section 448

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

The term utter in this section includes selling, paying, tendering, and putting off.

SECTION WORDING

448 In this Part, "utter" includes sell, pay, tender and put off.

EXPLANATION

Section 448 of the Criminal Code of Canada is part of a larger legislative framework that outlines the definitions and penalties for various types of criminal activities. In particular, this section deals with the meaning of the term 'utter', which is a term that can be used in a variety of different contexts. The term 'utter' is most commonly used in reference to the act of passing off a forged document or instrument as genuine. For example, if an individual were to present a false cheque at a bank in order to obtain money, they would be said to have 'uttered' the cheque. However, the term can also refer to a range of other activities, including selling goods, tendering payment, or putting something up for sale. The key feature of this section is the broad definition of the term 'utter'. This definition is important because it allows law enforcement agencies and the courts to effectively prosecute individuals who engage in a range of fraudulent or deceptive activities. By including a variety of different activities under the definition of 'utter', this section ensures that individuals who engage in this type of criminal behavior can be held accountable for their actions, regardless of the specific nature of their offense. Overall, section 448 plays an important role in the Criminal Code of Canada by clarifying the meaning of a key term used in a range of different contexts. By doing so, this section helps to ensure that individuals who engage in fraudulent or deceptive activities can be effectively prosecuted and held accountable under Canadian law.

COMMENTARY

Section 448 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a crucial definition that pertains to Part XIII of the Code, which relates to Forgery and Offences Resembling Forgery. The section provides a precise definition of the term "utter," which includes several types of actions that are deemed to be fraudulent and illegal. The term has been used in Canadian legal contexts for decades and is often cited in cases involving fraud or forgery. The section defines the term "utter" to include activities like selling, paying, tendering, and putting off. Essentially, it refers to any act of passing off a forged or fraudulent document as genuine, with the intent to deceive others. The inclusion of multiple actions within the definition of "utter" serves to broaden the scope of the offence, making it easier for law enforcement to identity and prosecute instances of fraud or forgery. The term "utter" is frequently used in cases involving counterfeit currency, documents, or valuable items. For instance, if an individual attempts to pass a counterfeit $50 bill as a genuine one, they would be charged with uttering a counterfeit bill, as well as counterfeiting the bill itself. Furthermore, the inclusion of such a diverse range of actions within the definition of "utter" allows for proactive policing measures that can help identify criminal activity before it becomes a serious issue. One crucial element of Section 448 of the Criminal Code is the requirement for intent. To be considered an offence under the section, the individual must have acted with the intention to deceive or defraud. Thus, the crime extends beyond the mere possession of a forged or fraudulent document and requires the active intention to use it to deceive. The penalty for an offence under Section 448 of the Criminal Code can be severe, with a maximum sentence of ten years' imprisonment. Furthermore, the financial penalties can be significant, and the individual may also be required to pay restitution to any victims of the crime. This demonstrates the serious nature of the offence, which is recognized as having a significant impact on individuals and society as a whole. In conclusion, Section 448 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a significant legal provision that helps to define the term "utter" as used in cases involving forgery and related crimes. The inclusion of multiple actions within the definition serves to broaden the scope of the offence, making it easier for law enforcement to identify and prosecute cases of fraud. The requirement for intent further emphasizes the seriousness of the offence, and the potential penalties reflect this. Overall, this section of the Criminal Code remains an essential tool for addressing serious crimes that threaten the integrity of society.

STRATEGY

Section 448 of the Criminal Code of Canada defines the term "utter" as including several actions that may constitute a criminal offence. This provision is relevant to a wide range of criminal offences, including fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting, where the accused may have uttered a false document or instrument with the intention of deceiving someone else. In dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that lawyers and defendants must keep in mind. First and foremost, it is important to understand the element of mens rea or intention that is required for an offence under section 448. The prosecution must prove that the accused intended to utter a false document or instrument, with the knowledge or belief that it was false and with the intention to deceive someone else. This requires a careful analysis of the evidence, particularly in cases where the accused may have been acting under pressure, duress or in a mistaken belief that the document or instrument was genuine. A second consideration is the type of evidence that may be used to prove the offence. In many cases, the prosecution will rely on expert evidence to show that the document or instrument is false or has been altered. This may require the defence to obtain their own expert evidence to counter the prosecution's argument. Additionally, the prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence, such as the accused's actions or statements, to show that they intended to deceive someone else. A third consideration is the potential defences that may be available to the accused. One common defence is that the accused did not intend to deceive anyone, but rather believed that the document or instrument was genuine. Another defence is that the accused was acting under duress or coercion, such as if they were forced to sign a false document under threat of harm. Other potential defences may include mistake of fact or law, lack of knowledge or awareness, or alibi evidence. In terms of strategies that could be employed in dealing with section 448, one important approach is to conduct a thorough investigation of the facts and evidence. This may involve gathering witness statements, obtaining expert evidence, and reviewing any available documentation or records. By carefully assessing the evidence, the defence can identify any weaknesses in the prosecution's case and develop a strong argument in favour of their client. Another key strategy is to focus on the intent element of the offence. If the prosecution is unable to prove that the accused had the requisite intent to deceive someone else, they may be unable to secure a conviction. This may involve challenging the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, cross-examining expert evidence, or presenting alternative explanations for the accused's actions. A third strategy is to explore potential plea bargaining options. In many cases, the prosecution may be open to negotiating a plea deal with the accused, in exchange for a guilty plea or cooperation with the investigation. This may involve reducing the charges, dropping certain charges, or recommending a more lenient sentence. In conclusion, section 448 of the Criminal Code of Canada is a critical provision in cases involving fraud, forgery, and counterfeiting. In dealing with this section, it is important to carefully consider the mens rea element, the type of evidence that may be used, and the potential defences that may be available. By conducting a thorough investigation and developing effective strategies, lawyers and defendants can improve their chances of achieving a favourable outcome in these cases.