what's the section of the criminal code that covers "participation in a cover up"

[happy hopping]

Say a bunch of people (employee) participate in a cover up to the truth of a car accident, protecting someone, what section of the criminal code would this fall under?

I have use the search engine, but it goes nowhere. Can anyone help?

[Sentry]

Conspiracy, fraud if money/insurance is involved.

[ThePenIsMightier]

182-b

[Sentry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

182-b

Hot

[happy hopping]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Conspiracy, fraud if money/insurance is involved.

thanks. very useful. It's 465 (1) (b)

[ExtraSlow]

There are also non-criminal ramifications for insurance fraud in terms of getting future insurance, or holding certain professional jobs, being a corporate officer etc.

[JRSC00LUDE]

It was on this day that OP found out he's fucked.

[ExtraSlow]

HH has a more interesting life than I do. #jelly.

[happy hopping]

https://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-...olas-tse-faced

my case is 99% similar to this case

[ExtraSlow]

Did it happen in China? Because that's going to change my advice.

[Sentry]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

thanks. very useful. It's 465 (1) (b)

That'll be $299.95

[Disoblige]

HH was the hopper. He switched seats with the driver for the cover up.

[happy hopping]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Did it happen in China? Because that's going to change my advice.

no, here in Calgary.

I have 1 more question:

the person who was in the passenger side, got out, and hand me her driver licence + insurance, let's called her Jane Doe, as the person in the DRIVER side has no insurance. Now, we already establish that is illegal.

So does that mean Jane Doe's insurance co. has to protect her from legal trouble? And pay a lawyer to defend her, because right now it's just a civil case of car damage. If the case goes to trial, the judge is going to find out she broke section 465 (1) (b) . That would become a criminal case. Is the insurance co. (Wanansea) obligate to protect Jane Doe because she's a client listed in the car policy?

or does insurance co. only protects 3rd party law suit + car damage? and if that insurance co. does not protect her or get her a lawyer, and she ends up doing 2 month, would that give ground for her to sue her own insurance co.?

[ThePenIsMightier]

[ExtraSlow]

[ZenOps]

So what costume shop are you going to be using to dress up as Charles III?

[DonJuan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

no, here in Calgary.

I have 1 more question:

the person who was in the passenger side, got out, and hand me her driver licence + insurance, let's called her Jane Doe, as the person in the DRIVER side has no insurance. Now, we already establish that is illegal.

So does that mean Jane Doe's insurance co. has to protect her from legal trouble? And pay a lawyer to defend her, because right now it's just a civil case of car damage. If the case goes to trial, the judge is going to find out she broke section 465 (1) (b) . That would become a criminal case. Is the insurance co. (Wanansea) obligate to protect Jane Doe because she's a client listed in the car policy?

or does insurance co. only protects 3rd party law suit + car damage? and if that insurance co. does not protect her or get her a lawyer, and she ends up doing 2 month, would that give ground for her to sue her own insurance co.?

Is the person in the drivers seat a learner? Then yes the person in the passenger seat is instructing and has implied control of the vehicle. If not then you should be going after the at fault driver/owner of the car's insurance. At fault owner of the if they allowed the un-insured driver to drive the car. I believe.

I believe in this case Wawanesa would only cover Jane Doe if she is the owner of the vehicle and/or is the instructor for a learning driver (this may be a fight for Jane Doe).

How about saying what ACTUALLY happened? And not hypotheticals. There's prob a wealth of experience on here willing to help if its a real situation. Legal standards for hypotheticals is what judges are for.

[killramos]

TBH go after the person who is most likely to pay out.

You think you have a better chance of getting money out of

Chick with insurance

Broke retard with no insurance

Let her insurance company sort out if they were defrauded later.

[ExtraSlow]

Wait, whos' teh scammer, HH or the other party? I am so confused.

[CompletelyNumb]

HH was the driver without insurance I think. They swapped places with their passenger after an accident. Except the vehicle itself would need insurance, so I assume the driver wasn't the RO of the vehicle? Why do people make hypotheticals more confusing than the truth?