Rex v. U.M.（2023）
客户在安大略省Newmarket法院进行了为期六天的审判后，被认定无罪。客户被起诉袭击、攻击窒息、人口贩运 x 2、物质利益 x 2、采购和宣传性服务罪。 他的大麻供应商要求U.M.协助一位来自安大略省北部的年轻女士。 乌姆 将她放在两家酒店，以他的名字，地址和积分奖励号码，其后不久被指控人口贩卖从事性交易。 U.M.聘请了多伦多刑事辩护律师的Joseph Neuberger，Neuberger&Partners LLP。 约瑟夫·纽伯格（Joseph Neuberger）和戴安娜·戴维森（Diana Davison）是诬告男子的倡导者负责处理该文件。 对案件进行了仔细分析，并花费了大量时间起草对申诉人和一名证人的盘问，该证人最初被指控犯有同样的罪行，但因为提供U.M.的犯罪证据而脱罪。 在审判中，经过详细和持续的盘问，成功的提出了非常重要的可信度和可靠性问题。 当事人准备作证，并在审判中这样做了。 审判法官大量引用了对检察官和辩方书面结案陈词的反诘问。 关键要素是客户的监控录像，该客户在将这位年轻女士预订到两家酒店时没有隐瞒自己的身份，没有财务文件支持任何性贩运资金，没有实际证据表明任何约会会见客户，以及申诉人完全自由地与家人联系， 并在多伦多漫游。 在结案的书面陈述中概述了许多与申诉人相矛盾的证据。 此外，其他公诉人证人的证据存在重大缺陷，包括她对审判结果的利益关系，以确保她有义务与警方合作，提供针对U.M.的证据，以便她不会被指控犯有同样的罪行。 在案件结束时，法院裁定U.M.对所有罪行均无罪。
Regina v. S.S. (2022)
Charges related to human trafficking of procuring, advertising, living of the avails, money laundering and criminal organization all withdrawn prior to commencing the preliminary hearing. The client was charged along with other parties in relation to a human trafficking operation. Numerous search warrants were executed, based on a three-year investigation by police including massive amount of surveillance and undercover investigations. Joseph Neuberger, Christopher Assie and Yuvika Johri were retained as the defence team. After extensive analysis of the evidence, it because clear that there was no direct evidence linking S.S. to the operation of the organization. The alleged laundering and financial side of the case again could not be directly linked the proceeds from the operation. Further, there was a limited evidentiary basis for the Crown prosecution to even establish willful blindness. As a result, the charges of human trafficking were withdrawn.
Regina v. M.K. (2021)
Charges of Human Trafficking, Financial or Material Benefit from Trafficking Persons, Fraud over $5,000.00, Assault, and Utter Threats, all withdrawn prior to preliminary hearing. M.K. had allegedly brought into Canada a domestic caregiver for financial gain, and exploited the worker along with other related allegations. The evidence was not the usual or typical case of this kind. Joseph Neuberger and Yuvika Johri were retained as the criminal defence lawyers to represent M.K. An extensive defence investigation was undertaken after review of the Crown evidence. A voluminous package of materials were assembled along with a 25 page letter to the Crown outlining the defence evidence and establishing the fabrication of evidence, intentional misrepresentation of financial transactions, and legitimate legal means to bring the complainant into the country who had her own agenda as to what she wanted to do in Canada. Lega analysis was provided as well as to “exercise of control” and “benefit” that undermined the complainant’s narrative. After numerous pre-trials, a resolution was reached where withheld salary was paid to the complainant (which was appropriate), and the charges were withdrawn.
