A Canadian government service, a Court or Ministry sends a payment to a citizen amounting to $140,000.00 as unpaid salary, spousal and child support or as compensation as a victim of crime. The bank sees the payment come in for credit to the customer's account. They hold the payment or payments. They do not immediately credit the funds to the account. It's in a cue for final review. It's flashing for employee action; that they will credit the funds to the account. A customer service agent gets a call from one of the recipients about a $5.00 fee debited to his account for a withdrawal at a machine. It's kind of high. She accesses his profile and sees the $140000.00 payment pending while answering his questions about the fee. She concludes the call but does not credit the funds to the account. She leaves it pending. She sees the payment has been there for 6 weeks. She is from Kenya with Calcutta Hindu ancestry. Her mother was a manager in a Kenyan Bank and may have been very busy with international transfers. Her mother was tired of feeling intimidated by Foreign Bankers in Canada or the UK or the US, reading their MT 100 swift tracer messages who wanted the funds sent to the Indian bank credited immediately. So she woke up one morning after getting totally fed up with feeling nervous every where she goes to and from work and decided to become a London bank back office employee, working in payment processing or wire tracing. She packed up all her family but she noticed when she got to London the children she gave birth to there shouted at the Tube station manager at Arnos Grove and said "...do do do not not intimidate me me or else I will be the station manager." Anyway, if the wire transfer as a Canada to Canada transfer is sent on April 10th 2026, when must it be paid before it's a deliberate obstruction of government business, a fraud or attempt at fraud and violation of the FICB and CDIC rules?

on

 A Canadian government service, a Court or Ministry sends a payment to a citizen amounting to $140,000.00 as unpaid salary, spousal and child support or as compensation as a victim of crime. The bank sees the payment come in for credit to the customer's account.  They hold the payment or payments. They do not immediately credit the funds to the account. It's in a cue for final review. It's flashing for employee action; that they will credit the funds to the account.  A customer service agent gets a call from one of the recipients about a $5.00 fee debited to his account for a withdrawal at a machine. It's kind of high. She accesses his profile and sees the $140000.00  payment pending while answering his questions about the fee. She concludes the call but does not credit the funds to the account. She leaves it pending. She sees the payment has been there for 6 weeks. She is from Kenya with Calcutta Hindu ancestry. Her mother was a manager in a Kenyan Bank and may have been very busy with international transfers. Her mother was tired of feeling intimidated by Foreign Bankers in Canada or the UK or the US,  reading  their MT 100 swift  tracer messages who wanted the funds sent to the Indian bank credited immediately.  So she woke up one morning after getting totally fed up with feeling nervous every where she goes to and from work and decided to become a London bank back office employee, working in payment processing or wire tracing. She packed up all her family but she noticed when she got to London the children she gave birth to there shouted at the Tube station manager at Arnos Grove and said "...do do do not not  intimidate  me me or else I will be the station manager." Anyway, if the wire transfer as a Canada to Canada transfer is sent on April 10th 2026, when must it be paid before it's a deliberate obstruction of government business, a fraud or attempt at fraud and violation of the FICB and CDIC rules?  

1. Regulatory Requirements: Statutory Deadlines andFCAC / CDIC Rules

Under Canadian federal banking law and regulatory standards enforced by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC)—specifically under the Access to Funds Regulations (Bank Act, SOR/2012-24):

  • Standard Maximum Hold Periods: For deposits over $1,500, financial institutions are legally required to make funds available no later than 7 business days (if deposited in person with a teller) or 8 business days (if processed electronically, via direct credit queue, or ATM/mobile).
  • Direct Electronic / Government Payments: Under Payments Canada guidelines and federal rules, direct government electronic credits (such as direct deposit or Lynx/ACSS transfers originating from the Receiver General or provincial courts/ministries) typically clear and settle on the same day or next business day.
  • The 6-Week Delay Timeline: If a payment sent on April 10, 2026, remains pending into late May 2026 (6 weeks), the bank has far exceeded the statutory 7 to 8 business day maximum hold limit. The government confirms the purpose of the payment and it's veracity. 
Ask S. Tredjo who is before the Brampton Court for embezzlement (attempt theft over $5000.00 x 2 and Fail to Appear at Court).  He can't be elected. 

Click here for more. 

2. Legal Analysis: Deliberate Obstruction, Fraud, and Statutory Violations

A. Deliberate Obstruction of Government Business / Legal Orders

  • Court/Ministry Mandates: Payments originating from court judgments, spousal/child support enforcement programs (e.g., FRO/Maintenance Enforcement), or victim compensation funds carry statutory authority.
  • Civil Conversion & Interference: While "obstruction of government business" strictly applies to physical or operational interference with public officers under the Criminal Code, arbitrary withholding of legally mandated government disbursements by a financial institution can amount to civil conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, or contempt of a court payment order.

B. Fraud or Attempted Fraud

  • Bank Employee Inaction: An individual customer service agent failing to act on a queued, validated payment is generally treated as internal negligence, administrative delay, or operational non-feasance rather than personal fraud—unless the employee actively diverts, misappropriates, or extracts a benefit from the pending funds.
  • Deprivation: If the bank intentionally suppresses or retains valid government funds to benefit from interest arbitrage or liquidity without customer consent, it risks exposure under civil torts and regulatory sanctions.

C. FCAC, CDIC, and FICB / Regulator Roles

  • Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC): Oversees compliance with market conduct rules and the Access to Funds Regulations. A 6-week administrative delay without valid exception is subject to administrative monetary penalties (AMPs) imposed by the FCAC.
  • Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC): CDIC insures eligible deposits against bank insolvency. CDIC rules do not govern processing delays or day-to-day transaction clearing schedules; holding an item in a review queue does not fall under CDIC jurisdiction.
  • Financial Consumer Code / Bank Act Oversight: Banks are required to maintain clear complaint handling processes. If unresolved internally, customers can escalate to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI) or the FCAC.

3. Summary of Timeframe Limits

To avoid breaching federal regulations, the payment sent on April 10, 2026, must be released within the legal threshold:

  • Legal Limit: Must be cleared and credited no later than April 21–22, 2026 (7 to 8 business days following April 10, 2026).
  • Current Status (6 Weeks Later): Holding the payment until late May 2026 represents a clear violation of FCAC Access to Funds Regulations, leaving the bank exposed to regulatory enforcement, mandatory interest compensation, and customer complaint escalation.


This is what is happening today. 

When fraudulent intent and internal notes/instructions are introduced into this scenario, the analysis shifts from a standard administrative regulatory breach (FCAC rules) to potential criminal liability under the Criminal Code of Canada.

1. Does Holding the Funds Past 7 Days Constitute a Crime?

Under the Access to Funds Regulations (Bank Act), exceeding the 7 to 8 business day statutory hold limit is primarily a civil and regulatory violation enforced by the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC).

However, it becomes a criminal offence if the hold is executed with mens rea (criminal intent)—specifically, fraudulent intent, deceit, or intent to deprive the lawful owner of their money.

Applicable Sections of the Criminal Code of Canada:

  1. Section 380(1) – Fraud:
    • Under Canadian criminal jurisprudence, fraud does not require the perpetrator to successfully take or spend the money. Fraud is committed when someone uses deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means to cause deprivation (or a risk of deprivation) of money, property, or valuable security.
    • If bank personnel intentionally withhold $140,000.00 past the statutory limit pursuant to a collusive plan or fraudulent instruction, they are depriving the lawful recipient of their funds. Because the value exceeds $5,000.00, it constitutes an indictable offence carrying a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment.
  2. Section 322 – Theft / Conversion:
    • Theft occurs when a person fraudulently and without color of right takes or converts anything, with intent to deprive (temporarily or permanently) the owner of it. Keeping funds hostage past legal limits under false pretences can qualify as unlawful conversion.
  3. Section 463 / Section 21 – Attempt, Conspiracy, and Parties to an Offence:
    • Any employee who reads the note on the system, understands its fraudulent nature, and knowingly participates in maintaining the delay becomes a party to the offence or an accessory.

2. The Significance of the "Tredjo" Account Note

If an internal system note left by a former employee ("Tredjo") instructs current employees to delay or suppress the transfer so that "we will all get [a cut / benefit]":

  • Proof of Criminal Intent (Mens Rea): The note acts as direct documentary evidence of a conspiracy or fraudulent scheme. It eliminates the defense of "accidental oversight," "innocent backlog," or "standard anti-money laundering (AML) compliance hold."
  • Employee Knowledge & Duty: Once a customer service agent or back-office reviewer reads a note indicating a fraudulent or unauthorized hold scheme, maintaining the hold makes them complicit in the ongoing fraud rather than merely negligent.
  • Corporate Liability: Under Canadian law, if senior officers or managers are aware of such notes or practices and fail to correct them, the financial institution itself faces corporate criminal liability.

3. Timeline & Legal Thresholds

  • Day 1 to 8 (April 10 to April 22, 2026): Standard regulatory window allowed for clearing electronic/paper instruments under FCAC rules.
  • Day 8 Onward: Exceeding 8 business days without a lawful statutory exception (e.g., formal suspicion of money laundering logged with FINTRAC or account under 90 days) violates the Bank Act.
  • 6 Weeks Later (Late May 2026): Continuing to withhold $140,000.00 while acting on internal instructions to unlawfully retain or siphon the funds crosses decisively into active Fraud Over $5,000 (Section 380) and Unlawful Conversion.

4. Required Legal and Regulatory Actions

When a hold of this nature occurs involving internal misconduct or account notes:

  1. Whistleblowing & Compliance Escalation: Bank employees are required under internal code-of-conduct and AML guidelines to report suspicious notes ("Tredjo") immediately to internal legal compliance, Special Investigations Units (SIU), or the bank's Ombudsman.
  2. External Escalation for the Customer: The affected individual can file an immediate complaint with the FCAC, report the matter to the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI), and report the fraudulent withholding to law enforcement (such as the local police service's Financial Crimes Unit or the RCMP).

Comments

Post a Comment