Owner of Old Montreal building that caught fire is a lawyer who pleaded guilty to tax evasion

"The investigation showed that, for the 2012 and 2013 tax years, Mr. Benamor failed to report income totalling $469,591 from 21 drafts cashed in a personal bank account and not declared as income. These amounts came from a fraudulent scheme."

Author of the article:

Paul Cherry • Montreal Gazette
Published Mar 20, 2023

The owner of the burned out building in Old Montreal slowly being taken apart as police search for potentially more victims of last week’s five-alarm blaze is a lawyer who pleaded guilty to tax evasion two years ago and is currently practising with what the Quebec Bar describes as “limitations.”

Emile-Haim Benamor, 60, is listed as the owner of the building at the corner of Place D’Youville and du Port St. He is a defence lawyer currently listed on the bar’s website as “licensed to practice with limitations.”

Firefighters continue to investigate the scene of the fire in Old Montreal on Monday March 20, 2023. PHOTO BY DAVE SIDAWAY /Montreal Gazette

Benamor did not return a call from The Montreal Gazette on Monday requesting an interview about the fire. The bar also did not reply to a request to explain why he is practising with limitations.

The limitations might be due to how, in 2021, Benamor pleaded guilty to tax evasion at the Montreal courthouse. The case was brought against him by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
According to a statement issued by the CRA following Benamor’s guilty plea, “the investigation showed that, for the 2012 and 2013 tax years, Mr. Benamor failed to report income totalling $469,591 from 21 drafts cashed in a personal bank account and not declared as income. These amounts came from a fraudulent scheme. The CRA’s evidence does not show that at the time the drafts were cashed, Mr. Benamor was aware that the origin of the funds came from such a scheme.”

The attorney previously practised at Montreal’s Youth courthouse and, in 2013, he was the subject of a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that reversed the convictions of two teenagers who pleaded guilty to an armed robbery. The convictions were overturned because the youths said they felt Benamor pressured them into pleading guilty right away.

The appellate court decision describes how one of the teens was approached by Benamor at the Youth courthouse the first day he was supposed to appear before a judge. The youth pleaded not guilty during his first court appearance and was told he would hear from his lawyer before the case returned to court two months later for what was supposed to be a formality hearing.

When that day arrived, the teen showed up in court having not heard from Benamor beforehand. Instead, the lawyer met him at the courthouse that day and ushered him into a small meeting room. Benamor told the youth to plead guilty to the armed robbery that day. The teenager said he had no intention of pleading guilty and wanted to see the police report on the robbery first.

The teen also said his mother was trying to find a parking spot outside the Youth courthouse and asked Benamor to wait for her before anything was decided.

“The appellant repeatedly reiterated his desire not to plead guilty and said he wanted to consult the police report. The lawyer repeated that he must plead guilty in order to take advantage of the inexperience of the prosecution lawyer and obtain a reduced sentence,” the Court of Appeal wrote.

“Even though the conversation was short-lived, the lawyer grew impatient and walked out of the office telling (the teen) to wait for him in the courtroom until his mother returned. The appellant claimed to have been in a state of shock and felt jostled. When his mother arrived, the lawyer met with her. She asked him why the appellant must plead guilty, to which the lawyer replied that he is an accomplice because of his presence at the scene of the offence and that ‘there was nothing to be done’.

“The lawyer told the appellant to answer ‘yes’ to all the questions in order to avoid the making the judge angry, which he repeated to (the teen) just before pleading guilty. The (teen) says he was ‘very scared.’ He therefore answered ‘yes’ to all the questions and admitted his guilt, although he did not agree with the facts as alleged (in court) and would have liked to defend himself.”

When he was later asked to supply a sample of his DNA, the teen couldn’t locate Benamor at the courthouse and expressed his concerns to a social worker. The social worker told the teen he should find a new lawyer.

The boy’s mother gave a statement for the appeal that confirmed what her son recounted. She said her son ultimately refused to sign the probation order Benmor had arranged for because he did not want to plead guilty.

The other teen charged in the armed robbery said he experienced the same pressure to plead guilty right away.

When Benamor provided a statement for the appeal, he said he believed both teens would have been convicted if they went to trial. He also said he made an agreement with the prosecution for lenient sentences in exchange for the guilty pleas.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial because the statements from the teens and the mother were “sufficiently reliable and its impact on the issues at issue is significant enough to declare it admissible as evidence. On the other hand, (Benamor’s) statement, whose description of the events is somewhat less detailed, is not enough to rule them out.”

In 2008, Benamor was mentioned in a document filed in court when leaders of the Rizzuto organization pleaded guilty in Project Colisée, a major investigation into the Montreal Mafia that led to dozens of arrests in 2006.

A small section of the 400-page document summarized an investigation into a hit and run that occurred in Laval on Sept. 24, 2003, at the Des Laurentides exit of Highway 440.

A Ferrari struck another vehicle and then sped away. The Sûreté du Québec constable who investigated the hit and run found part of a bumper that fell off the Ferrari at the scene and proceeded to track down the luxury car.

The investigation led the SQ to a car leasing company in Town of Mount Royal. According to the document, the owner of the leasing company said it had rented the Ferrari the day of the hit and run “and did not want to give any more details.”

As the SQ did more sleuthing, they learned the Ferrari was actually owned by a numbered company in the name of Carmelo (Mini-me) Cannistraro, a man who ran a multi-million-dollar bookmaking operation for the Rizzuto organization.

Cannistraro, who ended up paying a $250,000 fine in Project Colisée, denied owning the Ferrari but, according to the document, Montreal Mafia leader Francesco (Chit) Del Balso, now 52, who was also convicted in Colisée, met with the SQ a short time later and said he would “settle this.”

Later that same day, Benamor called the SQ and said he would be bringing in a client the following day.

According to the court document: “On Sept. 30, 2003, Benamor and his client Mike Lapolla came to the police station in order to plead guilty on behalf of Lapolla. The latter admitted having been the driver of the Ferrari and having committed the hit-and-run on Sept. 24, 2003, but he refused to sign any written statement. According to (the SQ investigator), Lapolla did not seem to know the details of the accident and the time of the event he gave did not correspond to the facts.”

Despite this, Lapolla was issued a ticket and lost nine demerit points. The document makes no mention of any wrongdoing on Benamor’s part.

Project Colisée revealed Lapolla, who was later killed in 2005, was tied to the Rizzuto organization. But phone conversations recorded during the investigation revealed that Lorenzo Giordano, another leader in the Rizzuto organization who was charged in Colisée, was the person who was actually behind the wheel of the Ferrari when it crashed.

During one conversation recorded by the police, Del Balso and Giordano, who was murdered in 2016, discussed the Ferrari 550 Marinero hours before the hit and run. They discussed how the car would be registered the following day.

During another conversation with a woman, Del Balso said the Ferrari was a gift to Giordano from him and Cannistaro.

Later that night, just before 11 p.m. “during a telephone conversation between Del Balso and Giordano, the latter said he ‘smashed up the car.’ (Giordano) said he was okay and that the car was parked at his home. He was worried about the transfer, from the sale. He said he hit a small vehicle. Del Balso asked him about the people involved in the accident and asked about the possibility that they called the police. Giordano said he just left the scene. Del Balso asked if Giordano had put the vehicle inside. Giordano told Del Balso to simply ensure that the sale was not recorded.”

pcherry@postmedia.com