The Fifteen-Year-Old Carries Ninety-Three of the Two Hundred and Twelve Counts, Two More Than Either Adult: Durham Police Close Project Magenta on Four Males and the Only Robbery Charge in the File Belongs to the Youngest (September 10, 2026)

WHITBY — Durham Regional Police published the results of Project Magenta on Thursday, September 10, 2026, and the charge sheets are the story. Four males are named or described: two eighteen-year-olds, a sixteen-year-old and a fifteen-year-old. Add up the counts the release lists against each and the total comes to 212. Ninety-three of them — the single largest share, two more than either adult carries — belong to the fifteen-year-old from Pickering. He is also the only person in the file facing a Robbery count.

The service describes the file as an investigation into organized property crime: stolen vehicles, commercial break-and-enters, and stolen vehicles used to commit the break-and-enters. It does not describe it as a gang file, and no criminal organization is named anywhere in the release.

Two Adults, Two Youths, and a Distribution That Runs Backwards

The ordinary shape of a multi-accused property file is an older principal with the heaviest sheet and younger peripheral figures with lighter ones. Project Magenta inverts that. The fifteen-year-old and Sivananthan carry 184 of the 212 counts between them — 87 per cent of the file — while Sakrak, an adult, carries twelve, fewer than the sixteen-year-old.

The two heaviest sheets are also near-mirrors of one another. Both contain Break-and-Enter x4 and Possess Break-in Instruments x4. Both contain Attempt Theft Over $5,000 x11 and Theft from Motor Vehicle x2. Their Mischief Under $5,000 counts differ by one, twelve against eleven. That pattern is consistent with two people alleged to have been present at most of the same incidents, and the four-and-four on break-and-enter and break-in instruments points to the same four commercial entries appearing on three of the four sheets.

Durham Regional Police have not characterised any accused as a leader, an organiser or a recruiter, and none of that is asserted here. The counts are what the release publishes; the inference a reader might want to draw about who directed whom is not in the document.

Twenty-Four Counts of Disguise With Intent and Not One Weapon

Across all four accused the release lists 52 counts of Disguise with Intent — 24 against Sivananthan, 20 against the fifteen-year-old, four each against Sakrak and the sixteen-year-old. It lists no firearm count, no weapons count, no prohibited-device count and no ammunition count. The one count in the file that involves force against a person is the single Robbery charge against the fifteen-year-old, and the release gives no date, location or description for it.

Disguise with Intent is the charge that attaches to covering the face while committing or intending to commit an indictable offence. Fifty-two of them in a file with no weapon is an index of how many separate incidents investigators believe they can tie to covered faces on camera, which is also what the service’s own evidence description suggests: it is asking the public for surveillance footage, dashcam footage and cell phone video.

The Trading Card Stores in Ajax, and Then a Jeweller in Pickering

The investigation began with two smash-and-grab break-ins at trading card retailers in Ajax on June 14, 2026. Approximately $148,000 worth of merchandise was taken that night — roughly fifteen per cent of the file’s entire loss figure from a single evening against a product category that barely registers in property-crime releases.

Investigators also linked the group to a break and enter at Oliver Jewellery in Pickering, where the release says suspects allegedly used stolen vehicles in an attempt to force entry into the business. The wider target list the service publishes is jewellery stores, cannabis dispensaries, trading card retailers and pawn shops — four categories that share a single property, which is that what sits on the shelves resells immediately and without paperwork.

Stolen vehicles were frequently used to facilitate the offences, including incidents in which vehicles were driven into storefronts to gain entry. That is the mechanism linking the two halves of the file: the fifteen vehicle theft-related offences are not a parallel crime series but the tooling for the eight commercial break-and-enters.

Nearly a Million Dollars, and the File Is Still Open

Between June and September 2026 investigators allege the group was responsible for 36 incidents across Durham Region and Toronto, comprising eight commercial break-and-enters and 15 vehicle theft-related offences — stolen vehicles, attempted vehicle thefts, thefts from vehicles and licence plate thefts. Known losses and damages to businesses, vehicle owners and the community come to nearly $1 million.

Project Magenta was launched by members of the West Division Criminal Investigations Branch after investigators identified links between the separate series. The takedown was executed by the West Division Crime Team, assisted by the Community Resource Unit and the East Division Crime Team, which carried out multiple search warrants at residences throughout the Greater Toronto Area and recovered property believed to be connected to several of the offences.

“Organized property crime is not a victimless offence. It causes significant financial harm, undermines the community’s perception of safety, and fuels further criminal activity,” said Acting Deputy Chief Glenn Courneyea.

The service says the investigation remains active, that investigators continue to review evidence seized during the warrants, that they are examining additional incidents believed to be connected to this group, and that further charges are anticipated. The 212 counts are therefore a floor rather than a total.

What the Release Does Not Contain

No occurrence number appears. No street addresses appear beyond the naming of Oliver Jewellery in Pickering. The release does not say how many search warrants were executed, where, or on what date the arrests occurred. It does not itemise the recovered property, give a recovery value, or say how much of the $148,000 in trading card merchandise was recovered. It does not name the two Ajax retailers. It does not say which of the 36 incidents produced the single Robbery count, or against whom. It gives no vehicle makes, models or recovery locations, and no figure for how many of the stolen vehicles were recovered.

All four accused are presumed innocent. Every count listed above is an allegation that has not been tested in court, and the two youths are protected from identification by the Youth Criminal Justice Act.