BԪַ

Skip to content

No way of BԪַadjudicating factsBԪַ in Crown deals with corrupt firms: judge

In remediation, agreed-upon facts decided solely by the accused company and prosecutors

When Philippines businessman Rizalino Espino was named as a participant in a bribery scandal involving a Canadian company, he assumed his day in court meant that a judge would hear him out and weigh his version of the facts.

Instead, it didnBԪַt matter what evidence his lawyer presented.

A judge in Quebec wrote in May that there was BԪַno possibility of adjudicating factsBԪַ in the case, in which the court approved a remediation agreement between federal prosecutors and a Quebec forensic technology firm that did business for years in the Philippines.

Remediation agreements BԪַ the Canadian version of deferred prosecution deals BԪַ are a new part of the legal landscape, that were supposed to make it easier to bring corrupt companies to justice, while allowing them to avoid prosecution.

But EspinoBԪַs experience highlights a potential flaw in the process: the judges who decide whether to approve the deals are unable to consider whether the agreed facts that underpin the agreements are true. Those agreed facts are decided upon solely by the accused company and prosecutors.

University of Ottawa law professor Jennifer Quaid said the remediation agreement regime in Canada relies on voluntary disclosure by people involved in wrongdoing, who are likely BԪַto paint the best possible picture of oneBԪַs involvement,BԪַ she said.

BԪַEven if one acknowledges responsibility, usually there is an effort to spin as positively as possible.BԪַ

In the case that entangled Espino, the remediation agreement was struck by Quebec-based Ultra Electronics Forensic Technology. It admitted years of wrongdoing and agreed to pay a $10 million fine for a bribery scheme to sell its flagship ballistics identification system to the Philippines National Police.

Espino was not charged with a crime. But he and his company Concept Dynamics Enterprises went to court in Canada to clear their names after discovering they had been named as participants in the bribery scheme in the remediation dealBԪַs BԪַagreed statement of facts.BԪַ

The statement depicts Espino as a key player in the scheme that Ultra said BԪַearmarked and promisedBԪַ bribes for top officials including then Philippines interior secretary Ronaldo Puno and his brother. The company admitted using the corrupt scheme to help it secure $17 million in contracts with Philippines police.

But Espino said he was a victim and a whistleblower who put an end to UltraBԪַs corrupt scheme, and didnBԪַt provide bribes to the Puno brothers or anyone else.

In a series of emails to The Canadian Press, Espino said he wanted to BԪַsalvageBԪַ his reputation after being BԪַdragged through the muckBԪַ during the court process of approving the remediation agreement.

BԪַThe court is not empowered to take any other information into consideration, no matter how compelling it may be,BԪַ Espino wrote. BԪַThis being just the second remediation agreement to be approved in Canada, there is still much to learn.BԪַ

Espino said he wanted BԪַa chance to defend my name and reputation.BԪַ

Quebec Superior Court Judge Marc David rejected EspinoBԪַs bid to have the accusations against him removed from the statement of agreed facts, in his decision to approve UltraBԪַs remediation agreement.

BԪַWhen presented with a remediation agreement, a court must accept the facts as exposed by the prosecutor and the accused organization,BԪַ David wrote.

BԪַThe procedure is bipartite. There is no possibility of adjudicating facts. In principle, an agreed statement of facts cannot be unsettled based on the possible existence of contradictory evidence.BԪַ

Third parties like Espino and Concept Dynamics are left with no immediate recourse to head off a remediation agreement even if they present what David called BԪַalternative facts.BԪַ

EspinoBԪַs lawyer, Philip Aspler, told the judge that the agreed statement of facts was defamatory and BԪַfull of inaccuracies, mistakes and outright lies.BԪַ

BԪַOne cannot help wonder if the prosecutor ever even bothered to check the facts or just swallowed, hook, line and sinker, everything that the defendant did,BԪַ Aspler told the judge. BԪַOne of the issues is, did the Crown actually bother to get all sides of the story, and I respectfully submit that it did not.BԪַ

David, who called EspinoBԪַs claims a BԪַcurveballBԪַ in the December 2022 hearing, is only the second judge tasked with approving a remediation agreement since they were added to the Criminal Code in 2018.

The first involved SNC-Lavalin, which last year admitted corruption related to the refurbishment of the Jacques Cartier Bridge in Montreal.

But the remediation process had been put in the public eye in 2019, in a separate case involving SNC-Lavalin. Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould claimed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau inappropriately pushed her to cut a deal with SNC-Lavalin over its corrupt dealings in Libya. She refused, and instead of remediation, the company ended up pleading guilty to fraud.

With CanadaBԪַs deferred prosecution regime still in its infancy, David remarked that his ruling in the Ultra case would likely impact future remediation agreements.

Stéphane Hould, the prosecution serviceBԪַs remediation agreement coordinator, declined to comment on the case but pointed to Crown submissions depicting Espino as an admitted BԪַparticipantBԪַ in the bribery scheme, which ran from 2006 to 2018.

In court, Crown prosecutors stood behind the agreed statement of facts. Fraud and offences under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, prosecutors told the court, donBԪַt require that BԪַbribes were actually paid.BԪַ

BԪַThe fraud scheme was designed to inflate the price of the contracts and was facilitated through the receipt of (EspinoBԪַs) commissions,BԪַ the CrownBԪַs submissions said.

They warned David that entertaining EspinoBԪַs claims could derail the process by requiring him to adjudicate facts, which the remediation agreement regime doesnBԪַt allow.

Judge David ultimately agreed, finding he couldnBԪַt reject the agreement because Concept Dynamics failed to demonstrate that the prosecutors or Ultra Electronics had BԪַwilfullyBԪַ misled the court.

BԪַWhen presented with a remediation agreement, a court must accept the facts as exposed by the prosecutor and the accused organization,BԪַ David ruled. BԪַThere is no possibility of adjudicating facts. In principle, an agreed statement of facts cannot be unsettled based on the possible existence of contradictory evidence.BԪַ

He added that Concept Dynamics BԪַcan seek redress in the civil court systemBԪַ if it felt aggrieved.

In an emailed statement, Ultra Electronics said EspinoBԪַs claims have BԪַno basis in fact.BԪַ

BԪַThis matter has been thoroughly investigated at length by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with our full co-operation,BԪַ the company said. BԪַUltra Forensic Technology no longer uses any intermediaries in the Philippines. This includes Mr. Espino, who is implicated as an accomplice, in the historical misconduct as described by the agreed statement of facts executed by the PPSC and the company.BԪַ

University of Ottawa law professor Quaid said the case involving Concept Dynamics is odd and BԪַtrickyBԪַ because the case dates back many years, and bribery schemes usually involve many parties with varying degrees of blameworthiness.

BԪַI donBԪַt objectively know where the truth is,BԪַ she said. BԪַNo one outside of the people who did the investigation and the parties themselves who were involved actually know the full extent of it.BԪַ

But she said itBԪַs highly likely that when the remediation agreement regime was devised, a scenario like this simply wasnBԪַt contemplated.

Quaid said itBԪַs possible that true victims could be overlooked, representing a BԪַgapBԪַ in a regime that is mandated to be victim-centric.

BԪַIt seems like thatBԪַs an oversight,BԪַ she said.

Quaid said thereBԪַs a danger that investigations might miss things and itBԪַs difficult to catch people in a lie if independent verification isnBԪַt possible.

BԪַSo you need someone on the inside that says, BԪַoh, I know what happened and IBԪַm gonna tell you,BԪַBԪַ she said. BԪַBut then there is a certain amount of faith afterwards.BԪַ

Ultra Electronics was ultimately penalized $10 million under its remediation agreement, and foreign bribery and fraud charges are still pending against former employees Robert Walsh, Timothy Heaney, René Bélanger and Michael McLean.

READ ALSO:





(or

BԪַ

) document.head.appendChild(flippScript); window.flippxp = window.flippxp || {run: []}; window.flippxp.run.push(function() { window.flippxp.registerSlot("#flipp-ux-slot-ssdaw212", "Black Press Media Standard", 1281409, [312035]); }); }