1 min

Von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg sentencing delayed

Crown waiting for presentence reports

The sentencing hearing for the former Vancouver Pride Society treasurer who pleaded guilty to one count of tax evasion last year has been adjourned to April 4 as Crown prosecutors wait for reports.

Auguste Christiane von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg could face fines and possible jail time, as well as any civil assessments courts may award in future cases, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) told Xtra in December.

Von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg made his first court appearance on Jan 14, 2010, on six charges that he was involved in understating the taxable incomes of 235 clients to a total of almost $782,091. He pleaded guilty on Nov 30 to one count of evading or attempting to evade taxes on behalf of 18 clients, totalling $55,313.23 between 2003 and 2007, CRA spokesperson Bradley Alvarez told Xtra.

An agreed statement of facts was presented to provincial court as part of the plea, the Robson Square court registry confirms. “Von Pfahlenburg is alleged to have lied in various people’s tax returns,” federal Crown prosecutor Dan Meneley told Judge Jodie Werier on Sept 17.

Crown counsel Nils Preshaw told Werier on Feb 18 that previous cases for possible sentence guidelines were ready for the sentencing. Werier stressed the need for those to be delivered to von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg, who is representing himself. She wanted to be sure he had the cases to prevent any further delays.

The Crown has had problems ensuring von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg received paperwork in the past. At one point, he blamed his landlady for his not receiving deliveries.

Under the Income Tax Act, anyone found guilty of such tax evasion charges may be subject to a fine of not less than 50 percent, and not more than 200 percent, of the amount of tax sought to be evaded.

Von Pfahlenburg-Marienburg served a short stint on the Pride Society board as treasurer and secretary. He resigned on April 10, 2007, citing “weak leadership… a lack of clear constructive vision for the society, the fractured nature of the board and the absence of administrative and procedural governance.”