David Hyde - Senior Citizen Freeman Extradition

[Burnaby49]

The title is somewhat ambiguous. He's a senior citizen who is accused in the United States with being involved in a lottery scam targeting other seniors. Very patriotic guy though. He's a Canadian but the scam only focused on American suckers. Helping the balance of payments! He is currently facing an extradition hearing here in Vancouver to face charges over this in the US.

U.S., Canadian Officials Halt Canadian Telemarketing Scam "British Premium Savings Bond" Scheme Targeted Seniors

For Release

December 18, 2000

Law enforcement authorities on both sides of the border have moved to halt a Vancouver-based telemarketing scam targeting senior citizens in the United States. At the request of the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. District Court in Seattle has ordered a temporary halt to the deceptive telemarketing practices, pending further proceedings. The Court also ordered a temporary asset freeze and appointed a receiver over any assets obtained. The Attorney General of British Columbia has initiated a parallel enforcement action and asset freeze in the Province of British Columbia, Canada.

The FTC charged that the telemarketers, who operated under a variety of names including Overseas Registry Services, Guaranteed Capital Holdings, International Bond Headquarters and NAGG Holdings Ltd., called consumers guaranteeing substantial monthly payments between $5,000 and $12,000 in return for a one-time payment of up to $5,000. Alternately, the telemarketers called claiming to be marketing bonds -- in some cases British Premium Savings Bonds -- purchase of which would qualify consumers for cash prizes, monthly cash payments or bond investments with the chance to participate in monthly drawings for cash prizes. Consumers then received mailings that included a purported British National Savings Premium Savings Bond certificate and other documents indicating that the consumer's name or bond numbers would be entered into the Premium Savings Bond program's monthly drawings for cash winnings. In fact, the consumers who paid the defendants received nothing of value. According to the FTC, National Savings, the second-largest savings institution in the United Kingdom, is the only organization authorized to sell Premium Savings Bonds. Because the bonds have a lottery feature, they cannot legally be sold in the United States. The FTC also charged that some of the defendants placed unauthorized charges on consumers' credit cards and in some instances simply charged consumers' credit card accounts without ever having contacted them.

The FTC alleged that the defendants' activities violated the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). It charged that the defendants misrepresented that consumers would receive payments by purchasing bonds; misrepresented that consumers agreed to buy bonds and owed the defendants money; unfairly charged some consumers whom they never contacted; and failed to disclose to consumers that the sale of the bonds is a crime. Alleged violations of the TSR included making false or misleading statements about the "cash awards"; falsely claiming that consumers' credit cards would not be charged without authorization; and failing to disclose that sale of the bonds is a federal crime. In addition, the agency charged a number of the defendants with assisting deceptive telemarketers to violate the law by providing them with access to their merchant accounts for processing credit card charges.

The 14 corporate and individual defendants named in the FTC's civil complaint are: Canada Prepaid Legal Services, Inc., d.b.a. BSI Premium Bonds; David John Edwin Hyde; Joseph Shawn Proulx; E.R.S. Holdings Ltd.; Neil John Schuler; ITH Enterprises Ltd.; Kailey Lewis Babuin; NAGG Holdings Ltd.; Wayne Weis; Timothy Ryan Babuin; 557631 B.C. Ltd., d.b.a. Guaranteed Capital Holdings; Fernando Villagran; Calgary Concrete and Home Improvement Corp., d.b.a. Union Global Trading; and Martin Roy Lamb.

The Commission vote to file the complaint was 5-0. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle on December 11, 2000, under seal. The seal was lifted on December 15, 2000.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... am-british

also;

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canadian- ... m-1.328477

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... am-british

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-r ... tc-charges

Hyde was born in 1935 so he was already a senior when he purprtedly got involved in this scam. I know, nothing Freemanish about any of this. Well try this case;

HMTQ v. Hyde, 2003 BCSC 368
http://canlii.ca/t/4pvx

[4] Mr. Hyde informed me today that on the court docket his name was spelled in capital letters. He identified himself today as David, spelled capital D, lower case a-v-i-d, capital J, lower case o-h-n, capital E, lower case d-w-i-n, capital H, lower case y-d-e.

[5] It is Mr. Hyde's position that he has registered as a trade name the name DAVID JOHN EDWIN HYDE in capital letters. He takes the position that the effect of so doing is to create an identity other than himself, which is DAVID JOHN EDWARD HYDE, all in capital letters. He has registered this trade name, and a number of other permutations and combinations of his name, with the Secretary of State for Canada and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and International Trade for Canada. He is of the view that, because the judge was reading from a name in capital letters when he read out the name David Hyde, he was not reading the name of the person David Hyde. He concludes from that that he was not required to answer that name because his name was not called.

[6] He takes one further position on this application, and that is that when the judge endorsed the court record, he endorsed "No one responded to the call for David Hyde. One disputant did step up, but would not not agree that he is David Hyde." Mr. Hyde today submits that the court record, by use of a double negative, has confirmed the positive; that is, that the disputant that stepped up did agree that he was David Hyde.

[7] The official record of the court proceedings is the transcript from which I quoted earlier. That transcript clearly indicates that the appellant's name David Hyde was called out in open court at the time that the case, which had been adjourned from another day, was scheduled to proceed. That is the regular procedure of the court. Mr. Hyde takes a technical position that is without merit. It is clear that his name was called. I am satisfied that he was present and would not answer.

[8] In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied the Justice of the Peace was fully justified in treating the traffic ticket as not disputed and entering a deemed conviction. Accordingly, I am going to dismiss Mr. Hyde's appeal.

There is no trace of “DAVID JOHN EDWIN HYDE” in the Canadian Intellectual Property Office trademarks database. Hyde’s so-called “trade name” registry was almost certainly a “common law” one allegedly created by mailing government actors a foisted unilateral agreement.

Nothing in the Federal Court or Tax Court of Canada databases, but Dave accumulated a nice tidy set of what I suspect are 'travelling' convictions:

Aug. 16, 2002 - speeding (this led to 2003 BCSC 368)
Dec. 5, 2002 - speeding
Aug. 1, 2003 - failing to produce a driver's licence or insurance
Aug. 17, 2003 - failing to produce a driver's licence

But if you look into the civil files it's obvious Dave has been very active! In particular, he has been battering away at a foreclosure against a home shared by himself and Teresita Olmstead:

Vancouver BCSC 010182 - National Bank of Canada v Teresita Olmstead

Vancouver BCSC 112830 - CMHC v Teresita Olmstead

Hyde v The National Bank of Canada, which resulted results in the 2011 BCSC 1568 judgment

http://canlii.ca/t/fnwhf

Case did not work out well for Dave;

[1] This application is for a summary dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim.

[2] On August 30, 1996, the plaintiffs purchased a condo property located at #102-15342 20th Avenue in Surrey, B.C. (“the property”). The plaintiffs are David John Edwin Hyde and his wife, Teresita Olmstead.

[3] The plaintiffs failed to make payments on their mortgage to the defendant, the National Bank of Canada, and foreclosure proceedings were commenced in Vancouver Registry File No. H010182. On June 14, 2001, this Court found the plaintiffs to be in default, and granted an order nisi of foreclosure and personal judgment against the plaintiffs for $149,299.26 and costs. Both of the plaintiffs appeared on their own behalf.

[4] On March 15, 2002, the National Bank of Canada assigned the personal judgment to its insurer of the mortgage, the co-defendant Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”), pursuant to subrogation rights.

[5] On April 12, 2011, this action for fraud was commenced by the plaintiffs in relation to their original purchase of the property. The defendant Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (“CMHC”) seeks a summary dismissal of the action. The co-defendant National Bank of Canada takes no position on this application.

[8] On August 29, 1996, the plaintiffs obtained a mortgage with the defendant National Bank of Canada for $150,675.00. Both the Form A transferring title and the mortgage were registered in the Land Title Office on August 30, 1996.

[9] The defendant National Bank of Canada paid the proceeds of the mortgage directly to the vendor of the property, Triple 8 Developments Ltd. (“Triple 8”). The plaintiffs claim this constituted fraud. As I apprehend their position, the plaintiffs believe they already owned the property due to the purported transfer that took place on August 14, 1996, the date the vendor signed the Form A. Consequently, the plaintiffs claim they were wrongly led to believe the mortgage was needed to buy the property, when in fact they already owned it, in the words of the affidavits of both of the plaintiffs, “free and clear of obligations”. This is their position, despite the fact that, according to their affidavits, as of August 14, 1996, they had not made any down payment for the property, and did not until they submitted a cheque on August 26, 1996, for the sum of $7,000.

Special Costs

[27] I find that this action, as commenced by the plaintiffs, is designed to annoy and to force the defendants to expend resources coming to court, rather than to advance a legitimate cause of action. Counsel for CMHC seeks an award of special costs.

[28] Special costs may be awarded where the conduct of the plaintiff is reprehensible. The oft-cited case of Garcia v. Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd. (1994), 1994 CanLII 2570 (BC CA), 119 D.L.R. (4th) 740 (B.C.C.A.), states as follows:

17 ...it is my opinion that the single standard for the awarding of special costs is that the conduct in question properly be categorized as "reprehensible". As Chief Justice Esson said in Leung v. Leung, the word "reprehensible" is a word of wide meaning. It encompasses scandalous or outrageous conduct but it also encompasses milder forms of misconduct deserving of reproof or rebuke. Accordingly, the standard represented by the word "reprehensible", taken in that sense, must represent a general and all encompassing expression of the applicable standard for the award of special costs.
[Emphasis added.]

[29] Unproven allegations of fraud are not to be taken lightly. As was noted the context of solicitor-client costs in Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 98,

26 In Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at p. 134, McLachlin J. (as she then was) for a majority of this Court held that solicitor-and-client costs "are generally awarded only where there has been [page313] reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties". An unsuccessful attempt to prove fraud or dishonesty on a balance of probabilities does not lead inexorably to the conclusion that the unsuccessful party should be held liable for solicitor-and-client costs, since not all such attempts will be correctly considered to amount to "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct". However, allegations of fraud and dishonesty are serious and potentially very damaging to those accused of deception. When, as here, a party makes such allegations unsuccessfully at trial and with access to information sufficient to conclude that the other party was merely negligent and neither dishonest nor fraudulent (as Wilkins J. found), costs on a solicitor-and-client scale are appropriate: see, generally, M. M. Orkin, The Law of Costs (2nd ed. (loose-leaf)), at para. 219.

[30] Parties should not be discouraged from litigating legitimate actions. Here, the plaintiffs’ allegations were utterly and obviously without merit. I find the plaintiffs’ allegations of fraud against the defendants amount to reprehensible conduct that is worthy of rebuke. I am satisfied that an award of special costs is appropriate given the circumstances of this case.

[31] This matter has already occupied considerable court resources. I thus find it appropriate to order payment of special costs by the plaintiffs to the defendant CMHC in a lump-sum amount of $4,000 pursuant to Rule 14-1, payable forthwith.

[32] I also order that the plaintiffs’ signatures as to form in relation to the order are hereby dispensed with.

Hyde and Olmstead say they paid their mortgage but no explanation of how. Is this a "banks making money" scenario?

Teresita Olmstead has no BC criminal files, Federal Court or TCC files. Her civil files partially overlap with Hydes, plus some motor vehicle accident litigation.

The reposessed condo was located at15342 20th Avenue in Surrey, B.C. Surrey is an odd municipality. It's huge and is essentially a conglomerate of what used to be quite separate small towns such as Whalley, White Rock, Guilford, and Cloverdale. Some, like White Rock, are quite upscale while Whalley is essentially an impoverished crime-infested dump. These towns still exist as town centres and old-timers such as myself think of them as separate towns rather than as Surrey.

I checked out the foreclosed home on Street View and it turned out to be a nice looking apartment in a fairly new condo development in the White Rock area, a very popular part of Surrey. Close to the ocean, nice town area, adjacent to the freeway heading into Vancouver. Their current home is a large step down. It's in a small, old, cheaply built apartment building, probably a one bedroom. In Burnaby, just like me! However I live on the western edge of Burnaby, a few minutes walk from the Burnaby-Vancouver border. They are located in the eastern part of the city in an area of somewhat run-down old apartments just waiting to be torn down for redevelopment.

Dave's getting on, eighty now, but here is a shot of him riding his motorbike;

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... 394&type=1

Or perhaps "traveling" on it?

[Burnaby49]

I must apologize to David Hyde in saying in my prior post that that he had scammed senior citizens. The word "scammer" implies participation in fraudulent activities;

scam/skam/
a dishonest scheme; a fraud

While there was indeed a scam with at least one conviction in respect to it Hyde's role in it is still to be legally determined. Although the United States wants to extradite him to face trial on his alleged participation he has not been convicted of any involvement in it or charged in Canada. So I've taken "scam" out of the discussion title and revised the posting accordingly.

All this is a preamble to my write-up of his extradition hearing which I attended today. First a word about the process. I'm not clear about the steps involved in extraditing Hyde or anyone else from Canada so I'll rely on the Department of Justice website's explanation;

There are three key stages to the Canadian extradition process:

1 - The Minister of Justice must determine whether to authorize the commencement of extradition proceedings in the Canadian courts by issuing an "Authority to Proceed";

2 - Where an Authority to Proceed has been issued, the Canadian courts must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the person's committal for extradition; and

3 - Where the person is committed for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person's surrender to the foreign state.

A person sought for extradition may appeal their committal and seek judicial review of the Minister's surrender order.

In all cases, the conduct for which extradition is sought must be considered criminal in both the requesting country and in Canada. This is known as "dual criminality".

We are at stage 2, these hearings related to whether there is sufficient evidence to commit for extradition. This has been ongoing with hearings on June 17, Jury 7th, and September 16th of this year. Today was the final hearing with decision to follow.

First up was the crown counsel giving a summary of issues in his submission to commit. First a brief overview of the scheme. It was a lottery scam in the late 1990's into the 200's where American recipients received letters telling them they had won some lottery. However there were fees to be paid first to get these winnings. These ranged from $900 to $2,000 per sucker and were explained to be for international taxes, processing fees, and attorney's fees. Payment by Western Union or personal cheque. Not a huge scam in the scheme of things. About $230,000 in total according to comments I got from crown counsel's statement. I think that the crown counsel said that the actual winning cheques (counterfeit) were sent in the letter but that the fee had to be paid to validate them.

The information implicating Hyde has apparently come largely from a Mr. Dana, a participant who was been convicted and has served his time. He is apparently willing to testify against Hyde if he is extradited for trial. There was also evidence collected from an October 2006 search of an office used for the scam on Kingsway Street in Burnaby. Counsel mentioned something about counterfeit cheques linking Hyde to the scam and how he had been in the office working on the office computer when the search took place.

Then to defence statement. Hyde was terrified, afraid for his life. The defense was trying to stop this "runaway freight train of an extradition hearing". It was unjust and oppressive given Hyde's age (he's 80). Defense brought up the community's sense of decency and fair play due to the age issue. Crown stood up and said no evidence had been entered in respect to infirmity. Defense said "The evidence my lord is before your own eyes", since Hyde was indeed sitting right in front of the judge. The judge said that the defense was inviting him to make a decision based on no evidence. Defense responded that the judge could consider evidence not allowed under the rules of evidence but which he considered reliable. The form of the evidence was not relevant, only the substance. He wanted the proceedings stayed on the basis of community sense of fair play and decency. Sending an eighty year old to the US for trial would shock the consciences of Canadians and that apparently could overrule the law in the process.

Defense lost me, and apparently judge at this point by going over the evidence used to convict Dana. He said that the court had found much of it circumstantial but convicted him anyhow and that the evidence submitted by the United States to extradite Hyde was obviously even less than the Dana evidence. Judge said that it wasn't obvious. I think defense was trying to show how tenuous the evidence was connecting Hyde to the scheme. However, as I understand it, a lower level of evidence is required for extradition than for convicting. All that the judge needs is to conclude that there is enough evidence to commit for extradition, convicting Hyde is the American's problem.

Apparently the crown's comment that "Dana is expected to be available at trial" was significant to defense. Why "expected to be" rather than "will be"? This apparently showed that the Dana evidence and participation was just speculative.

Break time. At break defense asked if I was a reporter. Apparently Hyde wondered. Said no a blogger and told him about Quatloos.

Back at it. Defense started by talking about evidence which was not written but which you could see. He said this was analogous to section 37 of the Extradition Act which allowed a judge to identify an individual in court by a photograph rather than formal proof of identity. This is section 37;

Evidence of identity

37. The following are evidence that the person before the court is the person referred to in the order of arrest, the document that records the conviction or any other document that is presented to support the request:

(a) the fact that the name of the person before the court is similar to the name that is in the documents submitted by the extradition partner; and

(b) the fact that the physical characteristics of the person before the court are similar to those evidenced in a photograph, fingerprint or other description of the person.

Judge stopped him by saying that this was a specific provision for a specific circumstance. Defense said "right" but this showed that the Extradition Act allowed evidence outside of the what was normally allowable by rules of evidence. He argued that only evidence tying Hyde to anything was the fact that he was sitting in a chair at the office when it was searched and the computer he was at had evidence in it.

Then he went on to the issue of delay. Fairness had been compromised by the eight year span between the search and the commencement of the extradition request. This violated Hyde's Section 8 Charter rights. Section 8 says;

"8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure."

Which doesn't seem applicable so I may have got that wrong. Defense cited some case where a guy got off on an extradition proceedings because his health deteriorated during the delay. Defense brought up panic attacks that he said that Hyde was having and the general adverse effects that eight years have had on the health of an old man. The judge said that the defense submission went into detail about Hyde's health but had not entered any evidence supporting this. Section 37 of the Extradition Act didn't give the judge license to extend the use of unproven evidence to speculation about health. He said "How could I conclude in a million years that this man has panic attacks from his demeanor in court?"

Defense mentioned Hyde's obvious frailty, cognitive impairment and then started on something about evidence that the judge said had been covered in a prior hearing. Then the judge asked "Isn't the delay your most compelling argument?". Yes.

So the judge stopped defense for a moment to ask Crown counsel about the reasons for the delay. Judge asked "What do I make of the substantial delay with no apparent evidence". Crown said the delay didn't prejudice Hyde but judge still wanted to know why there was an eight year gap between the search and the extradition request so crown went through the sequence of events. Dana, who was in Canada, was apparently the main suspect. It took until 2010 to extradite him. He was convicted and sentenced in 2011 and the evidence from Dana about Hyde only became available after the 2011 conviction. So crown said that the clock should only start ticking after the 2011 conviction. Judge paraphrased "So what you are saying is the delay should be measured from 2011 when the Dana evidence became available to US authorities?" Crown said yes and cited some case involving a long delay. Crown also mentioned defense's comment about how extraditing Hyde would be "shocking to the conscience", I assume the consciences the Canadian public. The crown said that the judge couldn't use that as a basis to deny extradition because it was not within the jurisdiction of the court. It was up to the federal Minister of Justice to decide, once extradition had been approved, whether or not to allow it based on other standards than straight law. This seems correct based on my above extract from the Department of Justice website which state;

2 - Where an Authority to Proceed has been issued, the Canadian courts must determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the person's committal for extradition; and

3 - Where the person is committed for extradition, the Minister of Justice must personally decide whether to order the person's surrender to the foreign state.

According to that the judge's role is limited to a review of the sufficiency of the evidence to commit. Anything past that is a political decision by a government minister.

Defense continued closing statement. The application should be struck because the evidence was too old. Then last crack at it by crown who said that the defense was asking the judge to "import error" into the proceedings by imputing unreasonable delay without entering any evidence to support the argument and by asking the judge to take over the role of Minister of Justice in striking for delay. That concluded arguments.

All that is left now is the decision. Judge needed time to review so adjourned until January.

[wserra]

The indictment is fairly specific. Codefendant Sundip Dhanda (not "Dana") pleaded guilty and got five years. He was released, according to BOP, on March 28, 2014. I'm not sure what motivation he now has to cooperate, unless it's "If I did time, Hyde should as well".

[Burnaby49]

The indictment is fairly specific. Codefendant Sundip Dhanda (not "Dana") pleaded guilty and got five years. He was released, according to BOP, on March 28, 2014. I'm not sure what motivation he now has to cooperate, unless it's "If I did time, Hyde should as well".

I wondered about Dhanda's motive at the hearing. Keep in mind that I had no background on the case apart from the information in my first posting. I had not attended any of the prior hearings one of which, I believe, was about evidence. It seems like a large part of the evidence that the US submitted to Canada supporting the extradition request was based on Dhanda's statement. At least all that was mentioned at the hearing that I noticed was Dhanda's willingness to cooperate, the fact that Hyde was at the office when it was searched, and something about a connection between Hyde and some fake cheques. If there was more I missed it. The hearing was just the lawyers summing up their respective cases not getting into specifics, that was done in prior hearings. Since Dhanda is now a free man I fail to see any clear motive for his cooperation but he is apparently willing to testify.

It is my understanding that the evidence requirement at an extradition hearing is fairly low so I'm guessing what was submitted by American authorities is sufficient. Where the sufficiency of evidence and Dhanda's motives might come into play is at the ministerial level. This was discussed at trial where crown counsel indicated that the factors brought up by the defense in respect to the judge denying the extradition request (age, evidence, delay, decency, fair play, shocked conscious of the nation) should be addressed in a plea to the Minister of Justice, not the judge. The judge's role is very limited, all that he has the jurisdiction to do is review the sufficiency of the evidence against Hyde.

At the Minister of Justice level the issue isn't legal, it is political. As I understand it the Minister can overrule regardless of what happened at trial and neither crown nor defense have recourse. Given the facts a plea to the Minister might actually work. Hyde is 80 and, while no evidence was submitted showing he was in poor health for his age, he looks it. There is a relatively small amounts of money involved, an eight year delay between the search and extradition request, and possible questionable motives by a key witness. While the judge may not be allowed to consider these factors the Minister can. However any speculation on my part is premature, we need a decision first.

[Burnaby49]

I have to report an abject failure on my part. The hearing for David Hyde's extradition decision was held on February 26th and I wasn't there. I have no excuse. I just didn't feel like slogging to court first thing in the morning in rush hour.

In my defense I did attend what was supposed to be the decision hearing on January 25th. Hyde was there looking despondant. It probably didn't help his morale when the sheriff told him that he'd be taken into custody right then and there if decision was against him so to be sure to give his lawyer whatever was in his pocket.

Judge said that he'd made up his mind but he hadn't yet had time to write the decision out so he adjourned until February 26th. One minor problem. Hyde was out on bail and it ran out on the day of the hearing. So Crown consented to extending it to the next hearing date.

I'm assuming that the written decision will show up on CANLII so I'll keep checking it.

[Burnaby49]

As I expected the Hyde decision has been published on CanLII and, as I also expected, extradition has been approved. So one more step towards you Americans getting your hands on him.

USA v. Hyde, 2016 BCSC 346
http://canlii.ca/t/gnhlv

For a refresher on the issues we can look to the opening paragraphs of the decision;

[1] This is an extradition proceeding in which the Minister of Justice, through her authorized representative the Attorney General of Canada (“AG”), has issued an Authority to Proceed with respect to the Respondent Mr. Hyde (the “ATP”), to seek, on behalf of the United States of America (the “Requesting State”), an order for committal of David Hyde in relation to conduct that corresponds to the Canadian offence of fraud, contrary to s. 380 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

[2] By way of background, the Requesting State alleges that, between 2004 and 2006, Mr. Hyde and an associate operated a lottery fraud scheme through a number of companies including B.C. Holding Group, B.C. Securities, Secure Trading Services Inc., UK Legal Services, and Capital Liberty Services Inc. These companies, with Mr. Hyde's participation, mailed letters with attached fraudulent/counterfeit cheques to individuals in the United States, falsely claiming that the recipients had won a lottery.

[3] The letters advised that in order to claim their winnings, the recipients were required to pay an international tax or processing fee, payable through a Western Union money transfer, personal cheque or money order. The letters also provided telephone numbers through which the recipients could receive more information.

[4] Some of the recipients called the number and spoke to individuals who claimed to be employees of one of the lottery companies. These individuals verified the claims in the letter as well as the instructions for payment of the international taxes or processing fees. Some of the recipients followed these instructions and sent payments to the lottery companies. None of the victims interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation received any money from the lottery companies in the form of the promised winnings or a refund of the money paid.

[5] It is alleged that Mr. Hyde and Mr. Sundip Singh Dhanda were the operators of the scheme and that they directed the operations and profited therefrom.

The basis of the scheme was given in a statement by Sundip Singh Dhanda who was extradicted, convicted of participating in the scam, served his time in the United States and came back to Canada.

d. HYDE came up with the idea for BC HOLDING GROUP, one of the companies for which they have been indicted. HYDE designed checks to send to customers, and they would print them up on the computer at their place of business, 6927 Kingsway, Burnaby, British Columbia. The names of the payees were obtained from the leads they bought, and the people would be from the United States. They mailed the checks to the customers along with a letter stating that the customer had won a lottery, and that the customer had to pay a fee to obtain his or her winnings. They used the company names BC HOLDING GROUP, BC SECURITIES, CAPITAL LIBERTY SERVICE, and SECURE TRADING. These companies were not in either Dhanda’s or HYDE’s names, because HYDE told Dhanda that the best way to avoid getting charged by law enforcement was not to have a company name in your name. Also to avoid detection, they used other people’s identification to open the commercial mailboxes they used, such as Deepak Grewal (a friend of Dhanda’s who want to make some money by loaning out his identity), Bill Bahia (whose information Dhanda and Banga obtained by having Banga pose as a government agent and demand the information from Bahia), and Gregory Park (an identity Dhanda obtained through a friend’ (sic) wife). Dhanda and HYDE also used Grewal’s identity to set up bank accounts. The telephone numbers they used were obtained with identification other than their own. When customers called the numbers in the letters, telemarketers told the customers the same things they hand written in the fraudulent letters. They told the customers that the fees they had to pay were for various reasons, such as international taxes, processing fees, and attorney’s fees. These fees would range from about $590 to $2,000. Their strategy was to obtain a small amount of money from as many people as possible.

e. Dhanda and HYDE established mailboxes in the United States so that people would not know their money was going to Canada. In addition, HYDE told Dhanda “you can’t have mailbox for more than three months because they [law enforcement] will track it.” Therefore, they constantly changed their mailbox addresses.

f. Dhanda acted as a telemarketer using the name Bill Scott and Jim Gray. Dhanda’s cousin, Steve Banga, also worked for them, stuffing envelopes and acting as a telemarketer. Banga also allowed his name to be used to incorporate a company, UK LEGAL SERVICES, and open a bank account. Ravinder Ranga also worked for them. HYDE had the idea to obtain people’s identification information for use in their business by placing employment advertisements on Craig’s List as a ruse. They made identifications with a card printer they purchased.

g. A small portion of funds was sent through Western Union, and Dhanda and HYDE used a particular Western Union outlet that was willing to receive fraudulent proceeds and did not require identification.

i. The total loss was approximately $230,000 from approximately 100 customers across the United States, whose average age was in their 40’s. They did not have many elderly victims. They avoided the southern states because of the “death penalty” and did not send letter to Texas because HYDE was concerned with the severe penalties there. HYDE used the name of David Miller when ordering sales leads online. Dhanda and HYDE specified on the leads that targets must be over fifty-five years old, which resulted in low sales.

So even here in Vancouver we know that you don't mess with Texas!

The final arguments for both parties were;

Positions of the Parties

[30] Mr. Hyde resists this application on two broad grounds. He says the evidence relied upon by the Requesting State is inadmissible, insufficient, unavailable and unreliable. He says as well that the Court should discharge him “for reasons of fairness.” Specifically, as I understand his submissions, he says the delay in bringing this application is excessive, unexplained and unacceptable. He submits that his advanced age (he is now 80 years old) and his failing health lend force to that claim.

[31] Additionally or alternatively, Mr. Hyde says that s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 (the “Charter”) is engaged. He says the Requesting State's pursuit of him through this proceeding is an abuse of process and he says that a stay of proceedings is the fit and appropriate remedy.

[32] For the Requesting State, the AG says the evidence that is relied upon is properly admissible and that, applying the test for committal, there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could conclude that Mr. Hyde was engaged in conduct corresponding to the Canadian offence of fraud within the meaning of s. 380 of the Criminal Code. Specifically, the evidence relied upon is the statements of Mr. Dhanda, the fraudulent lottery tickets recovered from the trash at 6927 Kingsway in Burnaby, the trash recovered from outside Mr. Dhanda’s residence on East 62nd Avenue in Vancouver and the search executed at 6927 Kingsway in Burnaby on October 18, 2006. The Requesting State submits that Mr. Hyde and Mr. Dhanda worked together in promoting and operating the lottery fraud scheme between 2004 and 2006, and that the evidence summarized in the ROC is clearly capable of supporting the necessary inference that would enable a jury to conclude that Mr. Hyde, either directly or through s. 21 of the Criminal Code, participated in the fraud.

The judge said that the central component of the case was Dhanda's testimony, part of which is quoted above. Hyde said that the judge should disregard Dhanda's evidence.

[49] Mr. Hyde submits that the intended evidence of Mr. Dhanda, as set out in the ROC, should be assigned virtually no weight on this application because the evidence of Mr. Dhanda should be seen as inherently unreliable as it was obtained under duress when Mr. Dhanda was being prosecuted for his role in the enterprise. Mr. Hyde also intimated that Mr. Dhanda would not be available as a witness, having served his time and now, apparently, having returned to Canada.

But judge said it seemed fine to him. The defense position that Dhanda would not be a witness at trial was just an unsupported assumption. So what about the degradation of the evidence, given that it related to events a decade ago? Judge had no problem with that either.

Then on to the 2006 search of the office that the scam was being run from. Hyde was in the office and seemed at home there. He wanted the evidence form the search excluded on the basis that the warrant was made out for Dhanda, not him.

[58] Mr. Hyde says it is relevant that the search warrant which was issued and executed on October 18, 2006, at the Kingsway premises was focused upon Mr. Dhanda and that he (Mr. Hyde) was not identified there as a significant or principal target.

[59] It is true that the warrant makes reference to offences having been committed by Mr. Dhanda. However, Mr. Hyde's name is included in the warrant with respect to the description of the premises: “offices occupied by Freedom Credit and believed to be used by Sundip Dhanda and David Hyde.”

[60] I note as well that the search warrant authorized the police officers to enter and search the premises for

evidence in relation to the commission of the Offences, whether in paper form or in electronic, magnetic or optical storage media as they relate to David Hyde, Steve Banga, Sundip Dhanda a.k.a. Gregory Park, Ravinder Ranga, Bill Bahia, and Romy Gill, BC Holding Group, BC Securities, Great British Gold Rush, Secure Trading Service Inc., Secure Trading Services Inc., UK Legal Services, Freedom Credit, Capital Liberty Service, Capital Liberty Service Inc. and Capital Liberty Services Inc…

[61] While it is true that Mr. Dhanda appears to have been the focus of the investigation at the time of the search, there is what I would characterize as meaningful inclusion of Mr. Hyde as well. Further, I am not aware of any authority for the proposition that, because Mr. Hyde was not named, he could never be a suspect or otherwise implicated in the scheme if the evidence supported that outcome.

[62] The fact is this: this Court on this application must deal with the merits of the case presented by the Requesting State. If the evidence, construed in accordance with the relevant principles, establishes a basis for the conclusion that Mr. Hyde was engaged in conduct as alleged and corresponding to a Canadian offence, then the Court must decide the extradition application on that basis.

Then Hyde noted that the Americans did not attepmt to extradict him back in 2006 when they extradicted Dhanda. Judge noted that was true enough but he had to decide today based on the evidence presented to him at this trial. Dhanda's extradiction in 2006 was irelevant to that.

So the judge concluded that, in respect to the evidence presented to him;

Conclusion respecting sufficiency

[67] In those circumstances, and having in mind the evidentiary standards that apply on this application and the standard of proof to be met, I am satisfied that there is some evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could conclude that Mr. Hyde was engaged in contact corresponding to the Canadian offence of fraud within the meaning of s. 380 of the Criminal Code.

So on to the Charter arguments. Hyde claimed;

[70] In his written submissions, Mr. Hyde notes that there are two kinds of delays in extradition proceedings that will amount to an abuse of process under s. 7 of the Charter. Based upon the authority of U.S.A. v. Cameron, 2014 BCCA 314 (CanLII) at para. 68, he says that the first type is delay that serves to compromise the fairness of the extradition proceedings; the second is based on the delay being of such length that it meets a “simply unacceptable” or “shocks-the-conscience” standard or, alternatively, constitutes an abuse of process as it violates the s. 10 Charter rights of the accused.

These are the two cited sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

Mr. Hyde pressed the second part of his argument more, that his Section 10 rights were abused by the delay;

[74] As for the second kind of delay, that which is of such length that it meets a “simply unacceptable” or “shocks-the-conscience” standard, the following submission is made in the synopsis of argument filed by Mr. Hyde:

a. Potential increase in cognitive impairment, frailty over the past eight years on the part of Mr. Hyde;

i. Potential difficulty recalling or relating exculpatory facts that occurred more than ten years ago in a trial of the accusations in the United States;

ii. Potential difficulty in instructing counsel in the United States in the event of his surrender there;

b. Advancing age (and possible death) of alleged victims; absence of a replacement for the expected evidence of the appearing in the Record of the Case;

i. According to the Record of the Case, the FBI has identified at least 47 victims of the alleged scheme in which Mr. Hyde is accused of participation, including 27 over the age of 55 (ROC, at para. 4).

ii. The evidence of all but two of these witnesses is not presented in the ROC.

iii. The evidence in the ROC appears to be a mere recycling of the Record of the Case filed in the case of Mr. Dhanda.

c. There is a danger that the delay as resulted in the destruction or dissipation of potentially exculpatory real or documentary evidence.

[75] In oral submissions, counsel for Mr. Hyde pursued the proposition that Mr. Hyde's advanced age, the fact that his health is not good and that he is subject to panic attacks further this basis to prevent the extradition.

However the judge had brought up the point, while I was in court, that saying Hyde was ill or infirmed was not sufficient, the defense nedded to provide evidence of it.

[76] I raised with counsel my concern that there is no evidence before this Court dealing with the specifics of Mr. Hyde's health. Counsel's response is that the relaxed evidentiary standards of the Extradition Act would effectively permit this Court to come to its own conclusions based upon its observations. In his submission, it should be apparent to this Court that Mr. Hyde is not well and that should be taken into account in adjudicating this claim.

So, forget it.

[77] Respectfully, I am unable to accept that to be so. In my respectful view, if the Court is to give effect to this aspect of Mr. Hyde's submission, there must be an evidentiary basis to do so.

As to whether the decision to extradict Hyde was so shocking to the conscience of his fellow Canadians as to be a violation of his rights, the judge passed the buck.

[80] As for whether the delay reached such a level that it was simply unacceptable or shocking to the conscience of Canadians, that is for the Minister of Justice to consider at the ministerial stage and not for me to do so at the committal stage.

[81] For those reasons, I am unable to find that the delay in seeking extradition by the Requesting State served to compromise the fairness of the extradition proceedings, nor that the delay met a “simply unacceptable” or “shocks-the-conscience” standard or constituted an abuse of process under s. 10 of the Charter.

And so it was off to jaill while awaiting extradition. Pending an appeal of course;

Conclusion
[82] After applying the test for committal, I find that there is evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty for fraud within the meaning of s. 380 of the Criminal Code. With regard to the concerns that have been raised respecting the delay in bringing the application, I find no basis has been made out to stay the proceedings or otherwise order the discharge of Mr. Hyde.

[83] I therefore grant the order of committal in respect of the offence of fraud and request that the Attorney General of Canada prepare a formal order of committal in accordance with s. 29(2) of the Extradition Act. The materials described in s. 38(1) of the Act will be transmitted to the Minister.

[84] Mr. Hyde, I am required to tell you, based on s. 38(2) of the Act, that you will not be surrendered until after the expiry of 30 days, and that you have the right to appeal the order I have made and apply for judicial interim release.

Let's hope he can avoid having his trial held in Texas.

[flitgit]

Hyde is no longer facing extradition, the Americans have dropped all requests and Hyde was discharged by the Minister of Justice on 25th March 1028

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the update flitgit. Welcome to Quatloos.

The acts he's accused of comitting were between fourteen and twelve years ago and the order was over two years ago. I assume he was still able to delay the process until the Americans figured he'd be too old to bother with (he's 82) by the time they were finally able to get custody.

They must have also factored in that the charges were relatively minor;

i. The total loss was approximately $230,000 from approximately 100 customers across the United States, whose average age was in their 40’s. They did not have many elderly victims. They avoided the southern states because of the “death penalty” and did not send letter to Texas because HYDE was concerned with the severe penalties there. HYDE used the name of David Miller when ordering sales leads online. Dhanda and HYDE specified on the leads that targets must be over fifty-five years old, which resulted in low sales.

And that time was eroding their evidence.