Judge MacDonald did not award any further reparation.
The court heard Barr had advertised the business in February 2008, claiming 122 clients, maintenance contracts for about 20 websites, and a weekly turnover of $1200.
He sold the business to the first complainant for $22,500 and to a second for $22,000. Later that year he re-advertised the business, with some of the same clients and some new ones, and sold it for $30,000.
"You sold the same business essentially to three different people," the judge said. "Some of the items you were selling you didn't have, belonged to someone else or were totally fictitious."
The first complainant had agreed to an $8000 settlement two years ago, the second was yesterday given a cheque for $11,000, and the third, who had later on-sold the business for an undisclosed sum, seemed unable to decide what the fraud had cost him. He had initially put his loss at $30,000 but later sought $167,000. Ahead of yesterday's sentencing, however, he returned to the $30,000 figure and finally to $15,000.
Judge MacDonald described the highest of those figures as "nonsense" and said the complainant could pursue Barr through the civil courts if he wanted reparation.
The case showed that even if the means of buying and selling had changed, the old adage of "buyer beware" still applied.
"It reflects modern society where transactions are done electronically, without people actually speaking to each other."