Property Default is an Offence?

[on-hold]

Yes, I lived there and worked as a banker, and as such, am well aware of the laws. When you take a mortgage, the bank holds a security cheque for the entire mortgage amount. When you default on a payment, the bank attempts to cash the cheque. The cheque naturally bounces, which is a criminal offence, and the bank then uses this to file a criminal case against the defaulter. If you google it, you'll see hundreds of articles of absconders being arrested while trying to enter or leave the country due to such cases.

That's an odd system. Normally interest and collateral are supposed to pay the bank for their risk; do Middle Eastern banks use this approach because of the Islamic prohibition on charging interest? And are these loans, with the cheques, interest-free?

 

[gregmah]

Yes, because there are different institutions. He has to declare the default offence to CIC. Passports are made in a different government department.

Let me advise him to consult with the lawyer. My question is there are many ppl in canada came from dubai and they are defaulters.they have the passports. How they get?

 

[arambi]

Do NOT declare it. This is not a crime under Canadian laws
Declaring it will bring you unnecessary problems
Just sign and take your oath

 

[torontosm]

Do NOT declare it. This is not a crime under Canadian laws
Declaring it will bring you unnecessary problems
Just sign and take your oath

This is probably the worst advice I have seen yet on this forum. Lying and misrepresenting facts to the government is the stupidest thing you could do.

 

[torontosm]

That's an odd system. Normally interest and collateral are supposed to pay the bank for their risk; do Middle Eastern banks use this approach because of the Islamic prohibition on charging interest? And are these loans, with the cheques, interest-free?

No, it has nothing to do with Sharia'a principles or Islamic banking. It's just that Middle Eastern banks are horribly risk averse and want individuals to continue to provide "personal guarantees" on the entire mortgage amount until the last payment is made. And no, the loans are not interest free. whether provided by a conventional or Islamic bank, both come with hefty interest rates and pre-payment penalties.

 

[arambi]

This is probably the worst advice I have seen yet on this forum. Lying and misrepresenting facts to the government is the stupidest thing you could do.

Default on a loan (or any debt for that matter) is NOT a crime in any democratic country (specially not in Canada). There is NO requirement to disclose. Let me know where you see such requirement.

In some non democratic countries, girls are brought to court, found guilty and thrown to jail beacuse they they went to school (where it's a crime for girls to go to school). Must they disclose such crimes in their citizenship application?

Next time think a little bit before you react...

 

[torontosm]

Default on a loan (or any debt for that matter) is NOT a crime in any democratic country (specially not in Canada). There is NO requirement to disclose. Let me know where you see such requirement.

In some non democratic countries, girls are brought to court, found guilty and thrown to jail beacuse they they went to school (where it's a crime for girls to go to school). Must they disclose such crimes in their citizenship application?

Next time think a little bit before you react...

Perhaps you should take your own advice and give some thought to stuff before offering erroneous advice. If you take a look at citizenship requirements, you will see that committing ANY crime, ANYWHERE could render you ineligible to apply:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#criminal

It does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes in third world countries, it does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that aren't considered crimes in Canada, and it definitely does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that ill-informed people on the Internet (such as yourself) say are ok.

Do you think you are really in a position to determine which crimes are ok and which aren't? Or do you think it may be better off to disclose everything and let the government make that determination?

 

[gregmah]

Guys

Can anyone give me a good lawyer number to ask?

 

[gregmah]

Guys

This is a civil matter not a criminal or offence. Advised by a lawyer. However this is not a problem..

 

[dpenabill]

The observation last week by NN74 said as much as needs be said, and the observations offered by on-hold sufficiently expanded on those.

I am posting to clarify that the prohibitions themselves, for convictions or pending charges abroad, are based on offences which would be an indictable offence if committed in Canada, based on Canadian law.

That, however, does not resolve the question about what must be disclosed in signing the prohibitions form currently being presented to applicants.

First, a clarification no one esle has addressed:

Hi

But he signed the same form at the time of test also and did not declare anything but he get again the same form. Do not know that this is a normal document for oath which comes with the invitation letter...

He only signed the same form if the test event was after June 11, 2015.

Some of the provisions which came into force on June 11 are those governing what constitutes a prohibition. In particular, the prohibitions form before June 11 did not refer to criminal offences abroad. Moreover, it was for three, not four years.

Even if it was the same form (that is, even if the test event was more recent than June 10, 2015), it is standard practice now for CIC to require applicants to verify the absence of prohibitions attendant the test interview and immediately prior to the taking of the oath.

And to be clear: while many of the changes (such as the requirements for the grant of citizenship) which came into force on June 11 do not apply to applications already in process, the revised prohibitions do apply to all applications regardless of when they were submitted.

I do not know what this current form looks like in particular. I know it now refers to four rather than just three years prior to the date of application, and I know it now refers to convictions for or pending charges for criminal offences abroad in addition to those in Canada. I do not know how the latter is phrased.

What the form specifically asks could make a difference.

My sense is that it refers to any criminal convictions or charges . . . not just those which will prohibit the grant of citizenship.

Which leads to this . . .


Prohibitions based on criminality abroad:

The prohibition based on a conviction of an offence outside Canada is specifically premised on it being for an offence if committed in Canada would constitute an indictable offence under Canadian law. This just came into effect June 11, 2015.

See section 22(3) in the Citizenship Act as revised (which for some odd reason these revisions are still not published in the official version, the official version still only current as amended through May 28, 2015 . . . so to see this provision, see Section 19(3) of the SCCA, or go to the Program Delivery Instructions).

Thus, for example, a conviction for engaging in homosexual acts in a country where that is a serious criminal offence does not preclude eligibility for Canadian citizenship.

Similarly, a foreign criminal conviction for acts which would constitute a civil matter in Canada, not a criminal offence, will not prohibit a grant of citizenship.

(Note: torontosm you apparently overlooked the term "may" in the guide, which you cited and linked, and failed to grasp CIC's shorthand references to indictable offences; the statutory provision itself is clear enough, and again also see relevant Program Delivery Instructions.)

That said, the ME loan default scenario can be more complicated than that. As I understand it, the nature of the offence often charged is fraud, which is of course also an indictable offence in Canada. The issue is whether or not the applicable elements in the offence (as constituted in the foreign country) would only constitute a civil matter in Canada or are equivalent to criminal fraud in Canada. I do not know the answer to this. I do not know to what extent CIC has already addressed these situations (this is not at all an uncommon circumstance) and formulated general equivalency guidelines. I suspect they have, since this (fraud charges related to defaults in the ME) comes up fairly frequently relative to inadmissibility versus eligibility for a PR visa itself.

A lawyer would indeed know better, being in a better position to know if CIC has a general approach to these particular scenarios and if so, what that is, and to otherwise be better acquainted with equivalency assessments generally.

I do not agree with the approach that the applicant can determine for himself that a criminal charge in a foreign country would not be an indictable offence if committed in Canada, and decline to disclose it based on that. Information about any criminal convictions or charges pending abroad need to be disclosed, now, even if the offence is one clearly not an offence in Canada . . . since the latter is a judgment for CIC to make based on the particulars of the case. In this respect I agree with the underlying reason for the comment by torontosm that it is not for the applicant to determine what foreign criminal charges should be disclosed, that is for the government to determine. But again, there is no prohibition arising from a criminal conviction abroad for acts which would not be criminal in Canada. So disclosure of a foreign conviction or charge still pending which is for something that is not criminal in Canada should not disqualify the applicant . . . but of course CIC will evaluate the situation for itself, and sure some delay in processing is to be anticipated in this situation.

But I acknowledge that this last observation, about the need to disclose the foreign conviction or pending charge, depends a lot on what the form specifically asks. I do not know what the form currently, specifically asks. I do know that it is important to not second-guess what really matters to CIC but rather to directly, honestly, and completely answer according to a common-sense understanding of what is asked. For example, I believe it probably asks about convictions for criminal offences, not just convictions for what would be a criminal offence if committed in Canada. So any conviction needs to be disclosed, not just those convictions which when examined and subject to the equivalency-assessment will constitute a prohibition.

I suppose that is the longest way possible to say: consult with a lawyer.

 

[arambi]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and give some thought to stuff before offering erroneous advice. If you take a look at citizenship requirements, you will see that committing ANY crime, ANYWHERE could render you ineligible to apply:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#criminal

It does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes in third world countries, it does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that aren't considered crimes in Canada, and it definitely does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that ill-informed people on the Internet (such as yourself) say are ok.

Do you think you are really in a position to determine which crimes are ok and which aren't? Or do you think it may be better off to disclose everything and let the government make that determination?

I can now see where your ignorance is coming from. You probably never learned about civil vs. Criminal laws. See below the response tell OP got from a lawyer. THIS IS A CIVIL MATTER NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER.

 

[arambi]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and give some thought to stuff before offering erroneous advice. If you take a look at citizenship requirements, you will see that committing ANY crime, ANYWHERE could render you ineligible to apply:

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/citizenship/become-eligibility.asp#criminal

It does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes in third world countries, it does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that aren't considered crimes in Canada, and it definitely does not say that you are allowed to commit crimes that ill-informed people on the Internet (such as yourself) say are ok.

Do you think you are really in a position to determine which crimes are ok and which aren't? Or do you think it may be better off to disclose everything and let the government make that determination?

See also the post below by Dpenabill. I hope you understand the concept of INDICTABLE OFFENSE IF COMMITTED IN CANADA.
Next time don't let arrogance drive you to expose your ignorance in public

 

[torontosm]

See also the post below by Dpenabill. I hope you understand the concept of INDICTABLE OFFENSE IF COMMITTED IN CANADA.
Next time don't let arrogance drive you to expose your ignorance in public

I'm not sure what's worse...your arrogance or your ignorance. You obviously either didn't read or understand Dpenabill's response. Either way, let me spell it out for you without using any big words so that you can understand it.

Using the UAE as a proxy for the Middle East (you will find it probably has the most liberal laws out of any of the other countries), bounced checks are clearly considered Fraud:

"However, funds that are insufficient to pay the dues will implicate the debtor to a criminal offense known as Check Fraud as indicated in the UAE Federal Law of 1987 – Penal Code, asserting that “Detention or a fine shall be imposed upon anyone who, in bad faith, gives a draft (cheque) without a sufficient and drawable balance or who, after giving a cheque, withdraws all or part of the balance, making the balance insufficient for settlement of the cheque”"

Fraud is a criminal offence in Canada as well.

So, no matter how much you think you know about Canadian law given your limited time here, you clearly don't understand all the issues. So perhaps you should refrain from providing erroneous advice because you want to try and appear intelligent.

 

[arambi]

It looks like now you are unable to read.
Dpenabil advise to contact a lawyer
The OP said Earlier that lawyer was contacted and avised that this a civil not criminal matter.
Which part of this don't you understand ?

 

[dpenabill]

Further clarifications:

Offences outside Canada which must be disclosed versus those constituting a prohibition:

To be clear, relative to offences outside Canada, there is an important distinction between what applicants are required to disclose versus what constitutes a prohibition.

In particular, not all offences abroad will give rise to a prohibition. In fact, only those offences which would constitute an indictable offence if committed in Canada, pursuant to Canadian law, will give rise to a prohibition.

That does not mean the applicant can decline to disclose a foreign criminal offence based on the applicant's judgment it would not be an offence if committed in Canada.

As noted, I have not seen the form which applicants with applications already in process are being required to complete attendant the test/interview or preceding the taking of the oath. It undoubtedly reflects the changes which took effect June 11, but what it specifically requires depends on the language in the form itself. As best I can recall, the form I signed at both my interview and immediately preceding the oath (early 2014; had to sign both times even though I took the oath less than 48 hours after the interview) was more general, an overall affirmation that I knew and understood the prohibitions and that none applied to me. That is, I had to affirm the absence of any prohibition.

If the current form similarly requires only a general affirmation that there are no prohibitions, the applicant who is confident, that what is labeled a criminal offence abroad is not an indictable offence in Canada, can affirm the absence of prohibitions despite the criminal conviction or pending charge abroad.

On the other hand, if the form applicants are required to sign asks more specific questions regarding foreign criminal convictions or charges, the language in which the questions are asked determines the scope of what is a responsive answer. Again, I do not know what the current form specifically requires.

In contrast, I do know what the prohibitions part of the application now requests.


Prohibitions disclosure in current application:

Again, we know what the prohibitions part of the application now requests. This is item 8 in the current application. The pertinent parts are:

D. Are you now charged with, on trial for, or subject to or a party to an appeal relating to an offence committed outside Canada?

. . .

I. In the past four (4) years, have you been convicted outside Canada of an offence, regardless of whether you were pardoned or otherwise granted amnesty for the offence?

As is obvious, these items are not limited to foreign offences which will constitute a prohibition, but reference "offences" generally. Thus, there is little doubt that CIC is requesting disclosure of any offence abroad, which on its face is dependent on the characterization of it by the respective foreign country. As such, in terms of what is requested, even if the underlying facts would be a civil matter in Canada, thus not constitute a prohibition, CIC is still asking for disclosure.

The fact that CIC asks for disclosure makes the information relevant, but for an omission to constitute misrepresentation, the requested information must be material. More regarding this below.

Item 8 has a box for providing "details," and suggests attaching relevant court documents. This is where, for example, a foreign criminal conviction for an offence in that jurisdiction which would not constitute an indictable offence if committed in Canada, would be distinguished. CIC expects the applicant to disclose the offence and allows for additional information to show that despite the offence there is no prohibition. If the attached court documents satisfy CIC that the foreign offence would not be an indictable offence if committed in Canada, no problem; otherwise CIC could make further inquiries (including through its respective visa offices abroad) and conduct additional assessments to ascertain whether the referenced charge constitutes a prohibition or not.



Comparing application versus affirmation attendant interview or before oath:

(This is largely repetition to facilitate clarity.)

Again, I do not know what the language is in the form currently being presented to applicants at the interview or preceding the oath. Its language matters. It may ask for disclosure of any foreign offences. Or it may simply require the applicant to affirm the absence of any prohibitions (including prohibitions arising from foreign offences).

If it asks the former, for disclosure of any foreign offences, it is asking for disclosure regardless of whether the offence would be an offence in Canada. This is what the application requests.

If the form asks for the latter, requiring the applicant to affirm the absence of any prohibition (including relative to any foreign offences), the applicant can sign the form without disclosing a foreign offence that would not be an indictable offence if committed in Canada (that is, sign the form affirming there are no criminal offences abroad which constitute a prohibition).

The language in the form matters. The appropriate response depends on that language.



ME Fraud charges:

I do not purport to know the precise elements for what constitutes fraud in Canada, let alone what constitutes fraud in any other country, let alone the ME.

As I noted, my understanding is that defaults in the ME are often handled criminally based on charges of fraud.

And of course there are criminal fraud offences in Canada and these are indictable offences.

But the name or label for an offence abroad does not govern whether it would constitute a prohibition.

Just because the foreign jurisdiction labels a criminal offence with a label also used in Canada does NOT mean the foreign offence would be an offence if committed in Canada.

Thus, in particular, just because the respective foreign country labels an offence as fraud does not mean that it would constitute an indictable offence if the same acts were committed in Canada. In particular, if the same acts would constitute a civil matter in Canada, the fact that the foreign country charges fraud for those acts does not mean the foreign charges will constitute a prohibition . . . in fact, they will NOT.

What matters is the equivalency of elements. This gets complicated. Not even immigration lawyers specializing in criminal inadmissibility issues can always offer a definitive conclusion about whether a given foreign offence is or is not equivalent to an offence in Canada.

Sure, for some offences the equivalency is easy, particularly where the foreign country defines the offence in virtually equivalent language as the offence is defined in Canada . . . or where the acts constituting the foreign offence are clearly not criminal in Canada (again, there is the example of criminal homosexuality in some foreign countries, which clearly are not a criminal offence if committed in Canada).

But even where the language is different enough (which is of course typical for ME countries) to require a more thorough equivalency assessment, relative to many foreign offences it has been a common enough issue there is already at least a generally understood equivalency assessment.

My sense is that these ME fraud cases fall into the latter group. That is, that CIC and in turn immigration lawyers have wrestled enough with these cases that there is a general consensus regarding the equivalency assessment. As I previously noted, the ME fraud charge based on a default has often come up in assessing the admissibility of those applying for PR visas. So I am quite confident this is an issue with which many immigration lawyers are familiar.

I do not know what that consensus is. There are many indications that CIC concludes the ME fraud charge, based on a default, would not be an offence if committed in Canada . . . and therefore does not make a Foreign National inadmissible and presumably would not constitute a prohibition for grant citizenship purposes. (I couch the latter as presumable because, again, the law regarding prohibitions based on foreign offences is brand new, without precedents . . . however it is safe, I think, to infer that the equivalency assessments will be consistent with those done in the FN admissibility context, for which there are decades of precedent.)



Distinction between relevant information and material information:

I hesitate to delve into this distinction because it is technical, not much explored in case law relative to citizenship application processing, and generally it is foolish for applicants to split this hair in deciding how to respond to requests from CIC. Generally, the best approach to answering requests from CIC is to fully and accurately respond to the request. There is no need to elaborate or to offer more than what is requested, but generally it is best to fully respond, to not omit any relevant information even if that information is not material.

That said, for purposes of what constitutes a misrepresentation by omission, generally the information omitted must be material, meaning information which could affect the outcome of the matter, before it constitutes fraud or grounds for imposing consequences for making a material misrepresentation (such as denying the application regardless of the merits otherwise).

Again, this is a technical distinction. For example, information which could affect the outcome is far broader than information which will affect the outcome. There are few precedents in the citizenship context, but many in other immigration application contexts. Trying to draw a hard line between what is relevant (if CIC asks, the information is by definition relevant) versus what is relevant but not material, is very, very tricky. In the citizenship context, though, there is a precedent where the applicant used a residential address other than where he actually resided, on the advice of a consultant (purportedly to obtain an advantage due to faster processing timeline in the local office for the address used in the application). This was deemed a material misrepresentation despite a showing that the applicant nonetheless lived in Canada, albeit at a different address. Thus, the accurate information would not have changed the outcome of the application. The Federal Court upheld the refusal based on this misrepresentation.

I bring this up because some people may take some chances to avoid potential delays in processing; for example, one might ask what is the consequence for failing to disclose a foreign criminal conviction if that conviction was for acts which would not constitute an offence in Canada? Since the foreign conviction would not constitute a prohibition, how is the failure to disclose it a material omission?

That is, some are likely to be tempted to not disclose a charge they are confident does not constitute a prohibition, in order to avoid potential delays in processing.

I suspect how CIC approaches this may depend on the particular circumstances of the case. The applicant who does not disclose a conviction for engaging in homosexual activity in a country where that is criminalized, I would suspect probably will not see CIC go after him if CIC discovers the charge later (whether in the processing of the application or after citizenship has been granted). In contrast, if the foreign charge is for fraud or theft but based on acts which would be a civil matter in Canada, I am not sure how CIC will handle this if it is not disclosed and later discovered. I suspect it could vary depending on the particulars.

There is also a probable difference between CIC discovering it in the course of processing the application versus discovering it after citizenship has been granted. In the latter situation, an offence clearly not constituting a prohibition probably does not get pursued. If the issue arises during the processing of the application however, there is probably a greater risk CIC would deem this a misrepresentation constituting grounds to refuse the application. That is big since that in turn will constitute a prohibition for another five years. The applicant's only recourse would be to seek judicial review of CIC's decision to refuse the application on the grounds of misrepresentation. An uphill battle I am afraid.

In other words: applicants will be wise to fully respond to the requests as made and not quibble about the materiality of this or that information.





A passing observation:

You know, the better objective underlying observations here is to provide, as best the forum participants can, a helpful response to the OP and to otherwise advance our collective understanding about how things work. Getting sidetracked by who is right or wrong as to particular propositions tends to detract rather than contribute to this endeavor. Sure, some erroneous statements need to be identified as such, but it is usually better to do so with some tact and in a manner which advances the discussion. I know I make too many errors, and I am always grateful when they are pointed out (the object, after all, is to get it right). On the other hand, however, personal insults are almost never helpful.