Previous Headline
September 2009
The Court of Appeal Reduces Vincent Lacroix’s “First” Sentence
The news was hard to miss: the Court of Appeal reduced the prison sentence of Vincent Lacroix. It is the third court to take up the case, but not the last: his criminal trial has only just begun.
One Crime, Two Trials?
If you have only followed the story every now and then, the legal twists and turns of Vincent Lacroix’s case are puzzling. He was found guilty and sentenced. Then his sentence was reduced. Then he was released with conditions after serving a sixth of his sentence. Then the Court of Appeal further reduced his sentence. And that brings us to the present: Lacroix is going back to court yet again as part of what is known as the “Norbourg Affair”.
To make sense of what’s going on, you have to understand a key distinction: there are two trials because there were two different sets of offences. The trial just starting in Montreal will decide whether Vincent Lacroix’s behaviour is a crime under the Criminal Code, a federal law. The lighter penalty already handed down by the Court of Appeal related to a conviction under Quebec laws applying to investment managers.
A person can’t be tried twice for the same thing. Vincent Lacroix is accused of different things in the two trials, even if the events underlying both trials are the same.
No Cumulative Sentences in Quebec Law
In the case based on the laws of Quebec, the Court of Quebec gave Lacroix a prison sentence of five years less a day for misrepresenting the value of his investment funds. He was also given two additional sentences of 3 ½ years each for misleading the Autorité des marchés financiers and falsifying records. (The Autorité is a government agency that enforces Quebec laws regarding financial markets, products and services.) The judge decided that Lacroix should serve these sentences one after the other and not simultaneously (all at the same time). This meant his total sentence was 12 years less a day, a record penalty for violating a Quebec law.
Asked to review this sentence, the Superior Court reduced it to 8 ½ years. The Court reasoned that the two sentences of 3 ½ years should be served simultaneously rather than one after the other because the two offences were closely related. But the court also decided the 3-½-year-sentence should start only after the separate five-year-sentence had been completed.
The Court of Appeal further reduced Lacroix's sentence to five years less a day. Why? Because only in exceptional circumstances are prison sentences under Quebec law served one after the other (also called “cumulatively”). The court therefore decided that Lacroix's sentences should begin immediately after the verdict and all be served simultaneously.
In other words, Lacroix’s sentence could not last longer than the longest of the sentences he received - five years less a day.
But Wait, There’s More
The first trial convinced a judge that Vincent Lacroix lied to the Autorité des marchés financiers. However, that didn’t automatically make him guilty of
criminal fraud. Like anyone else, Lacroix has the right to be fairly tried for a crime and considered innocent until proven guilty.
When the criminal trial that has just begun comes to a close, a 12-member jury will examine the evidence and decide whether Vincent Lacroix committed the crimes of which he is accused. The jurors are not allowed to consider anything they have learned about his case outside the trial proceedings (in media reports, for example).
If Lacroix is found guilty, the judge will determine the appropriate sentence. The result could be far more serious for Lacroix this time because the Criminal Code provides for longer sentences than Quebec law. On top of that, under the criminal law, a judge can order that sentences be served one after the other (cumulatively) instead of simultaneously.
