Summary#

This bill would add a new Criminal Code offence for lying during anti–money laundering identity checks. It targets people who give false or misleading information—by statement or by leaving out facts—about who they are or who owns or controls a company, when a bank or other regulated organization must verify identity under federal law (PCMLTFA s.6.1). Penalties range from fines to prison time, with higher penalties for serious cases (Bill, new “Identity verification” offence, subs. (1)-(2)).

• Makes it a crime to knowingly give false or misleading identity or ownership information to PCMLTFA-regulated entities like banks, casinos, securities dealers, money services businesses, real estate brokers, accountants, and dealers in precious metals and stones (PCMLTFA s.5; Bill, subs. (1)).
• Covers direct lies, indirect lies through others, and lies by omission (Bill, subs. (1)).
• Applies to identity checks required by law, including details on ownership, control, or structure of a company (PCMLTFA s.6.1; Bill, subs. (1)).
• Maximum penalties: fine up to CAD $1,000,000 or up to 10 years in prison for an indictable offence; or, on summary conviction, fine up to $10,000 or up to 2 years less a day in prison (Bill, subs. (2)).
• Does not change what banks and other entities must collect; it creates a client-side criminal offence for lying during those checks (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1).

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If you open an account, send large transfers, buy real estate, or do other transactions that trigger identity checks, you must not knowingly give false or misleading information, including leaving out key facts (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1).
  • Honest mistakes are not covered; the offence requires that you act “knowingly” (Bill, subs. (1)).

• Small business owners, company directors, and beneficial owners

  • When a bank or other regulated entity asks who owns or controls your company, you must give accurate information on ownership, control, and structure. Knowingly giving false or incomplete information would be a crime (Bill, subs. (1)).
  • Using another person to pass along false information would still be covered, because the bill includes indirect statements (Bill, subs. (1)).

• Workers and intermediaries acting for clients

  • If you pass client identity or ownership information to a regulated entity, knowingly relaying false or misleading information could expose you to criminal liability, even if the falsehood comes through you from someone else (Bill, subs. (1)).

• Regulated entities under PCMLTFA (e.g., banks, credit unions, life insurers, securities dealers, money services businesses, casinos, real estate brokers, accountants, dealers in precious metals and stones)

  • Your existing identity verification duties do not change under this bill. The new offence applies to the person or entity providing information to you (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.5, s.6.1).

• Timing

  • If enacted without a delayed coming-into-force clause, the offence would take effect on Royal Assent under the federal Interpretation Act (general rule). Data unavailable on the bill’s current status.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No fiscal note or official cost estimate identified.
• The bill adds a Criminal Code offence but does not include appropriations or fees (Bill, subs. (1)-(2)).
• Potential impacts on policing, prosecutions, legal aid, and courts: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Closes a gap by criminalizing lies told to banks and other regulated entities during identity checks, including about beneficial owners, which current law does not expressly cover in the Criminal Code (Bill, subs. (1); PCMLTFA s.6.1).
• Deters the use of nominees and shell companies by making false ownership information a stand‑alone crime, with penalties up to $1,000,000 or 10 years for serious cases (Bill, subs. (2)).
• Supports anti–money laundering and anti-terrorist financing compliance by making it riskier to submit false KYC (know-your-customer) data, including omissions (Bill, subs. (1)).
• Provides prosecutorial flexibility: the Crown can proceed by indictment for serious conduct or by summary conviction for less serious cases (Bill, subs. (2)).

Opponents' View#

• Overlap concern: existing Criminal Code offences (e.g., fraud, forgery, uttering forged documents) and PCMLTFA-related enforcement may already address deceptive conduct, making a new offence unnecessary. Data unavailable on proven gaps.
• Enforcement challenge: proving that a person “knowingly” gave false or misleading information, especially for omissions or complex ownership structures, may limit effectiveness (Bill, subs. (1)).
• Penalty proportionality: maximum penalties (up to $1,000,000 or 10 years) could be seen as high relative to the underlying conduct when no financial loss is shown (Bill, subs. (2)).
• Scope and clarity: terms like “misleading” and coverage of indirect statements and omissions may create uncertainty and uneven application across sectors (Bill, subs. (1)).