term prison sentence if an individual is found guilty. The section outlines that any person employed by Her Majesty in Canada or a province or a municipality, entrusted with the management, custody, receipt, or control of something, is obliged to deliver it when authorized. Many strategies can be employed when dealing with Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Several strategic considerations that should be borne in mind when trying to address the offence include the potential penalties that the accused may face, assessing the strength of the evidence, preparing a strong defence, and considering plea bargaining. One of the first strategic considerations to keep in mind when dealing with this section is the severity of the potential punishment to be handed out. The accused will be sentenced to a maximum of 14 years imprisonment if found guilty. It's also crucial to assess the strength of the evidence against the accused before developing a legal defence. In many cases, if the prosecution's case rests on a weak set of evidence, the accused could have grounds for acquittal. The accused will need to hire an experienced and skilled lawyer to block the admission of any potentially destructive evidence and challenge any incriminating evidence that the prosecution team presents. Preparing a robust defence is also essential. The defence team could argue that the accused did not intend to misappropriate the items in question, or that the individual is being falsely accused of the offence. Additionally, the defence team could also question the identity of the person claiming to be authorized to demand delivery of the item. Finally, it's crucial to consider plea bargaining. This is where the accused and the prosecution team come to an agreement, most often resulting in the accused pleading guilty to a lesser offence and facing a reduced sentence. If the prosecution team's evidence is quite strong, plea bargaining may be the most realistic option for a successful outcome. In conclusion, addressing Section 337 of the Criminal Code of Canada requires a strategic approach, including assessing the potential punishment, evidence, preparing a strong defence, and considering plea bargaining. All these factors play an integral role in determining the outcome of a case in court.