Bob Waxman had a taste for the finer things in life — jewellery and expensive watches, investments in fine wine, exotic sports cars and race horses.

Bob Waxman had a taste for the finer things in life — jewellery and expensive watches, investments in fine wine, exotic sports cars and race horses.

On Friday, the way he paid for those luxuries caught up with him as a jury convicted him of six fraud and theft charges dating back to 1996.

The second son of Chester Waxman stood in stone-faced silence as the panel of seven men and five women answered “guilty” six times and then intoned “I agree” when polled individually. On the seventh charge, one of theft, the jury said they could not reach a unanimous verdict after three days of deliberation.

Waxman’s wife, Debra, who attended most of the trial, sat behind him, chewing her lip and wringing her hands, but showing no other emotion. No other relatives attended. His father, who was always so proud of the family name, was spared seeing a son branded a criminal. He died of cancer in 2008.

Waxman was accused of cheating Philip Services Corp. of almost $20 million US through a series of fraudulent copper trades while be was president of the company’s metals recovery group in 1996 and 1997. More than $17.8 million of that money was channeled through a series of companies in Waxman’s name, finally coming to rest in a Swiss bank account.

The jurors, who started hearing evidence in January, had been hammering out their verdicts since late Tuesday morning. During that time they sent out several notes asking for clarification of evidence and, late on Thursday, to hear a replay of testimony from witnesses regarding the last charge. On Friday, they sent a final note to Justice Thomas Lofchik saying they had reached unanimous verdicts on six cases but “in fairness to Mr. Waxman … and our duty to society” they were “unable to reach an agreement that is acceptable to everyone” on the final charge.

They added “after an honest and exhaustive effort … we do not feel continued deliberations will be fruitful” and “humbly” asked to deliver the six verdicts they had reached and be recorded as a hung jury on the final count.

That request sent Crown and defence lawyers scurrying for their online law books to find out if such an outcome was legal. They concluded the available case law didn’t provide a helpful answer, but it was obvious that exhorting the jury to keep trying wouldn’t help and might run the risk of causing someone to abandon an honestly held opinion just to get a unanimous decision.

“I believe they have been very diligent about this,” Lofchik said in the absence of the jury. “They’re not just saying I want to go home.”

After accepting their decision, Lofchik thanked them “for the conscientious way you have fulfilled your duties.

“I know this has been a long and difficult trial … and the destruction of your lives by fulfilling your civic duty has been extreme,” he said.