Brampton Man Sentenced to Three Years for False $34 Million Charitable Donation Claims

A Brampton man has been sentenced to a three-year jail term after admitting to falsely claiming charitable donations worth $34 million on tax returns he prepared for clients, Canadian tax authorities announced Friday, providing details from the court proceedings.

Festus Bayden, identified as a partner in a tax preparation business operating under the name E & F Tax Associates. The business was also being conducted by the name Bankay Financial Services, Inc. in Toronto and Brampton.

Canada Revenue Agency informed that Bayden was found to have submitted over $34 million in false charitable donations on individual income tax returns for more than 30 clients spanning the 2004 to 2006 tax years.

“Bayden told his clients that a larger refund or reduced taxes could be obtained if they made a charitable donation for an amount that was far less than what was actually claimed on their income tax returns,” the CRA said. “Bayden then provided his clients with false charitable donation receipts in the names of various charitable organizations to which he was connected.”

He charged his clients roughly 10 percent of the face value of the false charitable donations that were claimed.

After being charged, Bayden fled Canada but was apprehended upon his return to the country on June 13, 2023. Subsequently, on February 27, 2024, the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton sentenced him to three years behind bars after he pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.

“The CRA continues to aggressively pursue tax evasion and false claims with all the tools available to it,” the agency said. “The CRA works to make sure that individuals and businesses report all income earned and only claim benefits to which they are entitled, so that important benefit programs can be administered to those who need them.”

The release warned that any individuals or businesses who underreport income or claim losses or benefits to which they are not entitled, might have to repay the benefit amounts and could be subject to “other possible action.”

Navneet Kaur