Fraud is charged under section 380 of the Criminal Code, with the value involved determining the category: fraud over $5,000 carries higher potential penalties and is treated as a more serious indictable matter, while fraud under $5,000 is a hybrid offence the Crown can proceed with summarily or by indictment. The threshold is based on the value obtained or at risk, not just what was ultimately recovered.
- Fraud is charged under section 380 of the Criminal Code, split by whether the value involved is over or under $5,000.
- Fraud under $5,000 is a hybrid offence, so the Crown can choose to proceed summarily or by indictment.
- Fraud over $5,000 carries significantly higher sentencing exposure and is treated as a more serious matter.
- The $5,000 threshold is based on the value obtained or placed at risk by the deceit, not necessarily what was ultimately recovered.
- Common fact patterns include investment and employment scams, cheque and payment fraud, and misrepresentation in business dealings.
- A conditional sentence (serving a sentence in the community) is generally unavailable where the Crown proceeds by indictment on fraud over $5,000.
Fraud Under Section 380
Fraud in Ontario is charged under section 380 of the Criminal Code, which prohibits defrauding the public or any person of money, property, or any valuable security through deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means. The provision splits into two categories based on value: fraud of $5,000 or under, and fraud over $5,000.
This single dollar threshold has a major practical effect on how a case proceeds and what penalties are realistically on the table.
Why the $5,000 Threshold Matters
| Category | Procedural & Sentencing Impact |
|---|---|
| $5,000 or under | Hybrid offence; Crown elects summary or indictable procedure |
| Over $5,000 | Significantly higher maximum penalty on indictment; conditional sentence generally unavailable where Crown proceeds by indictment |
The relevant value is generally the amount obtained or placed at risk by the fraudulent conduct — not necessarily the amount ultimately recovered by police or returned to the victim. A scheme targeting a larger sum can be charged at the higher threshold even where the loss was partially mitigated.
Crown Election on the Under-$5,000 Charge
Because fraud under $5,000 is hybrid, the Crown decides whether to proceed summarily or by indictment, generally weighing the sophistication of the scheme, the number of victims, and the accused’s record. This decision affects the available maximum penalty and the court process that follows.
What the Crown Must Prove
To secure a fraud conviction, the Crown generally must establish:
- A dishonest act — deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means
- Deprivation — actual loss, or risk of loss, to the victim’s pecuniary interests
- The requisite intent — subjective knowledge that the dishonest act could cause deprivation, or reckless disregard as to that risk
Common Fact Patterns
Fraud charges arise from a wide range of situations, including:
- Investment and business scams — misrepresenting returns, opportunities, or the use of funds
- Employment and rental scams — collecting payment under false pretenses for jobs or housing that do not exist as represented
- Cheque and payment instrument fraud — forged, altered, or knowingly worthless payment instruments
- Misrepresentation in contracts or services — billing for work not done, or materially misstating qualifications or facts to induce payment
A contractor collects a deposit for renovation work, never intending to complete the job or return the money. Whether the required dishonest intent existed from the outset — rather than this simply being a failed or poorly performed contract — is often the central issue in these cases.
Defences and Sentencing
Defending a fraud charge often focuses on intent: was there genuinely dishonest conduct, or a business arrangement that simply went wrong without the required fraudulent state of mind? Other issues can include the accuracy of the value alleged, which affects which threshold applies, and whether the evidence actually establishes deprivation.
Where appropriate, repaying some or all of the amount involved — or committing to do so — can factor into how a case is resolved, though it is not a guarantee of any particular outcome and depends on the Crown’s position and the facts.
Facing a fraud charge in Toronto or anywhere in Ontario? Call our Toronto criminal defence lawyers at 416-274-2222 for a free consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Section 380 of the Criminal Code splits fraud into two categories based on the value involved. Fraud of $5,000 or under is treated as a hybrid offence with a lower maximum penalty, while fraud over $5,000 is treated more seriously, with significantly higher sentencing exposure.
It generally refers to the value obtained, or the value put at risk, by the fraudulent conduct — not necessarily just what was ultimately kept or recovered. A scheme that targeted a larger sum can still be charged based on the amount at stake, even if the full amount was not realized.
The Crown must generally prove a dishonest act — deceit, falsehood, or another fraudulent means — and that this caused deprivation, meaning actual loss or risk of loss to the victim's pecuniary interests. Intent to defraud, or at least a reckless disregard for the consequences, is also required.
Common fact patterns include investment scams, employment or rental scams, cheque fraud and forged payment instruments, misrepresentation in business or contractual dealings, and various forms of online and phone-based scams, among many others.
Fraud under $5,000 is hybrid, with a lower maximum when the Crown proceeds summarily. Fraud over $5,000 carries a much higher maximum on indictment, and a conditional sentence — serving a sentence in the community rather than custody — is generally unavailable where the Crown proceeds by indictment on an over-$5,000 fraud.
Courts consider the magnitude, complexity, duration, and degree of planning involved in the fraud as aggravating factors, along with whether it targeted vulnerable victims, involved a position of trust, or caused significant impact on the victims.
In some cases, yes — through a negotiated plea, restitution arrangements, or in limited circumstances, diversion for lower-value, first-time matters. Whether any of these are realistic depends heavily on the value involved, the Crown's position, and the specific facts.