Calgary Criminal Lawyers

CASES

(403) 452-8018

Some Cases handled by Calgary Criminal Lawyer, David Chow

Cases presented here are only some of the cases handled by David Chow. All cases use lettering to protect the identity of the client for solicitor-client privilege purposes. The case lettering does not necessarily reflect the client's actual initials.  David has successfully defended many clients not represented here. Case results are updated periodically and thus are not necessarily up-to-date.  

R. v. D.T.D.

(Calgary, P. C. - Fraud/Obstruction).   This accused was charged with fraud and obstructing police by giving a false name.

R. v. S.B.S.

(Lethbridge, P. C. ). David Chow is a full spectrum  Lethbridge criminal lawyer who handles all cases involving Canada Border Services investigations.

R. v. A.D.

(Calgary, P. C. ). AD was charged with various fraud offences, including fraud over $5000, fraud under $5000, possession of fraudulent identification documents and impersonation.

R. v. A.R.D.

(Calgary, P. C. ).   ARD was charged with fraud under $5000.

R. v. S.M.

(Calgary, P. C. ). Calgary defence lawyer, David Chow, successfully defended his client for possession of a stolen motor vehicle.

R. v. M.S.

(Calgary, Q. B. ) Client was charged with a trust fraud.

R. v. H.M.

(Calgary, P. C. ).   David Chow defends persons charged with serious, trust related property offences, such as theft over.

R. v. C.W.

(Calgary, P. C. ). Client charged with multiple allegations of fraud in relation to a robbery type incident arising on the C-Train platform in Calgary.

R. v. C.W.

Client charged with multiple allegations of fraud in relation to a robbery tupe incident arising on the C-Train platform in Calgary.

R. v. R.P.

(Calgary, P. C. ).   Client charged with theft of a motor vehicle over $5000.   The case was successfully defended on the date of trial.

R. v. H.C.

(Calgary, P. C. ). Client was charged with a trust fraud.

R. v. C.E. et al

Client was charged with break and enter with intent to commit robbery.

R. v. V.M.

The accused was charged with a convenience store robbery.   The accused’s maintained the position that it was not a robbery, but a non-physical verbal assault.

R. v. D.S.

Client charged with a sixty thousand dollar trust theft (theft from employer). Despite the Crown’s request for jail, the defence obtained a rare conditional sentence order.  

R. v. P.A.L.

(unreported) – Client charged with a home invasion robbery.   Charges stayed mid-trial due to extreme frailties in the identification evidence.