Napoleon Mercredi with his lawyer Garth Bendig. (Nigel Maxwell/ paNOW Staff)

By Nigel Maxwell

Closing arguments

“It’s so highly irresponsible”: Crown lays out closing arguments at fraud trial

Oct 26, 2019 | 10:58 AM

The words irresponsible, unreasonable and dishonest were mentioned multiple times Friday during a hearing at Prince Albert Court of Queen’s Bench, to describe the alleged actions of a former Saskatchewan First Nations Chief.

Napoleon Mercredi, who was chief of Fond Du Lac First Nation from 2009 to 2011, is on trial for charges of fraud, theft over $5,000 and breach of trust.

Crown lawyer Darren Howarth spent over six hours laying out his reasons why Mercredi should be found guilty. Among the 18 points discussed by Howarth were how Mercredi allegedly pocketed $280,000 of band money which would have otherwise gone to economic development, to assist the band’s fire fighters, or for band emergencies. This money was on top of what Mercredi was receiving for travel allowance and salary.

“It’s so highly irresponsible, it’s fraudulent,” Howarth said.

In total it has been alleged over $775,000 was misappropriated during Mercredi’s time as chief, amounting to 6.6 per cent of the band’s total annual budget. From that money it has been alleged over $25,000 was used by Mercredi to buy a truck at Lakeland Ford. Mercredi has also been accused of taking $197,000 from a line of credit set up for the band by Prince Albert Grand Council. Howarth pointed out that prior to being elected Chief, Mercredi had been the band’s economic development officer for 12 years, but that position was cut when Mercredi was elected, and all the quarterly payments that went to the band suddenly stopped too.

Milestone anniversaries

Parkland Ambulance turns 50

22h ago

Court proceedings

Woman involved in death of Saskatoon mother, handed 18 year prison sentence

Nov 21, 2024

Brunch n' Lunch

Eggsmart: The new take on breakfast

Nov 21, 2024

“And where does the money go,” Howarth asked. “It goes all to him.”

One of Howarth’s final submissions was focused on when Mercredi spent his money, and where he made transactions. Howarth claimed the value of the transactions made at the casinos was worth $161,000, with over $65,000 being withdrawn in cash from the casino’s ATM machine. During a video recorded statement to the investigating officer, Mercredi had said he cashed his cheques at the casino, because the bank was often closed at that time.

“We know why people withdraw money at casinos, it’s to gamble,” Howarth argued.

Howarth encouraged Judge G.A Meschisnick to consider the evidence as a whole, and not look at individual pieces. Howarth, who had cited a number of cases to define what could be classified as convictable fraudulent behaviour, explained that the act needs to be looked at in terms of would it seem reasonable for someone to have that much money, and does the act have the consequence of deprivation of another.

”By requesting money he knew he was engaging in fraudulent behaviour,” Howarth explained, on the argument by the defence that Mercredi had merely asked for the money from PAGC but had not been the one to authorize it.

Howarth argued that even though Mercredi had not authorized the cheques, he was still in a position of trust as a public official and should have realized that what he was doing was potentially causing harm to others.

Several times during Howarth’s submission, Judge Meschisnick stopped him and asked questions. One point he questioned was Mercredi’s alleged credit card spending over two years for personal purchases. The judge pointed out that it broke down to $65,000 each year and $5,000 per month. Howarth replied to that question referring the judge back to the total amount of money, and whether that seemed reasonable.

Judge Meschnisnick also raised a point which had been brought up prior by the defence during proceedings last week regarding whether it was possible someone else had been using Mercredi’s bank card while he was away on business trips. That would explain why it might appear Mercredi was not where he said he was. Howarth agreed it was possible, but added there was no evidence to support that theory.

“Reasonable inference or speculative, that’s for you to decide,” Howarth replied.

Mercredi sat calmly during Friday’s proceedings listening intently to Howarth’s arguments. Several times he could be seen shaking his head in disagreement to the evidence discussed. The case has now been adjourned to next Thursday, at which time defence lawyer Garth Bendig is expected to make his final submissions.

Nigel.maxwell@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @nigelmaxwell