I. Case Background
This case occurred on August 8, 2018. At the time of the incident, the Government of Canada at the federal level and the relevant provincial governments were operating under their established administrations.
This document does not make any criminal accusation against any individual political figure. It serves solely as a factual record and archival documentation concerning institutional and execution-level responsibility.
⸻
File Numbers / Court File Numbers
• C.A.: 500-10-008085-233
• C.Q.: 550-01-109896-193 (002)
⸻
II. Judicial and Court Personnel
• Isabelle Michaud (AM00F1)
Prosecutor / Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP), Gatineau, Québec
Role: Crown prosecutor; applicant in appeal proceedings
• Rosemarie Millar, J.C.Q.
Judge of the Court of Québec (trial judge)
• Elizabeth Rivera Cortés
Judge / Clerk (signing judge / court clerk on judgment documents)
• Mark Schrager, J.A.
Judge, Québec Court of Appeal
• Stephen W. Hamilton, J.C.A.
Judge, Québec Court of Appeal
• Richard Meredith, J.S.Q.
Justice of the Peace
• Madame Boutayna Boutchiche (#238050)
Commissioner for Oaths
Languages: Arabic, French (professional background information)
• Ariane Simard-Trudel
Clerk at the hearing
• Mélanie Camiré
Courtroom Clerk (Greffière-audiencière)
⸻
III. Lawyers / Legal Representatives
• Stéphane Rolland
Crown Prosecutor
• Leonardo Rossomano
Counsel for the Accused
• Kim Schofield
Defence Counsel
Telephone: 416-821-9721
• Me Lacoste
Lawyer (filed motions for extension during appeal/service proceedings)
⸻
IV. Parties and Related Persons
• Victim A
Accused / Offender
• Victim B
Co-accused / Related accused (bank draft forgery and use)
⸻
V. Institutions and Witnesses (Non-Judicial)
• Benoît Filteault
Senior Director – Principal Security Division
Société des Casinos du Québec (Québec Casino Corporation)
• Louis-Philippe Saumure
Director / Employee – National Bank of Canada
Role: Bank witness; affiant (Affidavit provider)
⸻
VI. Involved Institutions (Non-Individual)
• Société des Casinos du Québec (SCQ)
• Loto-Québec
• National Bank of Canada
• Court of Québec / Québec Court of Appeal
• Hilton Lac-Leamy
3, Boulevard du Casino, Gatineau–Ottawa, Quebec, J8Y 6X4, Canada
Note: This section contains no personal evaluations and no accusatory descriptions; it is a factual listing only.
⸻
Key Elements of the Case (Judicial-Elements Version)
1.Time
• Key incident date: August 8, 2018
• Pre-incident background: From 2015 onward (period of long-term contact and guidance between Victim O and Chen)
• Subsequent related period: Several years following August 8, 2018 (continued occurrence of related abnormal events)
⸻
2.Place
• Victim O’s residence: On the day of the incident, Chen proposed the “profit opportunity” at this location
• Scarborough (Toronto): Location where the original bank draft was obtained
• Ottawa:
• Destination of travel
• Location of the casino
• Hilton Casino du Lac-Leamy parking lot and casino interior:
• Gathering of multiple involved individuals
• Some individuals armed with firearms
• Location of fund exchange and transfer activities
⸻
3.Persons Involved
• Victim O:
• Named payee on the bank draft
• Super VIP client of the casino
• Not the source of funds; not the controller of funds
• Chen (Key Individual Involved):
• Long-term director of related actions since 2015
• Proposed the “profit opportunity”
• Introduced individuals and arranged routes
• Received and carried cash out of the casino
• Jay (witty):
• Key liaison and on-site controller
• Arranged timing and transportation
• Exercised control inside and outside the casino
• Oscar:
• Accompanied Jay while armed
• Present in Scarborough and at the casino
• Sam (Kabir Singh XXXX):
• Accompanied Victim O inside the casino on the day of the incident
• Maintained communication with Jay
⸻
4.Casino and Financial Institution
• Casino: Hilton Casino du Lac-Leamy
• Address:
3, Boulevard du Casino, Gatineau–Ottawa, Quebec, J8Y 6X4, Canada
• Financial Institution: National Bank of Canada
• Form of funds:
• Bank Draft
• Non-cash, non-anonymous
• Bearing the name of Victim O
• Amount: Over CAD 600,000
Key Conduct
The bank draft was delivered to Victim O by Chen and verified by the casino and the bank. Subsequently, Chen retrieved the cash exchanged by the casino under casino surveillance.
• After receiving images of the bank draft (approximately CAD 600,000), the casino completed verification within minutes and proactively arranged flights, cash, and chips for Victim O.
• The funds were exchanged inside Hilton Casino du Lac-Leamy, delivered to Chen inside a Hilton hotel room, and subsequently handed over by Chen to Jay in the Hilton hotel parking environment.
• The entire process is recorded by casino surveillance and is verifiable.
⸻
Full Case Statement of Victim O
This was a very important day.
As usual, Chen came to Victim O’s home. He lay on the sofa, took a phone call, and then said to Victim O:
“There is a job where you can make tens of thousands of Canadian dollars. Do you want to do it?”
Victim O asked:
“What is it?”
For Victim O, who was extremely poor at the time, this news brought great excitement.
Chen said:
“Someone has died. There is a lot of money in his account. His family wants to cash it out through a casino.”
Victim O replied:
“Okay, do I need to go to the casino to withdraw it for them?”
(Over the years of association with Chen, he had often helped others do similar things. Victim O had no bank account, no credit, and no money at the time, so immediately agreed. At that time, even a few thousand dollars—or a few hundred—was critically important to Victim O.)
Chen continued:
“Later you’ll get a bank draft with your name on it. I’ll go with you to the Ottawa casino. You exchange it for cash, and I’ll give you a few tens of thousands.”
(Victim O was a super VIP client of the Ottawa casino and had lost more than CAD 5 million there…)
Victim O replied:
“Okay. When do we go? How much is it?”
Chen said:
“Waiting for the call. Call the casino first and ask.”
Victim O replied:
“That’s great.”
(Extremely excited at the time.)
Chen took several calls and said with a smile:
“You’ll be happy this time. Book the ticket.”
Victim O asked:
“Which day? The draft has to be verified by the casino first. What’s the amount?”
Chen replied:
“I’m waiting for them to send me the photo.”
Soon, Chen asked in English on the phone:
“Are you sure it’s today? Can it make it?”
The other party replied: It must be today—August 8, 2018.
Chen then showed Victim O a photo of a bank draft bearing Victim O’s name, for over CAD 600,000, issued by the National Bank of Canada.
Victim O sent the photo of the bank draft by email and text message to Hilton Casino du Lac-Leamy for verification. The casino replied very quickly and politely:
“Ms. O, you may come and play at any time. The money has already been prepared for you. What time would you like your flight? We can book it for you.”
(Normal procedure: casino faxes to the bank → bank confirms funds → casino notifies the client. For a draft close to CAD 700,000, both the bank and casino must be particularly cautious.)
Victim O was extremely happy and immediately replied, “Depart today.” The casino then booked the flight. Everything progressed very smoothly.
Victim O packed and went with Chen to Scarborough to retrieve the original bank draft. Two Middle Eastern men with beards were waiting there: one named Jay (witty, blue jays), and the other named Oscar. Both were Afghan-origin Muslims.
Jay was very talkative. He shook Victim O’s hand and said:
“Nice to meet you, how you doing?”
Victim O replied:
“Thank you.”
Jay continued:
“Today is a good day. It’s a lucky day. For Chinese, 8-8-8 is a very lucky number.”
Victim O wondered why this foreigner knew Chinese culture so well.
Jay handed Victim O an envelope containing the bank draft that had already been verified by the casino and the bank. They then left in haste. Victim O and Chen rushed to the airport.
Due to flight delay, they could not depart. Jay then called and required them to travel by land, insisting that they arrive at the casino on August 8, 2018. Jay arranged a private car, and Victim O and Chen departed immediately.
Upon arrival at the casino parking lot, Jay and Oscar were already there, along with several young men, two of whom were armed. Jay was clearly the leader on site, directing everything. He demanded Victim O’s full cooperation and assigned people to follow Victim O into the casino to prevent her from withdrawing the money alone.
At that moment, Victim O met the man who would later accompany her for seven years through hardship—code-named K.
At first sight, Victim O was drawn to his clear and kind eyes. K was tall, slim, clean, and neatly dressed.
K greeted Victim O gently, and she immediately felt a sense of closeness.
K and Chen then accompanied Victim O into the Ottawa casino. Victim O handed the bank draft to the responsible staff and completed the signature. Shortly thereafter, the casino manager personally delivered the chips.
Victim O and K began playing baccarat. Chen did not participate, fearing exposure on surveillance. They won some chips. During this time, K repeatedly received and replied to messages from Jay.
Casino surveillance clearly recorded Victim O exchanging the bank draft for cash and handing it to Chen, and Chen leaving the casino with the cash.
Chen then paid Victim O CAD 35,000. Victim O herself additionally won about CAD 20,000. They did not stay at the casino hotel that night but went to another accommodation. The next morning, they returned to Toronto by private car.
All of the above processes and key steps are supported by verifiable records.
⸻
Subsequent Facts
In the days after returning home, Sam proactively called to check on O and told her that on the day they returned from Ottawa, Jay suspected Sam had contact with O and did not want him to continue contact. Jay was concerned that Kabir might also privately become friends with O.
O had no idea that the Ottawa incident had already been publicly reported, with her real name and photograph released by police and media, making her the focus of Ottawa. Without any trial, media and police had already “pre-judged” O.
Ottawa media and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police disseminated Victim O’s full name and photograph nationwide without any final adjudication of the case. This public reporting remained searchable online in 2024; it is now no longer accessible.
⸻
Subsequent Gambling Control and Violence
Later, as before, Chen—knowing O had cash—would demand that O go gambling and tell her of new profit opportunities. Everything appeared simple and normal. Chen took O to Vancouver, staying in luxury casinos arranged under O’s name.
At the Vancouver casino, O lost all her money. Chen would provoke O emotionally when she was winning, urging continued betting until everything was lost; when she lost, he scolded her.
During this period, Sam called O daily, singing and talking to her, allowing her to feel warmth again in despair. He made her realize a relationship without exploitation or blame.
Their relationship became intimate. They dated secretly behind Chen’s back and eventually had sexual relations.
When O told Chen she liked Sam and wanted to break up, Chen became furious, grabbed O by the neck, and threw her to the kitchen floor. O’s nanny Jennifer and the children witnessed this.
During the breakup struggle, Chen violently smashed O’s phone. O fled in panic, ran to a nearby gas station, and used a public phone to call Sam for help.
⸻
Public Arrest by the RCMP
Exactly six months later, one morning, while O was dropping her two children at school, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stopped her vehicle at the front gate of the school, in full view of parents lined up, searched her, and arrested her publicly. The children cried on the spot, filled with fear and humiliation.
Police stated that O was a “gambling fraud suspect” and took her away in public. That moment became the most painful scar of O’s life.
At the time, O’s son was 7 years old and her daughter 11.
O was taken to the police station for questioning and psychological testing. Police asked her to identify two other suspects involved in forged bank drafts; O stated she did not know them. After several hours, O was released and informed she could hire a lawyer.
After returning home, O told everything to her mother and contacted Chen for legal help. Later, O discovered that online information was being controlled and that many supposed “choices” had already been arranged.
The internet recommended Kim Schofield, claiming that her father was one of the three highest federal judges and extremely authoritative.
Chen paid the legal fees on O’s behalf. O was not present and received no receipt.
⸻
RCMP Public Arrest (Supplementary Explanation)
The RCMP could have arrested O at her home or at any time.
Instead, they chose to wait near her home, follow her, and arrest her at the school gate while she was dropping off her children—where all parents could witness the arrest.
⸻
Ongoing Impact on Minor Children
From that day forward, O’s children’s lives were completely altered.
At school, O’s children began to face exclusion from teachers and other parents. O’s son wished to attend a classmate’s birthday party but was explicitly refused by the other parent, who said:
“I don’t like his mother. Don’t let him come to our home.”
From that day, the children gradually distanced themselves from O. In their perception, aversion and rejection toward their mother developed. They slowly withdrew and no longer relied on or trusted O as before.
What was destroyed was not only O’s personal dignity, but also the most precious sense of confidence and security essential to her children’s adolescent development. This harm cannot be measured or compensated by money.
Between 2017 and 2018, O’s son began frequently listening to Alan Walker’s music. Almost all music on the child’s phone consisted of Alan Walker’s works. To share common ground with her son, O also began learning about the artist and downloading his albums.