scales.jpg

Fraud case adjourned over restitution concerns

A 32-year-old Innisfil man has pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 following an online vehicle sale in Huntsville that never materialized, with sentencing now delayed as the court considers whether restitution is realistic.

Court heard in the Ontario Court of Justice in Bracebridge that on Nov. 6, 2023, a Huntsville woman responded to a Facebook Marketplace advertisement for a Jeep Cherokee. After communicating with the seller, she agreed to send a $10,000 down payment by e-transfer.

Prosecutors said that after receiving the money, Michael Ranger stopped responding to the victim’s texts and emails and did not follow through with delivering the vehicle.

Ranger entered a guilty plea to fraud over $5,000. A joint submission from the Crown and defence proposed a suspended sentence with 24 months of probation, along with a requirement that Ranger repay the $10,000 to the victim.

However, Justice Edward Carleton expressed concern about the feasibility of repayment. 

As a result, sentencing was adjourned to a later date to allow for further information regarding Ranger’s financial circumstances and the likelihood that the victim can be compensated.

Don’t miss out on Doppler!

Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!

Click here to support local news

Join the discussion:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. Please ensure you include both your first and last name and abide by our community guidelines. Submissions that do not include the commenter's full name or that do not abide by our community guidelines will not be published.

3 Comments

  1. Reuben Pyette says:

    This is an ongoing issue with scammers online. If they can’t repay than their property needs to be seized for payment.

  2. Alex Armstrong says:

    I am sure any fraudster will be able to hide his money and make it look as though he can not pay it back. That is no reason at all to not order him to pay it back. He should also be ordered to cover any expenses the victim incurred as well as more to discourage doing it again.

  3. Jenn Sprague says:

    Who in their right mind would blindly etransfer 10K without even seeing or having the vehicle inspected?? Make this make sense.