HAMILTON — Hamilton police are describing it as an organized retail-theft network: groups entering Home Depot stores, loading carts with power tools and construction equipment, walking out without paying and feeding the merchandise into an online resale operation.
After a four-month investigation called Project Checkout, 32 people now face 235 criminal charges. Police say more than $300,000 in suspected stolen property was recovered from a commercial property and a residence. Investigators also seized a 2021 Ram TRX pickup truck valued at approximately $100,000 as alleged proceeds of crime.
The headline numbers are considerable, but they do not tell the whole story.
The published charges do not show 32 people occupying equal positions in a single organization. Most face relatively conventional allegations of theft under $5,000 or possession of property obtained by crime. One accused faces 73 counts of allegedly violating a release order, substantially inflating the overall charge total. Only two people are publicly listed with trafficking-in-stolen-property allegations, and just one faces possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.
No one in the police release is charged with conspiracy or committing an offence for a criminal organization.
That does not mean the operation was unorganized. Police say evidence linked repeated store thefts to centralized resale activity. But it does mean the description “organized retail crime ring” is, at this stage, a police characterization of the evidence—not a finding made by a court.
All charges remain allegations and every accused person is presumed innocent.
How the investigation began
Hamilton police launched Project Checkout in March after Home Depot reported a 25-per-cent increase in theft at its three Hamilton-area stores.
Police have not disclosed the raw figures behind that percentage. The public does not know whether it represents the number of reported incidents, the dollar value of losses or another internal measure—and a percentage without the starting number can make an increase appear more informative than it is.
Over the next four months, investigators worked with Home Depot’s Asset Protection Team to identify alleged offenders and map how stolen merchandise was being moved.
Police allege the network carried out more than 60 thefts. In some cases, groups allegedly filled shopping carts with 20 to 30 pieces of power equipment at a time and pushed them out the front doors.
Doug Rajala, Home Depot Canada’s divisional asset-protection manager, told CHCH that a small number of brands were particularly targeted. Neither Home Depot nor police publicly identified those brands, likely to avoid advertising which products are easiest to resell.
Police said employees were threatened with violence during several incidents when they attempted to intervene. No injuries were disclosed.
After obtaining 15 court orders, investigators executed two search warrants—one at a commercial property and another at a residence. Hundreds of tools and other items were recovered.
Hamilton police have not identified the business, the address of either search or the online accounts allegedly used to sell the merchandise.
The official Project Checkout release lists the accused and charges but provides little detail about how the suspected resale business operated.
The charge total needs context
Police laid 235 charges, but that should not be reported as 235 thefts.
The list includes theft, possession of stolen property, trafficking in stolen property, resisting arrest and numerous allegations that accused people violated probation, undertakings, release orders or other court conditions.
Daljinder Singh, 35, alone is listed with five counts of theft under $5,000, five counts of possessing property obtained by crime, 73 counts of failing to comply with a release order and five counts of failing to comply with an undertaking.
Those 88 allegations represent more than one-third of Project Checkout’s headline charge total.
Several others face one theft allegation. Some are charged with theft and possession involving the same general investigation. A small number face repeated non-compliance allegations.
The 235-charge figure therefore measures the entire enforcement package, including alleged violations of existing judicial conditions. It is not a reliable measure of how many theft events occurred, how many items were taken or how many people directed the operation.
Police separately say the investigation involved more than 60 thefts. That figure is more useful when assessing the alleged retail activity.
Was this one ring—or several layers of offenders?
The police account suggests at least three possible functions:
1. People who allegedly removed merchandise from stores; 2. People who allegedly received or transported it; and 3. People who allegedly stored and resold it.
That structure is what distinguishes organized retail theft from unrelated shoplifting.
In a conventional retail-theft network, the people entering stores are sometimes called “boosters.” They may steal products selected for resale, receive cash or drugs in return and have little knowledge of the people higher in the operation.
A second layer consolidates the products. A reseller, business or online account then offers ostensibly new merchandise at prices low enough to attract buyers but high enough to generate a profit because the acquisition cost was allegedly zero.
Police say tools from Hamilton Home Depot stores were offered through online marketplaces “well below retail” prices. But they have not identified which accused allegedly managed those listings, who controlled the commercial property or how sale proceeds were divided.
The charge sheet points toward one person potentially occupying a more central position.
Malkit Singh, 46, faces one count each of trafficking in property obtained by crime over $5,000, possessing property obtained by crime over $5,000 and possessing proceeds of crime over $5,000.
David Phung, 19, is also charged with trafficking in property obtained by crime, along with theft, possession and resisting arrest. The police release does not specify a value threshold for his trafficking charge.
Those allegations may indicate roles beyond taking merchandise from a store. They do not, by themselves, establish who directed the wider activity.
Most of the remaining accused are charged with theft under $5,000, possession under $5,000 or related court-order breaches.
No Home Depot employee is identified as an accused person. Police have not alleged an inside job, fraudulent inventory manipulation or collusion by store staff.
Why Home Depot?
Power tools are unusually attractive on the illicit resale market.
They are valuable, portable, widely used and difficult for buyers to trace to an individual victim. Unlike a phone or vehicle, most tools cannot be remotely disabled. A boxed drill, saw or battery pack offered online may look no different from a legitimate product being resold by a contractor or homeowner.
Battery platforms make certain product lines especially liquid. Once a tradesperson owns batteries and chargers from one manufacturer, compatible tools from the same system become more desirable.
Construction equipment also has a broad customer base. Contractors may need replacement tools quickly, homeowners may be looking for discounts and online buyers often have no way to verify the origin of a supposedly new item.
This creates a market in which stolen goods can be converted to cash rapidly without an obvious fence operating from a traditional pawnshop.
Police say the products were advertised below retail price. That description alone does not establish that every buyer knew they were stolen. Legitimate tools are frequently discounted, liquidated or sold second-hand.
But repeated listings of large quantities of new merchandise at abnormally low prices—particularly from a seller unable to provide receipts—should raise suspicion.
The missing online-marketplace story
Project Checkout is not only a story about people allegedly walking merchandise out of stores. It is also about the digital infrastructure that can turn stolen goods into revenue.
Police have not identified the online platforms used. They have not said whether marketplace companies supplied subscriber information, preserved messages or removed seller accounts.
That omission protects parts of an active investigation, but it also leaves the resale mechanism largely unexplored.
The important questions include:
- How many seller accounts were involved?
- Were the accounts operated under real or false identities?
- How long had they been active?
- How many completed sales were identified?
- Did buyers collect items at the commercial property or receive them by delivery?
- Were payments made in cash, by e-transfer or through platform payment systems?
- Did marketplace fraud-detection tools flag the volume of new tools being offered?
- Were previously suspended sellers able to create new accounts?
- Are additional buyers or resellers under investigation?
Online platforms are not expected to know that every discounted item is stolen. But high-volume sellers of new, commonly stolen products present a different risk from a homeowner selling one used drill.
If police want to disrupt the business model rather than only arrest the alleged shoplifters, the financial and marketplace trail is essential.
What does the $300,000 represent?
Police say they recovered more than $300,000 in “suspected stolen property.” That wording contains two important qualifications.
First, “suspected” indicates investigators have not necessarily established the lawful owner and theft event for every recovered item.
When hundreds of similar products are found together, investigators may need serial numbers, inventory records, receipts, store surveillance and internal Home Depot data to trace them. Some merchandise may ultimately be connected to retailers outside Hamilton or found to have a legitimate origin.
Second, the valuation method has not been disclosed.
The $300,000 may represent full retail prices, replacement cost or another estimate. It does not necessarily equal Home Depot’s wholesale cost, the amount the alleged sellers received or the total value stolen during the investigation.
If items were being resold substantially below retail, the network’s revenue would be lower than the merchandise’s shelf value. Conversely, the recovered property may represent only the inventory that remained when warrants were executed, not everything allegedly stolen and sold during the preceding months.
The figure is therefore best understood as the estimated retail value of property police suspect was stolen—not a proven profit calculation.
The $100,000 truck has not been forfeited
The seizure of a Ram TRX adds a visible symbol of alleged profit, but seizure is not the same as permanent confiscation.
Police believe the 2021 pickup is proceeds of crime. To obtain forfeiture, the Crown would generally have to establish the necessary connection between the vehicle and criminal proceeds through the court process.
The owner can challenge that allegation. Questions may include who purchased the truck, when it was acquired, how it was financed and whether legitimate income could account for it.
Until a court orders forfeiture, describing the vehicle as bought with stolen-tool profits would go beyond the established facts.
The truck’s presence nevertheless suggests investigators followed more than store surveillance. A proceeds case normally requires financial evidence linking assets to alleged unlawful activity.
Hamilton police have not said whether bank accounts, cash, electronic-payment records or other assets were restrained.
The violence question
Home Depot says employees were threatened when they intervened. That allegation changes the public-safety dimension of the case.
Retailers commonly train workers not to physically confront suspected thieves because merchandise can be replaced and a worker cannot. A cart of tools can become a violent encounter within seconds if someone blocks an exit.
However, the publicly released charge list does not identify robbery, assault or uttering-threats charges arising from Project Checkout.
That creates an unresolved question. The alleged threats may still be under investigation, may not have supported separate charges, or may have been treated as part of other offences not fully described in the release.
Police should clarify how many threatening incidents occurred, whether weapons were seen and whether any employees were injured.
It would be wrong to characterize all 32 accused as violent based on a statement that threats occurred during “several” incidents.
Repeat offending and the bail debate
The charge list contains numerous alleged violations of probation, release orders and undertakings. Some accused were therefore already under court-imposed conditions when the Project Checkout conduct allegedly occurred.
That will predictably make the case part of Canada’s debate over bail and repeat offending.
But breach allegations require context. A release-order count can relate to a new alleged offence, contact with another person, being in a prohibited location, violating a curfew or failing to follow another condition. The Hamilton police release does not specify the conduct behind most of the non-compliance counts.
Canada’s new Bail and Sentencing Reform Act came into force July 15. The legislation creates tougher rules in several areas and makes organized retail theft an explicit aggravating factor at sentencing. It also directs courts to consider serious or numerous outstanding charges more closely in bail decisions.
The federal reforms took effect near the end of Project Checkout, after much of the alleged conduct had already occurred. Courts—not police or retailers—will determine how the amended law applies in each case.
The extraordinary 73 release-order counts attributed to one accused also deserve scrutiny. They may represent repeated alleged conduct over many dates or multiple conditions allegedly violated during fewer incidents. Without the charging documents, the number cannot be properly interpreted.
“Organized crime” has more than one meaning
Home Depot described Project Checkout as organized retail crime rather than a shoplifting investigation. Operationally, that may be fair: police allege repeated, coordinated theft for commercial resale.
Legally, however, a “criminal organization” has a specific meaning under the Criminal Code. Prosecutors must prove more than multiple people committing similar thefts.
Hamilton police have previously laid explicit criminal-organization charges in retail cases. In Project Sommes, announced in late 2025, investigators alleged a group stole merchandise across several provinces and moved it through wholesalers and a commercial liquidation warehouse. Multiple accused were charged with committing offences for a criminal organization.
No equivalent charge appears in Project Checkout’s published list.
That may reflect different evidence, a different network structure or a prosecutorial decision to rely on easier-to-prove theft and trafficking offences. It may also change as the investigation continues.
Until then, the safest description is an alleged coordinated retail-theft and resale network—not a criminal organization established in law.
Are consumers really paying for theft?
Retailers and police frequently say retail crime increases prices. There is a logical basis for that claim: theft, security personnel, locked displays, insurance and investigative work add operating costs.
But consumers should be cautious with industry-wide loss figures.
The Retail Council of Canada estimates that retail “shrink” now totals approximately $9 billion annually, or 1.5 per cent of sales. Its report is based on a survey of loss-prevention professionals representing more than 20,000 locations.
Shrink is broader than proven external theft. It can include employee theft, administrative errors, damaged products, supplier problems and inventory inaccuracies. Retailers do not always know why every missing item disappeared.
The $9-billion estimate should therefore not be described as $9 billion conclusively stolen by shoplifters or organized crime.
Nor can a direct price increase be calculated from the Hamilton case. Retail prices are influenced by competition, supply costs, wages, rent, currency exchange, tariffs and corporate pricing strategy in addition to theft.
Project Checkout demonstrates a specific and apparently substantial local problem. It does not, on its own, validate every national claim made about retail crime.
Locked shelves shift costs to honest shoppers
Home Depot says it is responding by locking more high-value items behind barriers.
That may reduce quick grab-and-run theft, but it imposes a cost on legitimate customers who must locate an employee and wait for access. It can also shift theft toward products that remain unsecured rather than eliminating it.
Retailers face a difficult balance. A store designed like a fortress may protect inventory while frustrating the people who pay for it. Aggressive employee intervention can create unacceptable safety risks. Technology can improve detection but raises privacy questions when retailers use facial recognition, licence-plate readers or extensive customer tracking.
The more durable response targets the resale economy.
Stolen tools have limited value if large quantities cannot be converted into cash. That makes marketplace verification, serial-number tracking, seller-volume analysis and financial investigation potentially more effective than simply locking every box.
Manufacturers could also make serial numbers easier for customers and police to register, verify and search. Retailers could provide buyers with a reliable way to check whether a product has been reported stolen.
What remains unanswered
Project Checkout has produced a large arrest and recovery announcement. It has not yet produced a full explanation of the alleged enterprise.
Hamilton police and Home Depot have not disclosed:
- The baseline behind the reported 25-per-cent increase;
- The dates and locations of the more than 60 alleged thefts;
- The total value believed stolen, including merchandise already sold;
- The identity or nature of the searched commercial property;
- The brands and categories most frequently targeted;
- The online marketplaces used;
- The number of completed online sales;
- Whether marketplace operators assisted investigators;
- Whether buyers are being investigated;
- Whether any employees or contractors were involved;
- How the alleged participants were connected;
- Who police believe controlled the resale operation;
- Whether financial accounts or cash were seized;
- How the $300,000 property valuation was calculated;
- What evidence connects the Ram TRX to criminal proceeds; or
- Why reported threats did not produce identifiable violence-related charges.
Some details will properly remain confidential while cases proceed. Others can be disclosed without compromising a prosecution.
More than a shoplifting story—but not yet a proven criminal enterprise
Project Checkout appears to have uncovered something more systematic than 32 unrelated people each stealing a tool.
Police describe repeated group thefts, targeted products, common resale channels, consolidated inventory and property allegedly linked to criminal proceeds. Those are hallmarks of an organized resale model.
But the public charge sheet paints a more complicated picture than the phrase “32-person theft ring” suggests.
Most accused are charged at the store-theft or possession level. Only a small number face allegations that directly concern trafficking or proceeds. No criminal-organization or conspiracy charges have been announced. One person’s alleged release-order violations account for an outsized share of the 235-count total.
The central business—the mechanism that allegedly converted carts of tools into money—remains largely hidden.
That is where the deeper significance of the case lies. Arresting the people accused of pushing merchandise through the door may interrupt the supply. Identifying who ordered the thefts, controlled the inventory, operated the seller accounts and received the money would expose the enterprise.
Hamilton police have recovered a warehouse-scale quantity of suspected stolen property and charged dozens of people. Whether Project Checkout dismantled the network—or merely removed one group of suppliers—will depend on what investigators uncover next and what they can prove in court.