Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

[Jarnhamar]

The transcript refers to the QR&O volume 3 chapter 208 article pertaining to forfeitures, so the fine would be on top of the repayment of pay.

QR&O: Volume III - Chapter 208 Fines, Forfeitures and Deductions - Canada.ca

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 208 - Fines, Forfeitures and Deductions

www.canada.ca

208.30 – FORFEITURES – OFFICERS AND NON-COMMISSIONED MEMBERS​

(1) Subject to paragraph (2), one day's forfeiture shall be imposed upon an officer or non-commissioned member for each day the member is:

(a) absent without leave when the member has been found guilty of that offence;

My read of that is the forfeiture is administrative in nature and not disciplinary.

Since the captain was found guilty of AWOL he should forfeit 1 day of pay for every day he was AWOL.

Afterwards he should be hit with punishments. Correct? Hopefully that happened.

 

[dapaterson]

My read of that is the forfeiture is administrative in nature and not disciplinary.

Since the captain was found guilty of AWOL he should forfeit 1 day of pay for every day he was AWOL.

Afterwards he should be hit with punishments. Correct? Hopefully that happened.

Correct. So his unit should have had the WOR initiate the forfeiture. Hopefully before the end of the taxation year.

 

[dapaterson]

So I'm an MP Sgt with 20 years of good service and I'm still subservient to this guy??

Subordinate, not subservient.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

You salute the commission not the person Bruce.

But I understand your sentiment.

Subordinate, not subservient.

I guess I was going for the 'integrity' thing more, as in, I"m listening to you lay out orders when all that's in my head is "How the h#$l are you still wearing the same cap badge as me?"

 

[Halifax Tar]

I guess I was going for the 'integrity' thing more, as in, I"m listening to you lay out orders when all that's in my head is "How the h#$l are you still wearing the same cap badge as me?"

Like I said I understand your sentiment.

 

[lenaitch]

Mortgage fraud, an unexplained expensive car, working security at a base that's bringing in TS equipment.

Where's the National security nexus in that?

An offshore 'influence' that turned an offer he couldn't refuse into one he couldn't live with?

Choices have consequences.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the sentencing decision it seems there may have been some mortgage fraud complaint involving the family, the wife, and a condo in Vancouver.

Tseng A. (Captain), R. v. - Chief Military Judge

Get quick, easy access to all Government of Canada services and information.

decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca

The bit where he says he’ll only speak through a “national security lawyer” is really anomalous, and I wonder what other layers there may be to this that didn’t make it to prosecution or sentencing.

And also attached, in case the link doesn't work.

 

[Jarnhamar]

And also attached, in case the link doesn't work.

It says he has a release date planned for January 2026 but I've seen a comment from someone say he was out 2 weeks after tge court martial finished.

[53] As an aside, counsel have jointly requested that it be made clear in this judgement that the Court will not be including an order of forfeiture or restitution to this sentence. However, section 208.30 of the QR&O is triggered by this conviction for absence without authority between the dates of 20 May and 27 July 2025 inclusively, and the unit must therefore act accordingly.

So maybe he did have to pay it back after all on top of the fine. Nice.

I wonder if there was enough geounds to hit him with desertion instead of AWOL. He went to pretty big lengths to avoid returning to duty.

 

[dapaterson]

It says he has a release date planned for January 2026 but I've seen a comment from someone say he was out 2 weeks after tge court martial finished.



So maybe he did have to pay it back after all on top of the fine. Nice.

I wonder if there was enough geounds to hit him with desertion instead of AWOL. He went to pretty big lengths to avoid returning to duty.

Desertion would require proof of mens rea. Charges are laid based on evidence available, so presumably the layer of charges didn't think there was sufficient evidence.

QR&O: Volume II – Chapter 103 – Service Offences - Canada.ca

Queen's Regulations and Orders - QR&O - Chapter 103 - Service Offences

www.canada.ca

 

[brihard]

I wonder if there was enough geounds to hit him with desertion instead of AWOL. He went to pretty big lengths to avoid returning to duty.

Desertion would require proof of mens rea. Charges are laid based on evidence available, so presumably the layer of charges didn't think there was sufficient evidence.

They would need to prove an intention to not return to duty, versus simply absenting himself without leave indefinitely to deal with something.

 

[CT57]

This Captain went awol after RCMP officers spoke to him and he was gone for two months. Results of the court marshal was $ 8000 fine and a severe reprimand. The reason was not given at the court marshal. Could the judge hear this evidence in private?

https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/521122/1/document.do

 

[Jarnhamar]

Desertion would require proof of mens rea. Charges are laid based on evidence available, so presumably the layer of charges didn't think there was sufficient evidence.

They would need to prove an intention to not return to duty, versus simply absenting himself without leave indefinitely to deal with something.

Right. I was looking at para e&d of 103.21(2)

(d) is absent without authority from his place of duty and at any time during such absence forms the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty; or

(e) while absent with authority from his place of duty, with the intention of remaining absent from his place of duty, does any act or omits to do anything the natural and probable consequence of which act or omission is to preclude the person from being at his place of duty at the time required

The general rule seems be anyone that abstains themselves without leave for longer than 6 months slides into desertion territory.

This guy was changing locations, swapping cell phones, and changing vehicles. Playing Jason Borne. He didn't turn himself in he was caught after a considerable effort across multiple agencies. It's reasonable to believe he had no intention of going back to work.


On the other hand I recall a case in Petawawa where a soldier went AWOL and the reson why the unit didn't charge him with desertion was to just get him out of the CAF faster (he moved to South America or something and just came back to sell some furniture).

If it's accurate that he released 2 weeks after the trial maybe the intent was to just turf him asap.

 

[brihard]

Right. I was looking at para e&d of 103.21(2)



The general rule seems be anyone that abstains themselves without leave for longer than 6 months slides into desertion territory.

This guy was changing locations, swapping cell phones, and changing vehicles. Playing Jason Borne. He didn't turn himself in he was caught after a considerable effort across multiple agencies. It's reasonable to believe he had no intention of going back to work.


On the other hand I recall a case in Petawawa where a soldier went AWOL and the reson why the unit didn't charge him with desertion was to just get him out of the CAF faster (he moved to South America or sometbing and just came back to sell some furniture).

If it's accurate that he released 2 weeks after the trial maybe the intent was to just turf him asap.

Yeah. And this one just gives me a funny feeling where we don’t know what we don’t know. AWOL is easy to prove, less needs to come out in court. Maybe the whole question of proving intentions would have opened a can of worms.

 

[brihard]

See existing thread:

Post in thread 'High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly'
High Ranking Police Folk Allegedly Behaving Badly

This Captain went awol after RCMP officers spoke to him and he was gone for two months. Results of the court marshal was $ 8000 fine and a severe reprimand. The reason was not given at the court marshal. Could the judge hear this evidence in private?

https://decisia.jmc-cmj.forces.gc.ca/jmc-cmj/cm/en/521122/1/document.do

No. The judge can’t consider stuff like that privately.

There are very rare cases when judges can review some evidence in camera; usually regarding confidential informant info used in contested warrants, or classified summaries of national security info. But nothing suggests that was in play here, and the fact that such a thing happened would be known.

The case is weird. I think some stuff was deliberately avoided in proceedings.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Yeah. And this one just gives me a funny feeling where we don’t know what we don’t know. AWOL is easy to prove, less needs to come out in court. Maybe the whole question of proving intentions would have opened a can of worms.

The judge commented on how vague circumstances remained so it doesn't seem like he tried to explain himself or what he was hoping to achieve.

Telling CFNIS he's "gone into hiding" and "further contact with CFNIS would be done through a national security lawyer,”.

Definitely nothing to see here

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Agreed on all points.

What about removal of security clearance too ?

How about just kicking him the fuck out. No clearance, and a 5f release.

 

[dapaterson]

How about just kicking him the fuck out. No clearance, and a 5f release.

No.

This is 2B territory, not 5F.

 

[brihard]

No.

This is 2B territory, not 5F.

2B or not 2B? That is the question when DMP and DCS make a joint submission on sentencing.

 

[dapaterson]

2B or not 2B? That is the question when DMP and DCS make a joint submission on sentencing.

If a Court Martial sentences someone to dismissal (with or without disgrace) you're under 1, not 2. As there's no court martial for the MCpl, you're under article 2 of the Release chapter of the QR&Os. Though I likely got it wrong - based on a five year custodial sentence that's more like a 2A than a 2B, I think.

 

[dapaterson]

Gah, confusing my miscreants.

The MCpl would be 2A. The MP Capt would likely be 2B.