IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[1]           THE COURT:  Mr. Wang pleaded guilty to several offences contained in Indictment 233201-C-2.  Those offences are briefly described as follows: 

[2]           Count 1, between December 31st, 2006, and June 30th, 2011, he provided advice and consultation to persons who were the subject of proceedings or applications before the Minister, thus committing an offence under s. 125(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $50,000 and two years' imprisonment.

[3]           Count 2, between June 29th, 2011, and October 17th, 2014, he knowingly advised and represented persons in connection with proceedings or applications under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and thereby committed an offence pursuant to s. 91(9)(a) of the Act.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for two years.

[4]           Count 3, between December 31st and October 17th, 2014, in order to contravene the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, he did use, import, export, or deal in Chinese passports and thereby commit an offence pursuant to s. 123(1)(b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment.

[5]           Count 5, between December 31st, 2006, and October 17th, 2014, he knowingly misrepresented material facts that induced or could have induced an error in the administration of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and thereby commit an offence under s. 128(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment.

[6]           Count 7, between December 31st, 2006, and October 17th, 2014, he knowingly made false passports with the intent that they be acted on thereby committing an offence under s. 367(a) of the Criminal Code.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment.

[7]           Count 10, between December 31st, 2006, and October 17th, 2014, he defrauded the Government of Canada contrary to s. 380(1) of the Criminal Code.  The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years' imprisonment.

[8]           Count 13, between February 26th, 2008, and July 25th, 2013, he obtained refunds, to wit, working income tax benefits in the amount of $187,901.24 by making false or deceptive statements thereby committing an offence contrary to s. 239(1.1)(a) of the Income Tax Act.  The maximum penalty is a fine of 200 percent of the monies obtained and a minimum of a fine of 100 percent of the monies obtained and five years' imprisonment.

[9]           Count 15, between December 31st, 2006, and April 15th, 2013, he wilfully evaded income tax in the amount of $2,722,305 and therefore evaded paying income tax of $730,837 thus committing an offence contrary to s. 239(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act.  The maximum penalty for this offence is a fine of 200 percent of the monies evaded and up to five years' imprisonment.  The minimum sentence is a fine of 100 percent of the monies obtained.

[10]        On June 14th, 2001, Mr. Wang incorporated New Can which was an immigration consulting business.  On December 3rd, 2004, Mr. Wang opened a second consulting immigration business, Wellong.  These companies operated out of different locations and had a total of 14 employees.  The purpose was to assist individuals in coming to and remaining in Canada.  The work typically involved helping clients obtain and maintain permanent residence status and/or Canadian citizenship.

[11]        All services provided by Mr. Wang and his employees between December 31st, 2006, and October 17th, 2007, were performed without Mr. Wang or his employees being members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants or members of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council. 

[12]        Originally, immigration consultants required membership in the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.  This was required by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations.  However, in mid-2011, the legislative regime changed whereby membership was required under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[13]        As indicated, the purpose of Mr. Wang's business was to assist foreign nationals in obtaining citizenship or permanent residency.  In order for an applicant to qualify for citizenship or permanent residency, there was a requirement that the applicant reside in Canada for a set period of time.  Generally speaking, Mr. Wang created a misleading paper trail resulting in the false impression that his clients were and had been living in Canada when, in fact, they were living in China.

[14]        A false paper trail misled the Canadian authorities into believing that the residency requirements had been met when, in fact, this was not the case.  The mechanics of showing false Canadian residency was done via passport frauds, address frauds, employment frauds, false documents, and coaching clients to mislead Citizenship officers. 

[15]        In order to confirm an applicant's time in Canada, Immigration authorities typically examined an applicant's passport.  In this regard, they were looking for evidence that the applicant had been outside their country of origin for a period of time.  What transpired is that, through a sophisticated and systematic scheme, Mr. Wang and his staff masterminded the altering of client passports thus creating the false impression that the clients had been in Canada.

[16]        Mr. Wang and his staff manipulated the system by instructing clients to forward their passports to Mr. Wang and then obtain a replacement passport by reporting that their passports had been lost or stolen to the Chinese authorities. 

[17]        Mr. Wang and his staff would examine the passports received and determine what needed to be done to ensure that the passport supported the false notion that the client had been in Canada for a sustained period of time.

[18]        Once it was determined what modifications were required the passports were shipped back to China where they were manipulated by either the addition of stamp impressions, the alteration of stamp impressions, the removal of stamp impressions, or by cutting and pasting information into the passports.  All manipulations were intended to disguise and mislead the Canadian authorities as to the client's entry and exit dates from China.

[19]        Search warrants uncovered evidence of false stamp instructions for 243 different clients and 321 passports.  Some instructions contained handwritten notes from Mr. Wang to persons in China who were directed on what impressions to add.  Partial records indicated 18 deliveries of passports to China and a partial list recording 136 different clients and 177 passports. 

[20]        The application for citizenship and permanent residence were often made by clients who could not meet the Canadian residency requirements because they lived in China and not Canada.  Accordingly and to create the impression that the applicant was living in Canada, Canadian addresses and phone numbers were used in the applications.

[21]        Although real addresses and real phone numbers, the clients did not reside at the addresses nor did they have access to the related phone numbers.  All mail or phone calls received at the addresses and phone numbers were forwarded to Mr. Wang.

[22]        Search warrants uncovered fraudulent addresses being used 107 times by 170 clients.  Mr. Wang used detailed spreadsheets to track the addresses and phone numbers used.  The material in the agreed statement of facts shows Mr. Wang had a network of people working in Alberta who were of assistance in facilitating the use of addresses and phone numbers, as well as, helping clients who had come to Canada to pick up their permanent resident renewal cards. 

[23]        Arrangements were made to make it appear that the Chinese clients were working for New Can, Wellong, or one of Mr. Wang's other companies.  The appearance of employment was created by fraudulent letters offering employment, phony paycheques, and phony business cards in the name of the client.

[24]        Once the appearance of the employment was created, the client would pay their own salary including income tax deductions and Canadian Pension Plan and Employment Insurance deductions.  This was done by funneling funds through Mr. Wang's business who would then issue payroll cheques to the client.  Subsequently, Mr. Wang would issue a tax T4 reporting slip and then he would file tax returns on behalf of the clients.

[25]        Phony salaries were sufficiently low so that the income tax that had been deducted was refunded.  As a result, Working Income Tax Benefits were paid to the clients.

[26]        The employment fraud had two distinctive benefits.  First from an immigration perspective, it created a paper trail that could be used for permanent residence renewals and citizenship applications by providing the client with false evidence of Canadian residency.  Second, the scheme resulted in the client receiving the tax benefit.  The total amount of the tax benefits alleged was $187,901.24. 

[27]        Numerous false documents were located.  These documents were created with the intention of creating the false impression of residency.  These documents included letters from schools to clients indicating dates that children attended certain schools, as well as, altered lease agreements, and fraudulent letters from lawyers.

[28]        A review of New Can and Wellong's records show approximately 1,200 clients paid approximately $10 million for fraudulent services.

[29]        As previously mentioned, tax returns were filed for 146 clients.  As a result, $187,901.24 was paid out as a working income tax benefit.

[30]        For the tax years 2007 to 2012, Mr. Wang failed to report an income of $2,722,305.  This resulted in the evasion of $730,837 in federal income tax.  The income reported by Mr. Wang in the years 2007 to 2011 was sufficiently low that he was able to collect $671.56 in working income tax benefits and $2,980 in GST credits. 

[31]        In summary, Mr. Wang's offences were complex, sophisticated, and well thought-out.  It is noted his offences were committed over a number of years and involved co-opting the assistance of others.  It is clear he was the mastermind behind the scheme.  His conduct likely contributed to numerous persons fraudulently obtaining permanent residency and citizenship.  I expect the Immigration authorities will have to review the circumstances of all those concerned and it is quite likely that some persons will be removed from Canada.  For greater details of the circumstances of the offence, is continued in the Agreed Statement of Facts; Exhibit 1. 

[32]        Mr. Wang is 46 years old.  He is married and has two boys aged 15 and 13 years old.  Mr. Wang has a Bachelor's degree in Engineering.  He came to Canada in 1997 and he obtained his citizenship in 2000.  He does not have a criminal record.

[33]        From 1998 to 1999, Mr. Wang worked as a life insurance agent.  He spent a year unemployed and then, in 2001, he opened an immigration business, New Can Consultants Limited, with partner, Steven Vang.  Originally, Mr. Wang was a member of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.  However, in 2006, he let his membership lapse.  In 2008, Mr. Vang passed away and Mr. Wang's business suffered.  Employees left and others were considering operating competing businesses.

[34]        Mr. Wang learned of the various practices used to mislead Immigration officials through his employees and, at their urging, he started to use the methods within his business.  Mr. Wang split his time between Vancouver and China and, as such, and submitted on his behalf, some of the fraudulent activities were actually carried out by Mr. Wang's employees and not himself. 

[35]        The Crown argues a total custodial sentence of seven-and-a-half years less time served is required.  The Crown breaks down their position in the following manner:  Counts 1 and 2, illegal immigration consulting, one year on each count; Count 3, dealing in a passport, three years; Count 5, misrepresenting facts, three years; Count 7, making false passports, five years; Count 10, defrauding the federal government, five years; Count 13, obtaining tax credits, one-year jail and the minimum fine of $187,901.24; Count 15, income tax evasion, 30 months' imprisonment with a fine of $730,837.

[36]        With respect to Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13, those sentences should be served concurrently to each other and Count 15 served consecutive, that is, two-and-a-half years to the others, with a total sentence of seven-and-a-half years less credit for time already served.

[37]        The defence argues all counts should be served concurrently with the result being a 30-month sentence less credit for the time already served.

[38]        The defence breaks down Mr. Wang's sentence in the following manner:  Counts 1 and 2, illegal immigration consulting, nine months imprisonment on each count; Count 3, dealing in a passport, 18 months' imprisonment; Count 5, misrepresenting facts, 18 months' imprisonment; Count 7, making false passports, 30 months' imprisonment; Count 10, defrauding the federal government, 30 months' imprisonment; Count 13, obtaining tax credits, one-year imprisonment and a minimum fine of $187,901.24; Count 15, income tax evasion, two years' imprisonment and a minimum fine of $730,837. 

[39]        The relevant purpose and principles of sentencing are set out in the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. 46, at s. 718 to 718.2.  The fundamental purpose of sentencing is set out in s. 718 which states:

[40]        A fundamental principle of sentencing is set out in s. 718.1 which states:

[41]        Further principles of sentencing are set in s. 718.2.  These include:

[42]        The Crown and counsel for Mr. Wang placed before the court a number of cases involving immigration offences as well as cases involving fraud for financial gain.  The number of persons involved in the immigration offences in the instant case is unique.  In this regard, none of the cases presented by counsel were to the scale of that perpetrated by Mr. Wang.  Nevertheless, the cases provide some guidance.  It should be noted that I have reviewed all of the cases submitted and I am focusing on those that are of the greatest assistance.  The immigration cases can be summarized as follows.

[43]        R. v. Mendez, [2004] O.J. No. 5733, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the accused pleaded guilty to a single count pursuant to the Immigration Act.  The offences were in relation to the accused's involvement with a false refugee claim for two clients.  She was captured on camera advising a client to falsely state she was being abused so she could claim refugee status.

[44]        The court found that the accused's motivation was altruistic.  In imposing sentence, Justice Dambrot concluded denunciation and deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives in cases involving immigration frauds and the upper reformatory sentences are appropriate.  The sentence was then adjusted for the mitigating factors and the accused was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.

[45]        R. v. Khaira, 2011 ABPC 340, the accused went to Hong Kong and couriered three packages to Canada.  The packages contained 6,000 Alberta driver's licence holograms and 14,000 counterfeit credit card holograms.  The accused was 21, no prior criminal record, and enrolled in post-secondary education.  She was sentenced to imprisonment for 14 months.

[46]        R. v. El-Akhal et al, unreported, November 30th, 2011, Ontario Court of Justice, Information Number 11-106, the accused pleaded guilty to counselling misrepresentation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as well as conspiracy to defraud the Citizenship Act and fraud in relation to tax offences.

[47]        The immigration and citizenship offences involved 13 fraudulent applications for permanent residency and citizenship.  To create the appearance that the clients lived in Canada, they were given false addresses.  The scheme involved helping 150 clients apply for government identification and the filing of income tax returns for the clients.  The tax returns were used to falsely represent that the clients lived in Canada and to obtain Child Tax Credits.

[48]        The tax fraud was over a five-year period and involved approximately $539,000.  The accused received a three-year prison sentence and a fine of $539,000.

[49]        R. v. Jacobson, unreported, October 29th, 2012, Manitoba Provincial Court, the accused pleaded guilty to six offences.  Two Immigration and Refugee Protection Act offences were committed between September 2008 and June 2009.  He was then released on bail and he committed additional offences as well as fraud and identity theft offences.  The accused was a family man with no criminal record.  He started a legitimate immigration business, but began breaking the law to the point of masterminding a large-scale fraud.

[50]        The court described the fraud as an "ongoing complex sophisticated planned".  Of note, there were more than 373 victims and the offences were committed solely for profit.  The court accepted a joint submission and imposed a prison sentence of four-and-a-half years.

[51]        R. v. Khatchatourou and Rezik, 2012 ONSC 3511, the accused were convicted of committing a series of mortgage frauds over a period of seven years.  They used their connections to encourage recent immigrants to participate in the scheme by creating false employment records, bank statements, income statements, and citizenship documents.  The loss to the financial institutions exceeded $1 million.  The accused were sentenced to imprisonment for four years.

[52]        R. v. Weijia and Wang, unreported, December 4, 2013, Ontario Court of Justice, the accused were part of a scheme wherein they arranged to have English proficiency tests written by persons fluent in English.  These tests were written on behalf of Chinese students who lacked English skills.  The scheme involved having fraudulent Chinese passports created and imported to Canada to be used as identification for the setting of the examinations.

[53]        The court noted the scheme was an attack on the integrity of the immigration system and, therefore, denunciation and deterrence were prominent sentencing objectives.  Even though the accused were young, remorseful, first-time offenders, they received a jail sentence of two years.

[54]        R. v. Large, [2015] B.C.J. No. 1513, the accused operated a business whereby she would place foreign persons into homes so they could work as au pairs.  Prior to the foreign workers arriving in Canada, the accused would instruct the worker to lie when questioned by Canada Border Services Agency staff.  Investigation revealed that the accused had been involved in similar activities for at a minimum of four years with at least 107 instances wherein the accused counselled misrepresentation.

[55]        The accused's motivation was financial.  She pled guilty to a single count of committing an offence pursuant to s. 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  The accused was 49 years old.  She had no criminal record.  She volunteered in the community.  She was married with four grown children.  She was sentenced to a 15-month conditional sentence order and fined $15,000.

[56]        R. v. Ren, 2015 ONSC 3397, the accused pleaded guilty to five counts in committing offences contrary to s. 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.  She admitted the facts related to 16 further counts.  The offences involved arranging sham marriages between Chinese nationals and Canadians for the purpose of defeating the immigration process.  The scheme occurred over several years and was motivated by profit.  The accused was 46 years old.  She had performed extensive community work service and her health was fragile.  She was sentenced to a conditional sentence of imprisonment for two years less one day. 

[57]        Based on the authorities, I find the range for immigration fraud to be 15 months to four-and-a-half years' imprisonment.

[58]        I have reviewed those cases involving tax evasion and fraud and I conclude the range is imprisonment from two years less a day to up to three years; see R. v. Showroom Lease Inc. and Mrsic, unreported, September 12, 2002, (B.C.P.C.); R. v. Bulua, 2006 BCSC 1234; R. v. Alexander Street Lofts Development Corp. (2007), 2007 ONCA 309 (CanLII), 86 O.R. (3d) 710; R. v. Wells, unreported, July 21st, 2008, (B.C.P.C.); R. v. Andrus, unreported, September 9th, 2013, (B.C.P.C.).

[59]        After reviewing the authorities, I find the primary sentencing objectives in the instant matter is denunciation and general deterrence.  In support, I refer to the cases already mentioned and I also note Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein comments in R. v. Li, 2001 BCSC 458 (CanLII), [2001] B.C.J. No. 748 (S.C.), at paragraph 7:

[60]        This court appreciates that Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein's comments were made in the context of migrant smuggling.  Nevertheless, the comments are applicable to the circumstances of foreign nationals seeking citizenship or residency status on the basis of fraudulent claims.  The comments reflect the importance of Canada protecting the integrity of its immigration process.  In fact, one could argue the observations made are even more prescient in today's age of international terrorism.

[61]        Similarly, those offences involving large frauds and/or tax evasion requires a sentence that demands denunciation and deterrence.  This is because the majority of the Canadian commerce as well as the tax system places great emphasis on the currency of trust, that is, a trust that people will properly report their income and a trust that people will not wrongly manipulate the many systems to their advantage; see R. v. Witen, 2012 ONSC 4151 (CanLII), 2012 O.J. No. 3226, Superior Court of Justice.

[62]        The seriousness of tax evasion and its impact is reflected in the comments of Mr. Justice Cory in R. v. Knox Contracting, 1990 CanLII 71 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 338 (S.C.C.):

[63]        In summary, I find the gravity of the offences committed by Mr. Wang to be serious.  His actions served to undermine Canada's immigration process with the result that the public's confidence in the process has been damaged.  Further, he took advantage of the self-reporting nature of the tax system thus depriving the public purse of funds and increasing the burden to all.  I also find Mr. Wang's moral culpability to be high.  His offences demonstrated forethought, planning, and with significant complexity and the only motive being profit.

[64]        Mr. Wang masterminded a sophisticated and complex scheme of deception and fraud designed to mislead Immigration authorities.  Mr. Wang's motives were purely financial.  The scope of Mr. Wang's offending was large in number and expansive in time.  Mr. Wang co-opted others locally, nationally, and internationally into assisting him.

[65]        Mr. Wang continued offending despite knowing search warrants had been executed at one of his offices.  The amount of state resources required to investigate not only the original offences of Mr. Wang, but all those who worked for Mr. Wang, as well as, those who through Mr. Wang's involvement obtained citizenship or permanent residency.

[66]        Mr. Wang flagrantly violated the terms of his bail.  This finding is supported by his counsel's comments at paragraph 11 of this written submissions.  I quote [as read in]:

[67]        I do not accept Mr. Wang was generally engaged in the altruistic task of returning items.  This is because investigation revealed he was forwarding applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada.  Moreover, he was a sophisticated individual who could have applied to the courts to have his conditions amended in order to facilitate the winding down of his business.  He did not do this.  I accept his counsel's words [as read in]:

[68]        This likely describes Mr. Wang's attitude towards his bail conditions. 

[69]        Mr. Wang's guilty pleas are significantly mitigating.  He has saved the state the time and expense associated with prosecuting a matter that would have required numerous witnesses and taken many days of trial time.  Further, Mr. Wang entered into a comprehensive agreed statement of facts thus saving the court from a protracted and complex sentencing hearing.  Mr. Wang has no criminal record.

[70]        I have considered the submission by Mr. Wang's counsel that Mr. Wang has suffered significant public humiliation.  With the greatest of respect to counsel, I do not find this to be mitigating.  Mr. Wang operated companies in the public eye.  He provided services to the public and, in doing so, he chose to commit offences against public entities.  The fact that his offences attracted media attention is the risk that an offender takes when they choose to commit offences. 

[71]        The Crown argues the sentences for Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 should be concurrent with one another and Count 15, the tax evasion, should be consecutive to the other sentences.  Counsel for Mr. Wang argues all of the offences are interrelated and represent a linked series of acts with a single endeavour.  He supports this by pointing out the offences were closely connected in time, place, and circumstances and he highlights the tax monies obtained arise out of the immigration offences.

[72]        In R. v. Li, 2009 BCCA 85, the court set out the test for determining whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.  At paragraph 42, the court stated:

[73]        In the circumstances of the instant case, I find, with the exception of Count 15, all of Mr. Wang's offences were linked in that they were committed with a main purpose of misleading Citizenship and Immigration Canada by creating the false impression that Mr. Wang's clients were residing in Canada.  In contrast, Mr. Wang's tax evasion was not committed for the main purpose of misleading Immigration officials.  Rather, the offence was committed entirely for his benefit and not the benefit of his clients.

[74]        As such, and relying on the reasoning in Li, supra, the sentences imposed for Counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13 will concurrent with one another and Count 15, the tax evasion, will be consecutive to the other sentences imposed.

[75]        Mr. Wang was originally arrested on October 15th, 2014, and released on October 21st, 2014.  Counsel agree Mr. Wang should receive credit for this period calculated at a rate of 1.5 days for every day served.  As such, the actual time served was six days with a credit for nine days.

[76]        In May 2015, investigators discovered 50 packages had been shipped from Mr. Wang's office to the Canadian Immigration authorities.  Inside these packages were permanent residency renewals and citizenship applications.  One of the applications was fraudulent.  The processing and handling of the applications was a violation of Mr. Wang's release conditions.  As such, a s. 524 warrant was issued and Mr. Wang was arrested on June 4th, 2015.  Since that time, he has consented to remain in custody.

[77]        The Crown argues Mr. Wang can be denied enhanced credit on the basis of Mr. Wang's poor conduct while on bail.

[78]        Counsel for Mr. Wang argues he is entitled to enhanced credit on the basis he consented to remain in custody and therefore he was never detained pursuant to s. 524(4) and (8) of the Criminal Code.  Accordingly, his situation is not one referred to in s. 719(3.1) and, hence, pursuant to the reasoning in R. v. Vinepal, 2015 BCCA 349, he should be credited at the rate of 1.5 days for each day in custody.

[79]        The Truth in Sentencing Act, S.C. 2009, c. 29, amended the Criminal Code provisions in relation to credit for pretrial custody.  The provisions in issue are s. 719(3) and (3.1) which read as follows:

[80]        The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Summers has resulted in the general proposition that those who consent to remain in custody or who are detained in the first instance receive credit at a rate of 1.5 to one.

[81]        Our Court of Appeal in Vinepal, supra, recently visited the issue of enhanced credit in the circumstances of a person consenting to remain in custody after having been arrested for breaching a condition of bail.  At paragraphs 15 to 19, Madam Justice Bennett stated:

[82]        Applying this reasoning, Mr. Wang's bail was never cancelled and he was never detained pursuant to ss. 524(4) or (8).  As such, he is therefore entitled to credit on the basis of 1.5 days for each day served in custody.

[83]        Accordingly, Mr. Wang's presentence custody should be credited in the following manner:  Arrest date, October 15th, 2014, to release date of October 21st, 2014, six days' time served; arrest date of June 4th, 2015, until today which is October 23rd, 2015, four months, 20 days' time served.  Mr. Wang's total time served is four months, 26 days.  He will receive a credit of seven months, nine days.

[84]        In regarding what would be an appropriate and fit sentence, this court carefully considered the very able submissions of Mr. Wang's counsel, and I respectfully conclude that the sentence suggested fails to give proper weight to the seriousness of the offences and, therefore, would not adequately denounce or deter the conduct.  As previously stated, Mr. Wang's offences were serious.  Specifically, his actions not only harmed the public's confidence in the immigration process, but he also assisted numerous persons in fraudulently obtaining residency or citizenship.

[85]        The only available explanation for Mr. Wang's actions is greed.  That is, he placed his financial interests above all including the law.  Mr. Wang's actions demand denunciation and deterrence.  That is, through the sentence imposed today, this court will express society's condemnation for Mr. Wang's wrongful acts while at the same time protecting society by reminding those who are inclined to commit similar offences that the response by the courts will be strong.

[86]        Having considered the facts of the instant case, the sentencing principles, Mr. Wang's personal circumstances, and the relevant jurisprudence, I impose the following sentences.

[87]        Stand up, sir.

[88]        Counts 1 and 2, illegal immigration consulting, one-year imprisonment on each count; Count 3, dealing in passports, three years' imprisonment; Count 5, misrepresenting facts, three years' imprisonment; Count 7, making false passports, five years' imprisonment; Count 10, defrauding the federal government, five years' imprisonment; Count 13, obtaining tax credits, one-year jail and the minimum fine of $187,901.24; Count 15, income tax evasion, two years' imprisonment with a fine of $730,837.

[89]        Counts 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 13, will be served concurrently to each other and Count 15 will be served consecutive to the others just mentioned.

[90]        The total sentence imposed is seven years less the credit of seven months, nine days, for a balance remaining of six years, four months, 21 days. 

[91]        Having imposed consecutive sentences, I now turn to the consideration of whether the sentences cumulatively exceed Mr. Wang's culpability.  Having considered whether the total sentence of seven years is commensurate with Mr. Wang's culpability, I note the following:  the offences were committed over a number of years; the offences required a high degree of planning and sophistication; Mr. Wang involved others in his offences; evidence found indicated that Mr. Wang was directly involved in instructing others on the alteration of passports; the scope of Mr. Wang's offences including the amount of clients involved, the monies earned, and the various jurisdictions used; that Mr. Wang not only continued to offend after his home and offices were searched, but he also breached a related condition of his bail.

[92]        The above are only some of the factors that satisfy this court that Mr. Wang's culpability is extremely high and commensurate with the seven-year total sentence.

[93]        I did not hear submissions on the victim fine surcharge.  These offences bridge the amendments to the legislation and I am inclined to waive the victim fine surcharges in light of the penalty imposed.

[94]        Any issue by the Federal Crown on that?

[95]        MS. PATTERSON:  No submissions from Crown.

[96]        MR. CLARK:  No, Your Honour.

[97]        THE COURT:  All right, thank you.  I take it the forfeiture document will be forwarded to me later?

[98]        MS. PATTERSON:  Yes, Your Honour.

[99]        THE COURT:  All right.  Any other issues, counsel?

[100]     MS. PATTERSON:  The only issue to address would be time to pay with respect to the fines, should any be requested by Mr. Clark on behalf of his client.

[101]     MR. CLARK:  My friend and I have discussed that and, quite frankly, the utility of that, but we would ask Your Honour maybe for eight months or so?

[102]     THE COURT:  I will make it the time to pay the fine is one year.

[103]     MR. CLARK:  Thank you.

[104]     THE COURT:  All right.  Any other issues, counsel?

[105]     MS. PATTERSON:  Only a stay of proceedings to be entered, Your Honour, against the remaining charges.

[106]     THE COURT:  All right.  Stay of proceedings on the remaining counts.