If you have a
U.S. conviction involving fraud (credit card fraud, identity theft,
benefit fraud, cheque fraud, wire fraud-type conduct), Canadian officers may
assess you for criminal inadmissibility under IRPA s. 36 after
completing a criminal equivalency analysis (matching your U.S. offence
to the closest Canadian offence).
Source: IRPA
s. 36
1) Canada’s
fraud baseline (what officers usually match to)
A) Criminal
Code s. 380 (Fraud)
Canada’s
general fraud offence is Criminal Code s. 380. It covers fraud “by
deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means.”
Source: Criminal
Code s. 380
Punishment
and “seriousness” threshold
Canada’s fraud
penalties depend on the amount:
● Fraud over $5,000: indictable; max 14 years.
● Fraud $5,000 or less: hybrid; max 2 years on indictment (or
summary).
Source: Criminal
Code s. 380
Why it
matters for inadmissibility:
● A foreign conviction that equates to Canadian fraud over
$5,000 can fall into a serious criminality analysis (because the
Canadian maximum is 14 years).
● Even fraud under $5,000 can trigger
inadmissibility for foreign nationals because hybrid offences are treated as
indictable under IRPA.
Source: IRPA
s. 36(1), 36(2), 36(3)(a)
B) Related
Canadian offences that often appear in U.S. “fraud” files
Depending on
the facts/statute, Canadian equivalency might also involve:
● Identity theft (Criminal Code s. 402.2)
● Identity fraud (Criminal Code s. 403)
● Forgery (Criminal Code s. 366)
Sources:
● s.
402.2
● s. 403
● s. 366
2) Equivalency chart: California, New York, Minnesota → Canadian fraud offences
Important: Fraud laws vary across states and can be
broad “umbrella” statutes. Equivalency depends on the exact section,
amount/loss, and the record.
State | Common
fraud/identity offences | What they
typically cover | Likely
Canadian equivalent(s) |
California | Penal Code §
484 (theft umbrella includes false pretenses/embezzlement) | Taking
property by false pretenses / theft-based fraud theories | Often s.
380 (fraud) and/or theft offences depending on facts |
California | Penal Code §
532 (false pretenses) | Obtaining
money/property by false pretenses | Often s.
380 (fraud) |
New York | Penal Law §
190.65 (scheme to defraud 1st) | Ongoing scheme
to defraud multiple persons / obtain property by false pretenses | Often s.
380 (fraud) |
New York | Penal Law §
190.78 (identity theft 2nd) | Identity theft
offences | Often s.
402.2 / s. 403 (identity theft/fraud) |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §
609.52 (theft includes swindle/false representation-type theft) | Broad theft
statute covering “swindle” style fraud | Often s.
380 (fraud) and/or theft offences depending on facts |
Minnesota | Minn. Stat. §
609.527 (identity theft) | Identity
theft/identity fraud offences | Often s.
402.2 / s. 403 |
U.S. statute
links:
3) How fraud
can lead to serious vs ordinary criminality (IRPA s. 36)
Serious
criminality (IRPA s. 36(1))
Applies to foreign
nationals and permanent residents. A foreign conviction can trigger serious
criminality where the Canadian equivalent is punishable by a maximum of at
least 10 years.
● Fraud over $5,000 in Canada has a 14-year maximum → commonly
serious criminality once equivalency is established.
Sources: Criminal
Code s. 380
Ordinary
criminality (IRPA s. 36(2))
Applies to foreign
nationals. A foreign conviction can trigger ordinary criminality if the
Canadian equivalent would be indictable—and IRPA treats hybrid
offences as indictable for this purpose.
Sources: IRPA
s. 36(2), 36(3)(a)
4) Why fraud
equivalency is often “record-driven”
Many U.S.
statutes are broader “umbrella” offences. The Canadian match often depends on:
● the exact statute subsection
● the loss amount / value
● whether identity documents were used
● whether it was a “scheme” over time
● the charging language and plea/factual basis
Documents
that usually decide the outcome:
● charging document
● statute text (as in force at the time)
● judgment/disposition
● restitution/loss findings (if any)
● sentencing order and proof of completion
Call A&M
Canadian Immigration Law Corporation: (204) 442-2786
If you need to visit, study,
work, or immigrate to Canada and you have a fraud/identity offence from
California, New York, or Minnesota, a document-based equivalency review can
confirm the closest Canadian offence (often s. 380 and/or identity
offences) and how IRPA s. 36 may apply.
Disclaimer
(Educational Use Only)
This content is
for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal
advice. Immigration laws, regulations, and officer practices can change. U.S.
fraud laws vary by state and can change over time, and outcomes depend on
the exact statute section, offence date, value/loss findings, and official
court records.
Sources
(hyperlinks)
● Canada — Criminal
Code s. 380 (Fraud)
● Canada — Criminal
Code s. 402.2 (Identity theft)
● Canada — Criminal
Code s. 403 (Identity fraud)
● Canada — Criminal
Code s. 366 (Forgery)
● California — PC
484 (theft umbrella)
● California — PC
532 (false pretenses)
● New York — PL 190.65 (scheme
to defraud)
● New York — PL 190.78 (identity
theft 2nd)
● Minnesota — 609.52 (theft incl.
swindle)
● Minnesota — 609.527 (identity
theft)
Frequently Asked Questions
Not
automatically. The key is the Canadian equivalent (often s. 333.1) and
how IRPA s. 36 applies to the specific person and record.
It can be. Unauthorized-use statutes may be analyzed against Canada’s s. 335 (and in some situations other offences depending on the record).
The exact
statute section, charging language, plea/judgment, and any admitted
facts—especially where the statute covers multiple theories (theft vs use).
