When a Pseudonym Matches a Real Person’s Name
Canadian resident Kamyar Jahanrakhshan was accused of using counterfeit credit cards from four foreign banks during 2008–2009. Subsequently the Canadian RCMP sent inquiries to those foreign banks. In response the accused himself contacted the banks, posing as an RCMP officer to finagle information; he also advised bank officials they did not need to forward affidavits to the (real) RCMP.
Jahanrakhshan was arrested for obstructing a police investigation and intercepting affidavits when personating ‘Detective Frank Pohl, RCMP.’ For this lengthy precedent, our summary is confined to the personation charges, which were acquitted by the British Columbia Appeal Court (3 judges, unanimous decision).
Modern Courts: Definition of Personate
[22] The word personate is no longer commonly used, but its definition does not create difficulty. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (3rd edition) includes this definition: “Personate: to pretend to be (another), usually for purposes of fraud.” This definition is echoed in CCC s. 403(2) and captures the essence of the crime, namely identify theft.
[23] In the case before us, the accused adopted a false identity – that of Frank Pohl of the Canadian Police – with intent to obtain property (affidavits, documents, and a disabled credit card) from four foreign banks (1 in England, 1 in Abu Dhabi, and 2 in Australia). The accused could have been charged with personating a peace officer (CCC s. 130) but was not. Instead, the Crown sought to prove that he pretended to be an identifiable person whose name is Frank Pohl.
[24] A person does not commit the crime of personation simply by adopting a false identity. Canadian courts differentiate between ‘pseudonymity’ and ‘personation’.
Northrup Well-Established in Canada
[25] The judge said R. v. Northrup was correctly decided. In CCC s. 403 the words ‘another person, living or dead’ contemplate a real person. Those words are not apt to describe a fictitious entity. Section 403, then, is directed to situations in which a person adopts the identity of a real person.
[26] In the current case (Jahanrakhshan) the question is whether the accused adopted the identity of a real person when he described himself as ‘Frank Pohl.’ The evidence showed:
- A real person named Frank Pohl worked as an investigator for the Royal Bank of Canada before 2009. That date is marginal. As well, the real Pohl never worked for the RCMP, and never investigated the credit-card forgery which launched the Jahanrakhshan case.
- The accused called himself ‘Frank Pohl’ when he phoned and wrote to banks in England, Australia, and Abu Dhabi. But those were all foreign banks – their employees had no knowledge of the real Royal Bank investigator living in Canada.
- The accused himself never heard of the real Frank Pohl. In short, the evidence failed to connect the accused's use of the name ‘Frank Pohl’ with a real person.
Personation Requires Both Name and Identity
[27] To make out the crime of personation, it is not enough that a person exists somewhere whose name matches the pseudonym of the accused. The accused must also represent himself as the person who was personated. For example, if the accused had told bank officials that his name was William Shakespeare, the mere fact that a well-known person had that name would not suffice to make the accused guilty of personation. Even if his inspiration for choosing that name was familiarity with the Bard of Avon, it could not be said he was pretending to be the deceased playwright.
[28] Compare R. v. Westerdahl: A man entered Canada from the US identifying himself as Glen S. Miller. Later in court, the man said the name was fictitious; he used it because it was easy to remember “recalling to mind the late well-known American bandleader.” Note the bandleader was actually A. Glenn Miller rather than Glen S. Miller, but the case did not turn on subtleties of initials or double consonants. Rather, the question was whether, quite apart from the use of the name, the man adopted the identity of the dead bandleader. The evidence clearly indicated he had not. The bandleader vanished in 1944 at age 40, while the accused was not born until 1961. He made no reference to being the famous Glenn Miller.
[29] In many cases, mere use of the name of another real person will support an inference that an accused is personating that real person. If an accused attempts to take advantage of that real person's identity – for example to cash a cheque made out to that person, or to use that person's right to enter an otherwise-restricted area – it will be obvious that the accused is actively attempting to portray him or herself as that real person.
‘Special Attribute’ versus ‘Any Personal Characteristic’
[30] Personation does not require that an accused make use of special attributes associated with the real person. The requirement is broader: Evidence that the accused disguised himself using any personal characteristic of the real person infers that the accused purported to be that person, and did not simply coin a pseudonym.
[31] In the current case R. v. Jahanrakhshan the lower court relied on the existence of a genuine person named ‘Frank Pohl’ to sustain a conviction for personation. But there was no evidence that the accused represented himself as the real Pohl, instead of simply inventing a pseudonym. Testimony showed: the accused did not know the real bank investigator Frank Pohl; did not feign any attributes of the real Frank Pohl; in fact, did not pretend to be a bank investigator at all.
The evidence was incapable of showing more than that the accused used a pseudonym. That did not amount to personating ‘Frank Pohl.’ The Appeal Court overturned the conviction with respect to the four personation counts.
Alias Derived from One’s Own Name Not Impersonation – Yet
The B.C. Appeal Court allowed Mr. Jahanrakhshan to use the pseudonym ‘Frank Pohl’ and also allowed him liberal use of variations on his own name. Three rulings are of note:
B.C. Criminal Court
R. v. Jahanrakhshan (2011) BCSC 894
[39] There will be further terms on the probation order. First of all, it will be a condition that the accused will not use any names or possess any identification in names other than Kamyar Jahanrakhshan, Andy Jahanrakhshan, Andrew Jahanrakhshan, Andrew Rakhshan, or Andy Rakhshan, or Kamyar Rakhshan.
B.C. Criminal Court
R. v. Jahanrakhshan (2012) BCCA 341
[38] In support of his application to the court, Mr. Jahanrakhshan executed a statutory declaration which he signed 'Andrew Kamiar Rakhshan'. This was signed under penalty of perjury under the laws of Washington state.
[39] The Crown tendered a copy of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issued by Washington Superior Court in the civil case Andrew Rakhshan v. Whatcom County. [That civil case portrays the deeds of Andrew Rakhshan, but when those Findings were discussed during the criminal trial, the name Mr. Jahanrakhshan was substituted – thus, they are one and the same person.]
USA Civil Court
Rakhshan v. Whatcom County (2009) Washington Appeal Court (No 61697-8-I)
Andrew Rakhshan launched a civil suit seeking the return of five seized cars. The court ruled: “A thief has no right to possess stolen property.” Evidence: Rakhshan bought the cars from internet dealerships using a fake, novelty identification card bearing the name Andrew Rahshan which he represented as an authentic B.C. driver's licence. Rakhshan also sent a fraudulent fax to the French Rogatory Commission, to impede the Commission from taking testimony from international witnesses pertinent to his case.
A CBC News report says: “It's not the first time Jahanrakhshan has run afoul of the law. The American citizen has been convicted of theft in Washington state and sued numerous times by various litigants including a Vancouver collection agency and the University of British Columbia.” In time this convoluted case may set new law for impersonation, respecting when a person's ‘singular christened name’ sprouts derivative aliases intended for fraud.
__________________________________________
Legal Rulings on the Fraud Trial of Kamyar Jahanrakhshan,
(also known as Andrew Rakhshan)
Rakhshan v. Whatcom County, 2009, Washington (No 61697-8-I)
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2012 BCCA 341 (CanLII)
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2011 BCSC 894
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2011 BCSC 893
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2013 BCCA 322
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2008 BCSC 1687
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2011 BCSC 1527
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2013 BCCA 398
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2011 BCSC 1528
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2013 BCCA 196
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2013 BCCA 128
R. v. Jahanrakhshan, 2011 BCSC 1164
