Court rejects appeal by convicted fraudster Daniel P. Reeve

A man at the heart of one of Waterloo Region’s biggest financial fraud cases has tried to have his conviction overturned. CTV’s Heather Senoran reports.

The man responsible for one of the largest fraud cases in Waterloo Region has failed in his efforts to overturn his 2017 conviction.

Daniel P. Reeve, a former financial advisor, raised approximately $10.8 million in a “Ponzi-like” scheme involving 41 victims.

He was found guilty on two charges – defrauding the public of over $5,000 and theft over $5,000 – and sentenced to 14 years behind bars. Reeve’s sentence was reduced to 10 years on appeal and, due to time already served, he was released from prison in 2020.

Reeve recently filed another appeal, this time to set aside his conviction. His main issue was the wording of the charge, which referred to his victims as “the public.”

In April, his lawyers argued the case in Ontario’s appeals court.

“According to the appellant, a fraud on the public must involve a fraudulent solicitation directed at the public at large, or at least at a particular segment of the public indiscriminately,” their decision read. “He argues that the fraud must be wide-reaching, extending beyond specific victims identified in advance of the implementation of the fraudulent scheme.”

Reeve’s lawyers noted the complainants were referred to him from long-time clients, family, friends or through Reeve’s seminars or speaking engagements. They also argued each investment was different and had varied results.

The court disagreed and Reeve’s appeal was ultimately dismissed.

“There is no merit to this argument,” the decision stated, noting that victims were regularly grouped together when they are “interconnected through their victimization.”

It went on to explain that: “the appellant lured his victims with the promise of low-risk investments in specific ventures but then used the money for his own purposes. The trial judge found that rather than invest the funds as promised, the appellant used the investors’ money to offset a ‘ferocious cash crunch’ in his companies. The funds were also used to pay $3 million in support and equalization to the appellant’s ex-wife, and to facilitate what the trial judge described as his ‘gold-plated tastes’ and ‘large lifestyle’, which included a driver and a stretch limo, a BMW 740, two Escalades, a Land Rover and a Porsche. Further, the appellant used the funds to make payments to former investors in a ‘Ponzi-like distribution.’”

The appeals court concluded that “defrauding the public” was the appropriate charge.

“The fact that the appellant selected his victims in different ways, or that over time he found it necessary to develop more than one Ponzi scheme in order to keep his companies afloat, fund his lifestyle, or make payments to his ex-wife, does not detract from the characterization of the fraud as having been on ‘the public.’”

The appeals court cited a previous case where it was determined that “to describe the frauds alleged and proved by the Crown as a number of individual frauds against individual victims would mis-describe the nature of the fraudulent scheme and significantly understate its seriousness.”

Reeve’s lawyers also argued the trial judge erred in his treatment of expert evidence. They specifically mentioned a forensic accounting report from the Crown which the defence called “unreliable,” while “unfairly” assessing their own submissions.

“We disagree,” the appeals court said in their decision. “At trial, the appellant conceded the admissibility of the Crown expert’s report, and the trial judge carefully analyzed the report and gave sound reasons for accepting it. Moreover, the trial judge accepted certain parts of the defence expert’s evidence and gave cogent reasons for rejecting other aspects of it. These were findings that were the trial judge’s to make and we see no reversible error.”

Change to parole conditions denied

Reeve had hoped to start a business following his release from prison and sought a change to his parole conditions.

The Parole Board of Canada denied his request in 2019 “to avoid further victim financial harm.”

It also cited comments from the original trial judge who called Reeve’s actions, “an overwhelming case of fraud and theft perpetrated by a devious, clever, calculating, cold-hearted man who has absolutely no remorse for the many lives that he ruined.”