In Yorkton Court of Queen’s Bench on Friday, closing arguments were presented in the case of Gregor Gmerek, who is accused of fraud, forgery and uttering a forged document during his time as an employee at Prairie Livestock in Moosomin. The total amount that Gmerek is accused of defrauding the business of is in excess of $1.25 million.
The defense’s argument in the case rested on whether or not Gmerek had authorization to alter documents and make off-the-books payments to himself and others at the business. They argued that the testimony provided by Kevin Sinclair, owner of Prairie Livestock, was inconsistent, and that he had authorized several of the payments that are disputed, such as flowers for Gmerek’s father’s funeral. They also argued that he had showed Gmerek how to handle speculative contracts, which was one of the areas where he is accused of defrauding the company. They also argued that a hands-on business owner would have fewer gaps in their knowledge about the financial operation of their business than Sinclair did in his testimony, and that he and Gmerek were in regular communication throughout Gmerek’s period of employment.
The defense also accused Sinclair of concocting the fraud in order to distance the business from Gmerek’s personal issues with the Canadian Revenue Agency over his personal tax problems.
The prosecution argued that the defense’s position made little sense, that a business owner wouldn’t put his business at substantial risk, with over a million dollars tied up in contract, just to allow an employee to make money. Further, they would not then hire someone to find the financial irregularities in the books if he knew exactly what was going on.
They also made the argument that fraud doesn’t require intent, but instead knowledge of a dishonest act being committed and whether or not the defendant knew it could put them at risk, and that they had achieved proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt for those requirements.
The prosecutor also argued that in his testimony, Gmerek confessed to a different crime in an attempt to appear innocent of the charges before them.
If it was true that he was authorized to receive funds off the books, he would have been committing tax fraud.
The judge reserved her decision in the case until Jun. 8.
