A Fifteen-Thousand-Dollar Mission for Three Targets, and the Judge Could Not Conclude He Knew What Two of Them Were: Mohamed Ilyess Akodad Gets Two Years for the Beth Tikvah Fire and Walks in 127 Days (September 10, 2026)
MONTREAL — The number that makes this a Gangland Files file rather than a hate-crime file is $15,000. That, Mohamed Ilyess Akodad told the Cour du Québec, was what he was paid for a “mission” covering three targets. Two of them were buildings belonging to the Jewish congregation Beth Tikvah in Dollard-des-Ormeaux. The third was a car he never got around to. On Thursday, September 10, 2026, Judge Karine Giguère sentenced him to two years, and because of time already served he will be out in 127 days.
Whoever wrote the cheque has not been charged, named, or mentioned by the court. Akodad’s account of a three-target contract went into the record as mitigation on the question of motive, and the person who commissioned it left no trace in the judgment.
The Sentence
- Mohamed Ilyess Akodad, 20, of Montreal — 19 at the time of his arrest, in custody since 2025.
- Two years in prison, the Crown’s recommended sentence, accepted by Judge Karine Giguère.
- With pre-trial custody credited, 127 days left to serve, followed by three years’ probation.
- $7,560 in restitution to a Jewish organization for the damage he caused.
- 100 hours of community service after release. His offer to volunteer at the places he attacked was checked with the people concerned and refused — “ce qui est humainement compréhensible,” the judge said.
- Guilty plea entered January 2026 to incendie criminel, méfait, and possession de matières incendiaires.
The Question That Would Have Made It Heavier
The central issue at sentencing was whether Akodad knew he was attacking Jewish buildings. He has always maintained he learned only several days later, once the public outcry began, that he had hit a synagogue and a community building belonging to Beth Tikvah.
Judge Giguère did not accept it as established and did not reject it. “Le contexte établi en preuve ne permet pas au tribunal de conclure hors de tout doute raisonnable, que le délinquant savait à quels lieux il s’attaquait cette nuit-là,” she wrote — the context established in evidence does not allow the court to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender knew what places he was attacking that night. Her reasons were operational: the attacks happened at night, in a neighbourhood he barely knew, without prior reconnaissance.
That is a description of a hired hand working from an address, not of someone choosing a target. The judge was careful to separate the finding from the harm. “Est-ce que les conséquences en sont moins grandes ? Pas du tout,” she added — are the consequences any less? Not at all. “Les répercussions pour la communauté sont néfastes et nombreuses.”
Sixteen Counts in Youth Court Since 2021
Giguère rejected the defence proposal, from Me Nazar Saaty, that Akodad finish his pre-trial detention with four months served at home. The gravity of the facts and his record ruled it out.
“Malgré son jeune âge, le délinquant présente des inscriptions criminelles constantes à la Chambre de la jeunesse depuis 2021 : jusqu’à sa détention dans le présent dossier, on peut compter plus de 16 chefs d’accusation,” the judge said — despite his young age, the offender shows constant criminal entries in youth court since 2021, more than 16 counts up to his detention in this file. “Aucune des peines reçues n’a eu d’effet dissuasif sur lui.” None of the sentences he received deterred him.
He was 15 when that record began. He was 18 when he took the mission.
Mitigation, and What the Court Said to Him
Two things counted in his favour. He pleaded guilty in January 2026, which the judge said saved several days of hearings and demonstrated remorse. And he cooperated with police from the moment of his arrest, providing admissions and a spontaneous statement about his involvement.
“Vous avez témoigné d’un début de réhabilitation, ce que vous avez fait à l’intérieur des murs et je l’ai pris en considération,” Giguère told him — you have shown the beginning of rehabilitation, what you have done inside the walls, and I have taken it into account. “Vous êtes très jeune, mais quand même très criminalisé […]. La probation sera là pour vous aider, selon vos paroles, à reprendre le droit chemin.”
“Merci beaucoup, madame la juge,” Akodad replied.
His lawyer said afterward that the most important part of the judgment, apart from protecting the Jewish community and sending a message of denunciation and deterrence, was that his client be cured of a serious drug dependency.
What the Judgment Does Not Answer
Who paid the $15,000. Whether any of it was ever received. What the third target — the car — was, or whose. Whether the person who commissioned the mission has been identified, is under investigation, or has been charged. Whether the two Beth Tikvah buildings were named to Akodad as targets or given to him as addresses. Whether he was recruited through the same channels that supply contract arson work in Montreal, or independently.
No police force has publicly named anyone above Akodad in this file, and no criminal organization has been named in connection with it by police or by the court. None is named here.
Beth Tikvah, Dollard-des-Ormeaux
Primary Sources
- La Presse: “Deux ans de prison pour l’incendie de deux édifices juifs” by Karim Benessaieh, published Thursday, September 10, 2026 at 12 h 37. Publication date and time confirmed on the page. This is the source for the two-year sentence, Judge Karine Giguère’s acceptance of the Crown’s recommendation, the credit for pre-trial custody and the 127 days remaining, the three years’ probation, Akodad’s age of 20, the January 2026 guilty plea and the three offences, the $15,000 “mission” for three targets including a car never attacked, the finding that the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew what he was attacking, the reasoning about night, unfamiliar neighbourhood and absence of reconnaissance, the rejection of Me Nazar Saaty’s four-month home-detention proposal, the more than 16 youth-court counts since 2021, the $7,560 restitution and 100 hours of community service, the refusal of his offer to volunteer at the sites he attacked, and every quotation from the judge, from Akodad and from defence counsel reproduced above.
- All French-language quotations are reproduced as published by La Presse. The English renderings that follow them are working translations offered for readers who do not read French and are not the court’s own wording.
- Akodad’s age of 18 at the time of the offence and 19 at arrest, and the ages given in the timeline, are calculated from his published age of 20 at sentencing against the offence and arrest dates. La Presse states his age at sentencing and that he has been in custody since 2025; the April 2025 arrest month and the December 2024 offence month come from earlier reporting on this file and are not established in the September 10 sentencing coverage. Readers should treat those two month-level dates as the less firmly sourced facts in this briefing.
- The characterisation of Akodad’s role as that of a hired hand working from an address is an inference from the judge’s own stated reasoning about the absence of reconnaissance and his unfamiliarity with the neighbourhood. It is not the court’s language.
- No criminal organization has been named in connection with this file by any police force or by the court, and none is named here. Nobody has been charged with commissioning the arson. Whether the person who paid the $15,000 has been identified or is under investigation is not addressed in the judgment as reported.