Mathieu Goulet could receive a sentence of eight months’ imprisonment in society or a fine (charitable donation) $ 4000 for attempting to defraud his former spouse of $ 185,000.
These are the proposals made by the Crown and defense before the judge Sonia Rouleau Thursday at Roberval Courthouse. The latter was convicted on September 24, the pharmacist removed to have contracted a false legal mortgage on a cottage in order to fool his ex-wife during separation procedures.
Mr. Luc Tourangeau believes that his client is not a criminal and he has done so in the context of the separation exacerbated by a dispute with his uncle on businesses. Mr. Tourengeau adds that his ex-wife did not have to pay this amount. The ploy was discovered in the Superior Court. The gesture, though serious, is less incriminating. Moreover, it is an isolated act, he said.
He believes Mathieu Goulet suffered its true worth by being dragged into court and the media coverage the case has attracted. “As he lives in a small community, it has had a huge impact on his life. It affected him a lot and I am convinced that his conviction will complicate his professional career in the future, “he noted.
Besides, Mathieu Goulet serving a sanction of five years of radiation as a pharmacist. One element that has held to remind the judge the Crown Attorney Julie Lajoie, who believes that this and the fact that he pleaded guilty in another fraud of history demonstrate that it has an “elastic morality.”
“He was the faithful of someone fraud. He did it by making false prescriptions as pharmacists and making false invoices to the City of Saint-Félicien. It’s greed that led him to attempt to steal $ 185,000 to the mother of his child. It is greed, greed and greed, “she repeated.
She jousted that during his trial he denied the allegations and showed no remorse.
This is why it considers that eight months’ imprisonment in the company, half with surveillance 24 hours on 24, complete 200 hours of community service, a sentence is fair in the circumstances.
His lawyer, who carried the guilty verdict in the Court of Appeal, think a $ 4,000 donation is a reasonable sentence in the circumstances.
Roll the judge will determine the sentence on May 24