I am perplexed at a comment I have heard shared by a couple shareholders including this comment in dLloydc,s post; " I was told intent of fraud is a very hard charge to prove."

http://agoracom.com/ir/steliasmines/forums/discussion/topics/614090-happy-friday/messages/1925148#message

referring to a recent RCMP investigation of SLI.

I find this comment very interesting that apparently was made by an officer of the case, whereas I don,t readily see how fraud is so difficult to prove. Here is a little information on how easily fraud may be proven, perhaps it is difficult in this case, but I would not agree that it is difficult in ALL cases. I will add a tidbit of research; even "omission of material fact" can be considered fraud . I bolded the last paragraph of this post for particular interest.

Is fraud the same things as theft?

No. When a person experiences theft, they do not intend to part with item or money that has been taken from them. However, in a fraud, the victim does intend to part with possession, but does so on the basis of false representations.[3]

What constitutes fraud?

To defraud is to deprive by deceit. Section 380 of the Criminal Code divides fraud into two categories:

• Fraud as a result of deceit or falsehood, or
• Fraud committed by other means

Courts have held that “other fraudulent means” includes any conduct that can be characterized as “dishonest” and causes a deprivation.[4] . Dishonesty “connotes an underhanded design which has the effect, or which engenders the risk of depriving others of what is theirs.”[5] A “deprivation” means prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interest of the victim.[6] The courts have also held that a person may be guilty of fraud if he promised to do something without the intention of doing it[7] and that a person may be guilty of fraud although the victim has not suffered any financial loss.[8]

What if the supposed fraud was unintentional?

In order to be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must clearly establish that you meant to commit the crime. According to the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the intent requirement is satisfied “when the Crown proves that the accused knew the facts of the transaction, the circumstances in which it was undertaken, and what the consequences might be of carrying it to a conclusion.”[9] The SCC has confirmed that the accused “does not have to appreciate the dishonesty of his or her acts” to be guilty.[10] In other words, the fact that you didn’t think you were doing anything wrong, will not be a successful defence.

http://elawtalk.com/ultimate-guide-to-criminal-law-in-british-columbia/about-criminal-fraud-charges-and-punishment-in-canada/