UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Confiscating the proceeds of crime : the amendments to Canada's Criminal Code, their force and effect German, Peter Maurice 1990

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1990_A6_4 G47.pdf [ 7.86MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0077719.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0077719-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0077719-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0077719-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0077719-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0077719-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0077719-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0077719-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0077719.ris

Full Text

CONFISCATING THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME: THE AMENDMENTS CANADA'S CRIMINAL  CODE. THEIR FORCE AND  EFFECT  by Peter Maurice  German  B.A. ( H o n s . ) , Mount A l l i s o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1973 L L . B . , U n i v e r s i t y o f New B r u n s w i c k , 1981 M.A., Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , 1990  A THESIS SUBMITTED  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty  We  accept t h i s  o f Law)  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November ©  1990  P e t e r M a u r i c e German,  1990  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  for  this or  thesis  reference  thesis by  this  for  his thesis  and  study.  scholarly  or for  her  I further  purposes  gain  permission.  Department of GRADUATE STUDIES (LAW)  rw  Q  DE-6 (2/88)  25 SEPTEMBER 1990  I  the  shall  requirements  agree  that  agree  may  representatives.  financial  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  of  be  It not  that  the  be  Library  an  advanced  shall  permission for  granted  is  for  by  understood allowed  the  make  extensive  head  that  without  it  of  copying my  my or  written  ABSTRACT  This  t h e s i s examines t h e  which  target  the  money  laundering  amendments t o C a n a d a ' s C r i m i n a l  proceeds of and  c r i m e by,  enabling  the  inter alia,  confiscation  Code  criminalizing  of  assets.  The  amendments r e p r e s e n t t h e c e n t r a l t h r u s t o f C a n a d a ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n a  global  effort  belatedly and  to  following  stem the  the  lead  traffic of  the  in  illicit  United  drugs,  States,  in  Canada  Great  Britain  much  further  Australia. In  the  thesis,  I  argue  that  the  amendments go  t h a n e a r l i e r c r i m e c o n t r o l i n i t i a t i v e s and  represent a paradigmatic  s h i f t from the t r a d i t i o n a l , s i n g l e t r a n s a c t i o n , structure  of c r i m i n a l  premised  upon  law  which i s both p r o p e r t y - d r i v e n  multiple-transactions  organizations.  The  opposed  to  offender,  purpose  being  punish  t o one  the  to  perpetrated  amendments f o c u s on individual  neutralize  individual-oriented  the  or  criminal  by  proceeds of  corporate,  criminal crime,  their  organizations  and  as  avowed  rather  than  offenders.  The  effectiveness  speed  by  which  thus  they  amendments private foreign  law to  sentencing,  criminal  operate  conviction.  In draw of the  of the  amendments i s i n e x o r a b l y  p r o c e e d s can  prospectively, order  upon  to  classic  and  tort,  and  or  the  restrained  and  anticipation their  previously  norms and  both substantive  in  seized  accomplish  concepts  contract  be  t i e d to  the  introducing  t r a d i t i o n s of procedural.  of  a  later  objectives,  the  preserve  of  the  which  are  some  criminal  law  and  The Charter  t h e s i s examines the perspective.  In  amendments f r o m b o t h a t e x t u a l and so  doing,  considerable  accorded the presumption of innocence, a strong i n c r i m i n a l law.  - beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt.  of  civil  considered rise  to  balance  of  i t s weakest l i n k .  i n t e r p r e t i v e and  The  thesis  mandatory  also  financial  enforcement agencies.  legislation's test  is,  adoption  therefore,  legislation  give  challenges. the  transaction  by  of the  legitimating force  Other aspects of the  discusses  f o r c e approach to  The  probabilities  Charter  strike law  is  I n t e g r a l t o t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s t h e Crown's b u r d e n  of proof the  emphasis  a  need  for  reporting,  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and Further,  the  tracing  the  iii  development  a sharing  of  thesis decries  l e g i s l a t i o n as a t o o l f o r p l e a b a r g a i n i n g  criminals.  mechanisms, of  a  proceeds any  or to t a r g e t  use  petty  TABLE OF CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  iv  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  v i  CHAPTER 1 - CONFISCATING THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME - AN OVERVIEW..  1  C r i m i n a l Law and C o n f i s c a t i o n a t Common Law 7 C a n a d i a n S t a t u t o r y a n d J u d i c i a l I n i t i a t i v e s P r e - 1 9 8 9 .... 11 The I n t e r n a t i o n a l L e g i s l a t i v e Scheme 22 The U n i t e d S t a t e s 26 Britain 30 Australia 31 The C l a s s i c Norms and T r a d i t i o n s o f C a n a d i a n C r i m i n a l Law 32 CHAPTER 2 - THE AMENDMENTS AND THE CODE  42  E n t e r p r i s e C r i m e and D e s i g n a t e d D r u g O f f e n c e s 43 L a u n d e r i n g Proceeds o f Crime 47 Proceeds o f Crime 53 S e a r c h , S e i z u r e and R e s t r a i n t 55 I n Personam C o n f i s c a t i o n 64 I n Rem C o n f i s c a t i o n 71 The N e t W o r t h I n f e r e n c e 75 The P r o t e c t i o n o f P e r s o n s A f f e c t e d by t h e L e g i s l a t i o n ... 78 Summary 84 CHAPTER 3 - THE AMENDMENTS AND THE CHARTER S p e c i a l S e a r c h Warrants, R e s t r a i n t O r d e r s and S e c t i o n C o n f i s c a t i o n and t h e P r e s u m p t i o n o f I n n o c e n c e - S e c t i o n 11(d) Fundamental J u s t i c e - S e c t i o n 7 The F i n a l H u r d l e - S e c t i o n 1 Summary CHAPTER 4 - CRIMINAL CONFISCATION IN CANADA - I T S FUTURE T r a c i n g t h e Proceeds o f Crime Mandatory F i n a n c i a l R e p o r t i n g Requirements The S t r i k e F o r c e Asset Sharing The Amendments - Can They Weather t h e S t o r m P l e a B a r g a i n i n g and E x t r a - J u d i c i a l Arrangements A v o i d i n g t h e 'Big F i s h ' Summary iv  85 8 . 87 98 106 110 115 117 12 0 12 3 131 135 138 139 141 143  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  D u r i n g t h e r e s e a r c h and w r i t i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s , I r e c e i v e d v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e f r o m many p e r s o n s . I w i l l n o t a t t e m p t an e x h a u s t i v e l i s t , however do e x t e n d my t h a n k s t o a l l , a d d i n g t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h e o p i n i o n s e x p r e s s e d and t h e i m p e r f e c t i o n s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e t h e s i s a r e mine a l o n e . W i t h i n t h e F a c u l t y o f Law at the U n i v e r s i t y of British C o l u m b i a , t h a n k s a r e due P r o f e s s o r M a r i l y n MacCrimmon, who h e a d s t h e G r a d u a t e Program, Dr. D e L l o y d Guth, Dean G e o r g e C u r t i s and my f e l l o w g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s f o r t h e i r comments and c r i t i c i s m s . My t h a n k s a l s o t o t h e F a c u l t y f o r e m p l o y i n g me a s a L e g a l W r i t i n g I n s t r u c t o r and a R e s e a r c h A s s i s t a n t , i n p a r t i c u l a r t o A s s o c i a t e Dean L i z E d i n g e r , P r o f e s s o r s I s a b e l G r a n t , L y n n S m i t h and Jerome A t r e n s . P r o f e s s o r A t r e n s a l s o k i n d l y a c t e d as t h e second r e a d e r o f this thesis. S p e c i a l n o t e s o f a p p r e c i a t i o n a r e due t o t h e s t a f f o f t h e Law L i b r a r y and t o t h o s e members o f t h e R.C.M.P. i n v o l v e d i n c r i m i n a l c o n f i s c a t i o n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s who made h e l p f u l s u g g e s t i o n s and p o s e d i n t e r e s t i n g problems. L a s t , b u t most i m p o r t a n t , I owe a d e b t o f g r a t i t u d e t o my t h e s i s a d v i s o r , Dr. J o h n H o g a r t h , who a l w a y s f o u n d t i m e t o p r o v i d e a d v i c e and s u p p o r t d e s p i t e an o n e r o u s s c h e d u l e . I thank him sincerely.  vi  CHAPTER  CONFISCATING THE  On J a n u a r y 1, 1989, countries  PROCEEDS OF  Canada added  CRIME - AN  C-61,  into force.  referred 4  OVERVIEW  i t s name t o a g r o w i n g l i s t  i n t e n t on stemming t h e t i d e o f i l l e g a l  through the use of s t a t u t o r y Bill  ONE  confiscation  drug  trafficking On  1  that  day,  t o a s t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments,  came  2  schemes.  of  3  I t amended v a r i o u s f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s , most n o t a b l y t h e  The s c o p e and e x t e n t o f i l l i c i t d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g i n Canada is discussed later in this thesis. A p e r s u a s i v e and contemporary j o u r n a l i s t i c overview of the problem can be found however, in Victor Malarek, Merchants of Misery ( T o r o n t o : M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t , 1 9 8 9 ) . 1  T h i s t h e s i s u t i l i z e s a d i s t i n c t i o n between c o n f i s c a t i o n and forfeiture developed by the Hodgson Committee in E n g l a n d , a c o m m i t t e e o f s c h o l a r s f u n d e d by t h e Howard L e a g u e f o r P e n a l Reform. I t uses the term ' c o n f i s c a t i o n t o denote "the d e p r i v a t i o n o f an o f f e n d e r o f t h e p r o c e e d s o r t h e p r o f i t s o f c r i m e " and ' f o r f e i t u r e t o d e s c r i b e " t h e power o f the Court t o take property that i s immediately connected w i t h an o f f e n c e " ( S i r D e r e k Hodgson, P r o f i t s o f C r i m e and T h e i r R e c o v e r y (London: Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l B o o k s , 1984) a t 5) . Others have implicitly differentiated between f o r f e i t u r e and c o n f i s c a t i o n t h r o u g h u s e o f t h e l a t t e r t e r m (see, e . g . , B r u c e A. M a c F a r l a n e , " C o n f i s c a t i n g t h e F r u i t s o f Crime" (1984-85) 27 Crim. L. 0. 408 and H.R.S. Ryan, " A n n o t a t i o n " (1985) 46 C R . (3d) 2 7 8 ) . 2  1  1  I n t h i s t h e s i s , t h e amendments i n t r o d u c e d by B i l l C-61 a r e v a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o as 'the amendments, 'the p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments,' 'the l e g i s l a t i o n * and 'the p r o c e e d s o f crime l e g i s l a t i o n .  3  1  1  The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y s u r r o u n d i n g t h i s i n i t i a t i v e s p a n s five years. B i l l C-19, t h e C r i m i n a l Law R e f o r m A c t . 1984. i n t r o d u c e d on 7 Feb. 1984, e n v i s i o n e d w i d e - r a n g i n g p o w e r s o f s e a r c h , s e i z u r e and f r e e z i n g o f t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e s ( s . 107) as w e l l as t h e i r c o n f i s c a t i o n ( s . 206) . The legislation met considerable objection outside  4  1  Criminal Act.  Code,  the  providing  6  investigative giving  the  Narcotic organs  t o o l s which  Control of  law  target  Act  5  the  enforcement the  proceeds  c r i m i n a l c o u r t s t h e power t o o r d e r  proceeds.  and  Food  with of  and  Drugs  sweeping crime  7  c o n f i s c a t i o n of  new  and  by  these  8  The restraint  amendments p e r m i t , of  property  inter alia,  derived  from  the p r e - t r i a l  enterprise crime,  seizure 9  a  and  genus  P a r l i a m e n t and d i e d w i t h t h e p r o r o g a t i o n o f P a r l i a m e n t (see g e n e r a l l y R i c h a r d G. M o s l e y , " S e i z i n g t h e P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e : The Origins and Main Features of Canada's Criminal Forfeiture Legislation," unpub. paper presented to the N a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e ( h e r e a f t e r NCPC), Ottawa, 29-31 Mar. 1989 at 13). A modified version, i n t r o d u c e d on 19 Dec. 1984 a s s. 75 of B i l l C-18, the Criminal Law Amendment A c t , 1985, did not reach third reading. B i l l C-61 r e c e i v e d f i r s t r e a d i n g on 29 May 1987, second r e a d i n g on 14 S e p t . 1987, t h i r d r e a d i n g on 7 J u l y 1988 and R o y a l A s s e n t on 13 S e p t . 1988. P r o c l a m a t i o n t o o k p l a c e on 31 O c t . 1988 and t h e amendments came i n t o f o r c e on 1 J a n . 1989 a s c . 51 o f S.C. 1988. I n c l u s i o n a s P a r t X I I . 2 ( s s . 462.3 t o 462.5) o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code. R.S.C. 1985, c . C-46 (hereafter o c c a s i o n a l l y r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e C o d e ) , o c c u r r e d by way of R.S.C. 1985 ( 4 t h S u p p . ) , c . 42. 5  R.S.C. 1985,  c . N - l , as  6  R.S.C. 1985,  c.  F-27,  as  amended. amended.  The d e f i n i t i o n f o r ' p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ' i s b r o a d , i n c l u d i n g all "property, b e n e f i t or advantage, within or outside C a n a d a , o b t a i n e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y a s a r e s u l t o f " an enterprise crime or a designated drug o f f e n c e (Criminal Code, s. 4 6 2 . 3 ) .  7  In t h i s t h e s i s , the term 'proceeds of c r i m e i s used i n p r e f e r e n c e t o ' p r o f i t s of crime as i t i s a r g u a b l y b r o a d e r i n scope and i n c l o s e r alignment with the i n t e n t of the amendments.  8  1  1  9  C r i m i n a l Code, s.  462.3. 2  of  liberal  definition,  of  s p e c i a l search  by  t h e Crown,  committed  i fa link  the  property  The created, In  t o property  i n specie  i s substituted. offence  of  taint  When  1 2  sought  which i s t h e proceeds o f c r i m e  of probabilities  on p r o p e r t y  1 9  of other  Ibid.  11  I b i d . , s . 462 . 32 .  1 2  I b i d . , s . 462.33.  1 3  I b i d . , s . 462.37(1) .  1 4  I b i d . , s . 462.37(2) .  1 5  I b i d . . s s . 462.37  activity.  conveyance  to  worth, w i t h  mandatory  the  proceeds  of the proceeds where a p e r s o n test  Crown  1 4  If,  i s not  imprisonment  of  of drug dies  i s imported  and a s t a t u t o r y i n f e r e n c e  1 0  crime'  is  offences.  1 7  o r absconds.  1 8  t o e s t a b l i s h the  i s created  to assist  (3) a n d 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 4 ) .  I b i d . . s . 462.31. Similar provisions are included i n the F o o d a n d D r u g s A c t a s s s . 44.3 a n d 50.3 a n d i n t h e N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t a s s . 19.2. 1 6  Food and Drugs A c t , A c t , s . 19.1. 1 7  1 8  Criminal  1 9  I b i d . , s . 462.37 (1) .  1 3  made o p t i o n a l i f  criminal  'laundering  as i s possession  balance  orders.  by means  1 0  1 5  rem c o n f i s c a t i o n may o c c u r  The  offences,  i s not established t o the offence, i s the proceeds  new 1 6  and r e s t r a i n t  1 1  a fine of equivalent  in default,  drug  confiscation r e s u l t s after conviction f o r offences  conviction,  possible,  warrants  i n relation  or,  after  and from d e s i g n a t e d  s s . 44.2 and 50.2 a n d N a r c o t i c  Code, s . 4 6 2 . 3 8 ( 2 ) .  3  Control  with  the determination  shrouds  income t a x r e c o r d s  enquiries  2 1  obtains  f o r persons  proceeds  of  This earlier  crime.  who  disclose  The  2 2  control the  initiatives  of  t o one w h i c h  upon  related  liability t o the  t h e amendments a r e  t h e amendments go much f u r t h e r  criminal  i s both  t h e proceeds  i n d i v i d u a l or corporate;  2 0  I b i d . , s . 462.39.  2 1  I b i d . , s . 462.48.  2 2  I b i d . , s . 462.47.  2 5  and r e p r e s e n t  single  paradigmatic  transaction,  individual-  law w i t h  which  Canadians  and premised  by c r i m i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s .  o f crime,  than  a  property-driven  multiple-transactions perpetrated focus  of  which  certain police  and c r i m i n a l  information  implications  traditional  structure  2 4  of secrecy  i s drawn b a c k t o a l l o w  t h e s i s argues t h a t  from  familiar  The v e i l  23  crime  oriented  2 0  and a s t a t u t o r y defence t o c i v i l  tremendous.  shift  of net worth.  as opposed  to the  t h e i r avowed p u r p o s e b e i n g  are upon They  offender,  to neutralize  A p r o m i n e n t V a n c o u v e r l a w y e r d e s c r i b e s t h e amendments a s "preposterous 'overkill.'" K e n n e t h Young a d d s t h a t they "most r a d i c a l l y a f f e c t ( i f n o t t o s a y , u n d e r m i n e and/or u t t e r l y ignore) t h e r i g h t s o f c i t i z e n s , g e n e r a l l y , and t h e i r c o u n s e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y " ("Memorandum Re: B i l l C-61." unpub. p a p e r d e l i v e r e d t o t h e C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S e c t i o n , B.C. B r a n c h , C.B.A., V a n c o u v e r , 18 J a n . 1989 a t 1 ) . 2 3  The words " s i n g l e t r a n s a c t i o n s committed by i n d i v i d u a l o f f e n d e r s " a r e u s e d by P a t r i c i a D o n a l d , i n "A Commentary on the Provisions o f C-61 Canada's New Proceeds o f Crime L e g i s l a t i o n (S.C. 1988, c . 5 1 ) , " (1989) 47 T h e A d v o c a t e 423.  2 4  The c r i m i n a l c u l p a b i l i t y o f c o r p o r a t i o n s i s t h e s u b j e c t o f a l a r g e body o f l e g a l l i t e r a t u r e . Although the proceeds of c r i m e l e g i s l a t i o n may c a u s e s e r i o u s j e o p a r d y t o t h e w e l l - b e i n g of corporations through the seizure or f r e e z i n g o f assets, i t  2 5  4  criminal  organizations  rather  of  by which c r i m i n a l  p r o c e e d s c a n be s e i z e d o r  operate  later  prospectively,  proceedings.  amendments private foreign  draw  law to  The  of  follow,  classic  those  Canadian utilizing  Exploring is  starting  deal  be  to  some  appellate importance  criminal  of  statutory  fraught  with  with cases  levels.  before  result,  preserve  introducing  some  of  speed  in  purpose,  the  of  the  which  are  criminal  shift  when  assessing  are  are  precludes  foreign  its  law  and  to  overviewed  initiative,  the  in  the  as a  despite  Canadian courts  initiated  under  pronouncements  Nevertheless, in  the the  are  the  legal  use  is  of  pre-existing pages  of  its are  ancient only  from  now  and  great 2 6  corporate  The United States experience demonstrates that c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n c a n be f i n a n c i a l l y destructive to both individuals and c o r p o r a t i o n s , creating a significant liability f o r c o u n s e l who a r e o b l i v i o u s t o i t s implications. Recognizing the significance of the amendments, the Law S o c i e t y of B r i t i s h Columbia r e c e n t l y s e n t an a d v i s o r y t o all its members, summarizing them and warning of their implications ("New P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e L e g i s l a t i o n " [ 1 9 8 9 ] 10 2 6  5  it  senior  such  community,  n e i t h e r f o c u s e s upon nor changes a c c e p t e d n o t i o n s o f responsibility for criminal acts.  which  counterpoint.  legislation  received  topic  the  implications.  danger.  practitioners  the  conviction  this  this  which law  a  the  traditions  to  procedural.  models  aspects  new  time  to  and  and  offenders.  and as a  of  accomplish  tort,  tied  frozen  previously  and  nature  inexorably  a c c e p t e d norms and t r a d i t i o n s  a  precursors,  will  substantive  theories  to  and  norms  is  individual  anticipation  concepts  fundamental  Accordingly,  in  order  contract  both  traditional  state  In  upon  of the  sentencing,  amendments  punish  The e f f e c t i v e n e s s  they  the  than  law  enforcement  personnel, the  population,  2 7  that  efforts  h o p e f u l l y worth the r e l a t e d This  Chapter  forfeiture  in  begins  English  judiciary to  and,  not  contextualize  the the  least,  the  lay  amendments  are  risks. with  common  an law  overview and  of  Canadian  the  history  criminal  a d m i t t e d l y s k i r t i n g many c e n t u r i e s i n a few s h o r t l i n e s . emphasis  i s accorded  pre-1989  statutory  and  judicial  of law,  Increased  attempts  Benchers' B u l l e t i n 2). The criminal defence bar, particularly in British Columbia and Ontario, continue to express vociferous o b j e c t i o n t o t h e amendments. Unfortunately the fear of taint t o l a w y e r s ' r e t a i n e r s and trust accounts, however important i t may be, dominates forums d e a l i n g with the amendments, t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a w i d e r s c r u t i n y . I t also p r e v e n t s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e t h i c a l problems posed by l a w y e r s who o p e r a t e i n t h e shadowy w o r l d o f m o n e y - c h a n g i n g . David J . F r i e d r e c e n t l y expressed a s i m i l a r concern f o r the derisive effect of focussing on lawyer's fees when considering the expanded use of American confiscation l e g i s l a t i o n ( " R a t i o n a l i z i n g C r i m i n a l F o r f e i t u r e , " (1988) J . C r i m . L. & C r i m . 328 a t 330) . On t h e 'plus' s i d e f o r the c r i m i n a l defence bar, a Winnipeg l a w y e r r e c e n t l y t e r m e d t h e amendments "a l a w y e r ' s dream" b e c a u s e " [ c ] i t i z e n s a r e g o i n g t o h a v e t o h i r e l a w y e r s t o e x p l a i n B i l l C-61 t o them, t o d e f e n d them a g a i n s t i t and to c h a l l e n g e i t on t h e i r b e h a l f " ( " B i l l C-61: Proposal to s e i z e c r i m e p r o c e e d s c a l l e d l a w y e r ' s dream," The N a t i o n a l . n.d.). Furthermore, drug defence lawyers i n the United S t a t e s a r e overcoming the problems a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t a i n t e d t r u s t a c c o u n t s by o b t a i n i n g r e t a i n e r s f r o m o t h e r t h a n an a c c u s e d ( S t e v e n Waldman and Mark M i l l e r , "The D r u g L a w y e r s , " Newsweek. 13 Nov. 1989 a t 41-2) and by t h e f e d e r a l J u s t i c e Department's restrictive interpretation of laundering l e g i s l a t i o n , when c o n s i d e r i n g c a s e s i n v o l v i n g l a w y e r s . K e n n e t h Young c a p t u r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f many members o f t h e c r i m i n a l d e f e n c e b a r when he commented: " P o t e n t i a l l y (and t h e p o t e n t i a l o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n f o r a b u s e i s immense), i t s implementation i s capable of elevating any citizen in p o s s e s s i o n o f v i r t u a l l y any a s s e t t o t h e r a n k s o f o r g a n i z e d c r i m e ; and r e d u c i n g any l a w y e r r e t a i n e d t o r e p r e s e n t h i m t o t h o s e o f h i s p a r t n e r o r a c c o m p l i c e (Young, s u p r a . n t . 23; s e e a l s o L a r r y S t i l l , "Drug p r o f i t s t a r g e t o f new l a w , " The V a n c o u v e r Sun. 9 Nov. 1989 a t A13) . 2 7  6  to  confiscate then  the  placed  in  initiatives, protocols,  of  the  traditions statement. Rights In  and  or  an  placed of  amendments  control  upon Canada by  various  certain law;  long-standing including  proceedings, the  fundamental  with  which  follow,  into in  2 8  the  emphasis being  norms  and  this  Chapter  play  the  purpose  of  traditions,  of  both  of  and which  an i m p o r t a n t  are  on t h o s e  certain  p r o v i s i o n s of  c o m m e n t i s made o f errors  amendments  placed  question  role  aspects  the  impact  the in  reviewed  which  norms  on t h e  in  and  thesis  Canadian Charter this  of  consideration.  the various d e f i c i e n c i e s noted  o m i s s i o n and  in  inclusion.  LAW AND C O N F I S C A T I O N A T COMMON LAW  is  of  property  which  legal  inextricably  by  the  state  historians  tied  to  that  of  is  trace both  not to  a  novel early  criminal  Part I of the Constitution Act. 1982. Sch. C a n a d a A c t . 1982 ( U . K . ) , c . 11 ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d Charter).  2 8  2 9  are  crime  criminal  and c i v i l  certain  The  international  overview  The a l l - i m p o r t a n t  history, 2 9  obligations  criminal  reviewed  Forfeiture  times,  of  call  amendments,  Its  scope  Canada.  substantive.  and Freedoms  CRIMINAL  broader  Anglo-American  chapters  conclusion,  the  in  by  and  detail,  contradict  crime  the  between  law  procedural  greater  of  followed  distinction  In  the  noting  principles  criminal  proceeds  Hodgson,  supra.  nt.  2 at  14.  7  law  concept. biblical and  B to to as  the  the the  law it  of  negligence,  s e r v e d many In  a  conviction  for  included  the  property. fact  England  it,  more to  family,  or  loss  creditors  obtain  'corruption  system.  its  abolition  of  in  A peculiar  felon  the  England.  yet  The  blood,  Eventually,  3 4  not,  3 2  a civil  of  | 3 3  and  attainder  and  a  years  felon's did  was  not  of  and  matter,  the  inability  personal  nor  of  a  the of  a  judgment were u n f o r t u n a t e harshness of  This  did  incidental  disinheritance followed,  to upon  3 0  death.  real  completely  which  served  capacities"  sentence  a  property  than  the  s a t i s f a c t i o n of  the  the  of  rights in  Through the  forms.  principle  forfeiture  offence.  of  many  resulting  often  the  was a p r e c u r s o r .  "civil  felony  automatic  unconnected  to  the  person's a  it  and t o o k  The s o u r c e of  3 1  that  which  functions  feudal  extinguish  of  forfeiture  the and  felon's potential  victim  to  results  of  resulted  in  3 5  parallel  type  Henry C. B l a c k , B l a c k ' s P a u l : W e s t , 1968) at 162.  3 0  of  Law  forfeiture  Dictionary,  found expression  rev.  4th  ed.  (St.  Hodgson, supra. nt. 2 at 12. David Fried notes that " ' f o r f e i t u r e of e s t a t e , ' a form of c r i m i n a l f o r f e i t u r e , was a mandatory i n c i d e n t of a l l common l a w a n d m o s t statutory felony convictions. F o r f e i t u r e o f e s t a t e was t h e t a k i n g by t h e Crown o f a l l o f t h e f e l o n ' s r e a l and p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y " ( s u p r a , n t . 26 a t 3 2 9 n ) .  3 1  3 2  Supra.  nt.  24  at  423.  A legal fiction which viewed the felon's blood as corrupt. As a r e s u l t , descendents of such persons lost t h e i r a b i l i t y to i n h e r i t through the f e l o n .  3 3  3 4  Hodgson,  supra,  3 5  Forfeiture  Act,  nt. 33  2 at & 34  12  and  Vict., 8  15. c.  23.  in  English  civil  law.  Known as  f o r f e i t u r e t o the Crown, and "any use  o b j e c t which caused was  intentional.  3 8  the  i t called  for  the  l a t e r t o a v i c t i m or h i s f a m i l y , of  a person's An  deodand,  death,"  artifice,  37  whether or not i t s  n e c e s s i t a t e d by  the  void  e x i s t a n t where n e g l i g e n c e law now stands, i t focused a t t e n t i o n upon an o b j e c t , i n rem, or was  as opposed t o the person who w i e l d e d , c o n t r o l l e d  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s use.  In t h i s manner, a weapon, a c a r t  or an animal c o u l d become the o b j e c t of the law's a t t e n t i o n . By the e a r l y p a r t of the n i n e t e e n t h century, the deodand had e v o l v e d i n t o an a r b i t r a r y pecuniary e q u i v a l e n t of the c o s t of an offending object. the  victim  as  3 9  G e n e r a l l y i t f a i l e d t o adequately  juries  4 0  normally  assessed  only  that  compensate part  of  an  o b j e c t , such as the wheel of a c a r t , which came i n t o c o n t a c t w i t h the deceased.  41  N e v e r t h e l e s s , i t r e p r e s e n t e d a t h i n l y g u i s e d form  of t o r t i o u s r e c o v e r y . the  development  became  an  of  The advent  negligence  anachronism,  of the r a i l r o a d s p u r r e d  law  finally  and  doomed the  abolished  in  1846  forward  deodand. 42  and  largely  See Jacob J . F i n k e l s t e i n , "The Goring Ox: Some H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on the Deodands, F o r f e i t u r e s , Wrongful Death and the Western Notion of S o v e r e i g n t y , " (1973) 46 - Temple L.Q. 169 f o r a comprehensive h i s t o r i c a l review of deodand. 3 6  3 7  Hodgson, supra. n t . 2 a t  3 8  Mosley, supra. n t . 4 a t 2.  3 9  Hodgson, supra. n t . 2 a t  4 0  U s u a l l y a grand j u r y or a coroner's  41  4 2  14.  14. jury.  Ibid. Deodands A b o l i t i o n A c t . 9 & 10 V i c t . , c. 9  62.  It  replaced  by  a  statute  fatality  victims.  designed  t o compensate  the families  of  4 3  D e s p i t e t h e d e c l i n e o f common l a w f o r f e i t u r e a n d t h e d e o d a n d , various  statutory  certain  chattels  chattels commit  provisions  which  t o t h e Crown  c a n be d i v i d e d  an o f f e n c e  4 4  permitted  remained.  i n t o two b r o a d  and t h o s e  which  the f o r f e i t u r e of  To  this  categories,  day,  those  these  used t o  are per se i l l e g a l .  The  4 5  former i n c l u d e s  s u c h i t e m s a s a gun o r k n i f e u s e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n  of  the latter  an a s s a u l t ;  firearms  and i l l e g a l  Clearly, different felon's seizure  historically  mechanisms  possessions  counterfeit  money,  served  described  i n English a  very  law.  different  o f a n implement w h i c h r e s u l t e d  s e i z u r e o f evidence o f a crime.  the effect  The e s c h e a t purpose  i n a person's  person's  thereof. involved  dispossession Furthermore,  i n a very  c o n f i s c a t i o n o f t h e proceeds  A c t f o r Compensating t h e F a m i l i e s A c c i d e n t s , 9 & 10 V i c t . , c . 93. Variously offence.  referred  to  as  tools  V a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o as contraband, m a t t e r o f an o f f e n c e . 4 5  10  orthe between  tangential  or a  portion  sense,  none  of crime.  4 3  4 4  the  f o r f e i t u r e was  of h i s or her property,  except  death  of  of a  from  The o n l y common i n g r e d i e n t  f o r f e i t u r e a t common law, t h e deodand and s t a t u t o r y a  prohibited  drugs.  forfeiture  legal  includes  of Persons or  Killed  instruments  of  By an  or the r e s or subject  CANADIAN STATUTORY AND  The  criminal  essentially felon's Cases  assets  Act  of  corruption to  that  brought  of  of  England.  common  the  time  Although  4 6  thereafter,  expressly  the  prohibited  of  Confederation  the  forfeiture  Procedure  deodand  law  codification  forfeiture  to  of an  end.  a  It  a t t a i n d e r or c o r r u p t i o n of blood,  was of  a  Criminal  eliminated  law  related in  1892  specifically  o r any  forfeiture  4 9  r e s u l t i n g i n p e c u n i a r y l o s s t o an o f f e n d e r , much  and  criminal  However, s t a t u t o r y f o r f e i t u r e r e m a i n e d .  so  47  in  or d i s i n h e r i t a n c e except f o r o f f e n c e s  Canada's  4 8  escheat."  Canada a t  continued 1869  p r o h i b i t e d "any or  law  of blood  treason.  J U D I C I A L I N I T I T A T I V E S PRE-1989  punishment  5 0  as  they  are  Although undoubtedly  such p r o v i s i o n s are  evidentiary  vehicles  See generally, Desmond H. Brown, The Genesis C a n a d i a n C r i m i n a l Code o f 1892 (Toronto: Univ. of P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) , c h ' s . 3 and 5.  not  designed of the Toronto  An A c t r e s p e c t i n g P r o c e d u r e i n C r i m i n a l C a s e s , and other m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o C r i m i n a l Law. S.C. 1869, c. 29, s. 54. T h i s A c t was one o f a number p a s s e d d u r i n g t h e y e a r s 1867-69 i n an a t t e m p t t o b r i n g t o g e t h e r t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g c r i m i n a l law o f t h e c o l o n i e s . See g e n e r a l l y , Brown, s u p r a , n t . 46, c h . 5 and A.W. Mewett, "The C r i m i n a l Law, 1867-1967" (1967) 45 Can. B. Rev. 726. 4 7  An A c t r e s p e c t i n g P r o c e d u r e i n C r i m i n a l m a t t e r s r e l a t i n g t o C r i m i n a l Law, s. 55 and 4 8  An 965.  4 9  Act  respecting  the  Criminal  Law.  S.C.  C a s e s and s. 56. 1892,  c.  other 29,  s.  F o r a c o n t r a r y v i e w , s e e Rand J . ' s judgment i n I n d u s t r i a l A c c e p t a n c e C o r p . v . The Queen [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273 a t 278, 107 C.C.C. 1 a t 6, w h e r e i n he s t a t e s , i n r e l a t i o n t o r e v e n u e laws, that "absolute forfeiture is an inseparable accompaniment of p u n i t i v e a c t i o n . " See a l s o MacFarlane, 5 0  11  either  to  offender  assist of  illicit  examples.  The  forfeiture,  5 2  Drugs  Act.  entitled  The relieve  do  the  the a  general  Code,  the  or of  both  for the  property  to  Act  5 3  replete  and  51  and  power  the  disposses  are  i n rem  forfeiture  in  or  statutes  Control  allowing  Crown  crime  release  absence seized  by  Food  found to  of  and  in  a  such  a  with  i n personam  the  is  an  s.  person person,  police  officer  to a federal statute. statutory an  forfeiture  offender  c r i m i n a l s who  of  the  January  1,  recover  any  of  little,  crime.  however,  Tales  to  abound  of  t r a n s f e r or d e p o s i t s t o l e n or f r a u d u l e n t l y obtained  1989,  the  ability  or f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . of  law  o r a l l o f s u c h m o n i e s was  to understand an  instructive.  p r o v i s i o n s do  proceeds  funds i n l e g i t i m a t e businesses  police,  of  Federal  Narcotic  possession,  to  proof  items.  Also,  to  forfeiture pursuant  as  of  the  C r i m i n a l Code p e r m i t s  5 4  490(9)(d)  with  enforcement  extremely  of  pre-1989  attempts  officials  limited.  t h e dilemma w h i c h f a c e d p o l i t i c i a n s , overview  Prior  In  to  order  prosecutors  to  and  confiscate  is  5 5  "Confiscating a t 408-09).  the  Fruits  of  Crime" Crim.  L.  0.  (supra  nt.  2  F o r example, s. 102(3) ( i l l e g a l p o s s e s s i o n o f w e a p o n s ) , s. 164(4) ( o b s c e n e p u b l i c a t i o n s ) and s. 395(2) ( p r e c i o u s m e t a l s ) .  51  For example, s. 319(4) (hate propaganda), ( p r e c i o u s m e t a l s ) and s. 492(2) ( e x p l o s i v e s ) .  5 2  5 3  Section  16.  5 4  Section  27.  See g e n e r a l l y , D a v i d G. P r i c e , " P o l i c e Accounts Under Section 29, C r i m i n a l Law 5 5  12  s.  394(2)  Seizure of Amendment  to  Bank Act,  Section  314  [now 354] o f t h e 1892 Code made  i t unlawful  r e c e i v e o r r e t a i n a n y t h i n g o b t a i n e d by an i n d i c t a b l e o f f e n c e . section  remained  "receives  i n i t s original  or retains"  offence t o read: was  obtained  applied  only  were  eliminated,  "has a n y t h i n g  by  an  to  items  form  1954 when  which  offence. were  a  The  5 6  direct  section  product  activity,  f o r example, money o b t a i n e d by f e n c i n g s t o l e n  his  57  but not the proceeds  Parliament  possession  any  property  or thing."  seizure  of  monies  enlarged  property 5 8  on  or  thing  or  any  in  financial  Canada v . Bourque. e t a l . , the Royal  6 0  property. "has i n  proceeds  allowed the  were  t h e known  distinguished  1975,"  of  drug  offences.  between t a n g i b l e d e p o s i t s , s u c h  a s money  R.S.C. 1953-54, s. 296.  5 7  S.C. 1974-75-76, c . 93, s . 29  By definition, property included real and property as w e l l as instruments representing entitlements (s. 2). 5 8  6 0  The  search account Court  i n a bank  (1976-77) 19 C r i m . L. 0. 86.  5 6  5 9  and  reluctantly  t o h o n o u r a C r i m i n a l Code  proceeds  5 9  I n R o y a l Bank o f  w a r r a n t a u t h o r i z i n g s e i z u r e o f bank r e c o r d s a n d m o n i e s on which  o f any  institutions  t h e Quebec S u p e r i o r C o u r t  Bank's r e f u s a l  crime,  criminal  the s e c t i o n t o read:  e l s e w h e r e were d a s h e d by a Quebec n a r c o t i c s c a s e .  upheld  o f such  Hopes t h a t t h e 1976 amendment deposit  clearly  of  stolen  1976,  t h e words  l e a v i n g t h e nexus o f t h e  generally  In  The  i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n " knowing t h a t i t  indictable  property,  until  to  S e e , f o r example, P r i c e [1984] 38 C R .  ( s u p r a . n t . 55 a t 8 9 ) .  (3d) 363. 13  personal property  vault,  and  latter  i t considered  not  intangible  exigible.  that  a  bank  The  deposits, a debt  s u c h as m o n i e s i n an  owed by  account  amendment  possession the  of  search  is  essentially refused The  to  a  book  entry  most  activity  w h i c h has  decades.  though  profits.  Not  the  Act,  Act  property  to  al. 6 2  6 3  failure  of  the The  6 2  Code  at  to to  or the  include modernize  the  same  Supreme C o u r t  of  time  Canada  6 3  confiscation  e f f o r t s occurred  the  trafficking  illegal,  greatest provides  means  by  which  money i n t h e  course  authority  of  under  area of  growth d u r i n g one to  of  the  criminal the  past and  substantial  the p o l i c e o f t e n s e i z e drug r a i d s .  the  fastest  acquire  large  Traditionally,  f o r such s e i z u r e s  was  incorporates  a  the  lawfully  person  scheme  for  the  restoration  entitled  to  A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Quebec v. R o y a l Bank o f (1985) 18 C.C.C. (3d) 98, 44 C R . (3d) 387.  Ibid,  seized  money's  worth.  The  6 1  be  noting  I t acknowledged t h a t  61  l e g i s l a t i o n f o c u s e d on t h a t  avowed p u r p o s e and  evidentiary  cannot  i t e m s , however, t h e  surprisingly, therefore,  of  and  offence  witnessed  Drug  easiest,  i t s customer  that  successful  Control  broadened  i t s worth.  appeal.  which  peace.  provisions  neutralized  leave to  quantities  354  seizure  Narcotic  two  s.  intangible  and  bank t o  the  Court of Appeal agreed, a l s o w i t h r e g r e t ,  brought b e f o r e a j u s t i c e of the 1976  the  account,  at  (1985) 18  101  C.C.C. , 390  C.C.C  (3d)  of  seized  possession. Canada,  et  CR.  98.  S e c t i o n 15. S i m i l a r , though not i d e n t i c a l p r o v i s i o n s f o u n d i n t h e F o o d and Drugs A c t , s s . 43, 44 and 51.  6 4  14  are  6 4  R e s t o r a t i o n c a n o c c u r when an i t e m i s n o t r e q u i r e d f o r e v i d e n t i a r y purposes  and  the  probabilities,  applicant  of  his  or  satisfies her  the  court,  entitlement.  on  In  6 5  a  the  balance  of  absence  or  d e n i a l o f an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e s t o r a t i o n , t h e p r o p e r t y i s d e l i v e r e d to  the  Minister  forfeited  6 6  while  to the federal  Bruce MacFarlane was  that  the  in  the  Crown.  event  of  conviction,  notes t h a t the p r e v a i l i n g view p r i o r t o  proceeds  of  crime  formed  strictly  the  subject  construed  both  c o u l d not  matter the  is  68  be  confiscated  means u n l e s s t h e y r e p r e s e n t e d - t h e a c t u a l payment f o r t h e which  i t  6 7  of  the  charge.  legislation  by  generally  7 0  this  substance  The  6 9  1981  courts and  the  See g e n e r a l l y , Bruce A. MacFarlane, Drug O f f e n c e s in C a n a d a ( A u r o r a : Canada Law Book I n c . , 1 9 8 6 ) , c h . 19, f o r an overview of r e s t o r a t i o n a p p l i c a t i o n s .  6 5  S e c t i o n 15(4). The M i n i s t e r becomes t h e c u s t o d i a n o f t h e property, thereby requiring the Federal Court to decide q u e s t i o n s o f t i t l e ( S m i t h v . The Queen (1975) 27 C.C.C. (2d) 252 ( F . C . T . D . ) , a f f d . by F.C.A. ( u n r e p o r t e d ) on 8 S e p t . 1976 ( M a c F a r l a n e , s u p r a , nt., 65 a t 4 7 3 ) ) .  6 6  Of any person charged, not n e c e s s a r i l y ( M a c F a r l a n e , s u p r a . n t . 65 a t 4 7 9 ) .  6 7  the  applicant  Section 16. MacFarlane points to an interesting d i s t i n c t i o n w h i c h t h e c o u r t s have drawn between t h e p u n i t i v e nature of such forfeiture and its availability as a sentencing option. A l t h o u g h p u n i t i v e (R. v . M c G r e g o r and McGregor (1956) 116 C.C.C. 55 (Man. Q.B.), i t is not c o n s i d e r e d an a l t e r n a t i v e t o o r p a r t o f t h e s e n t e n c e meted o u t t o t h e a c c u s e d b u t "a s p e c i a l remedy" (R. v . Smith (1978) 2 C R . (3d) S-35 a t S-36 (Nfld. C A . ) ) . The B . C C . A . a c c e p t e d t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i n R. v . Pope (1980) 52 C.C.C. (2d) 538 ( s e e a l s o M a c F a r l a n e , s u p r a . n t . 65 a t 4 8 0 - 8 2 ) . 6 8  69  MacFarlane,  See (Man.  7 0  s u p r a . n t . 65 a t  Re H i c k s and C.A.).  The  Queen  467  (1977) 36 15  C.C.C.  (2d)  91  at  95  restoration Manitoba argued  provisions  Court  of  specifically.  Appeal  by M a c F a r l a n e ,  narcotics  Re A i m o n e t t i and The  search.  restoration, allowed  refusing  J.A.  t o be  i n Re  R.  than Aimonetti.  and  Queen.  in  R.  Larqie.  In Buxton.  a  case  $24,000 were s e i z e d application  "possession fruits  of  will  illegal  Buxton  74  and  in for  not  be  trade i n  i s t o deny p o s s e s s i o n o f  and 7 5  the  72  interpretation obtained support  Queen's B e n c h i n Re  of Appeal  the  however,  approach  accused's  that  scheme o f t h e A c t  T h i s expansive  7 3  Alberta  The  and  the  stated  i f the cash appears  narcotics. funds."  In  Huband,  1981,  reconsidered t h i s  In A i m o n e t t i . both cannabis r e s i n a  In  7 1  such  from  the Ontario  However, b o t h went e v e n  the  Court  further  McFayden J . r e f u s e d an a p p l i c a t i o n  on  p u b l i c p o l i c y g r o u n d s and i n L a r q i e . t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l n o t e d  that  s.  drug  312  makes  offences. policy  7 6  illegal  The  the  Manitoba  argument,  in  possession  of  Court of Appeal  R.  v•  Medd.  77  the  proceeds  of  also accepted the  refusing  restoration  public after  h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y f r o m t h e a c c u s e d t h a t t h e m o n i e s s e i z e d were t h e  7 1  See  R.  v. Lewis  (1979) 21 A.R.  236  (Alta.  C.A.).  (1981) 58 C.C.C. (2d) 164, 24 C R . (3d) 13 (Man. C.A.). L e a v e t o a p p e a l t o t h e S.C.C. r e f u s e d on A p r . 27, 1981, l o c . c i t . a t 164n.  7 2  7 3  Ibid,  at  172.  7 4  (1981) 62  C.C.C.  (2d)  278  ( A l t a Q.B.)  at  281.  7 5  (1981) 63  C.C.C.  (2d)  508  (Ont. C A . )  a t 511-12.  M a c F a r l a n e n o t e s t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t i e s a r e m i x e d on t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y , a f t e r an a c q u i t t a l , o f r e s t o r a t i o n u n d e r s. 16 ( s u p r a , n t . 65 a t 4 7 0 - 7 1 ) . 7 6  7 7  (1983) 7 C.C.C.  (3d)  158  a t 160  (Man.  C.A.).  profits  o f u n r e l a t e d , though  In  predominantly  illegal  activity.  7 8  1986, t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada dampened t h e e n t h u s i a s m  building  over  Queen.  i t considered  79  the Aimonetti  concluding  that  causa  oritur  non  writing  a  line  of cases.  restoration  s . 10(6) [now 1 6 ( 1 ) ] actio  f o r t h e Court,  r e a s o n a b l e doubt,  application.  imports  f o r narcotics  added t h a t  In Fleming  Although  t h e maxim  convictions,  v . The  ex  turpi  Wilson J . ,  t h e Crown must p r o v e ,  a c o n n e c t i o n between t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r  beyond a and t h e  o f f e n c e , e i t h e r by way o f a c o n v i c t i o n f o r t h e p r e d i c a t e o f f e n c e o r as.  312 o f f e n c e , o r by e v i d e n c e In  federal  summary,  to utilize  t h e pre-1989  s t a t u t e s t o c o n f i s c a t e the proceeds  unsuccessful. of  attempts  i n a confiscation hearing.  What r e m a i n e d  provisions of  o f c r i m e were  largely  was t h e r a t h e r i n n o v a t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n  common l a w a n d e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i n e s .  A g a i n t h e r e s u l t s were n o t  terribly  s u c c e s s f u l except t o i d e n t i f y t h e apparent  existing  statutory  Bona v a c a n t i a  8 0  inadequacy o f  provisions. 8 1  was t h e common  law d o c t r i n e  of choice  i n R.  MacFarlane suggests t h a t t h e f o r e g o i n g and o t h e r c a s e s w h i c h f o l l o w t h e i r r e a s o n i n g have e f f e c t i v e l y i m p o r t e d t h e c i v i l maxim e x t u r p i c a u s a non o r i t u r a c t i o ("a r i g h t o f a c t i o n d o e s n o t a r i s e o u t o f an e v i l c a u s e " ( E l i z a b e t h A. M a r t i n , e d . , The C o n c i s e D i c t i o n a r y o f Law ( O x f o r d : U n i v . P r e s s , 1983) a t 172) i n t o t h e c r i m i n a l r e a l m (MacFarlane, s u p r a , n t . 65 a t 4 7 3 ) ) . 7 8  7 9  8 0  [1986] 1 S.C.R. 415, 25 C.C.C. Ibid,  (3d) 297.  a t 319-20, p e r W i l s o n J .  "Empty g o o d s " i n l i t e r a l E n g l i s h 38) .  8 1  17  ( M a r t i n , s u p r a , n t . 78 a t  v.  Smith  hearing,  and Smith.  During  8 2  t h e Crown s o u g h t  a  s . 312  confiscation  [now 354] s e n t e n c i n g  o f an a u t o m o b i l e  and rugs  p u r c h a s e d w i t h a s s e t s t h a t S i n c l a i r J . o f t h e A l b e r t a Queen's Bench d e t e r m i n e d were t h e p r o d u c t o f d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g . absence  of authority  invoked  the doctrine a t the urging  unaware  o f any precedent,  policy of  basis.  dubious  8 3  According  worth.  only i n the c i v i l Mareva to  i n t h e Code  to confiscate o f Crown  he r e l i e d  upon  Both  t o determine  a d  8 3  form  of inspection,  Mareva  Although  the doctrine's  injunctions  public  the decision i s  t o p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y d e v o i d o f an owner.  their  ownership.  of relief,  b y t h e Crown  o f crime, pending 85  Anton  Piller  civil orders  d e t e n t i o n and p r e s e r v a t i o n o f p r o p e r t y . and Anton P i l l e r  Q.B.).  H.R.S. Ryan, s u p r a . n t . 2. Furthermore, i t i s doubtful t h a t t h e Crown d e m o n s t r a t e d sufficient taint t o bring the c a s e w i t h i n t h e ambit o f t h e S . C C 's l a t e r d e c i s i o n i n F l e m i n g , s u p r a , n t . 79.  8 4  S e e West M e r c i a C o n s t a b u l a r y v . Wagener a n d O t h e r s [1982] 1 W.L.R. 127 (Q.B.), C h i e f C o n s t a b l e o f K e n t v . V a n d a n o t h e r [1983] Q.B. 34, [1982] 3 W.L.R. 462, [1982] 3 A l l E.R. 36 ( C A . ) , Canadian P a c i f i c A i r l i n e s L t d . v. Hind (1981) 122 D. L.R. (3d) 498 (Ont. H . C ) a n d H e r M a j e s t y t h e Queen v . Shah, e t a l . . 5 Dec. 1989, V i c t o r i a , 89/2488, u n r e p o r t e d (B.C.S.C).  8 5  A n t o n P i l l e r KG v . M a n u f a c t u r i n g P r o c e s s e s L t d . [1976] 1 A l l E. R. 779 ( C . A . ) . 18  8 6  o r d e r s emanate f r o m t h e  a t 280.  8 6  84  allowing access t o premises f o r  (1985) 46 C R . (3d) 278 ( A l t a . Ibid,  counsel.  i n j u n c t i o n s were a n d c o n t i n u e t o be u s e d  provide a similar purposes  i t e m s , he  t h a t bona v a c a n t i a i s a p p l i c a b l e  prevent t h e d i s s i p a t i o n o f t h e proceeds  proceedings  these  t o P r o f . H.R.S. Ryan,  Ryan o b s e r v e s realm,  Acknowledging t h e  civil  c o u r t s and, t h e r e f o r e ,  r e q u i r e t h e commencement o f p a r a l l e l  civil  proceedings.  a  Unless  civil  cause  of action  i s readily  a p p a r e n t , t h e i r u s e i s p o t e n t i a l l y an a b u s e o f t h e c o u r t ' s p r o c e s s , an  issue  considered  later  common method o f d i s g o r g i n g crime  i n this  Chapter.  convicted  persons  i s , however, t h r o u g h t h e i m p o s i t i o n It  would  be  easy  amendments were i n s p i r e d provisions incidence  in  criminal  o f drug  t o conclude  that  by t h e a b s e n c e statutes,  trafficking  8 7  t h e most  of t h e proceeds of  o f heavy  fines.  the proceeds  of effective  combined  and money  Likely  with  laundering  8 8  of  crime  confiscation an 8 9  increased  i n Canada.  For a d i s c u s s i o n o f the use of i n j u n c t i o n s i n r e l a t i o n t o m o n i e s on d e p o s i t , s e e C P . W a l k e r , "Opening t h e V a u l t s P o l i c e Powers and Bank A c c o u n t s , " (1983) C r . L . Rev. 723. 8 7  See R. v . J u n g (1976) 1 C R . (3d) S - l ( B . C . C . A . ) , p e r M c l n t y r e , J.A. ; R. v . Dow (1976) 1 C R . (3d) S-9 (B.C.C.A.); and M a c F a r l a n e , s u p r a . n t . 65 a t 686-87. 8 8  'Money L a u n d e r i n g ' o r 'money c h a n g i n g ' r e f e r s g e n e r a l l y t o t h e p r o c e s s by w h i c h money o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y is introduced to legitimate banking or other financial intermediaries i n order t o conceal i t s i l l e g a l origin. L a u n d e r i n g i s p r a c t i c e d by many p e r s o n s , i n c l u d i n g o r g a n i z e d c r i m e f i g u r e s , d r u g t r a f f i c k e r s and t h o s e who w i s h t o h i d e f u n d s f r o m t a x and o t h e r government a u t h o r i t i e s . I t becomes a n e c e s s a r y p r o c e s s f o r l a r g e sums o f money b e c a u s e o f t h e s h e e r w e i g h t and b u l k o f c a s h , t h e r i s k o f d e t e c t i o n a n d t h e d a n g e r t o o n e ' s p e r s o n c r e a t e d by c a r r y i n g l a r g e sums o f money. W i t h t h e p a s s a g e o f B i l l C-61, l a u n d e r i n g a c q u i r e d l e g a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and d e f i n i t i o n i n Canada ( C r i m i n a l Code, s . 462.31(1)). Numerous conduits c a n be used to facilitate the p r o c e s s , i n c l u d i n g banks and t r u s t c o m p a n i e s , real estate v e n t u r e s , f o r e i g n e x c h a n g e d e a l e r s and b r o k e r a g e f i r m s . O f t e n t i m e s money i s e x p o r t e d t h r o u g h s u c h a c o n d u i t a n d l a t e r r e p a t r i a t e d by v a r i o u s means. Canada, f o r example, may a c t a s t h e s o u r c e o f f u n d s i n t h e c a s e o f d o m e s t i c c r i m i n a l s l a u n d e r i n g monies o r a s a r e c i p i e n t f o r f o r e i g n criminals elements. In addition, considerable cash i s laundered without leaving the country. 8 9  19  90  The p r o v i n c e s o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a and O n t a r i o p r o v i d e d t h e i n i t i a l domestic impetus f o r c o n f i s c a t i o n legislation. A 1980 study conducted f o r the p r o v i n c i a l government i n B r i t i s h Columbia recommended l e g i s l a t i v e amendments t o t h e C r i m i n a l Code, a k i n t o t h e R a c k e t e e r I n f l u e n c e d and C o r r u p t O r g a n i z a t i o n s (RICO) p r o v i s i o n s i n U n i t e d S t a t e s f e d e r a l and s t a t e law, i n o r d e r t o t a r g e t t h e p r o c e e d s o f o r g a n i z e d o r e n t e r p r i s e crime. I t a l s o recommended t h e i n c l u s i o n o f a r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e t o d e a l w i t h t h e p r o b l e m of tracing illegal funds. As a guidepost, i t suggested that c o n f i s c a t i o n be a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e same o f f e n c e s t o w h i c h t h e e l e c t r o n i c e a v e s d r o p p i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e Code a p p l i e d and urged t h a t the province enact p a r a l l e l l e g i s l a t i o n t o a i d t h e p u b l i c and p r i v a t e v i c t i m s o f t h e s p e c i f i e d o f f e n c e s ( J i l l M c l n t y r e and A l e x a n d e r G. H e n d e r s o n , The B u s i n e s s o f C r i m e - An E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n " R a c k e t e e r I n f l u e n c e d and Corrupt Organizations" Statute from a Canadian P e r s p e c t i v e - E x e c u t i v e Summary and D r a f t Amendments t o t h e "Criminal Code" (Ministry of Attorney-General, Criminal J u s t i c e D i v i s i o n , 1980) a t 4-5) . 9 0  The B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a p r o p o s a l and a s i m i l a r one from O n t a r i o were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e 1981 U n i f o r m Law C o n f e r e n c e o f C a n a d a , C r i m i n a l Law S e c t i o n meeting. L a t e r i n t h e same y e a r , f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l l e a d e r s a g r e e d t o f o r m a j o i n t s t u d y g r o u p , t h e F e d e r a l / P r o v i n c i a l T a s k F o r c e on E n t e r p r i s e C r i m e , composed o f p e r s o n s drawn f r o m g o v e r n m e n t , a c a d e m i a , p r i v a t e law p r a c t i c e and law enforcement. The study group concluded i t s r e p o r t i n June 1983, acknowledging t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e i n Canada and t h e i n a b i l i t y o f p r e s e n t s t a t u t e s t o e x e r t e f f e c t i v e c o n t r o l , due p r i n c i p a l l y t o t h e a b s e n c e o f a c o n f i s c a t i o n mechanism f o r t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e . I t recommended t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i o n s i m i l a r t o B i l l C-61 (Dept. o f Justice, E n t e r p r i s e Crime Study Report. Ottawa, 10 June 1983) . However, t h e s t u d y g r o u p d i d n o t a c h i e v e u n a n i m i t y i n its work. In a dissent which accepted the need for l e g i s l a t i o n but d i s p u t e d the b a s i s f o r c e r t a i n of the r e p o r t ' s recommendations, John Hogarth d e s c r i b e d t h e r e p o r t as "a remarkable p i e c e of advocacy. I t starts with a conclusion ( t h a t p o w e r f u l new l e g a l t o o l s are r e q u i r e d t o d e a l with " e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e " ) and t h e n g o e s on t o m o b i l i z e " f a c t s " , l e g a l a n a l y s i s and a r g u m e n t s t o s u p p o r t i t " ( " E n t e r p r i s e C r i m e S t u d y R e p o r t " - A C r i t i g u e . Rome, 15 Dec. 198 3 a t 1 ) . Hogarth e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n w i t h a somewhat b i a s e d a c c u m u l a t i o n of s u p p o r t i n g d a t a and a l e s s t h a n a d e q u a t e t r e a t m e n t o f t h e c r i t i c a l due p r o c e s s component i n Canada's p o s t - 1 9 8 1 c r i m i n a l law ( i b i d , a t 2 - 3 ) . The domestic push also included law enforcement. Beginning in 1981, the R.C.M.P. established anti-drug profiteering u n i t s throughout Canada, a l l i e d to existing 20  However,  despite  enforcement suffers  from  the  officials, at least  that the l e g i s l a t i o n  pronouncements 9 2  of  politicans  such a s i m p l i s t i c p u b l i c p o l i c y  two  problems.  First,  i t fails  a p p l i e s t o a wide p a n o p l y  and  9 1  rationale  to consider  of offences,  o f f e n c e s b e i n g but the t i p of the p r o v e r b i a l i c e b e r g ,  9 4  law  and  9 3  drug  second,  drug s e c t i o n s . E n t e r p r i s e crime u n i t s w i t h i n commercial crime s e c t i o n s developed l a t e r . Due t o t h e d e l a y i n p a s s a g e and f u l l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e amendments, t h e s e u n i t s h a v e yet t o be f u l l y e x p l o i t e d . L e a d i n g o f f t h e d e b a t e p r i o r t o s e c o n d r e a d i n g o f B i l l C-61, t h e f e d e r a l M i n i s t e r o f J u s t i c e , Ray H n a t y s h y n , e x p r e s s e d h i s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d "go a l o n g way toward m a k i n g [ex t u r p i c a u s a non o r i t u r a c t i o ] a r e a l i t y i n o u r c o u n t r y " (House o f Commons D e b a t e s ( h e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s the D e b a t e s ) , 14 S e p t . 1987 a t 8 8 9 0 ) . 9 1  I t i s described by some a s a p a n a c e a . The argument c o n t i n u e s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l methods o f d r u g e n f o r c e m e n t are inadequate. The m e d i a and e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s a r e awash w i t h s t a t i s t i c s i n t e n d e d t o d e s c r i b e t h e e x t e n t o f money l a u n d e r i n g i n Canada. F o r example, a r e c e n t m a g a z i n e n o t e d that "[s]enior law enforcement officials maintain that V a n c o u v e r s e r v e s a s a r e l a y s t a t i o n f o r r o u g h l y h a l f o f more than $ 2 - b i l l i o n i n i l l e g a l drug p r o f i t s f u n n e l e d o f f s h o r e and brought back into Canada disguised as legitimate i n v e s t m e n t s " ("Big Time C r i m e , " ( S e p t . 1989) 7 E q u i t y 14 a t 16) . Due t o t h e u b i q u i t o u s n a t u r e o f t h e p r a c t i c e , i t i s difficult, i f not impossible, to isolate accurate statistics. 9 2  I n c l u d e d among e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e s a r e , i n t e r a l i a . b r i b e r y , fraud, breach of t r u s t , c o r r u p t i n g morals, keeping a bawdy h o u s e , p r o c u r i n g , murder, t h e f t , r o b b e r y , e x t o r t i o n , f o r g e r y , a r s o n , and m a k i n g and p o s s e s s i n g c o u n t e r f e i t money (Code, s. 4 6 2 . 3 ) .  9 3  The q u e s t i o n w h i c h begs a r e s p o n s e i s w h e t h e r o r n o t an e n t e r p r i s e crime problem of s u f f i c i e n t s e v e r i t y e x i s t s i n this country to j u s t i f y extraordinary criminal remedies. The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n becomes i m p o r t a n t f r o m a l e g a l p e r s p e c t i v e when c o n s i d e r i n g s. 1 o f t h e C h a r t e r . V o i c e s a r e emerging from t h e w i l d e r n e s s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e 'drug war' i s more p o l i t i c a l h y p e than r e a l i t y . W r i t i n g i n Newsweek, R u f u s K i n g n o t e s t h a t h e i g h t e n e d law e n f o r c e m e n t , s e v e r e s a n c t i o n s and political  9 4  21  it  does  not  enforcement decade.  9 5  explain work  The  international  THE  why  has  true  the  not  priority  increased  rationale  may  accorded  appreciably l i e in  the  traditional during area  of  the  drug past  Canada's  commitments.  INTERNATIONAL L E G I S L A T I V E SCHEME  J u s t i c e M i n i s t e r Doug L e w i s a l l u d e d t o t h e s e commitments when he  l e d o f f the second  r e a d i n g debate  on  Bill  C-61.  According to  Lewis: On an i n t e r n a t i o n a l l e v e l , t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n i s i n c o m p l i a n c e with the d r a f t United Nations Convention A g a i n s t Illicit Traffic i n Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances. Similar l e g i s l a t i o n has either been p a s s e d o r has been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s o f B r i t a i n , A u s t r a l i a and t h e United States. 9 6  He  a l s o expressed concern f o r the  future:  To p r e v e n t Canada f r o m b e c o m i n g a h a v e n f o r t h e p r o c e e d s o f crime, the legislation will forfeit a s s e t s on Canadian  r h e t o r i c d i d not cure the problem i n the p a s t , j u s t as t h e y d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y a d d r e s s t h e p r o b l e m s p o s e d by p r o h i b i t i o n e a r l i e r i n t h i s century. He compares 5,788 d r u g - r e l a t e d d e a t h s i n 27 c i t i e s t o t h e much g r e a t e r damage w r o u g h t by s m o k i n g and a l c o h o l , recommending l e g a l i z a t i o n a s a more v i a b l e s o l u t i o n ("A W o r t h l e s s C r u s a d e , " 1 J a n . 1 9 9 0 ) . Canadian police still l a g f a r behind their American c o u n t e r p a r t s i n terms of f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s f o r s p e c i a l i z e d e q u i p m e n t , s o u r c e h a n d l i n g and d r u g p u r c h a s e s . In a d d i t i o n , they are mired in jurisdictional discord, restricted in t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s o v e r s e a s and l a r g e l y d e p e n d a n t on U n i t e d States law enforcement agencies for much of their intelligence information. 9 5  9 6  Debates,  14  Sept.  1987  a t 8888. 22  soil no place.  matter  where  the  criminal  conduct  has  taken  9 7  Within  the world  community,  Canada  i s not  alone  l e g i s l a t i v e e f f o r t s t o c o n f i s c a t e the proceeds of crime. s i m i l a r moves a r e f a s t b e c o m i n g t h e norm, a v i r t u a l any  n a t i o n t h a t wishes  drug  trafficking  t o express i t s abhorrence  and money  laundering.  i ni t s In fact,  necessity f o r  of international  To i g n o r e t h e d r u g  wars  b e i n g f o u g h t i n many p a r t s o f t h e g l o b e i n v i t e s b o t h d i s c r e d i t and a  degree  of  infiltration  isolation by d r u g  l a u n d e r money. M.  internationally  cartels  wishing  and  opens  to trans-ship  a  nation  to  narcotics or  98  Cherif  Bassiouni  describes  the  evolution  of  an  i n t e r n a t i o n a l n a r c o t i c s c o n t r o l scheme a s d e p e n d a n t "on t h e w i l l f u l compliance  9 7  Ibid,  and  cooperation  of  member  states  of  the  world  a t 8890.  The American 'war on d r u g s , ' w h i c h began d u r i n g t h e Reagan p r e s i d e n c y and g a t h e r e d momentum under t h e Bush administration, views international borders as temporary o b s t a c l e s t o be c i r c u m v e n t e d . In the producer countries, particularly of Central and South America, this is accomplished through massive eradication programs and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s s p e a r h e a d e d by A m e r i c a n drug agents, often a s s i s t e d by components o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m i l i t a r y . In t h e h o s t c o u n t r i e s , p o l i t i c a l and d i p l o m a t i c p r e s s u r e , a s w e l l as e f f e c t i v e use o f t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l media, f o s t e r t h e a i m s o f t h i s u n o r t h o d o x war. I n C a n a d a ' s c a s e , A m e r i c a n law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n t s h a v e e v e n t a k e n t o j o k i n g a b o u t t h i s c o u n t r y ' s a p p r o a c h t o money laundering. A r e c e n t newsmagazine a r t i c l e n o t e d t h a t U n i t e d States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents " l a u g h i n g l y r e f e r t o Canada a s t h e 'Maytag' o f t h e moneyl a u n d e r i n g i n d u s t r y " ( " H i d i n g t h e D r u g Money," M a c l e a n ' s . 23 O c t . 1989 a t 4 2 ) . 9 8  23  community."  99  Between 1912 and 1972 t w e l v e m u l t i l a t e r a l  treaties,  c a l l i n g f o r b o t h d o m e s t i c e n f o r c e m e n t and i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n to  stem d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g ,  by  1986 t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e f f o r t In  illegal  1988 t h e U n i t e d trafficking  supplement  were c o n c l u d e d .  Bassiouni  110  nations.  Nations adopted t h e convention  referred  to existing  included  1 0 0  t o by t h e J u s t i c e  conventions.  document w h i c h , i n t e r a l i a ,  1 0 2  Canada  notes  that  1 0 1  respecting  Minister, i s party  as a  t o the  p r o v i d e s t h a t s i g n a t o r i e s must p r o h i b i t  M. C h e r i f B a s s i o u n i , "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l N a r c o t i c s C o n t r o l Scheme," i n Bassiouni, ed., I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law. Volume 1 - C r i m e s (Dobbs F e r r y , N.Y.: T r a n s n a t i o n a l , 1986) a t 507. Volume 2 - P r o c e d u r e p r o v i d e s a c o m p r e h e n s i v e o v e r v i e w of mutual a s s i s t a n c e t r e a t i e s and t h e p r o c e d u r a l issues i n v o l v e d i n o b t a i n i n g evidence abroad. 9 9  1 0 0  I b i d , a t 508.  Ibid. Whether the present extent of international cooperation warrants placing drug trafficking i n the category of a substantive i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i m i n a l offence i s not clear. Considerable authority exists f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a g g r e s s i o n , war c r i m e s , g e n o c i d e a n d p i r a c y , and p o s s i b l y s l a v e r y , a p a r t h e i d , t o r t u r e a n d t e r r o r i s m a r e s u c h o f f e n c e s ( D a n i e l H. Derby, "A Framework f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law," i n B a s s i o u n i , Volume 1. s u p r a . n t . 99 a t 3 3 - 6 ) . D e p e n d i n g on o n e ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i m e , d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g may h a v e a c q u i r e d s u c h d u b i o u s s t a t u s . A l l i e d c l o s e l y t o t h e concept o f i n t e r n a t i o n a l c r i m i n a l law i s t h e d o c t r i n e o f u n i v e r s a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , w h i c h p e r m i t s nations t o ignore the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l frailties of their domestic law when prosecuting persons alleged t o have committed i n t e r n a t i o n a l crimes ( s e e g e n e r a l l y K e n n e t h C. Randall, " U n i v e r s a l J u r i s d i c t i o n Under I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law," (1988) 66 T e x a s L. Rev. 7 8 5 ) . 1 0 1  United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and P s y c h o t r o p i c Substances. adopted i n Vienna on Dec. 19, 1988 and s i g n e d by C a n a d a on t h e f o l l o w i n g day. See P a u l S a i n t - D e n i s , "The U n i t e d Nations Convention against I l l i c i t Traffic i n N a r c o t i c Drugs and P s y c h o t r o p i c S u b s t a n c e s , " unpub. p a p e r , NCPC. 1 0 2  24  the  laundering  and p e r m i t  1 0 3  the confiscation  of proceeds  d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g and f u r t h e r , must h o n o u r c o u r t o r d e r s o f l i k e from  fellow  provide  a  signatories. wide  range  1 0 4  of  In addition, assistance  p r o s e c u t i o n o f such o f f e n c e s . Closely  allied  i trequires that  i n the  of  schemes.  any  bilateral  I n 1983, J o h n  conventions  Hogarth  nations that  or multilateral  c r i m i n a l matters,"  leaving  and  1 0 5  t o the international  t h e few d e v e l o p e d  kind  parties  investigation  n e t w o r k s o f t r e a t i e s between c o u n t r i e s w h i c h a t t e m p t national  from  to interface  d e s c r i b e d C a n a d a a s "one  [had] n o t s e e n  treaties  a r e complex  f i t t o enter i n  f o r mutual  assistance i n  i t d e p e n d a n t on " t h e i n c h o a t e d o c t r i n e  i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l law o f c o m i t y o r r i d e on t h e c o a t - t a i l s o f f o r e i g n police  agencies."  This Canada's  isolationism  i s fast  participation  Parliament Criminal  1 0 6  passed  Matters  legislation  i n the  Bill Act.  by p a v i n g  1 0 7  C-58,  coming t o an e n d . 1988  United  t h e Mutual  I t complements  t h e way  In response t o  Nations Legal  Convention,  Assistance i n  the proceeds  f o r Canada's  completion  of  crime  o f mutual  a s s i s t a n c e t r e a t i e s w i t h o t h e r n a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a s o f p r i s o n e r and evidence t r a n s f e r s f o r c o u r t purposes,  1 0 3  U n i t e d Nations Convention,  1 0 4  I b i d . , a r t . 5.  1 0 5  I b i d . , a r t . 7.  1 0 6  Hogarth,  e n f o r c i n g f o r e i g n f i n e s and  s u p r a . n t . 102, a r t . 3.  s u p r a , n t . 90 a t 12.  S.C. 1988, c . 37 r e c e i v e d t h i r d r e a d i n g moments b e f o r e B i l l C-61 on 7 J u l y 1988. I t o b t a i n e d R o y a l A s s e n t on 28 J u l y 1988 a n d came i n t o f o r c e on 1 O c t . 1988. 1 0 7  honouring  foreign  production restricted  of  requests  witnesses.  t o drug  matters.  for In  searches,  addition,  the  European n a t i o n s which possess the  legal  case,  until  United central  considers  States,  a civilian  r e c e n t l y , i n most  h e r i t a g e to the B r i t i s h  when one  the  which  and  treaties  the  are  not  1 0 8  Domestic c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n has  not  seizures  a long h i s t o r y legal  history  l o n g ago  of  and  Such owe  A surprising  i t s birth  overcame  g o v e r n m e n t ' s power t o t a x  system.  c o u n t r i e s which  common law.  as  a  was  their  exception  nation,  i t s pubescent seize.  i n those  is  the  dislike  for  Presently  i t leads  t h e common law n a t i o n s i n b o t h i t s c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n and i t s r e g u l a t i o n o f money l a u n d e r i n g .  Furthermore, i t takes  t o no n a t i o n when i t comes t o u r g i n g and on  others  The  United  to follow  a back  using forceful  seat  persuasion  suit.  States  A m e r i c a ' s f o r f e i t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n c a n be t r a c e d a s f a r b a c k the e a r l y nineteenth century. to permit  disposses  I t demonstrates a ready w i l l i n g n e s s  forms of s t a t u t o r y f o r f e i t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y w i t h  t o c u s t o m s and  revenue laws.  Confederate  as  Widely used d u r i n g  landowners,  i t found  Canada s i g n e d such t r e a t i e s w i t h t h e 1985, G r e a t B r i t a i n i n 1988 and M e x i c o i n  1 0 8  26  the  succour  United 1990.  respect  civil i n the  States  war  to  anti-  in  trust  laws  centuries.  of  the  late  nineteenth  and  early  twentieth  1 0 9  A m e r i c a ' s modern age o f c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n c a n be t r a c e d to  the  f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t ' s awakened i n t e r e s t  particularly  the  Cosa N o s t r a  families,  P r e s i d e n t Nixon signed the Organized law  on  was  the  (RICO) ,  October  15,  1970.  111  Racketeer Influenced 1 1 2  criminal  and  civil  during  within T i t l e  Corrupt  late  IX  Organizations  provisions  1 1 3  the  crime,  1960's.  C r i m e C o n t r o l A c t o f 1970  Contained and  i n organized  which  of the  into bill  Act  proscribe  the  Hodgson, s u p r a . n t . 2 a t 3 0-1. A legacy of these e a r l y days i s the c o n t i n u i n g d i s t i n c t i o n which American s t a t u t e s draw b e t w e e n c r i m i n a l and c i v i l forfeiture. David Fried d e s c r i b e s i t i n the f o l l o w i n g terms: 1 0 9  Criminal forfeiture, also known as in personam f o r f e i t u r e , i s t h e t a k i n g o f p r o p e r t y by t h e s t a t e a s an i n c i d e n t of c o n v i c t i o n f o r crime.... I t i s thus opposed t o c i v i l i n rem forfeiture, the taking of p r o p e r t y i n some way c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a crime r e g a r d l e s s of the c r i m i n a l g u i l t of i t s possessor o r owner. In c i v i l forfeitures, the owner o f the p r o p e r t y has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f o n c e t h e g o v e r n m e n t h a s shown p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y is "guilty," in other words, connected with the prohibited activity. The standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence (supra, nt. 26).  'Awakened* b e c a u s e t h e legendery head of t h e Federal Bureau o f I n v e s t i g a t i o n , J . Edgar Hoover, r e f u s e d f o r y e a r s to admit the e x i s t e n c e of organized crime. As a r e s u l t o f i n c r e a s e d p u b l i c concern, the United States developed v a r i o u s l e g i s l a t i v e i n i t i a t i v e s d u r i n g t h e 1960's w h i c h t a r g e t t e d o r g a n i z e d c r i m e and t h e q u a l i t y o f law e n f o r c e m e n t . 1 1 0  Pub. L. No. 91-452, (1970) 84 S t a t . 922, a s c o d i f i e d i n (1982) 18 U.S.C. and 28 U.S.C. See J o s e p h C. Sweeney, "An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o RICO," (1987) 12 T u l . Mar. Law J . 7 a t 8.  1 1 1  18 U . S . C , s s . 1961-68 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986) created f o u r new c r i m i n a l o f f e n c e s and one c i v i l o f f e n c e . A wealth of j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s and scholarly a r t i c l e s explore the f e d e r a l and s t a t e RICO s t a t u t e s , t o o numerous t o e n u m e r a t e in this thesis. Nevertheless27valuable references include a 1 1 2  27  110  acquisition commerce addition the  and  operation  through to  a  pattern  standard  and  RICO discovery  of  of  its civil  • d r u g war* b e i n g of  RICO  and  rackettering the  1 1 5  of  life  in  forfeiture  breadth  statutes  interstate  activity.  legislation  crime  the  and the  In  1 1 4  provides  any  to now  1980's  p r o v i s i o n s by later  waged b o t h w i t h i n and  related  in  for  interest  in  pre-trial  seizure  with  belated  1 1 7  o f p r a c t i c e and  sufficient  engaged  I t also permits  1 1 6  fresh  areas  of  profits  property.  received  many d i v e r s e  Being  the  organizations.  restraint  enterprises  punishments,  c o n f i s c a t i o n of  criminal  of  adapt  by  the  without well  spearhead  to  the  practitioners in onslaught  the  United  the  new  the  of  the  States.  challenge,  American  criminal  s t u d y p a p e r p r o d u c e d by t h e S e c r e t a r i a t o f t h e Solicitor G e n e r a l o f Canada, The RICO S t a t u t e ; An O v e r v i e w ( n . p . , J u n e 1982) and a r e c e n t c r i t i c i s m o f RICO by D a v i d F r i e d (supra. n t . 26). Sweeney n o t e s t h a t t h e c i v i l p r o v i s i o n s were intended "as a civil remedy f o r t h e criminal violations already p r o v i d e d f o r i n s. 1962. C i v i l RICO i s i n t e n d e d t o a s s i s t i n the reform of corrupted o r g a n i z a t i o n s " (supra, nt. I l l a t 9). 1 1 3  I b i d , a t 8-9. By u s i n g t h e t e r m ' e n t e r p r i s e , ' RICO was i n t e n t i o n a l l y not r e s t r i c t e d t o organized crime ( S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l o f Canada, The RICO S t a t u t e : An O v e r v i e w , s u p r a . n t . 112 at 5). A parallel statute which targetted drug enterprises, the Continuing Criminal Enterprises Act (21 U.S.C., s. 848 (1982 and Supp. I l l 1985) was contained w i t h i n T i t l e I I of t h e Comprehensive Drug Abuse P r e v e n t i o n and C o n t r o l A c t o f 1970. 1 1 4  1 1 5  I m p r i s o n m e n t and  fines.  Solicitor General of Canada, O v e r v i e w . s u p r a . n t . 112 a t 8. 1 1 6  1 1 7  Ibid  at  25. 28  The  RICO  Statute  -  An  justice  system's  withstood only  i t s most c r i t i c a l  sanction  breadth  confiscation drive.  from  The  legislation  long  ago  t e s t s within the courts, obtaining not  the United  States  not o r i g i n a l l y a n t i c i p a t e d .  Supreme C o u r t ,  but also  a  1 1 8  In r e c e n t years, Congress passed other l e g i s l a t i o n intended t o buttress 1984  RICO e v e n  increased  119  some w h i c h and  further.  Forfeiture Act of  t h e number o f p r e d i c a t e RICO o f f e n c e s ,  regulated  authorized  The C o m p r e h e n s i v e  money l a u n d e r i n g  the p r e - t r i a l  including  and f e d e r a l d r u g  restraint  offences,  of property.  The  Money  L a u n d e r i n g C o n t r o l A c t 1986 e x t e n d e d t h e r e a c h o f c r i m i n a l law o v e r money  laundering.  1 2 0  The A m e r i c a n a p p r o a c h t o t h e p r o b l e m i s o f c r i t i c a l to  Canada  f o r two r e a s o n s :  first,  and s u b s t a n t i v e  aspects  procedural legislation absence  of  inevitably States  are a product jurisprudence force  Canadian  the p r i n c i p a l  thrust  a n d many  o f Canada's p r o c e e d s  of crime  o f t h e RICO e x p e r i e n c e in  the  courts  judgments, p a r t i c u l a r l y  importance  area  to  seek  of  and second, t h e  confiscation  guidance  from  will United  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l cases.  I n S e d i m a . S.P.R.L. v . Imrex Co. (1985) 473 U.S. 479, t h e U.S.S.C. r e f u s e d t o l i m i t t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f RICO t o o n l y c e r t a i n l i t i g a n t s , s u c h a s g o v e r n m e n t (Sweeney, s u p r a . n t . I l l a t 8) . T h i s d e c i s i o n opened t h e g a t e s a n d RICO became a p o w e r f u l t o o l , p o s s e s s i n g " s o m e t h i n g f o r e v e r y b o d y " ( i b i d , a t 10). 1 1 8  1 1 9  1 2 0  See  18 U.S.C. . S . 1963 ( a ) ( 3 )  (Supp. I l l 1 9 8 5 ) .  S u b t i t l e H o f T i t l e I o f t h e A n t i - D r u g Abuse generally F r i e d , supra n t . 26 a t 329-30. f  29  A c t 1986.  Britain  B r i t a i n was n o t a s f o r t u n a t e a s t h e U n i t e d preparedness. effectively situation  Before  countries.  1 2 1  the proceeds  that  Martin  i n terms of  1986, i t had v i r t u a l l y no l e g i s l a t i o n w h i c h  targetted  mirrored  States  of  Canada  Wasik d e s c r i b e s  of crime. and  most  I n many other  ways i t s  Commonwealth  i t a s "a s t a r t l i n g i n a b i l i t y  o f t h e c r i m i n a l c o u r t s t o u s e t h e i r powers o f f o r f e i t u r e t o d e p r i v e an  offender  1971,  123  of the p r o f i t s  akin  of crime."  1 2 2  The M i s u s e  t o the r e s t o r a t i o n provisions  Control Act, obtained  o f Drugs A c t  o f Canada's  Narcotic  a r e s t r i c t i v e interpretation i n the courts,  preventing  c o n f i s c a t i o n o f most m o n i e s a s s o c i a t e d t o d r u g  Similarly,  s p e c i f i c s t a t u t o r y f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s and t h e g e n e r a l  forfeiture  p r o v i s i o n i n t h e Powers o f C r i m i n a l  akin  to  Canada's  s.  490(9) ( d ) ,  applied  only  offences.  C o u r t s A c t 1973. to  evidence  124  and  contraband. Acting Committee,  in  part  a blue  on  ribbon  the panel  recommendations  of  the  Hodgson  o f j u r i s t s , l a w y e r s and academics,  S i m i l a r t o Canada's C r i m i n a l Code. British statutes contained numerous specific forfeiture provisions and a g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n i n s. 43 o f t h e Powers o f C r i m i n a l C o u r t s A c t 197 3 ( s u p r a , n t . 2 ) . None p e r m i t t e d t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f t h e p r o f i t s o f c r i m e , o n l y e v i d e n c e and c o n t r a b a n d . 1 2 1  M a r t i n Wasik, "The Hodgson Committee R e p o r t on t h e P r o f i t s o f C r i m e and T h e i r R e c o v e r y , " (1984) C r i m . L. Rev. 708. 1 2 2  1 2 3  28 S t a t s .  500.  1 2 4  1973, c . 62. 30  Britain  sought  to  remedy t h e  The  Drug T r a f f i c k i n g  Act  19 8 8  now  127  offences  and  Offences  permit  other  situation  the  Act  1986  during and  126  the  the  c o n f i s c a t i o n of  the  past  decade.  1 2 5  Criminal Justice proceeds  criminal offences, r e s p e c t i v e l y .  of  drug  1 2 8  Australia  In  recent  Australia  years,  enacted  Attorney effective  amendments,  of  weaponry  Parliament."  The  1 3 0  although  An o v e r v i e w o f Wasik, s u p r a , n t . 1 2 5  1 2 6  1986,  c.  32.  1 2 7  1988,  c.  33.  and  state  s t a t u t e s aimed a t  governments  of  Crime  Australia against  Act "as  major  legislation i t and  129  was  providing crime is  related  t h e Hodgson 122.  1987  acts  touted  some  ever  similar  the most  introduced  into  to  report  of  by  the  the  appear t o  Committee  in  c o n f i s c a t i n g the  I n a manner s i m i l a r t o Canada, t h e d e b u t o f  Proceeds  General  Commonwealth  a number o f  proceeds of crime. Commonwealth  the  the go  Canadian further in  i s found  in  See Hodgson, s u p r a . n t . 2 f o r a d e t a i l e d o v e r v i e w o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o n f i s c a t i o n and f o r f e i t u r e l e g i s l a t i o n i n B r i t a i n and James M o r t o n , The C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e A c t s 1987 and 1988 - A Commentary (London: W a t e r l o w , 1988) a t 129-33 f o r a review of the effect of the most recent statutory amendments. 1 2 8  1987, No. 87, a s Crime (Miscellaneous) 1 2 9  amended. A c t . 1987,  A l s o , see No. 73.  the  Proceeds  of  A r i e F r e i b e r g , " R i p p l e s from t h e Bottom o f t h e Harbour: Some S o c i a l R a m i f i c a t i o n s o f T a x a t i o n F r a u d , " (1988) 12 C r . L. J . 136 a t 176. 1 3 0  31  the  r e g u l a t i o n of the  tracing with  mechanism.  131  legislation  ratification  banking  i n d u s t r y and  As  Canada,  with  intended  to  i n the  p r o v i s i o n of  a  i t s introduction coincided  create  a  of mutual a s s i s t a n c e t r e a t i e s  framework in criminal  for  the  matters.  1 3 2  I n summary, w h i l e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o p e n e d t h e d o o r t o modern confiscation the  most  legislation,  popular  models  Britain for  and  common  Australia law  c u r r e n t l y provide  nations.  w i t h t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n laws i n c i v i l i a n c o u n t r i e s and cooperation  i n c r i m i n a l matters  treaty-based illicit  and  less  the  s t a t u s o f a de  THE  C L A S S I C NORMS AND  In emphasis  the  i s placed  procedural demarcation  levels,  1 3 1  1 3 2  comity,  s o o n , i f i t has  TRADITIONS OF  on  common  not  crime.  law  between  c r i m i n a l and  civil  many y e a r s  i s largely  that  achieve  1 3 4  tradition, on  two  found  clear  already,  CANADIAN CRIMINAL  distinction,  the  t h e new  i t seems  the  between  Kenny o b s e r v e d  on  facto international  Anglo-American  concert  among many n a t i o n s , i n c r e a s i n g l y  dependant  d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g may  In  1 3 3  both  LAW  considerable  substantive  law.  artificial,  The  line  however.  ago:  Ibid. Ibid,  at  175.  See Bruce Z a g a r i s and Marcus Bornheim, "Foreign and I n t e r n a t i o n a l Money L a u n d e r i n g Laws," i n A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c . , C r i m . J u s t i c e S e c , M a n u a l on Money L a u n d e r i n g . 8 Mar. 1990. 1 3 3  1 3 4  Randall,  supra.  nt.  101. 32  and of As  C r i m i n a l wrongs and c i v i l w r o n g s . . . a r e n o t s h a r p l y s e p a r a t e d g r o u p s o f a c t s ; b u t a r e o f t e n one and t h e same a c t a s v i e w e d f r o m d i f f e r e n t s t a n d p o i n t s , t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e i n g one n o t o f nature but only of relation. To ask concerning any o c c u r r e n c e , " I s t h i s a crime or i s i t a t o r t ? " i s - t o borrow S i r James S t e p h e n ' s a p t i l l u s t r a t i o n - no w i s e r t h a n i t w o u l d be t o a s k c o n c e r n i n g a man, " I s he a f a t h e r o r a s o n ? " 1 3 5  The by  s.  c r i m i n a l law-making power a c c o r d e d t h e f e d e r a l  91(27)  unfettered public  of  the  right  to  prosecution  Constitution make and  certain  penal  Act  1867  gives  behaviour  sanction,  the  ergo,  government  Parliament subject  a  crime.  of  be  d e f i n e d a s any  as  a  crime."  criminalize question. Many  o f human a c t i v i t y  Determining  1 3 7  is  form  a  more  what  difficult,  conduct some  that the  both Its  1 3 6  d i s c r e t i o n i s b r o a d ; a k i n t o Graham P a r k e r ' s b e l i e f t h a t " [ a ] can  the  crime  law  defines  Parliament  should  might  say  bedeviling,  1 3 8  years  ago,  Kenny  noted  that  the  criminalization  Courtney S. Kenny, O u t l i n e s o f C r i m i n a l Law, rev. G. Godfrey Phillips, 1 5 t h ed. (Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1942) a t 22. Constitution 91(27). 1 3 6  Act.  1867  f  U.K.,  30  and  31  Vict.,  c.  3.,  s.  Graham P a r k e r , An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o C r i m i n a l Law. 3 r d ed. , ( T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1987) a t 1. In order t o a s s i s t legislators i n determining what c o n d u c t s h o u l d be c l a s s e d a s c r i m i n a l , Kenny a d o p t s c r i t e r i a suggested by Bentham: t h e wrong must be g r e a t e r t h a n the e f f e c t s o f c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n and a l a s t r e s o r t , s a n c t i o n e d by t h e community, c a p a b l e o f p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n and p r o v a b l e by c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e (Kenny, s u p r a . n t . 135 a t 2 8 - 3 0 ) . 1 3 7  Stuart observes that modern criminologists are i n c r e a s i n g l y a v o i d i n g t h e s e a r c h f o r an a l l - e m b r a c i n g a n s w e r . He n o t e s B a r b a r a W o o t t o n ' s " c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c r i m i n a l b e h a v i o u r c o v e r s t o o l a r g e a r a n g e o f human b e h a v i o u r t o be c l a s s i f i e d and a n a l y z e d , a m i s c e l l a n e o u s a g g r e g a t e o f q u i t e d i f f e r e n t kinds of a c t i o n " (Don S t u a r t , C a n a d i a n C r i m i n a l Law - A T r e a t i s e ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1987) a t 4 7 ) . 1 3 8  33  of  conduct the  i s an  ongoing  p r o c e s s whereby p a r t i c u l a r  community w i t h new  unusual  frequency  effects."  1 3 9  apprehension,  or  Jerome  of Hall  some  new  observed  t h i n g s t o d i f f e r e n t people, a prime classification standards.  themselves. and  of  crime  of  [their]  [their] i l l  means  different  example b e i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e by  conventional  sanction, First, second,  however,  citizens the  state  certain  must must  be be  becomes t h e  considerations  made able  aware to  of  its  punish  In the pages which  subject present illegal  those  follow,  who both  issues are explored. The  legality, Canadian  1-iy  that  Once c o n d u c t  choose t o p a r t a k e i n such conduct. these  discovery  c o n s i d e r e d immoral  a r e no e a s y a n s w e r s .  criminal  nature  on a c c o u n t  "inspire  1 4 0  There of  f o r behaviour  either  wrongs  first  issue  termed  by  invites at  least  consideration one  writer  of as  the  principle  of  "the  keystone"  of  c r i m i n a l law, t h e b e l i e f t h a t c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y  Kenny, s u p r a . n t . 135  at  can o n l y  26.  Jerome H a l l , Law. S o c i a l S c i e n c e and Criminal Theory ( L i t t l e t o n , C o l o . : Rothman, 1982) a t 203. H a l l notes the d e b a t e w h i c h c o n t i n u e d f o r some t i m e between H.L.A. H a r t and Lord D e v l i n over the proper a t t r i b u t i o n of 'victimless b e h a v i o u r , i n c l u d i n g p r o s t i t u t i o n , d r u g a d d i c t i o n and v a r i o u s sexual practices ( i b i d , a t 2 08). The H a r t / D e v l i n d e b a t e resulted from the Wolfenden Report, which recommended a d e c r i m i n a l i z a t i o n of c e r t a i n p r i v a t e acts. D e v l i n argued a g a i n s t t h e recommendations, b e l i e v i n g t h a t criminal law should r e f l e c t p u b l i c standards of m o r a l i t y . H a r t , on t h e o t h e r hand, d i v o r c e d m o r a l i t y f r o m c r i m i n a l law, a r g u i n g i n f a v o u r o f an " o b j e c t i v e s o c i a l harm" t e s t ( A l a n W. Mewett and M o r r i s Manning, Criminal Law (Toronto: Butterworth, 1985) a t 1 2 ) . 1 4 0  1  34  flow  from  a defined  offence.  maxim n u l l u m c r i m e n s i n e say  Integral to  1 4 1  the  l e g e . N u l l a poena s i n e  principle  is  lege, which i s to  " t h e r e must be no c r i m e o r p u n i s h m e n t e x c e p t i n a c c o r d a n c e  fixed,  predetermined  law."  G l a n v i l l e Williams  1 4 2  the  with  explains:  N u l l u m c r i m e n i s an i n j u n c t i o n t o t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o t t o draw i t s s t a t u t e s i n s u c h b r o a d t e r m s t h a t a l m o s t a n y b o d y c a n be b r o u g h t w i t h i n them a t t h e whim o f t h e p r o s e c u t i n g a u t h o r i t y and t h e j u d g e . 1 4 3  In Herbert  his  famous  Packer  1968  considered  In h i s view, the  collection  substantive  the  principle,  t h a n an a n a c h r o n i s m . amorphous  treatise  No  on  principle  limits of  in i t s original  l o n g e r was of  the  of  criminal  legality  at  f o r m , was  laws  which  various  doctrines  which  a r b i t r a r y a p p l i c a t i o n o f c r i m i n a l laws and and  institutions  opinion,  "the  requiring demonstrate  the  charged with  this  application  of  and  penal  of  the  to  prevent  the  1 4 3  G l a n v i l l e W i l l i a m s . C r i m i n a l Law ( L o n d o n : S t e v e n s and Sons, 1961) Ibid, at  the  persons In  his  doctrine  statutes"  amply  principle.  Not  Law R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f Canada, C r i m i n a l Law G e n e r a l P a r t : L i a b i l i t y and D e f e n c e s . W o r k i n g P a p e r ( O t t a w a : S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1982) a t 12. ed.  a r o s e from  laws.  1 4 1  1 4 2  the  Instead,  a b u s e s by  public  doctrine  construction  modern  other  administering  void-for-vagueness strict  served  more  required  o v e r s i g h t which the p r i n c i p l e once p r o v i d e d .  a p p l i c a t i o n of  - The G e n e r a l a t 575.  No.  Part.  The 29 2nd  578.  Herbert Packer, The Limits (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press,  1 4 4  35  of the 1968) a t  1 4 4  unwritten,  he o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e ' s " c o n t e m p o r a r y v i t a l i t y " the  length.  little  c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t an  customary  law,  Criminal 79-102.  Sanction  surprisingly,  both  doctrines  are  particularly  relevant  and  civil  processes  certain  conduct  to  the  p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments. To  confuse  the  criminal  abuse.  Once  panoply  of protections,  apply.  society  To  potentially  import  agrees that  common law,  rules  of  evidence  the following  and  from  abrogates those protections,  q u i t e d i f f e r e n t presumptive f o o t i n g . in  statutory  based  i s to  i s criminal,  a  constitutional  the as  invite  civil they  Hogarth d e s c r i b e s  sphere  are  on  a  t h e problem  terms:  C i v i l s u i t s a r e d e s i g n e d t o s e c u r e p r i v a t e r i g h t s and when t h e y a r e v i o l a t e d , t o compensate. The criminal law i s d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t s o c i e t y as a w h o l e t h r o u g h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f p u n i s h m e n t a g a i n s t those,who k n o w i n g l y v i o l a t e i t s r u l e s . The d i f f e r e n t p r o c e d u r e s u s e d r e f l e c t b o t h d i f f e r e n c e s i n purpose and differences in consequences. Given the o v e r w h e l m i n g power o f t h e S t a t e and t h e p u n i t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s t o t h e a c c u s e d upon c o n v i c t i o n , the r u l e s governing the criminal p r o c e s s a r e more proscribed and defined more precisely. 4 5  The  criminal  law  i s replete  with  intended t o ensure the e f f e c t i v e n e s s  presumptions  and  of the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system  a t t h e l e a s t p o s s i b l e expense t o i n d i v i d u a l l i b e r t i e s . such  long-standing  that  they can r i g h t f u l l y  be  a b r o g a t i o n o f which i s not e a s i l y countenanced. innocence, eighteenth  since  i t s development  century, i s v i r t u a l l y  in  England  sacrosanct  v e r y bedrock o f the c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. prior  to a f i n d i n g of  burdens  termed  Many a r e o f norms,  the  The p r e s u m p t i o n o f during  the  in criminal Innocence  law,  late the  i s assumed  guilt.  I n t e g r a l t o the presumption of innocence i s a burden of proof  4 5  Hogarth,  supra. nt.  90.  which ensures t h a t the presumption i s not rendered nugatory. beyond law  a r e a s o n a b l e doubt  requires  Glanville  in  order  Williams  indefinable"  and  1 4 7  i s the high to  apt  to  use  the  conviction. " The elements  sustain  notes  that  of  T h o s e who "moral  common  conviction.  phrase  judges  the  is  not  virtually attempt  have attempted  certainty,  an  resting  upon t h e  of  offence.  1 4 9  an  the  f o r the  Similarly, criminal  a are  abiding  As  presumption  Crown must  noted of  by  the  innocence  be  satisfied  House and  of  on a l l  Lords  proof  defence  civil  process.  Woolminqton A.C. 462 a t 481 1 4 6  of  insanity  procedures  cannot  In t h e absence  v. D i r e c t o r (H.L.)  G l a n v i l l e Williams, ( L o n d o n : S t e v e n s , 1983)  1 4 7  of  Textbook a t 43.  and  statutory  be  invoked  Public of  aid  of  and  Law.  of  the  2nd  [1935] ed.,  James B. F a y , " B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s o f C r i m i n a l Law," in J o e l E. P i n k and D a v i d P e r r i e r , From CRIME t o PUNISHMENT - An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e C r i m i n a l Law System ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1988) a t 30. Numerous C a n a d i a n c a s e s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m e a n i n g o f p r o o f beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . S i g n i f i c a n t among t h e s e a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : R. v . Haves [1923] 1 D.L.R. 459, 38 C.C.C. 348 ( A l t a . C . A . ) ; R. v . Gordon (1983) 4 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (Ont. C . A . ) ; Nadeau v. R. [1984] 2 S.C.R. 570; R. v . L a c h a n c e (1962) 39 C R . 127 (Ont. C . A . ) ; and R. v . M o r e a u (1986) 51 CR. (3d) 209 (Ont. C . A . ) . 1 4 8  1 4 9  R.  v. Bourque  [1969]  4 C.C.C. 358  1 5 0  S u b j e c t , i n Canada, t o t h e  (B.C.C.A.).  Charter. 37  1 5 0  innocence,  Prosecutions  Criminal  a  exceptions.  in  of a presumption  in  beyond  r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t a r e f u n d a m e n t a l t o E n g l i s h c r i m i n a l law, s a v e except  1 4 6  1 4 8  burden  Woolminqton.  which  criminal  that  juries.  phraseology  a  "[t]he  recommends  d e f i n i t i o n when i n s t r u c t i n g  threshold  Proof  the  rules  o f e v i d e n c e and  are offensive On is  procedure which  to criminal  apply to c i v i l  matters  law.  a d i f f e r e n t p l a n e , however e q u a l l y u n i q u e t o c r i m i n a l  the  concept  of  sentencing.  Most  modern  criminologists  law, would  a g r e e w i t h Kenny t h a t t h e p r i m a r y f u n c t i o n o f c r i m i n a l  law  prevention  represents  of  crime.  Thus  1 5 1  the  t h e i n a b i l i t y o f law e n f o r c e m e n t from  transgressing  called  to  occurrence  crime  and t h e p u b l i c t o r e s t r a i n  socially  accepted  society  deals with  account,  of  i s the  norms such  of  persons  behaviour.  persons  Once  through  the  s e n t e n c i n g process wherein a q u a r t e t of g e n e r a l l y accepted g o a l s or principles  apply:  rehabilitation,  deterrence  retribution  and  (general  and  incapacitation.  specific),  1 5 2  The Code d o e s n o t a s s i g n " r e l a t i v e w e i g h t and p r i o r i t y " t o t h e principles despite  or  the  factors  widespread  importance than others. assess  with  complete penalties ensure  131  belief  relevant  that  absence i s of  fairness  of  any  interest. and  at  certain  sentencing,  are  of  1 5 3  greater  A l t h o u g h P a r l i a m e n t c a n n o t be e x p e c t e d t o  exactitude a l l relevant  equity  Kenny, s u p r a . n t . 135  Different principles. 1 5 2  considered  names a r e  guide  other  Ultimately  issues than  on  maximum  i t i s the  i n the u n s c i e n t i f i c  at  sentencing, and  judge  the  minimum who  delineation  must of  32.  occasionally  used  to  describe  these  Dept. of Justice, Sentencing (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1984) a t 21. The Code d o e s envision i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e s f o r s e c o n d and s u b s e q u e n t o f f e n c e s o f t h e same t y p e ( s e e , f o r example, s. 255 a s i t r e l a t e s t o sentencing f o r impaired d r i v i n g offences). 1 5 3  38  an  appropriate outlined  penalty.  The r a t i o n a l e  1 5 4  i n a r e c e n t white paper  f o r such  a  •system'  was  on s e n t e n c i n g :  The b a s i s f o r [ t h e w i d e d i s c r e t i o n ] h a s b e e n t h e b e l i e f t h a t P a r l i a m e n t c a n n o t p o s s i b l y f o r e s e e and make e x p l i c i t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s and c a s e s t h a t come b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s f o r s e n t e n c i n g . . . . 1 5 5  Punishment aims  of  t h e proceeds  criminal from  organization  the  norm  distinction justice  o f an o f f e n d e r i s o f s e c o n d a r y of crime  often  legislation.  i s paramount.  i s interesting  importance  The e f f e c t  Neutralizing of this  f o r i t serves  drawn between d i f f e r e n t  t o the  models  to  the  deviation  accentuate  a  of the criminal  system.  Criminologists initiatives  1 5 6  are  prone  to  dichotomize  crime  control  f r o m what a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e i r p o l a r o p p o s i t e s ,  T h e o n l y c h e c k on t h e w i d e d i s c r e t i o n a f f o r d e d j u d g e s i s p r o v i d e d by t h e a p p e a l mechanism. I f a sentence i s not a p p e a l e d , a s most a r e n o t , i t w i l l n e v e r be r e v i e w e d . A former c h i e f j u s t i c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia e s t i m a t e d t h a t l e s s t h a n one p e r c e n t o f p r o v i n c i a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n s a r e r e v i e w e d by t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n t h a t p r o v i n c e ( J o h n L . F a r r i s , " S e n t e n c i n g , " i n (1975-76) 18 C r i m . L. 0. 421 a t 4 2 2 ) . See generally, John Hogarth, S e n t e n c i n g a s a Human Process ( T o r o n t o : U n i v . o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1971), f o r an examination of judicial attitudes to sentencing, s p e c i f i c a l l y , c h a p t e r 1 f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e g o a l s and processes of sentencing. 1 5 4  Hogarth, supra. n t . 145 a t 4. Hogarth expressed c a u t i o u s c o n c e r n o v e r t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s e n c o u n t e r e d when t h e e m p h a s i s o f s e n t e n c i n g becomes t h e f i x i n g o f punishment which w i l l c o n t r o l f u t u r e b e h a v i o u r o f an i n d i v i d u a l o r community r a t h e r t h a n s e n t e n c i n g w h i c h i s r e t r o s p e c t i v e , a t t e m p t i n g t o f i t t h e punishment t o t h e o f f e n c e ( i b i d , a t 4) . 1 5 5  James I n v e r a r i t y n o t e s t h a t " t h e u n d e r l y i n g a s s u m p t i o n o f t h e c r i m e c o n t r o l model i s t h a t s t a t e power i s n o t i n h e r e n t l y e v i l " (James M. I n v e r a r i t y , P a t L a u d e r d a l e and B a r r y C. F e l d , Law a n d S o c i e t y - S o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on C r i m i n a l Law ( B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1983) a t 2 4 8 ) . 1 5 6  39  those  which  emphasize  former  p e r m i t more e f f e c t i v e law e n f o r c e m e n t a t t h e e x p e n s e o f  latter,  which  engaged  in  effect  of  seek  law  to  The  process.  restrain  enforcement.  punishment  large.  due  on  latter  the  both  an  include  suggest  a c t i o n s of  The  1 5 8  They  1 5 7  former  offender  both  police  rely and  that  and  heavily  the  substantive  the the  others on  the  community  and  at  procedural  protections. Inevitably, both  the  crime  legislative control  and  initiatives the  due  r e s u l t o c c u r s i n t h e c o u r t s as judges of  crime  reach  at  of  the  the  least  counterweights  to  liberties.  remains  provided high  It  the  to  tools  crime  be  i n the  balancing  models.  A  to  liberty.  amendments  however,  legislation  demands  long  strong  of  whether to  control  The  infringement  of  similar  seek t o maximize t h e  undue  seen,  a  civil  Parliament  accomplish  this  objective. The  amendments  traditions which  of  prevent  sufficient  process  possible sacrifice  proceeds  reflect  of  follows  call  criminal in  into  law.  Chapter  question In  Two,  the those  many  of  the  norms  overview  of  the  amendments  aspects  Inverarity notes that this model distinction between legal and factual i n f o r m a t i o n and e v i d e n c e " ( i b i d , a t 2 4 7 ) . 1 5 7  which  "draws guilt,  offer  a  and  the  sharp between  See g e n e r a l l y Herbert Packer, "Two Models of the C r i m i n a l P r o c e s s " (1964) 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 and The L i m i t s o f t h e C r i m i n a l S a n c t i o n , s u p r a . n t . 144. Some c r i t i c i z e Packer's dichotomy as too simplistic and offer Weber's t y p o l o g y o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a s an a l t e r n a t i v e . Weber s o u g h t to analyze the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s i n the legal system by a n a l y z i n g t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f t h e e l e m e n t s o f r a t i o n a l i t y and f o r m a l i t y ( I n v e r a r i t y , s u p r a . n t . 156 a t c h . 3 and 2 4 9 - 5 1 ) . 1 5 8  40  greatest  challenge  are discussed  at length  and a c o u n t e r p o i n t  drawn t o C a n a d a ' s p r e - e x i s t i n g c r i m i n a l law.  41  is  CHAPTER 2  THE AMENDMENTS AND THE CODE  The analysis  purpose o f t h i s t h e s i s i s not t o attempt a comprehensive of a l l aspects  of t h e proceeds of crime  amendments, many  o f w h i c h i n v i t e b o t h e x t e n s i v e s c r u t i n y a n d c o n s i d e r a b l e argument, academic and j u d i c i a l . breadth  an a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e f u l l  a n d e x t e n t o f t h e amendments i s f u n d a m e n t a l t o an  discussion criminal  Nevertheless,  of their  impact  on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l  informed  norms o f C a n a d i a n  l a w . T h i s C h a p t e r o v e r v i e w s t h e l e g i s l a t i v e scheme w h i c h  u n d e r l i e s t h e amendments, e m p h a s i z i n g t h o s e a s p e c t s w h i c h a p p e a r t o contradict criminal  these  norms.  I n so doing,  l a w i n Canada i s j u x t a p o s e d  the p r e - e x i s t i n g state of  as a c o u n t e r p o i n t  t o t h e new  provisions. The  confiscation  scheme  envisaged  p r e m i s e d on t h e r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n Code o f f e n c e s  and t h e i n c l u s i o n  "enterprise crimes." are  labelled  discipline  o f t h e new  presumably  intended  strong  potential  attractive. designated  Once c l a s s i f i e d drug  offence,  methods and s e n t e n c i n g  offences  scheme.  for profit  amendments  'laundering'  o f f e n c e as  those and  offences  which  as e i t h e r  various  of the which  inexorably  t o the  legislation  occasioned make  an e n t e r p r i s e crime  extraordinary  o p t i o n s become a v a i l a b l e . 42  offences  and a r e s u b j e c t  The f r a m e r s  is  Criminal  a number o f s e r i o u s d r u g  drug  to isolate  the  o f a number o f e x i s t i n g o f a new  Similarly,  as designated  by  a  crime or a  investigative Among t h e s e a r e  certain civil  innovative  law By  i n t o the  using  Narcotic follow  the  a  Criminal  Act  pattern of  which  and  transpose  1  the  that  Food  and  by  to  The  definition,  amendments  offences  following discussion  within B i l l  C-61  centers  which r e l a t e t o and  the  are the  and  the  Food  and  subject  notes.  Enterprise per  the  eavesdropping  categorize  Those t o the N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t  ENTERPRISE CRIME AND  offences  Code,  the  electronic  D r u g s A c t e s s e n t i a l l y m i m i c t h e Code amendments and of a d j o i n i n g  of  the  Drugs A c t ,  the  being  them s p e c i a l a t t r i b u t e s .  u p o n t h e amendments c o n t a i n e d  aspects  Code.  established  1973-74,  C r i m i n a l Code.  arguably  e x i s t i n g s t r u c t u r a l framework o f  Control  amendments accord  features  se one  DESIGNATED DRUG OFFENCES  crimes but  and  designated  categories  is left  to  of  drug  offences.  speculate  on  the  2  offences Without intended  are  not  specific  meaning  The P r o t e c t i o n o f P r i v a c y A c t , S.C. 1973-74, c. 50, in f o r c e on J u n e 30, 1974 and i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e C r i m i n a l Code as P a r t V I . In t h i s paper, they are o c c a s i o n a l l y r e f e r r e d t o as t h e 'wiretap* amendments, a l l o w i n g t h a t t h e i r f r a m e o f reference a l s o includes e l e c t r o n i c eavesdropping accomplished by o t h e r means. 1  In this thesis, reference to 'enterprise crimes' and •enterprise crime offences' i s intended to also include designated drug offences, except where indicated. By operation of s. 19.3 of the Narcotic Control Act, and s e c t i o n s 44.4, 50.1 and 51 o f t h e F o o d and D r u g s A c t , the n e w l y c r e a t e d s e a r c h , r e s t r a i n t and f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s o f P a r t XII.2 apply m u t a t i s mutandis t o the d e s i g n a t e d drug offences.  2  43  of  ' e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e s ' and term, of  f o r example,  drug  the r a t i o n a l e f o r not  'designated  offences.  opting  criminal offences,'  Considering  that  the  avowed  for a as  neutral  i n the  purpose  of  amendments i s t o n e u t r a l i z e l a r g e - s c a l e d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g and laundering  operations,  one  to  include those offences  It  is  curious,  enterprise generally  are  murder, t h e f t , Despite to  include  c o m m i t t e d by  therefore,  crime  offences  not  m i g h t assume t h a t t h e  that in  connected  robbery,  among  s.  the  462.3  with  forgery,  organized  such  term  is  drug  many  uttering, fraud  intended  may,  fori  and  f o r m s o f b e h a v i o u r w h i c h may  but  example,  arson.  the p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c , e n t e r p r i s e crimes are  those i l l e g a l  money  predicate  which  activity;  the  syndicates.  twenty-four  are  case  bd  intended utilized  i  i  by  organized  by  drug  purpose  crime, i n the broadest sense of t h a t term, not  traffickers is  observation  and  compounded that  money when  although  the  launderers. one  considers  predicate  The  l a c k i of  simply clear  P a t r i c i a j Donald's  offences  are  "generally  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.3. The c o m p l e t e l i s t o f o f f e n c e s i n s. 4 6 2 . 3 ( a ) and s. 463(b) a r e as f o l l o w s : s. 119 ( b r i b e r y o f j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r s , e t c . ) , s. 120 (bribery of o f f i c e r s ) , s. 121 ( f r a u d s upon t h e g o v e r n m e n t ) , s. 122 ( b r e a c h o f t r u s t by public officer), s. 163 (corrupting morals), s. 201(1) (keeping g a m i n g o r b e t t i n g house) , s. 202 (betting,! p o o l s e l l i n g , book-making, e t c . ) , s. 210 ( K e e p i n g common bawdyh o u s e ) , s. 212 ( p r o c u r i n g ) , s. 235 (punishment f o r murder), s. 334 (punishment f o r t h e f t ) , s. 344 (punishment for robbery), s. 346 (extortion), s. 367 (punishment for f o r g e r y ) , s. 368 ( u t t e r i n g f o r g e d d o c u m e n t ) , s. 380 (fraud), s. 382 (fraudulent manipulation of stock exchange t r a n s a c t i o n s ) , s. 426 ( s e c r e t c o m m i s s i o n s ) , s. 433 (arson), s. 449 (making c o u n t e r f e i t money), s. 450 ( p o s s e s s i o n , e t c . , o f c o u n t e r f e i t money), s. 452 (uttering, etc., counterfeit money), s. 462.31 ( l a u n d e r i n g p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ) and s. 354 ( p o s s e s s i o n o f p r o p e r t y o b t a i n e d by c r i m e ) . 3  44  economically are  omitted;  b r e a k and  motivated," 4  property  f o r example,  enter,  Included  c e r t a i n offences  6  mail  charging  fraud  and  7  among t h e p r e d i c a t e o f f e n c e s i s s. 354,  obtained  by  crime,  i n which the "property,  derived,  not  normally  the  similar  publishing a false  the  focus  i s n o t e v e r y o f f e n c e a g a i n s t s. 354  those  a  a c r i m i n a l r a t e of  of  t h e Code t o c a p t u r e t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e . it  of  from the case,  by  the  e n t e r p r i s e crime or designated  of  prospectus. possession to  use  rather  o b t a i n e d by  indictable offence  commission  drug o f f e n c e .  of 9  only  another In e f f e c t ,  as  s.  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 305.1 [now 3 4 7 ] . D o n a l d n o t e s t h a t s. 3 05.1 i s , however, a p r e d i c a t e w i r e t a p o f f e n c e ( M i n u t e s o f M e e t i n g . C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S e c t i o n . V a n c o u v e r , unpub., 18 Jan. 1989 a t 4) . The p r e d i c a t e o f f e n c e s i n P a r t V I are c e r t a i n l y g r e a t e r i n number t h a n i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f an enterprise crime offence, the difference generally e x p l a i n a b l e by t h e e m p h a s i s i n t h e l a t t e r on e c o n o m i c c r i m e . The a b s e n c e o f s. 3 05.1 i s an u n e x p l a i n e d exception. [now  7  I b i d , s.  s.  381].  8  I b i d . , s.  339 358  [now [now  s.  s.348].  400].  Supra, n t .  5 at  4.  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.3, " e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e , " (b) . The d e f i n i t i o n a l s o i n c l u d e s "an a c t o r o m i s s i o n anywhere t h a t , i f i t had o c c u r r e d i n Canada, w o u l d h a v e c o n s t i t u t e d " an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o r a d e s i g n a t e d d r u g o f f e n c e .  9  45  is  462.3  5  306  or  predicate  The E n t e r p r i s e C r i m e S t u d y W o r k i n g Group recommended t h a t t h e p r e d i c a t e e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e s be drawn f r o m t h o s e f o r which a wiretap a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e (Dept. o f Justice, E n t e r p r i s e Crime Study R e p o r t. Ottawa, 10 June 1983) a t 181.  C r i m i n a l Code, s.  8  of  4  6  5  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , however,  which q u a l i f i e s ,  any  interest,  attempts  t h i n g o r p r o c e e d s " was  commission  but  earlier  character  limits  the breadth  Designated for  that  narcotics;  fact,  2 2  2 0  of  and  exporting  and l a u n d e r i n g  1 7  inchoate or  drugs,  possession  1 6  acts  counselling,  as  well  i f acting i n furtherance  a  or  restricted  1 2  narcotic;  of property  their  which  2 1  XII.2.  include t r a f f i c k i n g  1 1  controlled  or marihuana;  offences  f o r purposes of P a r t  offences  importing  1 4  Those attempt  drug  purpose  opium poppy foregoing  o f s. 354  as  possession drugs  and  by t h e  1 8  a  conspiracy,  accessories  of or i n r e l a t i o n  1 3  cultivating  1 5  obtained  proceeds.  constitute  1 0  after  the  to a predicate-  Alan Gold c r i t i c i z e s the reference t o e n t e r p r i s e crime and d e s i g n a t e d d r u g o f f e n c e s i n t h e r e s t r i c t e d d e f i n i t i o n o f s. 354. He notes the c i r c u l a r i t y of d e f i n i t i o n which r e s u l t s , adding that i t "exemplifies the lack of c r a f t s m a n s h i p t h a t went i n t o t h e d r a f t i n g o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n " ( A l a n D. G o l d , P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e - A M a n u a l w i t h Commentary on B i l l C-61 ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989) a t 2 1 ) . 1 0  11 C r i m i n a l  Code,  s.  462.3,  1 2  F o o d and D r u g s A c t , s.  1 3  I b i d . , s.  1 4  N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t , s.  1 5  I b i d . , s.  5.  1 6  I b i d . , s.  6.  17  Ibid,  Narcotic Control 44.3 a n d s. 50.3.  20  C r i m i n a l Code, Ibid,  s.  4.  F o o d and Drugs A c t , s. 44.2  1 8  1 9  39.  48.  s. 19.1;  s.  Act,  s.  19.2;  465.  24.  2 1  I b i d . , s.  22.  2 2  I b i d . , s.  23. 46  Food  and  1 9  and s. Drugs  50.2. Act,  s.  offence, or  are  i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e  designated  drug  offence.  t h e Code. a p e r s o n who offence actual  attracts a  As  2 3  well,  by  operation  of  a i d s or abets the commission of a  degree  of  culpability  equal  to  s.  21  of  predicate  that  of  the  perpetrator.  Although the umbrella  amendments c l a s s i f y  categories  themselves.  do  not  In t h i s regard,  quite different  offences,  constitute  the  offences  newly-created in  and  t h e a p p r o a c h t a k e n by t h e d r a f t e r s * i s  f r o m t h a t o f t h e RICO s t a t u t e s , w h i c h c r i m i n a l i z e  a p a t t e r n of r a c k e t e e r i n g represented  by  the  c o m m i s s i o n o f two  more p r e d i c a t e f e d e r a l o r s t a t e o f f e n c e s . However, i t i s s i m i l a r the  British  and  of  s.  breadth  462.31,  or to  A u s t r a l i a n approaches.  LAUNDERING PROCEEDS OF  The  of  CRIME  o f t h e amendments i s e x e m p l i f i e d by t h e the  offence  of  laundering  proceeds  of  inclusion crime.  Ibid.. s. 462.3, "enterprise crime offence," (c) . MacFarlane observes t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of inchoate offences r e m e d i e s t h e " d i s a b i l i t y " n o t e d i n R. v. C u t h b e r t s o n . [1981] A.C. 470 ( H . L . ) . (Bruce M a c F a r l a n e , " L e g a l V e h i c l e s L e a d i n g t o F o r f e i t u r e Under P a r t X . l o f t h e C r i m i n a l Code," unpub. p a p e r , NCPC a t 1 ) . C u t h b e r t s o n had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t e x i s t i n g B r i t i s h law d i d n o t p e r m i t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f p r o c e e d s o f a c o n s p i r a c y , w h i c h t h e C o u r t f o u n d was n o t an o f f e n c e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e M i s u s e o f Drugs A c t 1971 (28 S t a t u t e s 5 0 0 ) . 2 3  H e r e a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as ' l a u n d e r i n g . * The o f f e n c e i s also a predicate 'enterprise crime offence' (s. 462.3). S i m i l a r offences are created i n the N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l Act (s. 19.2) and t h e F o o d and Drugs A c t ( s . 43.3 ( c o n t r o l l e d drugs) and s. 50.3 ( r e s t r i c t e d d r u g s ) ) , presumably i n order to  2 4  47  2 4  Being  one  important Canada  a  matter  of  criminal  of  two  created concept an  new by  the  which,  entire  c o n f i s c a t i o n to  convoluted  virtually o f any  118  word  i n the  2 7  a  the  most  introduces  forms  the the  range  of  conduct,  definition  of  property  reach  of not  laundering i s  includes within  "any  to  subject  increases  which  2 8  certainly  section  States  broad  The  deal with  obtained  the  It vastly  include  sentence  and  5  United  2 6  criminal.  a l l p e r s o n s who  property...  offences,  legislation,  statute.  previously considered a  Code  its  o r any  grasp  proceeds  o r d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y as  f a c i l i t a t e p r o s e c u t i o n s by e i t h e r t h e f e d e r a l o r p r o v i n c i a l Crown. The Enterprise Crime Study Group recommended c r e a t i o n o f a l a u n d e r i n g o f f e n c e (supra. n t . 4 a t 177). The o t h e r n e w l y c r e a t e d o f f e n c e i s t h e b r e a c h o f , c o m p l i a n c e w i t h a r e s t r a i n t o r d e r , s. 4 6 2 . 3 3 ( 1 1 ) .  2 5  or  The Money L a u n d e r i n g Control Act 1986. Subtitle H T i t l e I o f t h e A n t i - D r u g Abuse A c t o f 1986. P.L. 99-570 O c t . 1 9 8 6 ) , a s amended by P.L. 100-690 (18 Nov. 1988). 2 6  nonof (27  E v e n one o f t h e f r a m e r s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , R i c h a r d G. M o s l e y , n o t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e c o n d u c t encompassed by t h e o f f e n c e i s d e s c r i b e d i n very broad terms t o c o v e r v i r t u a l l y any dealing with the property." He adds t h a t l i a b i l i t y is l i m i t e d by t h e mens r e a r e q u i r e m e n t s ("Seizing the Proceeds o f C r i m e : The O r i g i n s and M a i n F e a t u r e s o f C a n a d a ' s C r i m i n a l F o r f e i t u r e L e g i s l a t i o n , " unpub. p a p e r , NCPC a t 1 6 ) . 2 7  Alan Gold suggests that the c o r r e c t l y be worded as f o l l o w s :  2 8  offence  could  just  as  E v e r y one commits an o f f e n c e who d e a l s , i n any manner and by any means, w i t h p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e (or p r o p e r t y w h i c h i s p a r t l y such) w i t h i n Canada, k n o w i n g t h a t t h e property was proceeds of crime w i t h i n Canada, with i n t e n t t o conceal or convert t h a t p r o p e r t y or those p r o c e e d s ( s u p r a , n t . 10 a t 28) . 48  a  result  of"  an  e n t e r p r i s e crime  or  designated  drug  offence.  A  9  dual procedure offence, i t r e q u i r e s the s p e c i f i c i n t e n t "to conceal or convert" of t h e i r  t a i n t e d property  illegal  or  knowledge  origin.  George Goyer observes property  or proceeds i n a d d i t i o n t o  t h a t the  specific  i n t e n t of  converting  proceeds:  ...seems t o r e l a t e b a c k t o a l l o f t h e manners i n w h i c h t h e p r o p e r t y m i g h t be d e a l t w i t h , d i s p o s e d o f , e t c . I f an individual had knowledge t h a t p r o p e r t y o r p r o c e e d s were o b t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t o f c r i m e , any d e a l i n g s w o u l d seem t o come within this broad definition as long as those dealings resulted i n e i t h e r the concealment or c o n v e r s i o n of the p r o p e r t y or proceeds. 3 0  In a d d i t i o n , t h e knowledge r e q u i r e m e n t s  2 9  S e c t i o n 462.31, i n i t s e n t i r e t y ,  may  reads  w e l l be s a t i s f i e d by  as  follows:  (1) E v e r y one commits an o f f e n c e who uses, t r a n s f e r s the p o s s e s s i o n o f , s e n d s o r d e l i v e r s t o any p e r s o n or place, transports, transmits, alters, disposes of or otherwise d e a l s w i t h , i n any manner and by any means, any p r o p e r t y o r any p r o c e e d s o f any property with intent to conceal or c o n v e r t t h a t p r o p e r t y o r t h o s e p r o c e e d s and k n o w i n g t h a t a l l o r a p a r t o f t h a t p r o p e r t y o r o f t h o s e p r o c e e d s was obtained o r d e r i v e d d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y as a r e s u l t o f (a) t h e c o m m i s s i o n i n Canada o f an or a designated drug offence; or  e n t e r p r i s e crime  offence  (b) an a c t o r o m i s s i o n anywhere t h a t , i f i t had o c c u r r e d i n Canada, w o u l d h a v e c o n s t i t u t e d an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e or a designated drug o f f e n c e . (2)  Every  one  who  commits an  o f f e n c e under s u b s e c t i o n  (1)  (a) i s g u i l t y o f an i n d i c t a b l e o f f e n c e and is liable imprisonment f o r a term not exceeding t e n y e a r s ; or (b) is guilty conviction.  of  an  offence  punishable  P r o c e e d s of Crime (Vancouver: C o n t i n u i n g S o c i e t y o f B.C., 1990) a t 3.1.03.  3 0  49  on  Legal  to  summary Education  an  accused p e r s o n c h o o s i n g t o remain w i l f u l l y funds,  "knowledge p r e s u m e d " a s o p p o s e d  Curiously, offence  does  omission,  although  not  the  include  presumably  term  the  t o the source of  t o "knowledge  i s defined  words  intentional,  blind  in  "proceeds  i s not e a s i l y  of  certain."  s.  462.3,  3 1  the  crime."  The  explained.  Alan  G o l d i d e n t i f i e s t h r e e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e laundering Firstly,  offence  he  refers  and  the  t o the  definition  for  "insignificant  proceeds  difference"  f o r m e r u s e s t h e words " p r o p e r t y o r any p r o c e e d s o f any while the l a t t e r  r e f e r s to "property, b e n e f i t  the d e f i n i t i o n  of  crime.  whereby  property,"  or advantage."  f o r 'proceeds o f c r i m e ' does  the  He  3 2  adds  that  not use  word  'proceeds,• w h i l e t h e l a u n d e r i n g o f f e n c e does, c i t i n g t h i s  the  Kenneth Young, " P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e , " i n The Drug Case ( V a n c o u v e r : C o n t i n u i n g L e g a l E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y o f B.C., Mar. 1990) a t 2.1.04. Young ( a t 2.1.05) q u o t e s f r o m t h e S.C.C. d e c i s i o n i n R. v . S a n s r e g r e t (1985) 45 C R . (3d) 193:  3 1  ...willful b l i n d n e s s a r i s e s where a p e r s o n who has become aware o f t h e need f o r some i n q u i r y d e c l i n e s t o make t h e i n q u i r y b e c a u s e he d o e s n o t w i s h t o know t h e truth. He w o u l d prefer t o remain ignorant. The culpability (in w i l l f u l blindness)... i s j u s t i f i e d by the accused's f a u l t i n d e l i b e r a t e l y f a i l i n g t o i n q u i r e when he knows t h a t t h e r e i s r e a s o n f o r i n q u i r y . The Law S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t o members o f t h e p r o f e s s i o n :  i s clear  i n i t s warning  ...a l a w y e r who a c c e p t s money o r p r o p e r t y f r o m a c l i e n t knowing o r b e i n g w i l f u l l y [ s i c ] b l i n d t o t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e , may be c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n c e s o f p o s s e s s i o n o r " l a u n d e r i n g " ("New Proceeds o f C r i m e L e g i s l a t i o n , " [1989] 10 B e n c h e r s ' B u l l e t i n 2 ) . S u p r a , n t . 10 a t 27. The d i f f e r e n c e may n o t be as i n s i g n i f i c a n t as he s u g g e s t s . Can a b e n e f i t o r an a d v a n t a g e be l a u n d e r e d ? Does " p r o p e r t y , b e n e f i t o r a d v a n t a g e " i n c l u d e the proceeds of property?  3 2  50  as  "an  example  Secondly, property  he  of  the  notes  rather  t h a t the  o u t s i d e Canada.  sloppy  drafting  laundering  Thirdly,  the  of  offence  or designated Gold  drug  warns o f t h e  offence.  statute."  does not  apply  to  o f f e n c e need o n l y  apply  to  p r o p e r t y or proceeds which are i n p a r t the product crime  the  o f an e n t e r p r i s e  3 3  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e new  offence:  . . . t h e p r o v i s i o n s . . . a r e e x p r e s s e d i n l a n g u a g e so b r o a d t h a t a n y o n e d e a l i n g w i t h any f o r m o f p r o p e r t y o r p r o c e e d s t h e r e o f , f r o m anywhere i n t h e w o r l d , t h a t may be v i e w e d a s d e r i v e d f r o m a c t s t h a t w o u l d a r g u a b l y be c r i m i n a l u n d e r C a n a d i a n law w i t h knowledge o r even merely s u s p i c i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e s u s p e c t origins is a potential accused for violation of the provisions. A c c o u n t a n t s , b a n k e r s , b r o k e r s and l a w y e r s i g n o r e t h e s e new p r o v i s i o n s a t t h e i r p e r i l . 3 4  Certainly bar,  h i s c o n c e r n s have been m i r r o r e d  which  expressed  legislation.  considerable  by  dismay  K e n n e t h Young summarizes t h e  the  c r i m i n a l defence  at  passage  of  the  view:  . . . t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y sweep o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s s u c h t h a t i t must n e c e s s a r i l y a f f e c t how we, as l a w y e r s , r e l a t e t o our c l i e n t s ; what i n q u i r i e s we make a s t o t h e o r i g i n / s o u r c e o f o u r c l i e n t s [ s i c ] f u n d s and p r o p e r t y ; what t r a n s a c t i o n s we w i l l o r w i l l n o t u n d e r t a k e on b e h a l f o f o u r c l i e n t s ; and how, in c o n t e x t , we w i l l . . . c o m e t o h a n d l e f u n d s and p r o p e r t y e n t r u s t e d t o us as c o u n s e l . 3 5  Supra, n t . 3 4  Ibid,  at  10  at  27-8.  2-3.  S u p r a . n t . 31 a t 2.1.04. Although the l e g i s l a t i o n p l a c e s the r e t a i n e r s of c r i m i n a l defence counsel i n c o n s i d e r a b l e jeopardy, a much g r e a t e r c o n c e r n t o the l e g a l p r o f e s s i o n must be the impact of the legislation on lawyers' undertakings. F o r example, m o n i e s h e l d i n t r u s t pending c o m p l e t i o n o f a r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n may be c a p t u r e d by a r e s t r a i n t order. The e f f e c t o f s u c h a s e i z u r e on a l a w y e r ' s undertaking to disburse funds on closing is unclear, a l t h o u g h somewhat a n a l o g o u s s i t u a t i o n s c a n be f o u n d i n t h e law r e s p e c t i n g g a r n i s h i n g o r d e r s and s e i z u r e s by a s h e r i f f . I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , t h e Law S o c i e t y i s a c t i v e l y e x a m i n i n g t h e m a t t e r (supra, n t . 31). 3 5  51  Although and  the offence  has t h e p o t e n t i a l o f c a p t u r i n g  t r a n s a c t i o n s under  i t s umbrella,  many  persons  i n p r a c t i c e the majority of  l a u n d e r i n g c a s e s w i l l l i k e l y be d e a l t w i t h u n d e r s . 354, p o s s e s s i o n of t h e proceeds o f crime. relation can  now  order  As a p r e d i c a t e o f f e n c e when c o m m i t t e d i n  t o e n t e r p r i s e crime form  the basis  or designated  of special  a p p l i c a t i o n s and c a n g i v e  drug  search  rise  warrant  will  certainly  laundering  offence,  component to  be  noted  in  the  laundering  t o prove  the l a t t e r  above.  r e t r a c e t h e flow  part  easier  Only  36  cleansing  a  restraint  i n cases  354  offence  t h e complex  where  will  i t be  than  i n v e s t i g a t o r s seek who  necessary  took  to lay  charges.  Nevertheless,  the  question  criminalization  of  money  accepted  of  Canada's  norms  criminal  i n Chapter  Parliament  possesses  the a b i l i t y  conduct,  fettered  only  Nevertheless,  One  must  laundering  discussion  of t h i s  by  be  in  s.  law?  thesis, to  asked: 462.31 In  does  the  offend  the  light  i t seems  of the  clear  criminalize virtually  constitutional  that any  limitations.  i t i s e s s e n t i a l when d r a f t i n g new c r i m i n a l  that Parliament  3 7  offences  r e s p e c t t h e p r i n c i p l e o f l e g a l i t y and s p e c i f i c a l l y  S e c t i o n 354 a r g u a b l y i n c l u d e s a w i d e r s u b j e c t m a t t e r t h a n s. 462.31: "any p r o p e r t y o r t h i n g o r a n y p r o c e e d s o f a n y p r o p e r t y o r t h i n g , " v e r s u s "any p r o p e r t y o r a n y p r o c e e d s o f any p r o p e r t y . " 3 6  3 7  a  mens r e a  money and c h a r g e t h o s e  process  In  o f proceeds o f crime,  s.  containing  of laundered  and  s . 354  to confiscation orders.  c a s e s where a n a c c u s e d i s f o u n d i n p o s s e s s i o n it  offences,  A t o p i c considered  i n Chapter 52  Three.  t h e maxim, Can of  'nullum  crimen.  i t be s a i d t h a t s . 462.31 s u f f i c i e n t l y d e f i n e s t h e o f f e n c e  l a u n d e r i n g proceeds  maxim? the  1  of crime  t o ensure  compliance  Or, u t i l i z i n g t h e t e s t d e s c r i b e d by G l a n v i l l e  o f f e n c e drawn i n s u c h  brought  within  i t s grasp  broad  terms t h a t  almost  with  Williams, i s  anybody  appears  c a n be  a t t h e whim o f t h e Crown o r t h e c o u r t ?  G o l d a n d Young w o u l d a p p a r e n t l y a g r e e w i t h t h e l a t t e r a n d a interpretation  this  t o support t h e i r  view.  literal  On t h e o t h e r hand,  t h e c o m p l e x k n o w l e d g e r e q u i r e m e n t n e e d e d f o r a c o n v i c t i o n may  well  o f f s e t what c o u l d o t h e r w i s e be an o v e r l y i n c l u s i v e d e f i n i t i o n .  The  judicial  response  to  t h e quandary  will  likely  be  to  c o n s t r u e t h e o f f e n c e i n s u c h a way t h a t i t s p a r a m e t e r s delineated, possess monies  thereby ensuring that  clear over  meaning w i l l allay  knowledge  which  they  i twill  or are w i l f u l l y exercise  t h e worst  fears  are clearly  only capture those blind  dominion.  l i k e l y mitigate the potential  strictly  who  t o the source of  Arriving  at a  fair  r e a c h o f t h e o f f e n c e and  o f many, p a r t i c u l a r l y  those  i n t h e defence  bar.  PROCEEDS OF CRIME  Although words  t h e o f f e n c e o f l a u n d e r i n g does n o t i n c o r p o r a t e t h e  'proceeds  of  crime,'  one  53  cannot  ignore  the  importance  attached As  t o t h a t term,  noted  benefit  in or  definition "any the  offence  of  any  one  a  offence  something  not  Section follows:  or  crime  hand,  differs any  It  Canada,  advantage  the  clause,  and  contained say  laundering  considered  4 62.3  ...any p r o p e r t y , Canada, o b t a i n e d r e s u l t of  of  the  in  the  Code d e f i n e s  to  of  no  b e n e f i t or or d e r i v e d  for  'proceeds  within  restricted  of  crime  property" property,  'proceeds  crime'  as  advantage, w i t h i n o r outside directly o r i n d i r e c t l y as a  (a) t h e c o m m i s s i o n i n Canada o f an or a designated drug offence, or  e n t e r p r i s e crime  offence  (b) an a c t o r o m i s s i o n anywhere t h a t , i f i t had o c c u r r e d i n C a n a d a , w o u l d h a v e c o n s t i t u t e d an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e o r a designated drug offence. Although the property, b e n e f i t or advantage must be situate i n Canada, i t may h a v e d e r i v e d f r o m an act or o m i s s i o n c o m m i t t e d e l s e w h e r e w h i c h , " i f i t had o c c u r r e d i n C a n a d a , w o u l d h a v e c o n s t i t u t e d an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e o r a designated drug offence." The absence of a "double c r i m i n a l i t y " t e s t , r e q u i r i n g p r o o f o f an o f f e n c e u n d e r b o t h C a n a d i a n and f o r e i g n law, i s t h e r e b y a v o i d e d ( s e e s u p r a . n t . 10 a t 21-2 and s u p r a , n t . 23 a t 4 ) . The d e f i n i t i o n s o f l a u n d e r i n g p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ( s . 462.31) and p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ( s . 354) c o n t a i n a s i m i l a r p r o v i s i o n .  3 9  54  1  territorial  derivative  definition  term  is  'proceeds  contemplates  contemplates  the  which  t h e o t h e r hand, t h e t e r m " p r o c e e d s o f any of  in  from the  to  3 8  property,  found  apparently  while  39  "any  markedly  difficult is  legislation.  Canada"  property,"  is  laundering  within  the  outside  proceeds of  b e n e f i t or On  above,  within  laundering.  situated  restraint.  3 8  or  On  includes  the  discussion  advantage,  property  property  i t recurs throughout  f o r proceeds of  broader.  in  the  as  of  crime.  1  0  Making laundering  the  legislative  o f f e n c e i s termed  intent  even  more  ambiguous,  "laundering proceeds  of crime."  t h e words 'proceeds o f c r i m e ' i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i v e t i t l e a t t r a c t t h e i r d e f i n e d meaning? one  might  infer  that  the  the Do  necessarily  In the u n l i k e l y event t h a t they  term  "property or  any  proceeds  of  do, any  p r o p e r t y " s h o u l d p r o p e r l y r e a d ' p r o p e r t y o r any p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ,  1  a f f o r d i n g a g l o b a l l y - i n c l u s i v e d e f i n i t i o n of l a u n d e r i n g i n both the jurisdictional  and  definitional  SEARCH, SEIZURE AND  Essential  to  sense.  RESTRAINT  the  enforcement  of  the  amendments  are  the  p r o v i s i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e s e a r c h f o r and r e s t r a i n t o f p r o p e r t y . Application order  may  be  Quaere crime?  w  for either  a  special  made i n w r i t i n g whether  there  can  by be  search  warrant  or  a  the Attorney G e n e r a l , proceeds  of  the  restraint 4 2  based  proceeds  of  K e n n e t h Young draws a p a r a l l e l between a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r s p e c i a l s e a r c h w a r r a n t s and a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r w i r e t a p s . Only p a r t l y i n j e s t , he s u r m i s e s t h a t most a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e f o r m e r w i l l be g r a n t e d : "by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e P r o t e c t i o n o f P r i v a c y A c t , what j u d g e has y e t p r o v e d t o be ' u n s a t i s f i e d ' by t h e a f f i d a v i t o f a u n i f o r m e d p o l i c e m a n a c c o m p a n i e d by Crown C o u n s e l " ( s u p r a . n t . 31 a t 2.1.02).  4 1  References t o the Attorney General are found throughout the l e g i s l a t i o n . A l t h o u g h some o b s e r v e r s o p i n e t h a t this may r e q u i r e p e r s o n a l i n v o l v e m e n t by t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , t h e p r e v a i l i n g v i e w s u g g e s t s t h a t Crown c o u n s e l c a n a c t i n h i s or her place. A r e v i e w o f t h e amendments i n t h e i r entirety lends credence t o a broad interpretation. For 4 2  55  4 1  on  reasonable  g r o u n d s a s d e p o s e d i n a Form 1 i n f o r m a t i o n , ex p a r t e o r  otherwise,  t o a superior court  for  searches,  to search  judge.  s . 462.32, p e r m i t s  "any b u i l d i n g ,  The o p e r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n  4 3  t h e judge t o a u t h o r i z e a  person  4 4  r e c e p t a c l e o r p l a c e " f o r "any p r o p e r t y i n  r e s p e c t o f w h i c h an o r d e r o f f o r f e i t u r e may be made" a n d " t o s e i z e that  property  person order  a n d any o t h e r  o r peace o f f i c e r  property  b e l i e v e s , on r e a s o n a b l e  o f f o r f e i t u r e may be made." P r i o r t o i s s u i n g t h e warrant,  reasonable will  be  grounds  found  exist  within  i n respect  o f which  grounds,  that  t h a t an  45  t h e j u d g e must be s a t i s f i e d t h a t  t o b e l i e v e both  the location  t o be  that  proceeds  searched  of  crime  and t h a t  e x a m p l e , t h e r e v i e w p r o v i s i o n s i n s . 462.34 r e f e r i n s u b p a r a g r a p h (5) t o t h e h o l d i n g o f an i n camera h e a r i n g , w i t h o u t the Attorney General being present. I t w o u l d be a b s u r d t o s u g g e s t t h a t Crown c o u n s e l c o u l d a t t e n d , b u t n o t t h e A t t o r n e y General. It should also be n o t e d that the d e f i n i t i o n f o r Attorney General i n s. 2 i n c l u d e s t h e A t t o r n e y General's " l a w f u l deputy," t h e l a t t e r term being u n d e f i n e d . " J u d g e " i s d e f i n e d i n s. 462.3, w h i c h i n t u r n r e q u i r e s r e f e r e n c e t o s . 2 a n d s . 552. I n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a t h e word means a member o f t h e Supreme C o u r t o r t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l . B r i a n P u r d y n o t e s t h a t i n some j u r i s d i c t i o n s , judges a r e being specifically designated t o deal with a p p l i c a t i o n s under the legislation ("Special Search Warrants and R e s t r a i n t O r d e r s , " unpub. p a p e r , NCPC a t 1 ) . 4 3  K e n n e t h Young assumes t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e t o "person" opens t h e door t o i n v e s t i g a t o r s from the Ministry of N a t i o n a l Revenue ( s u p r a . n t . 31 a t 2 . 1 . 0 2 ) . Nevertheless, u s e o f t h e word ' p e r s o n ' i s consistent with p r e - e x i s t i n g C r i m i n a l Code s e a r c h p r o v i s i o n s ( s e e s . 4 8 7 ) . 4 4  No r e f e r e n c e i s made t o t h e s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e o f e i t h e r 'proceeds o f p r o p e r t y ' o r 'proceeds o f crime,' b u t i n s t e a d t o p r o p e r t y f o r f e i t a b l e u n d e r e i t h e r s. 462.37(1) o r s. 4 6 2 . 3 8 ( 2 ) , b o t h o f w h i c h i n c o r p o r a t e t h e t e r m ' p r o c e e d s o f crime.*  4 5  56  an  enterprise  crime  offence  proceeds.  4 6  provided  t o anyone who,  valid  interest  although How  The j u d g e  may  require  will  that  in relation  notice  i n the judge's o p i n i o n ,  i n the property.  i t presumably  the court  h a s been c o m m i t t e d  includes  obtain  both  legal  observer  applying If,  interests.  persons  although  order.  at least when  4 9  i n t h e j u d g e ' s o p i n i o n , p r o v i d i n g n o t i c e o r a f f o r d i n g an  dissipation  to  be  heard  or reduction  the property  may  result  i n value  so t h a t  in  the  of the property  a l l or a part  thereof  "disappearance, or  otherwise  could  n o t be  Nevertheless, the Attorney General i s not r e s t r i c t e d t o seizing only the property which he believed to be f o r f e i t a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f a p p l i c a t i o n , b u t may a l s o s e i z e anything e l s e d i s c o v e r e d i n t h e course o f t h e search which g i v e s r i s e t o t h e same b e l i e f . K e n n e t h Young p r o v i d e s a c o l o u r f u l , i f e x t r e m e e x a m p l e :  4 6  ...this 'person' can scan the contents of a Surrey t o w n h o u s e and t a k e away n o t o n l y t h e c a s h ' p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ' o f w h i c h t h e u n i f o r m e d a f f i a n t was, a t minimum, l i k e l y s u s p i c i o u s ; b u t , a s w e l l , t h e p i c t u r e s on t h e w a l l , t h e c a r p e t s on t h e f l o o r and w h a t e v e r e l s e he may find i n the place which, i n h i s view, constitute ' p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e ' a s d e f i n e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s . 462.3 ( s u p r a , n t . 31 a t 2.1.02). G o y e r a s k s how a j u d g e i s t o become aware o f p e r s o n s s u c h a n i n t e r e s t ( s u p r a , n t . 30 a t 3 . 1 . 0 4 ) .  4 7  with  Brian Weddell, "Bill C-61 - Proposed Criminal Code Amendments - P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e , " unpub. p a p e r , C a n a d i a n B a r A s s o c . , C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S u b s e c t i o n Kamloops, 1989 a t 7. 4 8  4 9  4 8  and a  s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e onus must f a l l upon t h e a f f i a n t  f o r an  opportunity  affect  i s not defined,  o f such  d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i r i n t e r e s t s i s not d e a l t with, one  be  a p p e a r s t o have a  and e q u i t a b l e  t h e names  those  and a h e a r i n g  "Valid interest"  4 7  to  I b i d , a t 7. 57  seized,"  the  j u d g e may  with  e x c e p t i o n may  either  requirement.  often the  case,  difficult  t o i m a g i n e many s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h t h e c a v e a t  apply.  this  dispense  w e l l become t h e  As  5 0  rule,  is  i t being could  not  t h a t p o r t i o n of  the  5 1  If  not  s e a r c h and  t h e most c o n t r o v e r s i a l ,  certainly  s e i z u r e p r o v i s i o n s causing the g r e a t e s t present  concern  to  t h e Crown, i s s. 4 6 2 . 3 2 ( 6 ) , w h i c h r e q u i r e s t h e A t t o r n e y  General  to  provide  with  "such  respect  relation  to  to the  undertakings  as  the  the  of  damages  payment  issuance  and  judge c o n s i d e r s  execution  or of  costs, the  appropriate or  warrant."  concept  o f a Crown u n d e r t a k i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o f i n a n c i a l  is  to  new  Canadian  criminal  law.  Such  mentioned elsewhere i n the C r i m i n a l Code. being the undertakings civil  law.  granting  5 0  53  an  both,  The  5 2  liability  instrument  i t s nearest  in  is  not  equivalent  w h i c h a r e commonplace i n v a r i o u s a s p e c t s  of  G o y e r compares i t t o t h o s e w h i c h g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w t h e of  injunctions,  C r i m i n a l Code, s.  noting  that  the  inclusion  of  this  462.32 ( 5 ) .  A p o s s i b l e s c e n a r i o m i g h t be t h e s e i z u r e o f property b e l o n g i n g t o a p e r s o n known t o be o u t o f t h e jurisdiction and u n a b l e t o d e a l w i t h i t ; f o r example, w h i l e r e s i d e n t i n a foreign prison.  51  P a u l S a i n t - D e n i s n o t e s t h a t t h e amendments a r e silent r e s p e c t i n g e n t i t l e m e n t t o t h e damages and c o s t s and the p r o c e s s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g e n t i t l e m e n t ("Rights of t h e Accused, T h i r d P a r t y R i g h t s , and Due P r o c e s s , " unpub. p a p e r , NCPC a t 3) • 5 2  The Code d o e s a l l o w f o r u n d e r t a k i n g s on t h e p a r t o f an a c c u s e d a s a f o r m o f i n t e r i m r e l e a s e ( s . 816(1) and s. 831) and by a p r o s e c u t o r a t t h e h e a r i n g o f a summary c o n v i c t i o n a p p e a l ( s . 817 and s. 8 3 1 ) . Neither scenario contemplates f i n a n c i a l l i a b i l i t y , however.  5 3  58  provision among  came d u r i n g  various  "final  provincial  debate"  attorneys  and h a s c a u s e d general  and  trepidation  law  enforcement  a g e n c i e s , t o t h e p o i n t t h a t some a r e n o t p r e p a r e d t o o p e r a t e the  legislation  until  their  potential  o f t h e words  "such  undertakings  understood. Use  w i t h an u n d e r t a k i n g .  will  and a f a i r  that  5 5  responsibility  to  draw  Weddell [and  a]  against  i n at least  one a p p l i c a t i o n t o d i s p e n s e  an a p p r o p r i a t e d o l l a r  somebody  will  "have  to  The g r e a t e r  figure.  Brian  calculate  the  i n a d v a n c e o f an a p p l i c a t i o n .  f o r doing so l i k e l y  comparison,  as  Goyer  does,  to  civil  notes t h a t a l e g a l undertaking i s both personal  term,"  the individual  which giving  can "only it."  problem Weddell possible  Again, the  5 6  r e s i d e s w i t h t h e Crown.  very nature of the undertaking i s unclear. a  considers  I n my o p i n i o n , s u c h a v i e w o f f e n d s b o t h t h e  f i n a n c i a l consequences"  The  i s better  as t h e judge  meaning o f t h e p r o v i s i o n .  be d e t e r m i n i n g  suggests  exposure  5 4  a p p r o p r i a t e " has r e s u l t e d  intent  civil  under  5 7  be  Does  Is i t correct undertakings?  "a h i g h l y given  and  t h e term  technical enforced  retain i t s  F o r example, what s t a n d a r d o f c a r e i s e x p e c t e d o f t h e Crown w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e upkeep o f p r o p e r t y , s u c h a s h o u s e s and c a r s ; i n t h e i n v e s t m e n t o f m o n i e s and s e c u r i t i e s , s u c h a s s t o c k s a n d b o n d s ; and f o r t h e l o s s o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o p r o f i t (see s u p r a . n t . 43 a t 8-9 and n t . 30 a t 3 . 1 . 0 4 ) . Purdy notes t h a t t h e A t t o r n e y General o f O n t a r i o has a p p a r e n t l y d e c i d e d n o t t o u t i l i z e t h e l e g i s l a t i o n due t o t h e l i a b i l i t y c r e a t e d by t h e u n d e r t a k i n g s ( s u p r a , n t . 43 a t 8 ) .  5 4  5 5  Supra.  n t . 43 a t 3.  5 6  Supra,  n t . 48 a t 5.  5 7  Ibid. 59  personal nature General a  i n the l e g i s l a t i o n , thereby r e q u i r i n g the Attorney  t o give a personal undertaking  Crown p r o s e c u t o r  suffice?  when,  i n many c a s e s ,  over  the  questions the  seized continue  legislation.  How c a n e i t h e r  5 8  neither w i l l  or  or w i l l  detained,  report  restrained  requested,  interest  be f i l e d  who,  o r custody  property?  5 9  These  and  other  t h e s e i z e d p r o p e r t y must  care t o preserve  seven  days  i t s condition.  and a copy  provided, i f  o p i n i o n , appears t o have a  and  the special  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t r a d i t i o n a l  search  valid  6 1  a number o f C r i m i n a l Code s e c t i o n s a l r e a d y  search warrants,  warrants  C r i m i n a l Code w a r r a n t s  are striking. provided  provide warrants  F o r example, t h e  f o r i n s . 487: a) do n o t  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , i n t h e o t h e r Code p r o v i s i o n s d e a l i n g w i t h u n d e r t a k i n g s by a Crown o f f i c i a l , s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e i s made t o a n u n d e r t a k i n g by t h e " p r o s e c u t o r " ( s e e s . 817 a n d s . 831) . 5 8  5 9  Supra  f  n t . 48 a t 5-6.  Some a n s w e r s w i l l l i k e l y be p r o v i d e d by t h e c o u r t s i n A u s t r a l i a and Great B r i t a i n . Paul Saint-Denis notes that Australia's Proceeds of Crime A c t . 1987 contains an undertaking p r o v i s i o n almost identical t o Canada's. In Great Britain, t h e Drug T r a f f i c k i n g Offences A c t . 1986 p e r m i t s compensation o f persons a c q u i t t e d o f charges under t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , who c a n d e m o n s t r a t e s e r i o u s l o s s o r d e f a u l t ( s u p r a , n t . 52 a t 3 ) . 6 0  6 1  A  f r o m whom t h e p r o p e r t y was s e i z e d a n d t o  i n t h e judge's  for  general  within  i n the property.  Although  control  6 0  t o t h e person  anyone e l s e  undertaking  t o p e r p l e x t h o s e whose j o b i t i s t o a d m i n i s t e r  taking reasonable  must  g i v e an  have d i r e c t  A f t e r e x e c u t i n g a s . 462.32 w a r r a n t , be  the undertaking of  C r i m i n a l Code, s . 462.32 ( 5 ) . 60  require  application  granted  by a j u s t i c e  by  the Attorney  and c) p e r m i t  6 2  General,  the search  b)  need  only  be  f o r and s e i z u r e o f  evidence. Complementing  the  warrants  i s s.  prohibit  or r e s t r i c t  T h e y may  be u t i l i z e d  Here a l s o , to  provisions  462.33,  which  dealing  allows  a person's  with  special  for restraint  ability  to deal  orders  with  i n a d d i t i o n to or i n place of the  a j u d g e must be p e r s u a d e d t h a t r e a s o n a b l e  believe that the property  warrants.  grounds  targeted i s f o r f e i t a b l e .  affidavit The and  i n support.  6 4  order  c o n t a i n such  other  6 8  General  6 5  to a high  may  appoint  "reasonable  a custodian  provision  exist pre-  a written  judge,  with  6 9  and  of the  property  6 7  c o n d i t i o n s as t h e judge t h i n k s  S i m i l a r t o the s p e c i a l search warrants,  notice  court  The  6 3  6 6  ensuing  fit." a  by t h e A t t o r n e y  that  property.  c o n d i t i o n s a r e t h e same a s f o r a s p e c i a l s e a r c h w a r r a n t : application  search  requires  the  s . 462.33 Attorney  contains General's  Another exception t o t h i s r u l e i s t e l e w a r r r a n t s which are g r a n t e d by d e s i g n a t e d p r o v i n c i a l c o u r t j u d g e s ( s . 4 8 7 . 1 ) .  6 2  The E n t e r p r i s e C r i m e S t u d y W o r k i n g Group recommended t h e creation of restraint orders t o freeze the proceeds of e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e ( s u p r a , n t . 4 a t 177) .  6 3  6 4  C r i m i n a l Code, s . 462.33 ( 3 ) .  6 5  I b i d . . s . 462.33 (1) and s. 462.33 ( 6 ) .  6 6  I b i d . . s . 462.33 (1) and s. 462.33 ( 2 ) .  6 7  I b i d . . s . 462 . 33 (3) (b) ( i ) .  6 8  I b i d . , s . 462 .33 (4) .  6 9  I b i d . , s . 462.33 (5) .  undertaking. is  required,  the  order. The  period  Service  0  7 1  o f a copy o f t h e o r d e r  as i s r e g i s t r a t i o n a g a i n s t  or  r e s t r a i n t of property  order,  unless  to obtain  proceedings or i s evidence. of  remains  required  valid  for a  As  to  either  restraint  order. a r e no  prior to  well,  as  other  a  expiry.  G e n e r a l must s a t i s f y  a  of confiscation  the renewal mention  of  i s f o r an the  investigative  i s made d e s p i t e  basis  f o r the  provisions  indefinite and  t h e absence  original  i n the Criminal  seizure  Code  of or  which  I b i d . . s . 462.33 ( 7 ) .  I b i d . . s. 462.33(11). Disobeying the order a f t e r being served with a c o p y c o n s t i t u t e s an o f f e n c e , one o f two C r i m i n a l Code o f f e n c e s c r e a t e d by t h e amendments ( t h e o t h e r being laundering proceeds of crime). A hybrid offence, i t i s a l s o one f o r w h i c h a w i r e t a p a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e . 7 1  I b i d . . s . 462.33 (9) . R e f e r e n c e t o r e g i s t r a t i o n " a g a i n s t any p r o p e r t y " o b v i o u s l y c o n t e m p l a t e s more t h a n l a n d r e g i s t r a t i o n . I t n e c e s s a r i l y i n v o l v e s any s t a t u t o r y p r o v i n c i a l r e g i s t r y scheme i n v o l v i n g r e a l o r p e r s o n a l property. 7 2  7 3  I b i d . , s . 462.35.  ' I s ' c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean 'may whether the applicable clause i s read disjunctively. 7 4  7 5  Criminal  7 3  as e i t h e r p a r t o f an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r  use o f the property  reference  i s obtained  may y e t become t h e s u b j e c t  Interestingly,  7 5  time.  evidentiary  There  7 4  a renewal  a renewal, the Attorney  judge t h a t t h e property  7 0  a f f e c t e d by  o f s i x months f r o m t h e t i m e o f s e i z u r e o r t h e m a k i n g o f t h e  In order  period  any p r o p e r t y  named  7 2  seizure  restraint  as  on t h e p e r s o n  Code, s. 462.35. 62  be' d e p e n d i n g conjunctively  on or  p a r a l l e l t h e r e s t r a i n t o r d e r s e n v i s i o n e d by s. 462.33. device  adopted  their  introduction,  traditional civil  directly  the  civil  Parliament  boundaries  investigative  c r i m i n a l law.  from  chose  of c r i m i n a l  tool  to  the  As w i t h t h e new  law  law  of  to  more  injunctions.  step  i n the  residence Obtain  and  The very  of  search warrants. a  for  the  or a s s i s t  assessment importance  or  in  of to  will  rem  the be  new  with  the  of  the  for a  of  will the  prove  t o be  counter  with  scrutiny and  but  support  prepare  and  are  conviction  v.  The  not  to  by  the  gather post-  Accordingly, becomes  belief  that  the  increased  of  an  equal  property  productive.  'safeguards'  Inevitably  of  exhaustive  extremely  lengthy,  Queen  [1983] 63  2  S.C.R.  There,  application  7 6  may,  comparisons  for wiretaps.  The  has  affidavits  time-consuming  s u b j e c t t o i n t e n s e s c r u t i n y by d e f e n c e  See W i l s o n (3d) 87.  7 6  to  search.  Crown t o p r o d u c e an  generally  case  at the  t o make e i t h e r  i n c r e a s e d m a r k e d l y o v e r t h e p a s t number o f y e a r s . in  of  Information  i s reinforced  orders,  be drawn t o t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e o n u s upon t h e  an  meaningful.  reasonable  located in a  a  suffice.  investigations,  D e s p i t e a l l good i n t e n t i o n s , however,  peace  warrants  confiscation  need  i n the  A p o l i c e o f f i c e r appearing  judicial  likelihood  adapting  however, i t r e c o g n i z e d t h e  o r d e r would not  need f o r s t r i c t e r  conviction  interest  justice  an u n s i g n e d  purpose  evidence  lay  the  requirements  n e e d f o r a more r i g o r o u s s c r u t i n y o f a p p l i c a t i o n s t h a n of t r a d i t i o n a l  By  outside  hope o f  demanding  warrants,  They a r e a  counsel  594,  9  to  should  C.C.C.  a  ' p a c k a g e ' be  has  opened.  discouraged  proceeds of illegal  proceeds,  wiretap  most  applications.  crime l e g i s l a t i o n  Further, for  U n a v o i d a b l y , some w o u l d s a y Assuming i s to  that  despite  the  are  be  intent  rubber  of  desirable.  K e n n e t h Young's a c e r b i c  essentially  applications  of  very  high  applications  with  quality. are  to  By  rubber  which d i f f e r s from serves  little  ensure  scrutiny  or  analogy,  stamped,  if  the  that  the  required  comment  stamped  by  that  judges  rationale  search for  a  7 8  grant  those presented  special  of  7 7  s u g g e s t s e i t h e r t h a t members o f t h e j u d i c i a r y a r e d i s p o s e d t o the  this  confiscation  d e t a i l e d a p p l i c a t i o n procedure  authorizations,  applications  the  encourage the  a s i m i l a r r e s u l t would not  properly,  are  warrant procedure  'normal' s e a r c h w a r r a n t s i s o b v i a t e d , u n l e s s i t that  only  quality  material  is  placed  before  a  judge.  IN  PERSONAM CONFISCATION  The or  aims of the  restraint  of  the  l e g i s l a t i o n are offending  l a r g e l y s a t i s f i e d upon  property  or  proceeds  of  seizure crime.  W i t h o u t t h e p e c u n i a r y means t o c o n t i n u e an i l l e g a l e n t e r p r i s e ,  most  Already a draft protocol f o r Crown c o u n s e l i n British Columbia r e q u i r e s t h a t a l l a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r e i t h e r s p e c i a l s e a r c h w a r r a n t s o r r e s t r a i n t o r d e r s be r e f e r r e d t o R e g i o n a l Crown C o u n s e l " f o r a p p r o v a l and i n s t r u c t i o n s " ("Draft f o r Discussion - Protocol f o r Crown C o u n s e l - Bill C-61 P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e - S.C. 1988 c. 51," unpub. p a p e r , 15 Dec. 1988) .  7 7  7 8  Supra. nt.  31. 64  c r i m i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i l l p r e s u m a b l y be n e u t r a l i z e d o r , a t l e a s t , crippled. however,  Unless the property the possibility  organization, activities. although The in  remains t h a t  assuming a malevolent nature,  secondary,  importance  t o t h e aims  amendments u s e t h e word  sentencing  i t s return  will  permit the  t o resume i t s i l l e g a l  For t h i s reason, c o n f i s c a t i o n remains o f c o n s i d e r a b l e ,  reality  crime  seized or restrained i s confiscated  both a  person  offence,  confiscation  forfeiture  s.  of the l e g i s l a t i o n .  'forfeiture*  throughout,  and c o n f i s c a t i o n  convicted  462.37(1)  requires  o f proceeds of crime  that  8 0  o f an  a balance  crime that  of probabilities  and t h a t  the enterprise  8 2  the court  order  i f certain conditions  that  the property  c r i m e was c o m m i t t e d  In  enterprise  T h e r e must be a n a p p l i c a t i o n by t h e Crown w h i c h s a t i s f i e s on  although  are envisaged.  or discharged  the  a r e met. 8 1  a judge  " i s proceeds of i n relation to  property."  The Enterprise Crime Study Working Group recommended c r e a t i o n o f a l e g i s l a t i v e scheme p e r m i t t i n g c o n f i s c a t i o n o f the proceeds o f e n t e r p r i s e crime (supra n t . 4 a t 177). The l e g i s l a t i o n uses t h e term " o f f e n d e r , " which i s d e f i n e d i n s . 2 a s i n c l u d i n g p e r s o n s who e i t h e r p l e a d g u i l t y o r a r e found g u i l t y . I t t h e r e f o r e i n c l u d e s p e r s o n s who o b t a i n a n a b s o l u t e o r c o n d i t i o n a l d i s c h a r g e p u r s u a n t t o s . 736.  8 0  The words "satisfied" and "satisfaction" a r e used throughout the legislation t o express the standard of p e r s u a s i o n r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a j u d g e o r c o u r t c a n make c e r t a i n orders. I t i m p l i e s a burden o f proof l e s s t h a n t h e c r i m i n a l s t a n d a r d , though not n e c e s s a r i l y a k i n t o t h e c i v i l t e s t , t o w h i c h s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e i s a l s o made i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n . N e i l McCrank presumes, however, t h a t i t w i l l be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean a b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s ( " F o r f e i t u r e P r o v i s i o n s o f B i l l C-61," unpub. p a p e r , NCPC a t 6 ) . 8 1  8 2  My e m p h a s i s , h e r e and e l s e w h e r e i n t h i s 65  7 9  chapter.  In t h e event t h a t t h e property, not  e x i g i b l e , the court  which t h i s cannot  can occur  be l o c a t e d  transferred a  point the  where  method  diligent  party,  decrease  monetary  of valuation  complex If  despite  separation  offender's  attempts  i s outside  8 5  i n value  8 7  interest  part  Canada,  8 8  86  diminished  i tshall  8 4  h a s been  has witnessed t o the  The f i n e must  and w i l l  8 9  or interest  commingled  i n the property,  i s not s p e c i f i e d  opts f o ra f i n e ,  Situations i n  8 3  t o do s o ,  o r has been  becomes d i f f i c u l t .  i n t h e case of missing,  the court  a fine i n lieu.  i n c l u d e where t h e p r o p e r t y ,  to a third  substantial  may o r d e r  or a part or interest i n i ti s  equal  although the  likely  or comingled  be  quite  property.  impose a m a n d a t o r y t e r m i n  d e f a u l t o f payment w h i c h c o i n c i d e s w i t h a s c h e d u l e i n s . 4 6 2 . 3 8 ( 4 ) . The  d e f a u l t t i m e , t o a maximum o f 10 y e a r s ,  other  term,  i n c l u d i n g one a l r e a d y  being  i s consecutive  served.  t o any  9 0  Mosley suggests t h a t t h e f i n e a l t e r n a t i v e i s "comparable t o t h e U.K. ' c o n f i s c a t i o n o r d e r s ' and A u s t r a l i a n ' p e c u n i a r y p e n a l t y o r d e r s ' ( s u p r a , n t . 27 a t 1 9 ) . 8 3  C r i m i n a l Code s . 462.37 (3) (a) . R. v . S a u l t S t . M a r i e (1978) 40 C.C.C. (2d) 353 (S.C.C.) made t h e t e r m "due d i l i g e n c e " a p a r t o f Canada's l e g a l l e x i c o n ( s u p r a . n t . 81 a t 7) •  8 4  f  C r i m i n a l Code, s . 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 3 ) ( b ) . McCrank a s k s w h e t h e r u s e o f t h e t e r m " t h i r d p a r t y " i m p l i e s a p e r s o n a t arm's l e n g t h f r o m t h e t r a n s f e r o r ( s u p r a , n t . 81 a t 7 ) .  8 5  86  Criminal  87  Ibid  s.  462.37(3)(d).  Ibid  s.  462.37 (3) ( e ) .  8 8  89  Code, s . 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 3 ) ( c ) .  S u p r a , M a c F a r l a n e , n t . 23 a t 11-12. Criminal  Code, s. 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 4 ) ( b ) .  If  t h e Crown c a n n o t  connect  the property with  the  o f f e n c e , b u t i s a b l e t o p r o v e beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt the "proceeds or  instant  that  i t is  o f c r i m e , " t h a t i s , d e r i v e d f r o m an e n t e r p r i s e  crime  d e s i g n a t e d d r u g o f f e n c e , a j u d g e may o r d e r c o n f i s c a t i o n .  This  p r o v i s i o n c o d i f i e s t h e j u d i c i a l a c t i v i s m e v i d e n c e d by t h e M a n i t o b a C o u r t o f A p p e a l when i t o v e r t u r n e d t h e r e s t o r a t i o n Medd.  d e s p i t e t h e monies i n q u e s t i o n n o t h a v i n g  91  p r e d i c a t e o r another By  in  from c i v i l  flowed  v.  from t h e  9 2  i n t r o d u c i n g the balance of p r o b a b i l i t i e s  imported, court  drug o f f e n c e .  order i n  test,  Parliament  law, a s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f t h a t h a s n o t s u r v i v e d  c h a l l e n g e s whenever  introduced i n the past.  personam f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s elsewhere  The  9 3  specific  i n t h e Code p e r m i t t h e  f o r f e i t u r e o f items immediately connected t o an o f f e n c e , g e n e r a l l y exhibits at t r i a l ,  such as contraband o r t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f crime.  S u c h f o r f e i t u r e f o l l o w s upon c o n v i c t i o n a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e sentencing process. The  amendments  confiscation  of  represent Parliament's  proceeds  9 1  (1983) 7 C.C.C.  9 2  See M a c F a r l a n e ' s 23 at 6).  nt.  crime  in like  to treat  fashion,  9 4  with  the the  (3d) 158.  See, f o r example, C.C.C. (3d) 321.  9 3  of  attempt  comments R.  v.  respecting Oakes  R.  [1986]  v . Medd 1  S.C.R.  F o r example, t h e i n personam forfeiture m e t a l s ( s . 394(2)) r e a d s , i n p a r t , as f o l l o w s : 9 4  of  (supra. 103,  24  precious  Where a person i s c o n v i c t e d o f an o f f e n c e u n d e r this s e c t i o n , t h e c o u r t may o r d e r a n y t h i n g by means o f o r i n relation t o which t h e o f f e n c e was committed. on such c o n v i c t i o n , t o be f o r f e i t e d . . . 67  exception proceeds beyond  that may  a  the  be  nexus  proven  reasonable  on  between  the  predicate  o f f e n c e and  a balance of p r o b a b i l i t i e s  doubt.  The  reduced  burden  rather  aside,  q u e s t i o n a b l e w h e t h e r i n personam c o n f i s c a t i o n c a n e v e n be to the s p e c i f i c  the than  i t is  compared  i n personam f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s e l s e w h e r e  i n the  Code. Assume, f o r example, t h a t a b u s i n e s s v e n t u r e i s t h e o f c r i m e and t h a t t h e e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e c h a r g e d Assume  further  that  the  offence,  through a myriad  well  v a r i o u s bank  as  purchase  the business.  committed  proceeds  were  o f companies,  accounts, Can  into  traced  the  pool  and of  The  relationship  bootleg for  whisky,  example a  results  and  are  one  t o an  linking excise  'smoking' gun,  contraband,  offence;  as  used  to  offence  was  between a  instrument of  crime.  fraud  offshore,  f o r example  o r an  to a violent  the  1  answer i s l e s s  important than recognizing the very great d i f f e r e n c e a  'fraud.  money  i t be s a i d t h a t t h e f r a u d  i n r e l a t i o n to the business venture?  is  from  domestic  proceeds  Only  the  such  keg  of  crime, final  alike.  MacFarlane views the i n c l u s i o n of the balance of p r o b a b i l i t i e s  Juxtapose 462.37(1):  the  foregoing  with  the  following  from  s.  ...where an o f f e n d e r i s c o n v i c t e d . . . o f an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e and t h e c o u r t . . . i s s a t i s f i e d . . . t h a t any p r o p e r t y i s p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e and t h a t t h e e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e was committed i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t p r o p e r t y , t h e c o u r t s h a l l o r d e r t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be f o r f e i t e d . . . 68  test  as a  statutory reversal  Supreme C o u r t to  a trial  Mosley  opinion  a n d g o v e r n e d by t h e same s t a n d a r d  on  Gardiner  provisions  the issue  i n McMillan  i n which t h e  5  v . Penn.  9 7  f  of proof.  decided  "and  to  i n the  resolve  below."  allowed  t h e due p r o c e s s  Richard  9 6  absence  suggests  "the inherent  that the lesser  difficulties  of assets  which,  by  c o n c e a l m e n t and c o n v e r s i o n . " importation  d i f f e r e n c e s of  He  adds  t h a t a lower requirement  that the  standard of  of the Fourth  of the balance  burden  i n tracing  their  very  arose and  nature,  from  a  may  hang  the  are subject to  The f a c t r e m a i n s , however, t h a t t h e of probabilities  i n the balance  default provisions.  concern  identifying  test  represents  r a d i c a l i n n o v a t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y when one c o n s i d e r s t h a t a liberty  of  98  Mosley  origins  was  i n the courts  does n o t v i o l a t e  Amendment.  for  that  statutory  U.S.S.C, proof  v. Gardiner,  o f Canada h e l d t h a t a s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g i s i n t e g r a l  counters  contrary  o f R.  as a  result  person's  o f t h e mandatory  To j u s t i f y i t s i n c l u s i o n a s a c o u n t e r w e i g h t  (1982) 68 C . C . C (2d) 477. See W i l l i a m F. Ehrcke, "Letting t h e Punishment F i t t h e Crime" (1990) 48 The A d v o c a t e 545 a t 552, f o r a t i m e l y d i s c u s s i o n o f G a r d i n e r . 9 5  S u p r a , M a c F a r l a n e , n t . 23 whether o r not a sentencing confiscation hearing. 9 6  a t 4. I t r e m a i n s t o be s e e n h e a r i n g c a n be compared t o a  (1986) 91 L . E d . 67. M c M i l l a n dealt with sentencing g u i d e l i n e s and i s o f l i m i t e d a s s i s t a n c e . However, M o s l e y a l s o c i t e s U.S. v . S a n d i n i (1987) 816 F. (2d) 869 a t 879 (3rd Cir.), t h e l e a d i n g American case i n support of the proposition that a forfeiture proceeding "brought after [ t h e ] g u i l t p h a s e o f [a] c r i m i n a l t r i a l , d o e s n o t v i o l a t e due p r o c e s s " ( s u p r a , n t . 27 a t 1 8 ) .  9 7  9 8  S u p r a , n t . 27 a t 18. 69  a  to  the  absence  o f a t r a c i n g mechanism i s l e s s t h a n  Inclusion fundamental  of the c i v i l  norm  of  test  Canadian  not only appears t o c o n t r a d i c t  criminal  law  but  b l u n t t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n i n G a r d i n e r . departure  will  likely  find  d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Three. represents  an  extremely  satisfactory.  succour  in  the  i t also  seems  Charter.  a  interesting, confiscation accused  or  yet  aspect  of the c i v i l  quite  different  o f p r o p e r t y w h i c h may  the  predicate  of  this  offence,  test,  legislation.  how  possible  property  problem.  It  be  the  Donald's  provided that  proceeds  interrelationship and  query  focuses  contemplated  the property.  in  The  permits  the  of  crime  this  former  on  the  an the  n o t be c o n n e c t e d t o e i t h e r  f o r t h e p e r s o n f r o m whom i t i s s e i z e d  innocent."  offender  can  attention  s. 462.37(2) p o s e s  beyond a r e a s o n a b l e doubt, t h e proceeds of c r i m e . asks  subject  S u f f i c e t o say f o r t h e p r e s e n t t h a t i t  vulnerable  of i t s i n c l u s i o n  to  Challenges to t h i s  A l t h o u g h s. 462.37(1) h a s t o d a t e r e c e i v e d g r e a t e r because  a  the  property i s  Patricia  Donald  i f i t  remains  to later rather  sub-section  be  found  curious  between  an  becomes a mere c o n d u i t by  w h i c h t h e m a t t e r and t h e p r o p e r t y a r e b r o u g h t b e f o r e a c o u r t .  The  c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s i s but a v e h i c l e f o r a c o n f i s c a t i o n p r o c e s s which seeks  not t o c o n v i c t  grounded  but t o d i v e s t ,  a r g u a b l y an  on a d u b i o u s s t a t u t o r y b a s i s .  e x i s t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o i n rem  Supra,  nt. 5 at  A quite  confiscation.  7. 70  abuse o f p r o c e s s similar  situation  IN REM CONFISCATION  Should  a  person  designated drug matter,  s.  confiscation satisfied crime,  charged  with  an  enterprise  crime  or  o f f e n c e abscond o r d i e p r i o r t o d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e  462.38  100  provides  of property  beyond  that proceedings  that  upon a p p l i c a t i o n  a reasonable  a g a i n s t t h e accused  doubt  relating  a  judge  shall  order  by t h e Crown a n d b e i n g  that  i t i s t h e proceeds of  to the property  are outstanding  a n d t h a t he h a s d i e d o r a b s c o n d e d .  1 0 1  Incorporated i n t h e Food a n d D r u g s A c t b y s . 44.4 ( c o n t r o l l e d d r u g s ) and s. 51 ( r e s t r i c t e d d r u g s ) a n d i n t h e N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t by s . 19.3. 1 0 0  1 0 1  a  S e c t i o n 462.38 r e a d s  as f o l l o w s :  (1) Where a n i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been l a i d i n r e s p e c t o f an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e , t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l may make a n a p p l i c a t i o n t o a j u d g e f o r an o r d e r o f f o r f e i t u r e under s u b s e c t i o n (2) i n r e s p e c t o f any p r o p e r t y . (2) Subject to sections 4 62.39 t o 4 62.41, where an a p p l i c a t i o n i s made t o a j u d g e u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n (1) , t h e judge s h a l l , i f t h e judge i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t (a) a n y p r o p e r t y crime,  i s , beyond  a reasonable  doubt,  proceeds of  (b) p r o c e e d i n g s i n r e s p e c t o f an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e offence c o m m i t t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t p r o p e r t y were commenced, a n d (c) t h e a c c u s e d charged with the offence paragraph (b) h a d d i e d o r a b s c o n d e d ,  referred  to i n  o r d e r t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be f o r f e i t e d t o H e r M a j e s t y t o be d i s p o s e d o f as the Attorney General d i r e c t s o r otherwise d e a l t w i t h i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e law. (3) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s e c t i o n a p e r s o n s h a l l be deemed t o h a v e a b s c o n d e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a n e n t e r p r i s e crime offence i f (a) a n i n f o r m a t i o n h a s been l a i d 71  alleging  t h e commission o f  A person  i s deemed  t o have a b s c o n d e d  enterprise  crime o f f e n c e ,  is  in relation  issued  remains  1 0 2  to  b) the  a warrant  i f a)  charged with  f o r the person's  information  1 0 3  and  c)  the  arrest warrant  o u t s t a n d i n g f o r s i x months d e s p i t e r e a s o n a b l e a t t e m p t s t o  apprehend  the  accused.  1 0 4  The  accused  need  not  be  person i n possession of the property, provided that  the  owner  "committed no  in relation  requirement that  to that  property."  the person abscond  1 0 5  Furthermore,  either  or  i t i s found t o  be t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e and t h a t t h e e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e o f f e n c e  is  an  b e f o r e or  was  there after  t h e o f f e n c e by t h e p e r s o n , (b) a w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t o f t h e p e r s o n h a s b e e n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , and  issued  (c) r e a s o n a b l e a t t e m p t s t o a r r e s t t h e p e r s o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e w a r r a n t h a v e been u n s u c c e s s f u l d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d o f s i x months commencing on t h e day t h e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d , and t h e p e r s o n s h a l l be deemed t o have l a s t day o f t h a t p e r i o d o f s i x months.  so  absconded  on  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462 . 38 (3) (a) . MacFarlane e x p l a i n s r a t i o n a l e f o r r e q u i r i n g t h a t an I n f o r m a t i o n be e x t a n t : 1 0 2  the the  Whereas without the commencement of the criminal process such legislation could be considered an invasion of p r o v i n c i a l jurisdiction in relation to "property and civil rights i n the Province", the i n i t i a t i o n of a c r i m i n a l a c t i o n demonstrates t h a t t h i s l e g i s l a t i v e scheme was i n t e n d e d t o f o r m a p a r t o f t h e punitive action of the c r i m i n a l courts: Industrial A c c e p t a n c e C o r p . v . The Queen. [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, h e n c e f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h e c r i m i n a l law power o f Parliament under head 27 of Section 91 of The C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t . 1867 ( s u p r a , M a c F a r l a n e , n t . 23 a t 13) . 1 0 3  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462 . 38 (3) (b) .  1 0 4  Ibid.,  1 0 5  S u p r a , M a c F a r l a n e , n t . 23 a t  s. 462.38(3) (c) .  72  13.  the  laying  scenarios.  of  the  information,  thereby  contemplating  both  1 0 6  M a c F a r l a n e c a u t i o n s t h a t law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s must c o n d u c t "a r e a s o n a b l y t h o r o u g h to  obtain  a  confiscation  a c c u s e d who  arrest  A l t h o u g h i n rem  already absconds  also  to  protect  against  an  one's  encountered from  as  by  Canada and  property  something enthusiasm  at f i r s t of  i s arrested  to  b l u s h appear t o  a panacea,  quickly  investigators  connected  were n o t  1 0 7  c o n f i s c a t i o n may  officials cases  him.  c o u n t r y on an u n r e l a t e d c h a r g e . that  but  o r d e r on t h e b a s i s t h a t r e a s o n a b l e a t t e m p t s  made t o l o c a t e and  individual  order,  not o n l y i n order  a p p e a r s a t some l a t e r p o i n t i n t i m e and c h a l l e n g e s t h e  confiscation  enforcement  search" f o r the accused,  is and  upon  examining  A  situation  wanes. that  law  of  a  imprisoned  person in a  who  foreign  A s s u m i n g f o r t h e s a k e o f argument that  person  has  been  seized  or  r e s t r a i n e d i n Canada and t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l f a c e s a l e n g t h y p e r i o d of  incarceration  landlord, to  a b r o a d , what c a n be done?  Must t h e Crown a c t as  manager, c o n s e r v a t o r o r a g e n t u n t i l  f a c e t h e c h a r g e s w h i c h a w a i t him  or can  the accused r e t u r n s  i n rem  proceedings  be  invoked? Is  i t  requirement  possible  that  f o r "reasonable attempts  Admittedly the section w i l l Ibid, at w i l l equate only. 1 0 6  1 0 7  Ibid,  incarceration  at  14. the 14.  abroad  to arrest  the  satisfies  the  person?"  adequately address v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s  There remains the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t c o u r t s word 'abscond' w i t h t h e l a t t e r situation  i n w h i c h an law  a c c u s e d i s beyond t h e  enforcement.  voluntarily not  For  return  possess  an  but  example,  the  person  who  Canadian  refuses  to  f r o m a C a r i b b e a n i s l a n d w i t h w h i c h Canada  extradition treaty  deeming p r o v i s i o n . to return  j u r i s d i c t i o n a l reach of  But  is  p o t e n t i a l l y caught  by  c a n t h e same be s a i d f o r someone who  c a n n o t b e c a u s e he  i s incarcerated  does the  wishes  a b r o a d and  is  not  e l i g i b l e f o r e i t h e r e x t r a d i t i o n or a p r i s o n e r exchange?  Logic  no,  although  law  otherwise.  The  answer,  like  enforcement w i l l so  understandably plead  many p r o b l e m s  posed  by  d e p e n d upon a c o m b i n a t i o n o f s t a t u t o r y and In require  passing,  i t should  that property  be  noted  confiscated  be  the  the  under the  c o n t r o l at the time t h a t a c o n f i s c a t i o n order been  seized  obtained, a  by  warrant  confiscation.  proceeds  of  obtained. This  Control  1 0 8  the 1 0 9  Any  crime w i l l Once  1 0 8  Code, Act  however  and  the  nor  of  a  suffice,  various  property  of  prerequisite  or  escheats  Drugs  Act.  those  in  when  to  the  the  as  the  i t  was  Crown.  provisions Narcotic  1 0 9  I b i d , a t 5. T h i s presumably i n c l u d e s p r o p e r t y o b t a i n e d a u t h o r i t i e s a f t e r t h e making o f a c o n f i s c a t i o n o r d e r . See  Ch.  1. 74  or  neither  qualifies  how  or  have  warrant  words,  is a  not  custody  pre-existing forfeiture from  do  I t may  search  which  regardless  different  Food and  i s made.  In other  e x i g i b l e property  is  court's  'regular'  will  interpretation.  amendments  a r e s t r a i n t order  confiscated,  i s s i m i l a r t o the  the  authority  consent, without a warrant.  s p e c i a l search  for  in  under the  amendments,  Charter  that  says  by  THE  NET  WORTH INFERENCE  In the to  assist  illegal  a u t h o r i t i e s with  source  statutory that  a b s e n c e o f a t r a c i n g mechanism, t h e  an  inference  sources  offences, of  property of  net  crime.  the  before  by  unrelated  to  c o u r t may  infer  1 1 1  If  after  enterprise t h a t the  in  i t can  taking crime  or  the  s.  462.39,  be  demonstrated  income  designated  d i f f e r e n c e i s the  a  110  offence  i n t o account  t h e need f o r t h e  drug  proceeds  form, s u g g e s t i n g  the  necessary  statutory inference  facts  i t s e n t i r e t y , s.  in  t h a t i t c o u l d " l o g i c a l l y be drawn upon in  any  event."  Section 43.4 and s. 51 for designated u n d e r t h e F o o d and D r u g s A c t and s. 19.3 o f f e n c e s under the N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l Act. In  proving  c o m m i s s i o n o f an  1 1 0  1 1 1  of  seeks  1 1 2  i t s present of  task  creating,  worth.  commission,  MacFarlane questions  proof  difficult  accused person's net worth a f t e r  exceeds t h a t from  of  the  legislation  462.39 r e a d s a s  1 1 3  Certainly  net  drug offences f o r comparable  follows:  F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f s u b s e c t i o n 462.37(1) o r 4 6 2 . 3 8 ( 2 ) , the c o u r t may i n f e r t h a t p r o p e r t y was o b t a i n e d o r d e r i v e d a s a result o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e offence where evidence establishes that the value, after the commission of t h a t of o f f e n c e , of a l l p r o p e r t y of the person a l l e g e d t o have committed t h e o f f e n c e exceeds t h e v a l u e o f a l l the p r o p e r t y of t h a t person before the commission of t h a t o f f e n c e and t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e income o f that person from sources unrelated to enterprise crime offences or designated drug offences committed by that person cannot reasonably a c c o u n t f o r s u c h an i n c r e a s e i n value. 1 1 2  C r i m i n a l Code, s.  462.39.  1 1 3  S u p r a . M a c F a r l a n e , n t . 23  at 75  15.  w o r t h i n g i s n o t new t o f o r e n s i c a c c o u n t a n t s o r c o u r t s t r y i n g collar'  cases.  MacFarlane of  However,  notes,  probabilities  the  enterprise  property the  confiscation that  crime  or proof  proceeds  an i m p o r t a n t  of  caveat  must  o f f e n c e was  beyond  committed  a reasonable  crime.  This  be a d d e d .  r e q u i r e s e i t h e r p r o o f on a  property i s the proceeds  of crime  in relation  doubt t h a t  differs  from  'white  balance and  that  to  that  the property i s  the  nature  of  i n f e r e n c e w h i c h a c o u r t i s e n t i t l e d t o draw u n d e r s . 462.39: p r o p e r t y was an  o b t a i n e d o r d e r i v e d as a r e s u l t  enterprise  crime  As  the  "that  o f t h e commission of  o f f e n c e , " causing MacFarlane  t o suggest  that  t h e i n f e r e n c e i s e v i d e n t i a r y i n n a t u r e and n o t i n t e n d e d t o d i s p l a c e t h e Crown's n o r m a l b u r d e n o f p r o o f : Presumably...the court w i l l s t i l l expect other evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e Crown's c a s e f o r f o r f e i t u r e , p a r t i c u l a r l y where t h e h i g h e r b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s t o be i m p o s e d - i n c l u d i n g s u c h " c o n v e n t i o n a l " e v i d e n c e as s u r v e i l l a n c e , s e i z u r e s , documents, a c c o m p l i c e e v i d e n c e , i n t e r c e p t e d p r i v a t e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s and o t h e r f o r m s f o r m s o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t e n d i n g t o show t h a t the p r o p e r t y i s the proceeds of c r i m e . 1 1 4  The likely  difficulties  revolve  application,  1 1 4  Ibid,  less  t o be e n c o u n t e r e d around  particularly  i t s legal the  with  effect  mechanics  the inference than of  will  i t s practical compilation.  a t 17.  A p e r s o n l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e modern u s e o f t h e n e t w o r t h c o n c e p t by law e n f o r c e m e n t p e r s o n n e l , R i c h a r d A. Nossen, c a u t i o n s t h a t t h e concept itself i s not without inherent limitations: 1 1 5  ...the net worth computation i s not a w h o l l y a c c u r a t e computation. On t h e c o n t r a r y , i t w o u l d be l i t e r a l l y i m p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y a l l e x p e n d i t u r e s made by anyone o v e r a p e r i o d o f y e a r s due t o a l a c k o f r e c o r d s a n d an i n a b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s t o remember a s e r i e s o f e v e n t s concerning f i n a n c i a l transactions entered into with a 76  1 1 5  Valuation  of  best  situations.  of  one's net  circumstances  giving  worth  i s not  a  Considering rise  to  the  that  use  involve e x t r a - j u r i s d i c t i o n a l holdings, i s magnified.  a s s e s s m e n t and make  partially  the  offence  will  worse,  there  encounter  obliterated  suited,  amount o f t h e from  not  every  or  a  observes  that  the  defendant's property illegal  f o r an  At  activity."  1 1 6  section  He  be  initial  that  the  obliterated  the  present  time,  date  transactions of  of  an  occur  at  time.  "leaves  undefined  i n f e r r e d as  adds t h a t t h e  having  what been  inference  makes r e l e v a n t an a c c u s e d p e r s o n ' s income, t h e r e b y l e n d i n g  2 3 at  16.  now  strength  t a r g e t over a p e r i o d of years. At best, the net worth computation i s a r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of financial events t h a t occurred over a p e r i o d of years; t h a t i s being p r e s e n t e d by t h e government n o t t o i n i t i a l l y p r o v e t h e financial crime committed by the target, but to corroborate other evidence that the target did, in f a c t , commit f i n a n c i a l c r i m e (The D e t e c t i o n , I n v e s t i g a t i o n and P r o s e c u t i o n o f F i n a n c i a l C r i m e s ( W h i t e C o l l a r . P o l i t i c a l C o r r u p t i o n and Racketeering (Richmond, Va.: N o s s e n & A s s o c s . , 1 9 8 2 ) . Supra, MacFarlane, nt.  or  inference i s  commencement  illegal  can  task  not  s i t u a t i o n s f o r which the  s e r i e s of  will  extrapolate  likelihood if  trail.  the  most,  f o r a second assessment.  disguised,  paper  the  provisions  offence  i n t e r v a l s over a p r o t r a c t e d p e r i o d  MacFarlane  derived  a  is  s i t u a t i o n s i n which  i s unclear  irregular  if  in  bank a c c o u n t s , t h e  c o m m i s s i o n o f an  i n v e s t i g a t o r s are faced with poorly  many, these  and  t o a date a f t e r the offence  matters  authorities  of  undertaking  I t i s f u r t h e r compounded by t h e n e e d t o  back t o a d a t e b e f o r e  To  simple  to  Crown  efforts  to  enter  income  tax  returns  in  evidence.  P u r d y s u g g e s t s " t h a t . . . income t a x r e t u r n s s h o u l d n o r m a l l y upon  as  that  any  the  primary  tax  itself.  by  The  authorities  rise  to the  l e g i t i m a t e income."  income...may  subject,  1 , 1 1 8  be  source  the  relied  He  notes  disclosed  at  a  presumably the c o n f i s c a t i o n  f a c t t h a t some income n e e d n o t  t o e x p l a i n the  offender  the  compounds  1 1 9  e v i d e n t i a r y nature, an  of  "additional legitimate  subsequent hearing hearing  indication  be  1 1 7  likelihood  o f h i s income.  that  be r e p o r t e d  an  accused  Therefore,  to  must  despite i t s  the a b i l i t y of the net worth i n f e r e n c e t o f o r c e stand  i n v i t e s comparison with  the  reverse  onus  c l a u s e s which today f a c e c h a l l e n g e under p r o v i s i o n s o f the  Charter,  in  a  particular,  pursued  THE  the  i n the  11(d)  presumption  of  innocence,  topic  f o l l o w i n g Chapter.  PROTECTION OF  The  s.  p r o v i d e r e l i e f f o r p e r s o n s p o t e n t i a l l y v i c t i m i z e d by t h e e f f e c t s  of  remedial  the  LEGISLATION  to  legislation,  of  THE  effort  the  framers  PERSONS AFFECTED BY  through the  provisions.  interests  of  a  amendments made a c o n c e n t r a t e d  inclusion  of v a r i o u s  Richard Mosley suggests t h a t "[w]herever  third  party  respecting  the  property  1 1 7  Ibid.  1 1 8  Supra. nt.  1 1 9  F o r e x a m p l e : g a m b l i n g and l o t t e r y w i n n i n g s , f o r e i g n s a v i n g s b r o u g h t i n t o Canada ( i b i d ) .  and  43  at  r e s t o r a t i v e and the  may  8.  78  inheritances  be  prejudiced  by  order,  Act  the  a s e i z u r e warrant, provides  decision,  e x e m p t i o n s and  interest."  1 2 0  its  own In  addition  optional special  notice search  which permits "any  person  instrument for  to  may  the  has  an  to  of the  restraint  1 2 2  and  General's  and  the  restraint  order.  1 2 6  interest  to  a  to  orders,  and  court  property  1 2 5  or  imposing  So  far  so  or  is  the  party  counter  both  462.34,  I t allows  judge,  1 2 4  by  at  any  f o r orders  the  1 2 1  of  s.  affected  that  either time,  directing  revoking or varying  "reasonable good,  1 2 3  orders.  i n property"  superior  expiry  however  conditions" from  f o r w a r d t h e s e c t i o n becomes an i n t e r p r e t a t i v e n i g h t m a r e . may  of  undertakings,  automatic  restraint  of warrants  examine t h e  order;  review  legislation  the r e t u r n of s e i z e d property, or a p a r t of i t ; a  forfeiture  y e t t o be t e s t e d .  Attorney  review  apply  permission  ability  has  warrants  who  or  recovery to the extent of the t h i r d  provisions,  the  order  opportunities for j u d i c i a l  T h i s apparent  i n t r u s i v e nature  restraining  this The  on  point judge  o n l y make s u c h an o r d e r i f t h e a p p l i c a n t c a n come w i t h i n one  1<:u  S u p r a . n t . 27  at  1 2 1  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.32 (6) and  1 2 2  I b i d . . s.  462.32 (5) and  1 2 3  I b i d . , s.  462.35.  21. s. 462.32 ( 7 ) .  s. 462.33 ( 5 ) .  The l e g i s l a t i o n d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h a t i t be t h e same j u d g e who i s s u e d the warrant or o r d e r , n e v e r t h e l e s s Goyer s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s w i l l l i k e l y be t h e c a s e ( s u p r a , n t . 30 a t 3.1.05). 1 2 4  1 2 5  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.34 (1) (b) and  1 2 6  I b i d . , s.  462.34(1) (a) a n d s .  s. 462.34 ( 3 ) .  462.34 ( 4 ) .  a  of  the  following First,  without  categories.  i f the  sureties  Patricia 462.34  four  Donald  applicant  or  deposit,  likely  Second,  in  suggests that  will  recognizance.  enters  be  into a recognizance,  the  d i s c r e t i o n of  a l l successful  required  to  i f the  applicant  i s e i t h e r a person  or  property  a r i g h t to possession  of the  c i r c u m s t a n c e s which g i v e was  that  the  purpose.  effected  can  restraint  to  order  the  should  property  rise  in  satisfy  order  s.  into  such  a  charged  with  an  not  o r has  acquired  title  from such a p e r s o n  under  a reasonable to  judge  avoid  confiscation  firstly,  that  have been i s s u e d  a f f o r d s no  inference  the  1 2 9  the  and  the  warrant  o r made and  f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e or  that  or  secondly,  evidentiary  1 3 0  Third, to which the firstly,  an  applicant  foregoing  that  he  appears  innocent  relation  to"  secondly,  an  that  I b i d - , s.  1 2 8  Supra, nt.  Though purpose. 1 2 9  Criminal  can  succeed  i f he  i s other  p a r a g r a p h a p p l i e s and  lawfully of  any  owns  or  crime  property  or  affords  can  than a  person  s a t i s f y the  possesses  the  in...or  any  complicity  enterprise the  1 2 7  1 3 0  under  1 2 7  1 2 8  drug offence  applicant  or  judge.  applicants  enter  e n t e r p r i s e crime or a designated  transfer  the  with  judge  property  "and  collusion  designated  drug  no  investigative  further  offence  462.34(4) (a) .  the  5 at  8.  recipient  Code, s.  may  be  462.34 (4) (b) 80  unaware and  s.  of  this  ulterior  462.34 (6) (a) .  in and or  evidentiary as  purpose.  convoluted,  requiring  Patricia  1 3 1  criticizes  respecting  either  by  the  the  judge.  "appears burden  expenses"  and  the  restrained the  in  and  before t r i a l .  innocent" or p r o v i d e proof  or  the  It  instruction  procedure  business  possession  that  of  appears  person's  and the  legal  to  be  property  t o have a v a l i d  dependants.  living  expenses"  or  interest  in  Similarly,  1 3 3  of  seized  be u s e d i n o r d e r t o s a t i s f y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s  recognizance.  462.34  precondition f o r apparently  be g r a n t e d t o meet " t h e r e a s o n a b l e  o r anyone e l s e who  property  d e s c r i b e s s.  or innocence  of  "reasonable  person  p r o p e r t y may XVI  the  who  1 3 2  F o u r t h , an o r d e r may  either  third  a determination of g u i l t  f a i l s t o d e f i n e the term  followed  this  Donald,  the  of a Part  1 3 4  By p r o v i d i n g f o r l e g a l f e e s , t h e l e g i s l a t i v e d r a f t e r s  clearly  i n t e n d e d t o d e f l e c t a n t i c i p a t e d c r i t i c i s m from t h e c r i m i n a l  defence  bar  at  which  would,  breadth  of the  lawyers  and  and  new  their  did,  understandably  l a u n d e r i n g o f f e n c e and trust  accounts.  1 3 5  As  1 3 1  I b i d . . s. 462.34 (4) (b) and  1 3 2  Supra.  1 3 3  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462 . 34 (4) (c) ( i )  n t . 5 a t 6 and  express the  shock  threat  a means  of  the  i t posed  facilitating  s. 462 . 34 (6) (b) .  12. and  s.  462.34(4) (c) ( i i ) .  C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.34 (4) (c) ( i i i ) . Apparently "any p e r s o n " c a n make a p p l i c a t i o n f o r u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h i s manner, n o t s i m p l y a p e r s o n c h a r g e d w i t h an e n t e r p r i s e c r i m e or d e s i g n a t e d drug o f f e n c e or, f o r t h a t matter, w i t h any offence. 1 3 4  1 3 5  Supra,  nt.  31. 81  to  a determination  of entitlement  to  legal  fees while  s a n c t i t y o f a l a w y e r - c l i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p and s.  462.34(5) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g  i n the absence of the Attorney precaution  i s , however, t h a t  b a s e d on m a t e r i a l p r o v i d e d is  on  the The  court judge  determining an  to  General. the  conducted  The  the  an a c c u s e d ' s d e f e n c e , i n camera  c u r i o u s r e s u l t of  j u d g e must a r r i v e  by t h e a c c u s e d and  at  and this  a decision  his counsel  or which  file. is  faced  with  the reasonableness  accused  be  preserving  two  very  basic  problems.  of l e g a l expenses without  disclose his defence  1 3 6  and  second,  the  First, requiring  possibility  t h a t s u c h f e e s w i l l be p a i d o u t o f m o n i e s w h i c h a r e t h e p r o c e e d s o f crime,  or  worse y e t ,  the  property  of  identified,  identifiable  or  n o n - i d e n t i f i a b l e v i c t i m s , f o r c i n g a v i c t i m t o s u b s i d i z e an  accused  person's  certain  extent require the  legal  expenses.  This  the  requirement  i n s.  by  that notice  opinion  property."  1 3 7  of the In  "be  given  view  i s mitigated  462.34(2) (b)  t o and  may  hear  that any  j u d g e , a p p e a r s t o have a v a l i d  the  absence of  an  to the  a  judge  person interest  investigative staff,  may  who,  in  in  the  however,  K e n n e t h Young a s k s w h e t h e r c r i m i n a l d e f e n c e c o u n s e l are now "bound t o d i s c l o s e , i n f o r m a l l y , t e s t i m o n i a l l y o r by a f f i d a v i t , t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t o f o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and, in the process, so undermine the privilege and c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f our r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h our c l i e n t " (ibid, a t 2.1.04). P a t r i c i a D o n a l d t a k e s t h e c o n c e r n one step f u r t h e r by a s k i n g w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t s w i l l become l i n k s i n the very laundering c h a i n which they seek t o eliminate (supra, n t . 5 a t 11). 1 3 6  C u r i o u s l y , d e s p i t e the f a c t that the Attorney General c a n n e i t h e r a p p e a r n o r i n t e r v e n e , s. 4 6 2 . 3 4 ( 2 ) ( a ) r e q u i r e s e i t h e r two c l e a r d a y s w r i t t e n n o t i c e t o t h e A t t o r n e y General o r t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s c o n s e n t b e f o r e an a p p l i c a t i o n c a n 1 3 7  82  t h e j u d g e i s f o r c e d t o d e c i d e t o whom n o t i c e s h o u l d be g i v e n on  the  basis  of  the  court  file.  the  material f i l e d Any  land t i t l e ,  h a v e t o be c o n d u c t e d or  in  anticipation  i n support  the  the  names o f  respect for  of  such  a  request.  Crown l i k e l y  interested  has  parties  i n t e r e s t " awaits  to the  no  the  a t t e n t i o n of  standing.  so  impairing his a b i l i t y  Finally,  i t should  be  t o make f u l l  noted  that  to bring  the  judge  answer and party  is  persons  who  required  the court opines  by  s.  462.41.  have a v a l i d  Rather  e s c h e a t t o t h e Crown, t h e c o u r t may persons  defence.  interests  interest  see  are  Notice  i n property  proceeds  of  crime  order the r e t u r n of p r o p e r t y to  innocent of c o m p l i c i t y or c o l l u s i o n i n the e n t e r p r i s e crime  or designated lawfully  than  i t is accused  a l s o c o n s i d e r e d d u r i n g and a f t e r t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n h e a r i n g . to  in  on a p p l i c a t i o n s  Furthermore,  third  judge vexing  d o u b t f u l t h a t a p a r a l l e l o b l i g a t i o n c o u l d be i m p o s e d on t h e without  would  definition.  obligation  i t c a n h a r d l y do  e x p e n s e s when i t has  of the  Furthermore,  a positive  or  searches  by t h e a p p l i c a n t , a t t h e r e q u e s t  o f most a p p l i c a t i o n s ,  legal  application  company o f f i c e o r l i e n  q u e s t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a " v a l i d Although  of the  d r u g o f f e n c e and who  entitled  462.42 p r o v i d e s  to  possession  for relief  are e i t h e r the of  the  l a w f u l owners o r  property.  f r o m c o n f i s c a t i o n where an  1 3 8  Section application  i s made w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s and s. 462.43 g i v e s t h e c o u r t a r e s i d u a l a u t h o r i t y t o dispose of property s e i z e d or r e s t r a i n e d . Appeals  are  p e r m i t t e d u n d e r s. 462.44 and c o n f i s c a t i o n i s s u s p e n d e d d u r i n g  the  be 1 3 8  heard. C r i m i n a l Code, s.  462.41(3). 83  appeal p e r i o d .  1 3 9  SUMMARY  The  proceeds  innovative  o f crime  concepts  amendments i n t r o d u c e a w i d e  t o Canada's  criminal  l a u n d e r i n g o f f e n c e has a tremendous r e a c h . in  t h e form  of special  enforcement hitherto  agencies  stymied  harsh r e a l i t y potential  search warrants may  Potentially,  the  Combined w i t h new t o o l s  and r e s t r a i n t  pursue  of  o r d e r s , law which  had  them due t o an a b s e n c e o f s t a t u t o r y m u s c l e .  The  investigations  o f c o n f i s c a t i o n , b o t h i n p e r s o n a m a n d i n rem, h a s t h e  of divesting  property.  now  law.  range  The  persons  success  of vast  of Parliament's  sums  o f money  attempt  and  other  t o counter  the  i n t r u s i v e n a t u r e o f t h e s e a r c h , s e i z u r e and c o n f i s c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s by t h e c r e a t i o n o f v a r i o u s c h e c k s Critics  of the legislation  problem  i s n o t from  and b a l a n c e s r e m a i n s  a l r e a d y abound; however  without  b u t from  clarity.  Many o f i t s p r o v i s i o n s w i l l  in  to define  order  litigation considered  Ibid.,  will  their  revolve  breadth around  i n the following  84  T  i t s principal  i t s own  require years of  and e x t e n t  Charter  Chapter.  s . 462.45.  within  t o be s e e n .  of  litigation  a n d much  challenges,  lack  a  of  that  subject  CHAPTER 3  THE  Despite crime  being  i n f o r c e f o r almost  two y e a r s ,  t h e proceeds of  amendments h a v e y e t t o be t e s t e d i n t h e s u p e r i o r c o u r t s o f  the provinces, of  AMENDMENTS AND THE CHARTER  judicial  factors:  l e t a l o n e t h e Supreme C o u r t o f C a n a d a .  d e c i s i o n s i s probably  a lack of w i l l  t h e combined  The p a u c i t y  result  on t h e p a r t o f p o l i t i c a l  of several  l e a d e r s t o make  u s e o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , a t e n d e n c y f o r g o v e r n m e n t s t o employ e x t r a judicial  remedies  governments  faced  and a r r a n g e m e n t s , with  financial  trepidation  undertakings  on t h e p a r t o f and  a  degree  r e l u c t a n c e on t h e p a r t o f many law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s prosecutors  to  procedures.  With time,  1  pursue  way up t h e j u d i c i a l which w i l l Charter  of Rights  f o r Canadian  principles  investigative  however, c a s e s w i l l  ladder  a n d Crown  evidentiary  i n e v i t a b l y wind scrutiny,  their  much o f  o f t h e amendments w i t h t h e  and Freedoms. o f t h e C h a r t e r i n 1982 was t h e b e g i n n i n g criminal  and r i g h t s  unattainable.  and  and o b t a i n c a r e f u l  c e n t r e on t h e c o m p a t i b i l i t y  Proclamation era  new  of  law.  obtained  a  Suddenly, form  many  o f a new  common  law  of protection previously  A t t h e same t i m e , o t h e r p r i n c i p l e s , e i t h e r  borrowed  f r o m t h e A m e r i c a n example o r t r u l y new, f o u n d e x p r e s s i o n a n d b e g g e d interpretation.  These Four. 1  factors  are considered 85  at greater  length  i n Chapter  Today,  one  cannot  speak  of  the  norms  and  traditions  of  c r i m i n a l law w i t h o u t i n c l u d i n g t h o s e e n s h r i n e d i n t h e C h a r t e r . purpose crime  of t h i s  Chapter  amendments  from  i s , therefore, the  legislation  clearly  those which  are e s s e n t i a l  legislative  scheme  are  t o examine t h e p r o c e e d s  perspective of  invites  the  Charter.  As  c h a l l e n g e i n a number o f a r e a s ,  t o t:he e f f e c t i v e  overviewed.  The  implementation  Sections  8  2  and  the only  of  11(d)  of  3  the are  r e v i e w e d i n c o n s i d e r a b l e d e t a i l , f o l l o w e d by a b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f s. 7  and  4  the  discussion  legislative which  objective  follows  i s an  t h e s e s e c t i o n s on t h e v i a b i l i t y  test  f o r s.  assessment of the  I.  Integral  5  of the  to  the  implications  of  amendments.  A l t h o u g h c o n f i s c a t i o n i s n o t d e p e n d a n t on s e i z u r e o r r e s t r a i n t in  the  crime  fashion  cases w i l l  warrants this  contemplated  and  likely  restraint  be  by  the  amendments,  initiated  by t h e u s e  orders, a seemingly  6  most  proceeds  of s p e c i a l  logical  place to  search begin  analysis.  2  S e a r c h and  3  Presumption  4  Life,  5  Reasonable  seizure. of  liberty  innocence. and  limits  s e c u r i t y of the on r i g h t s and  person.  freedoms.  P r o p e r t y s e i z e d p u r s u a n t t o 'normal* s e a r c h w a r r a n t s and c o n s e n t s e a r c h e s , or which i s not even under s e i z u r e , i s a l s o a r g u a b l y open t o c o n f i s c a t i o n ( s e e C r i m i n a l Code, s. 462.37).  6  86  of  S P E C I A L SEARCH WARRANTS, RESTRAINT ORDERS AND  The  amendments  special  search  procedure Chapter  create  warrant  or  SECTION 8  a  mechanism  for obtaining  a  restraint  order  which  used t o o b t a i n a wiretap a u t h o r i z a t i o n .  Two,  warrant,  s . 462.32 a l l o w s  entitling  the  named  a judge person  either  mimics  search  the  As d e s c r i b e d i n  to issue a special to  a  "any  search  building,  r e c e p t a c l e o r p l a c e " f o r "any p r o p e r t y i n r e s p e c t o f w h i c h a n o r d e r of  forfeiture  other  property  may  be made" and t o " s e i z e t h a t  i n respect  o f which  that  person  property  a n d any  o r peace  officer  b e l i e v e s , on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s , t h a t an o r d e r o f f o r f e i t u r e may be made." Similarly,  a restraint  order  i s a v a i l a b l e u n d e r s . 462.33 i f  a judge i s " s a t i s f i e d t h a t there are reasonable that  there  forfeiture person's  may  any p r o p e r t y  be made."  7  i n respect  The o r d e r  may  of which  prohibit  of  or r e s t r i c t  a  r e q u i r e t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e c u s t o d i a n  o r a n y o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s deemed r e a s o n a b l e The  an o r d e r  a b i l i t y t o deal with property, appoint a custodian of the  property, and,  exists  grounds t o b e l i e v e  f u t u r e o f s p e c i a l search warrants  restraint  o r d e r s , d e p e n d s on t h e i r  ability  by t h e  judge.  8  and, t o a l e s s e r d e g r e e , to survive a challenge  b a s e d on s . 8 o f t h e C h a r t e r , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ e ] v e r y o n e  7  Ibid.,  s . 462.33 (3) .  8  Ibid.,  s. 462.33(3)(b) a n d s . 87  462.33(4).  has  the  right  Its  t o be s e c u r e  succinct  phraseology  interpretation swirl  around The  else  this  important  "a b r o a d ,  specific wrote,  legal  the  complexities  right.  in  already  1 0  'unreasonable.  Everything  1  post-Charter decision o f Canada  decision  regarding  i n Hunter  v.  a s "vague and o p e n , "  purposive" rights  i s t o guarantee  approach  12  e x p r e s s i n g t h e need  to interpreting  i n the Charter.  1 3  The p u r p o s e  i t and  other  o f s . 8, he  "a b r o a d and g e n e r a l r i g h t t o be s e c u r e  from  Although more concise, the section bears striking resemblance t o t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n , which reads: The r i g h t o f t h e p e o p l e t o be s e c u r e i n t h e i r p e r s o n s , houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable s e a r c h e s and s e i z u r e s , s h a l l n o t be v i o l a t e d , a n d no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, particularly d e s c r i b i n g t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d and t h e p e r s o n o r t h i n g s t o be s e i z e d [my emphasis]. Not use  s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e S.C.C. h a s a l r e a d y made c o n s i d e r a b l e o f A m e r i c a n j u r i s p r u d e n c e i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s . 8.  Mr. J u s t i c e D a v i d McDonald n o t e s t h a t "no o t h e r s e c t i o n i n t h e l e g a l r i g h t s p a r t o f t h e C h a r t e r . . . h a s r e c e i v e d more comprehensive s c r u t i n y and i n t e r p r e t a t i v e g u i d a n c e f r o m t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada t h a n h a s s. 8" ( L e g a l R i g h t s i n t h e C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and Freedoms, 2nd e d . ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989) a t 2 2 7 ) . 1 0  11  9  D i c k s o n J . ( a s he t h e n was) , w r i t i n g f o r t h e C o u r t ,  d e s c r i b e d t h e guarantee for  Court  search or seizure."  of j u r i s p r u d e n c e which  legal  The l e a d i n g  i s t h e Supreme 1 1  both  o f s. 8 i s t h e word  i s secondary.  Southam I n c .  belies  and t h e abundance  essence  searches  against unreasonable  [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, 14 C.C.C.  1 2  Ibid,  a t 154 S.C.R., 105 C.C.C.  1 3  Ibid,  a t 156 S.C.R., 106 C.C.C. 88  (3d) 97.  unreasonable  search  and s e i z u r e . "  between t h e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t  1 4  He  called  i n t r u d e on t h a t p r i v a c y i n t h e i n t e r e s t  To  assist  fold  test.  "feasible." in  determination,  First,  "prior  Dickson  who  i s sufficiently  a u t h o r i z a t i o n " must be o b t a i n e d  t h e minimum grounds, evidence  acceptable  "that  interesting  standard  an o f f e n c e  t o be f o u n d  Applying  informed  s.  task.  8  t o the proceeds  Alan Gold  i n s . 462.32 (1)  attempt  by  sub-section  committed  t h e draftsman  suggests  of  crime  i n Hunter.  1 9  on  Third,  1 7  reasonable there i s  1 8  amendments  i s an  that the description  of the  " i s rather peculiar to  judicially  and t h a t  at the place of the search."  warrant  Canada's d e c i s i o n  acting  i s a sworn b e l i e f ,  where  conducted  of the circumstances.  h a s been  1 5  J . established a three-  S e c o n d , t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n p r o c e s s must be  1 6  ability  o f law e n f o r c e m e n t .  a " n e u t r a l and i m p a r t i a l manner" by a p e r s o n  and  balancing  i n p r i v a c y and g o v e r n m e n t ' s  to  i n this  for a  circumvent" He r e f e r s  a n d seems t o be an  the  Supreme  Court  of  to that portion of the  which p u r p o r t s t o allow a person  to seize  "any o t h e r  p r o p e r t y i n r e s p e c t o f which t h a t person o r peace o f f i c e r  believes,  on  be  reasonable  grounds,  t h a t an o r d e r  of f o r f e i t u r e  1 4  Ibid,  a t 158 S.C.R., 107 C.C.C.  1 5  Ibid,  a t 159 S.C.R., 108 C.C.C.  1 6  Ibid,  a t 160-61 S.C.R., 109 C.C.C.  1 7  Ibid,  a t 162 S.C.R., 110 C.C.C.  1 8  Ibid,  a t 168 S.C.R., 115 C.C.C.  may  made."  Alan D. Gold, Proceeds o f Crime - A Manual with Commentary on B i l l C-61 ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989) a t 35. 1 9  89  He  opines  that  essentially the  "[t]he  draftsman  was t r y i n g  Hunter  Gold  correct  decision  section  what i s  a power t o s e i z e w i t h o u t w a r r a n t a n d s h e l t e r i t u n d e r  apparent a u t h o r i t y of the warrant." Is  to disguise  t o suggest  and, i f s o , d o e s  i s inconsistent  with  that  2 0  s . 462.32(1)  i t necessarily  s. 8  offends  follow  of the Charter?  the  that the To  begin,  n e i t h e r t h e f a c t s n o r t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s i n H u n t e r a r e on a l l f o u r s w i t h t h e p r o b l e m p o s e d by s . 462.32 (1) . was a u t h o r i z e d which  failed  by o t h e r  than  a judicial  t o meet t h e s t a n d a r d  c a s e o f t h e amendments, t h e f i r s t  The s e a r c h  official  prescribed  i n Hunter  a n d i n a manner  by D i c k s o n .  In the  two t e s t s i n H u n t e r a r e c l e a r l y  s a t i s f i e d by t h e n e e d f o r p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m a s u p e r i o r judge.  The b e d e v i l i n g  meets t h e t h i r d  question,  however,  i s whether  court  the section  test.  In t h a t t e s t , Dickson J . d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y l i n k t h e offence s u s p e c t e d w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e l o c a t e d , however i t seems d i f f i c u l t t o reach  any o t h e r  r a t i o n a l conclusion.  o b t a i n a w a r r a n t b a s e d on i n f o r m a t i o n and  thereafter  property made"  21  i n respect seems  authorization. searches.  cause  to  a general  Arguably,  On t h e o t h e r  the  hand,  offence  t o be made f o r "any  order  entire  t h e door  investigators to  respecting a specific  search  o f which...an defeat  Allowing  would  of  forfeiture  rationale be  for  open  i t i s undeniable that  to  other  may  prior pretext  i n the course  I b i d , a t 37. G o l d q u o t e s M a r t i n J . A . ' s j u d g m e n t i n R. v . N o b l e (1984) 42 C R . (3d) 209 ( O n t . C . A . ) , i n w h i c h M a r t i n compares w r i t s o f a s s i s t a n c e t o " g e n e r a l w a r r a n t s . " 2 0  2 1  Criminal  Code, s . 462.32 ( 1 ) . 90  be  of  a  search,  be  investigators warrant  i t f o r narcotics,  may w e l l  which  they  stumble  reasonably  upon  stolen items  believe  property  o r money,  not s p e c i f i e d  are evidence  in  the  of criminal  activity. The not  v i r e s o f s . 462.32 (1) c a n be t e s t e d by e x a m i n i n g how i t e m s  named i n a ' n o r m a l ' s. 487 s e a r c h  in  s i m i l a r circumstances.  either the  f i t within  ' p l a i n view' Section  warrant a r e l a w f u l l y  T h e r e a r e two p o s s i b i l i t i e s ,  seized  that  they  t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f e i t h e r s . 489 o f t h e Code o r doctrine.  2 2  489 r e a d s a s f o l l o w s :  This doctrine must be distinguished from that of •abandonment.* When a s u s p e c t e d o f f e n d e r abandons items which may p r o v e t o be e v i d e n c e of crime, interesting questions a r i s e respecting the a b i l i t y of p o l i c e t o seize the items. American courts view their discard as an abandonment o f a p r i v a c y i n t e r e s t a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e p o l i c e s e i z u r e i s n o t a s e a r c h i n terms o f t h e F o u r t h Amendment ( s e e H e s t e r v . U.S. (1924) 265 U.S. 57 (U.S.S.C.) a n d U.S. v . M a n n i n g (1971) 440 F. 2d 1105 (U.S.C.A., 5 t h C i r . ) ) . Garbage, f o r example, h a s l o n g been a v a l u a b l e s o u r c e o f e v i d e n c e f o r police investigators, particularly i n 'document cases.' C a l i f o r n i a v . Greenwood (1988) 56 U.S.L.W. 4409 a p p r o v e d warrantless s e a r c h e s o f garbage and adopted t h e ' r e a s o n a b l e expectation of privacy test' annunciated f o r abandoned a r t i c l e s i n C i t y o f S t . P a u l v . Vaughn (1975) 237 N.W. 2d 365 (S.C. Minn.). McDonald n o t e s t h a t t h e r e a r e no C a n a d i a n d e c i s i o n s " d e a l i n g d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e e f f e c t o f abandonment," however s u g g e s t s t h a t i t i s " r e a s o n a b l y c l e a r t h a t C a n a d i a n c o u r t s w o u l d r e a c h t h e same d e c i s i o n s a s A m e r i c a n courts" f s u p r a . , n t . 10 a t 2 7 5 ) . He adds t h a t L a F o r e s t J . u s e d t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v a c y t e s t when d i s t i n g u i s h i n g t h e • f i n d i n g * o f b l o o d f r o m t h e ' t a k i n g ' o f b l o o d i n R v . Dvment (1988) 66 C R . (3d) 348, 45 C.C.C. (3d) 244 ( S . C . C ) . In the c e l e b r a t e d 'Squamish F i v e ' c a s e i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , T o y J . (as h e t h e n was) c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e i z u r e o f g a r b a g e f r o m i n f r o n t o f t h e s u s p e c t s ' r e s i d e n c e . He c o n c l u d e d : " I am u n a b l e t o c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e removal o f garbage a p p a r e n t l y abandoned f o r d e l i v e r y t o t h e g a r b a g e d i s p o s a l a r e a a s an u n r e a s o n a b l e s e i z u r e " (R v . T a y l o r , 26 J a n . 1984, u n r e p o r t e d , B.C.S.C. a t 13). 2 2  91  E v e r y p e r s o n who executes a warrant i s s u e d under s e c t i o n 462.32, 487 o r 487.1 may seize, i n a d d i t i o n to the things m e n t i o n e d i n t h e w a r r a n t , a n y t h i n g t h a t t h e p e r s o n b e l i e v e s on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s has been o b t a i n e d by o r h a s b e e n u s e d i n t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f an o f f e n c e . Incorporation proclamation  of  of  the  462.32, w h i c h a l r e a d y special  search  confiscation  does  not  within worth.  s.  It  and  items  be  made,  may  coincided  permit  the  seizure  of  seizure  i t e m s named i n a  not to  of  named  but  include  which  of t h e i r  scope  for  the  of  s.  which  a  seizure  of  However, s e c t i o n  489  cannot  be  evidentiary  included or  other  2 3  m i g h t s u g g e s t t h a t s. 489 redundant.  There  is  a  makes t h e r e s i d u a l p o r t i o n o f real  difference  though  b y . . . t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f an o f f e n c e "  as  "any  property,  Canada, o b t a i n e d enterprise  benefit  or d e r i v e d crime  or  a  p u r p o s e o f t h e amendments was provisions  of  the  Code  to  or  Section  advantage,  directly  or  i n s. 489  designated  drug  t o overcome t h e deal  with  the  courts having r e s t r i c t e d e x i s t i n g search  and  and  order  462.3 d e f i n e s within  indirectly  s.  between  "proceeds of crime," which are i n t e g r a l t o a c o n f i s c a t i o n  latter  the  the  items  regardless  with  broadened  u n d e r e i t h e r s. 462.37(1) o r 4 6 2 . 3 8 ( 2 ) .  [an  489  t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f an o f f e n c e .  "things...obtained the  in  encompassed t h e  these categories,  One 462.32  462.32  amendments.  warrant  order  c o n t r a b a n d and  s.  as  offence]"  or  the  outside  a r e s u l t of The  very  i n a b i l i t y of e x i s t i n g  profits  of  crime,  the  seizure provisions  T h i s i n v i t e s t h e q u e s t i o n - why do s. 462.32 and s. 489 not permit the s e i z u r e of evidence? Must investigators i n t e n t on s e i z i n g b o t h t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e and e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f a c h a r g e o b t a i n b o t h a s. 462.32 and a s. 487 warrant? 2 3  92  to  t a n g i b l e and e x i g i b l e  items.  Furthermore,  does n o t p e r m i t t h e s e i z u r e o f evidence. is  as noted  a b o v e , s . 489  The p l a i n v i e w d o c t r i n e  of greater assistance. Much  standing  of the jurisprudence respecting this i n t h e l a w o f s e a r c h and s e i z u r e ,  searches,  either  searches pursuant of  Appeal  of persons  Extraction  stated  long-  deals with warrantless  or property.  In the case  t o t h e a u t h o r i t y of a warrant,  recently  doctrine,  the following  of lawful  t h e F e d e r a l Court  i n Solvent  Petroleum  I n c . v . M.N.R.:  24  The common law r u l e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e " p l a i n v i e w " d o c t r i n e i s t h a t where, d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f e x e c u t i n g a l e g a l w a r r a n t , an o f f i c e r l o c a t e s a n y t h i n g w h i c h he r e a s o n a b l y b e l i e v e s i s e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f a c r i m e , h e h a s power t o s e i z e it. 2 5  A c l a s s i c restatement New In  Hampshire. Coolidqe.  o f t h e d o c t r i n e i s found  a decision  Stewart  J.  2  of the United 7  acknowledged  States  i n C o o l i d q e v.  Supreme  the a p p l i c a b i l i t y  Court.  2 6  of the  d o c t r i n e t o searches conducted pursuant t o a warrant and concluded: What t h e " p l a i n v i e w " c a s e s h a v e i n common i s t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i n e a c h o f them h a d a p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r an i n t r u s i o n i n t h e c o u r s e o f w h i c h he came i n a d v e r t e n t l y a c r o s s a p i e c e o f evidence i n c r i m i n a t i n g t h e accused. The d o c t r i n e s e r v e s t o s u p p l e m e n t t h e p r i o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n . . .and p e r m i t s t h e warrantless seizure. 2 8  2 4  2 5  (1989) 50 C.C.C. Ibid,  26 (  1 9 7 1  (3d) 182, 99 N.R. 22.  a t 188 C . C . C , 27 N.R. ) 29 L . E d . (2d) 564.  A l t h o u g h S t e w a r t J . d e l i v e r e d t h e C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n , he was joined by o n l y Douglas, Brennan and M a r s h a l l , J J . w i t h respect t o t h i s aspect.  2 7  2 8  Supra.  n t . 26 a t 583.  Nevertheless, apply  to  the  Stewart  J.  "inadvertent"  noted  that  discovery  of  apparent  was  by f o u r members o f t h e same C o u r t  a case the  noted  the Court  constitutionality  issue. to  by  I t was  the  course  of  before his  of  He  s.  231.3  documents  a person  judgment,  c o n s i d e r e d whether the Charter.  of  reasoning  can  the  i n T e x a s v.  Income Tax  which  realized  Desjardins  their J.A.,  search offended  r e j e c t e d both  necessarily  Brown.  Act  3 2  arguments,  was  in  apply  required In  w r i t i n g f o r the s.  7 o r s.  31  There,  significance.  either  is  i n Coolidcre  i n Solvent Petroleum. of  only  which  2 9  argued t h a t the p l a i n view d o c t r i n e c o u l d not  seizure  examination  of Appeal  The  3 0  doctrine  evidence  "immediately accepted  t o the p o l i c e . "  the  an the  Court,  8 of  the  concluding:  . . . t h e c o n t e x t i n w h i c h t h e s e a r c h f o r and s e i z u r e o f " p l a i n v i e w " documents a p p e a r s i n t h e A c t , i . e . . i n t h e c o u r s e o f s e a r c h i n g f o r and s e i z i n g b u s i n e s s documents u n d e r a w a r r a n t w h i c h w o u l d o b v i o u s l y i n v o l v e e x a m i n a t i o n o f d o c u m e n t s by t h e searcher i n order to determine whether the seizure i s a u t h o r i z e d by t h a t w a r r a n t , s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s e i z e o t h e r b u s i n e s s documents n o t c o v e r e d by t h e w a r r a n t m e e t s t h e t e s t o f r e a s o n a b l e n e s s and t h e r e f o r e o f v a l i d i t y . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r o v i s i o n as d r a f t e d meets t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l test of reasonableness since i t contains two important s a f e g u a r d s : namely, t h a t t h e e x e c u t i n g o f f i c e r b e l i e v e s on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e document o r t h i n g s e i z e d a f f o r d s  I b i d , a t 585. The f o r e g o i n g was a c c e p t e d by S t e e l e J . i n R. v . S h e a . (1982) 38 O.R. (2d) 582 (H.C.), as correctly s t a t i n g t h e law i n Canada, b o t h p r e and p o s t - C h a r t e r . See a l s o R. v . L o n a t i n (1983) 41 O.R. (2d) 545 (Ont. C A . ) and R o d e r i c k M. McLeod e t a l . , The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s The P r o s e c u t i o n and D e f e n c e o f C r i m i n a l and o t h e r S t a t u t o r y O f f e n c e s , v o l . 2 ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1983) a t 6-110.12 t o 6114.1. 2 9  3 0  3 1  3 2  S u p r a . n t . 26 (1983) 75 S.C.  L.  at  583.  Ed.  (2d)  1970-71-72, c .  63,  502. as  amended.  e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f an o f f e n c e u n d e r t h e A c t t h a t , as s o o n as p r a c t i c a b l e , he b r i n g t h e s e i z e d m a t t e r before a judge f o r j u d i c i a l c o n t r o l .  and  3 3  It  i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t  reference  to  "immediately decision.  the  be  and  a p p a r e n t , " he  As  which can  Coolidqe  despite  Desjardins's  Brown r e q u i r e m e n t  d i d not  a r e s u l t , the only,  discuss  that  footnote  an  i t i n the  item  body o f  rather unsatisfactory  be t a k e n t o mean ' i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t upon e x a m i n a t i o n . '  Court,  f o r c i n g one  3 4  Section to the  P e t r o l e u m was  to speculate  231.3(5) o f t h e  portion  of  unfortunately  s.  on  the  Income Tax  refused  highest Act  by  the  conclusion  drawn i s t h a t i n Canada " i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t "  appeal Solvent  be  should  Leave t o  the  court's  Supreme  views.  i s remarkably s i m i l a r  462.32(1) u n d e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .  It  reads:  Any p e r s o n who executes a warrant under s u b s e c t i o n (1) may s e i z e , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e document o r t h i n g r e f e r r e d t o i n s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) , any o t h e r document o r t h i n g t h a t he b e l i e v e s on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s a f f o r d s e v i d e n c e o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n o f an o f f e n c e u n d e r t h i s A c t and s h a l l as s o o n as p r a c t i c a b l e b r i n g t h e document o r t h i n g b e f o r e , o r make a r e p o r t i n r e s p e c t t h e r e o f t o , t h e j u d g e who i s s u e d t h e w a r r a n t . . . [ m y e m p h a s i s ] . The be  power i s b r o a d , b o t h i n t e r m s o f what a d d i t i o n a l i t e m s  seized,  " t h i n g [ s ] , " and  under t h i s A c t . "  As  i n terms  a result,  tremendous importance t o the the  the  Federal  offence,  noted  by  "an  the  Court  Parallels of  confiscation  order  3 3  Supra, nt.  3 4  S.C.C,  24  to  Appeal  P e t r o l e u m c a n a l s o be f o u n d i n s. 462.32, where t h e  o f unnamed p r o p e r t y  offence  Court's d e c i s i o n i s of  f u t u r e o f s. 4 6 2 . 3 2 ( 1 ) .  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l safeguards  Solvent  the  of  may  in  seizure  r e q u i r e s a b e l i e f on r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d s t h a t may at  21556, 23  be 189 Nov.  made and C . C . C , 28 1989.  that N.R.  a report  be  prepared  a  for  the  court.  5  I n summary, i t may is  unwarranted.  w e l l be t h a t G o l d ' s c o n c e r n w i t h s. Although  3 6  constitutionally  offensive,  support  Solvent  Court  from the  of  Canada  were  Appeal's f i n d i n g s , the doomed. the  3 5  The  Criminal  closer  first  to  distinguish  blush  examination  Petroleum d e c i s i o n . or  could  i t  appears  reveals  Even i f t h e  overrule  s p e c i a l search warrants are  Supreme C o u r t  l e g i s l a t i o n by  a  at  always c o n s i d e r  the not  strong Supreme  Court  'reading  down'  Solvent P e t r o l e u m may not have G o l d ' s comments g o i n g t o p r i n t .  been  decided  prior  to  C a r o l Rogerson notes t h a t reading down i s "a means o f avoiding a constitutional issue.... a technique of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n whereby a s t a t u t e i s n a r r o w l y c o n s t r u e d so as to preclude unconstitutional applications" ("The Judicial Search for Appropriate Remedies Under t h e Charter: The E x a m p l e s o f O v e r b r e a d t h and V a g u e n e s s , " i n R o b e r t J . S h a r p e , e d . , C h a r t e r L i t i g a t i o n ( T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1987) 233306 a t 247) . In Hunter, Dickson J . c o n s i d e r e d whether t o r e a d down t h e impugned combines l e g i s l a t i o n , c e n t r a l t o t h a t case. He had l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y r e j e c t i n g s u c h a n o t i o n due t o t h e " o v e r t i n c o n s i s t e n c y " between t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and s. 8 ( s u p r a , n t . 11 a t 168 S.C.R., 115 C . C . C ) , however a d d e d that:  3 7  ...it i s the legislature's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to enact legislation that embodies a p p r o p r i a t e safeguards to comply w i t h the C o n s t i t u t i o n ' s r e q u i r e m e n t s . I t should not f a l l t o the c o u r t s to f i l l i n the d e t a i l s t h a t w i l l render legislative lacunae c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . Without appropriate safeguards l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g search and s e i z u r e i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s. 8 o f t h e Charter. As I have said, any law inconsistent with the p r o v i s i o n s of the C o n s t i t u t i o n i s , t o the extent of the inconsistency, o f no force or e f f e c t (ibid, at 169 S.C.R., 115-16 C.C.C.).  96  37  462.32.  462.32(4).  3 6  of  necessarily  e l i m i n a t i n g t h e o f f e n s i v e p o r t i o n o f s.  Code, s.  462.32  The remains that  interrelationship t o be c o n s i d e r e d .  the  Dickson,  impugned J.  between  s.  In Hunter.  legislation  8  and  s.  1  of  an argument was  could  be  the not  justified  Charter advanced  under  s.  1.  noted:  I leave to another day the difficult question of the relationship between these two sections and, more p a r t i c u l a r l y , what f u r t h e r b a l a n c i n g o f i n t e r e s t s , i f any, may be c o n t e m p l a t e d by s. 1, b e y o n d t h a t e n v i s a g e d by s. 8. 38  That  day  has  yet  to  arrive.  Stuart Whitley  c o n t r a d i c t i o n " of a search being unreasonable a  "reasonable  the  limit"  illegality  presumption however,  a  1.  search  At  that 4 0  and  the  Supreme  "ought  Court  of  which  considered  s.  "inferentially"  1,  the  to  raise  Canada's  the  a  prima  decision  interrelationship rejected  any  yet  suggests  Jerome A t r e n s  3 9  "inherent  i n t e r m s o f s. 8,  a minimum, he  against i t s reasonableness."  Morgentaler. violation  of  u n d e r s.  notes  that facie  observes, in of  R. a  v.  s.  7  suggestion of  a  c o n t r a d i c t i o n by r e f u s i n g t o r e s t r i c t s. l ' s a p p l i c a t i o n t o a r i g h t or  freedom  which  qualification.  3 8  Supra.  did  not  possess  an  internal  4 1  n t . 11 a t 169-70 S.C.R., 116  C.C.C.  S t u a r t J . W h i t l e y , C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e and ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989) a t 191, n.21 and  3 9  4 0  (1988) 62  limitation  CR.  (3d)  1,  37 C.C.C.  (3d)  the 201.  Constitution  449.  J e r o m e A t r e n s , The C h a r t e r and C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1989) a t 1-34.  4 1  (Toronto:  or  CONFISCATION AND THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - SECTION 1 1 ( d )  As  noted  largely  i n Chapter  satisfied  upon  property or proceeds a  crucial  offender order  final  Two, seizure  o f crime.  element  t h e aims or  restraint  i n the process  the offending  i s foreclosed absolutely of h i s i l l - g o t t e n  of innocence, There  are  remains  and t h e means b y w h i c h an gains.  of the Charter's  on t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s , a r e v i e w  possess  of  Nevertheless, c o n f i s c a t i o n  t o appreciate the significance  impact  of the l e g i s l a t i o n  of the  In  potential presumption  e n t r e n c h e d by s . 11(d) o f t h e C h a r t e r , i s e s s e n t i a l .  a r e few,  greater  i f any, a s p e c t s  sanctity  than  the  of our c r i m i n a l  law which  presumption  innocence.  of  V i s c o u n t S a n k e y L.C. i n W o o l m i n q t o n v . P.P.P.. d e s c r i b e d i t a s t h e "golden  thread"  C r i m i n a l Law."  42  running  "[t]hroughout  t h e web  of  the English  S e c t i o n 11(d) o f t h e C h a r t e r makes i t a n i n t e g r a l  p a r t o f Canada's C o n s t i t u t i o n , a l e g a l r i g h t e n j o y e d by a l l p e r s o n s "charged guilty  with  an o f f e n c e . . . t o be presumed  innocent  until  proven  a c c o r d i n g t o law..."  The  presumption  i s central  to the legal  rights  contained  within the Charter: The C a n a d i a n c o u r t s h a v e i n t h e c a s e o f t h i s " l e g a l r i g h t " , p e r h a p s more s o t h a n i n t h e c a s e o f a n y o t h e r , s e i z e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y a f f o r d e d by t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e C h a r t e r t o restore a higher level of p r i n c i p l e t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the right, after decades o f ad hoc t i n k e r i n g with the presumption o f i n n o c e n c e by P a r l i a m e n t a n d t h e p r o v i n c i a l legislatures. 4 3  4 2  4 3  [1935] A.C. 462 a t 481, 25 C r . App. R. 72 a t 95 Supra,  n t . 10 a t 470. 98  (H.L.).  As  with  s . 8, s . 11(d) h a s s t r o n g A m e r i c a n  ties.  Both t h e  F i f t h a n d t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e f o r "due  process,"  innocence  a  term  and t h e need  reasonable integral  doubt  deemed  to  include  i n criminal  o f a person's  t o t h e presumption  guilt.  of  cases  t h e presumption f o r proof  The b u r d e n  4 4  innocence.  of  beyond  a  of proof i s  I n R.  v.  Oakes.  45  D i c k s o n C.J.C., w r i t i n g f o r t h e m a j o r i t y , e s t a b l i s h e d a t h r e e - p o i n t t e s t t o analyze s i t u a t i o n s f o r compliance sustain  a  reasonable the  criminal doubt.  He  there  must  be  proof  First, to beyond  Second, t h e b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g g u i l t  Crown a n d t h i r d ,  manner.  conviction  w i t h s. 1 1 ( d ) .  t h e c o u r t must p r o c e e d  a  i s on  i n a l a w f u l and f a i r  46  went o n :  I n g e n e r a l one must, I t h i n k , c o n c l u d e t h a t a p r o v i s i o n w h i c h r e q u i r e s a n a c c u s e d t o d i s p r o v e on a b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a presumed f a c t , w h i c h i s a n i m p o r t a n t element o f t h e o f f e n c e i n question, v i o l a t e s t h e presumption of innocence. . , 4 7  Most presumption  of the pre-Charter o f innocence  complexities,  variously  4 5  Ibid,  by P a r l i a m e n t  involved the creation referred  i n f e r e n c e s and presumptions.  4 4  "tinkering"  to  as  with the  o f an i m b r o g l i o o f  reverse  onus  clauses,  They a r e t o be f o u n d e v e r y w h e r e  4 8  and  a t 467.  [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 24 C.C.C.  (3d) 321.  4 6  Ibid,  a t 121 S.C.R. , 334-35 C.C.C.  4 7  Ibid,  a t 132 S.C.R., 343 C.C.C.  W r i t i n g i n 1986, B y r o n S h e l d r i c k c o u n t e d i n e x c e s s o f 90 reverse onus clauses ("Shifting Burdens and Required I n f e r e n c e s : The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f R e v e r s e Onus C l a u s e s "  4 8  99  their  importance  continuum  to a  from minimal  successful  prosecution  extends  along  a  to critical.  M c D o n a l d d e f i n e s a r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e a s "one w h i c h p l a c e s the l e g a l burden  o f p r o o f upon t h e a c c u s e d a s t o some f a c t w h i c h i s  an i n g r e d i e n t o f t h e o f f e n c e . " presumption  a s synonymous,  He t r e a t s t h e w o r d s i n f e r e n c e a n d  4 9  however  differentiates  o n u s c l a u s e s by t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b u r d e n  among  reverse  p l a c e d on a n a c c u s e d .  I n Oak.es. D i c k s o n C.J.C. g r a p p l e d w i t h t h e r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e f o u n d i n s . 8 o f t h e N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t , one r e q u i r i n g a n a c c u s e d charged  under t h a t  s e c t i o n t o d i s p r o v e p o s s e s s i o n f o r t h e purpose  o f t r a f f i c k i n g o n c e shown t o h a v e b e e n i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a n a r c o t i c . In  laying  t h e groundwork  categorized  presumptions  f o r h i s decision,  as those  the Chief  "without b a s i c  facts"  Justice  and those  "with": A presumption without a b a s i c f a c t i s simply a c o n c l u s i o n w h i c h i s t o be drawn u n t i l t h e c o n t r a r y i s p r o v e d . A p r e s u m p t i o n w i t h a b a s i c f a c t e n t a i l s a c o n c l u s i o n t o be drawn upon p r o o f o f t h e b a s i c f a c t . . . 5 0  The  latter  he  presumptions, optional, "be  t h e former  the latter  either  must  subdivided  not.  into  making 5 1  permissive t h e drawing  He a l s o  noted  rebuttable or irrebuttable."  either  raise  a  reasonable  (1986) 44 U. o f T o r o n t o  doubt,  and of  that  an  mandatory inference  presumptions  To r e b u t t h e f o r m e r , one adducing  evidence  F a c . L. Rev. 179-208 a t 1 7 9 ) .  4 9  Supra,  n t . 10 a t 471.  5 0  Supra,  n t . 45 a t 115 S.C.R., 330 C.C.C.  5 1  Ibid,  a t 115-16 S.C.R., 330 C.C.C. 100  can  which  questions  the truth  evidence  o f t h e presumed  to satisfy  the c i v i l  c a n be o f l a w o r o f f a c t . Applying portion  of  resulting be  by  probabilities  presumptions  Dickson concluded that  t h e impugned  constituted  evidence  test.  a  mandatory  sufficient  He  5 3  sufficient  In addition,  from t h e p r o o f o f a b a s i c f a c t ,  rebutted  viewed  8  burden.  o r adduce  5 2  the foregoing, s.  fact,  o f law  p o s s e s s i o n , which  to satisfy  distinguished  s. 8 as merely s h i f t i n g  presumption  earlier  an e v i d e n t i a r y  could  the balance of decisions  which  o r secondary  burden  onto t h e accused, observing t h a t t h e phrase " t o e s t a b l i s h , " used i n s . 8, i s t h e e q u i v a l e n t Applying worth  Chief  inference  of "to prove."  Justice  5 4  Dickson's  i n s . 462.39 i n v i t e s  test  i n Oakes  the conclusion  t o the net  that  i ti sa  ' b a s i c f a c t p r e s u m p t i o n ' w h i c h r e l i e s upon p r o o f o f a n u n e x p l a i n e d i n c r e a s e i n n e t worth.  The f a c t t h a t t h e c o u r t i s g i v e n t h e o p t i o n  of  increase  inferring  that  indicates that in  Oakes.  also  this  rebuttable, to  of crime  clearly  i t i s a p e r m i s s i v e , n o t a mandatory presumption, as  Furthermore,  evidence  i s the proceeds  i t s permissive nature  presumably  question  the  by t h e a c c u s e d veracity  of  implies adducing  the  that  i t is  sufficient  presumed  fact.  D e t e r m i n i n g whether i t i s a presumption o f f a c t o r law i s r e s o l v e d by  reference  referred  t o "Cross  i n Oakes.  on  Evidence,"  Cross writes that  text  t o which  Dickson  "[p]resumptions of f a c t are  5 2  Ibid,  a t 116 S.C.R. , 330-31 C.C.C.  5 3  Ibid,  a t 116 S.C.R., 331 C.C.C.  5 4  Ibid,  a t 117 S.C.R., 332 C.C.C. 101  a  m e r e l y f r e q u e n t l y r e c u r r i n g examples o f c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e . . . . i n f e r e n c e s w h i c h may In  summary,  presumption  of  the  fact,  presumed  fact.  position  regarding  legislation. noted  be drawn by  This  In  net  the t r i b u n a l  worth  rebuttable  a  similar  U.S.  v.  fact."  inference  is  calling  into  by  i s i n accord  of  with  the  a  the  5 6  present  Federal  permissive  question United  p r o v i s i o n i n i t s drug  Sandini.  5 5  the  States  confiscation  Court  of  Appeals  that: I f t h e p r o s e c u t i o n shows t h a t a d e f e n d a n t a c q u i r e d p r o p e r t y d u r i n g t h e r e l e v a n t p e r i o d and t h a t i t l i k e l y came f r o m no other source, the fact f i n d e r may infer t h a t the drug t r a f f i c k i n g funded the purchase. The p r e s u m p t i o n , t o be s u r e , is a rebuttable one and therefore is constitutional. N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e , t h e r i g h t o f r e b u t t a l may be i l l u s o r y when made c o n t i n g e n t on w a i v i n g t h e p r i v i l e g e n o t t o t e s t i f y d u r i n g the t r i a l . " Can  the net worth i n f e r e n c e s u r v i v e a C h a r t e r  Oajkes, t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e c o n c l u d e d an a c c u s e d  t o d i s p r o v e on a b a l a n c e  He  violates  rejected  inferred  the  of p r o b a b i l i t i e s the  f a c t and  F.  that  a proved  Rupert Cross, 1979) a t 124. (1987) 816  presumption  notion  5 5  5 6  the  of  existence  element of the o f f e n c e i n innocence  rational  in  connection  s.  11(d)."  between  fact n e c e s s a r i l y assured that proof  Evidence. (2d)  a  869  5th  ed.  (London:  (U.S.C.A., 3 r d  Butterworths,  Cir.).  I b i d , a t 874. One u n d e s i r a b l e r e s u l t o f r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e s i s t h e p r e s s u r e p l a c e d upon an a c c u s e d t o t a k e t h e s t a n d i n h i s own d e f e n c e . For t h i s reason, the r i g h t a g a i n s t s e l f - c r i m i n a t i o n , s. 13 o f t h e C h a r t e r , i s a l s o g e n e r a l l y r e l i e d upon i n t h e c h a l l e n g e o f a r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e .  5 7  5 8  S u p r a . n t . 45  a t 132  In  "that a p r o v i s i o n which r e q u i r e s  o f a p r e s u m e d f a c t , w h i c h i s an i m p o r t a n t question,  challenge?  S.C.R., 343 102  C.C.C.  5 8  an was  e s t a b l i s h e d beyond a r e a s o n a b l e thereby  o f f e n d s.  The  11(d).  permissive  inference,  the  fact  d o u b t and t h a t a p r o v i s i o n d i d n o t  5 9  and  evidentiary  that  i t does not  nature  of  relate  to  the an  net  worth  element  of  o f f e n c e and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f r e b u t t i n g i t on a s t a n d a r d  less  a  that  balance  inference Chapter the  of  probabilities,  will  Two,  fail  a  s.  11(d)  i t highly  Charter  unlikely  challenge.  As  of  compilation.  t h e n e t w o r t h i n f e r e n c e may  be  Although  the  of l i t t l e  the in  likely  be  constitutionality  of  concern,  other aspects of the c o n f i s c a t i o n  than  noted  the g r e a t e s t problem with the i n f e r e n c e w i l l  mechanics  case with  make  an  such  i s not  the  scheme.  I n t r o d u c t i o n o f t h e b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s t e s t i n s. 462.37 seems,  at  beyond  a  first  blush,  reasonable  presumption of  to  c o n t r a d i c t the  doubt  innocence  which  and  s.  forms  11(d).  requirement  the The  of  cornerstone issue i s  proof of  complicated,  however, b e c a u s e i t d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a q u e s t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l but  of t a i n t  times.  a t t a c h e d t o p r o p e r t y , much a s t h e d e o d a n d o f  I t i s f u r t h e r complicated  court to substitute a fine  by  the  guilt  ancient  s. 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 3 ) , w h i c h a l l o w s  of e q u i v a l e n t worth f o r p r o p e r t y  a  which  i s n o t e x i g i b l e and 462.37(4) , w h i c h r e q u i r e s a m a n d a t o r y p e r i o d o f imprisonment  in default.  Certain Canada,  in  observations R  v.  can  Gardiner,  6 0  be  made.  clearly  The  stated  Supreme that  a  Court  sentencing  I b i d , a t 133-34 S.C.R., 344 C.C.C. He d i d a l l o w t h a t " r a t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n t e s t " c o u l d u s e f u l l y be a p p l i e d a t s. 1 s t a g e .  5 9  6 0  [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368,  68  C.C.C. 103  (2d)  477.  of  the the  proceeding  is  an  Saskatchewan Court sentencing  does  proceeding [s]  1 1  integral  part  of Appeal  agreed  i n R.  within  the  not  in  fall  s.  13  of  of  the  the  trial v.  process.  Protz,  satisfy follow  a  burden  that  Charter •  As  6 2  issues, r e s t s with the  i s beyond  though t h a t a c o n f i s c a t i o n  sentencing With  a  reasonable  hearing  noting  definition  s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e onus o f p r o o f , respect to a l l contested  6 1  The  of a  that  "other  result,  at least  a  with  Crown, w h i c h must doubt.  i s the  6 3  Does i t  e q u i v a l e n t of  a  hearing? a  long history  of  confiscation  legislation  and  related  j u r i s p r u d e n c e , American c o u r t s can h e l p w i t h t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h i s issue,  mindful  pre-Charter  always  case,  of  Dickson  J.'s  admonition  i n Gardiner,  a  that:  Due p r o c e s s b e a r s a v e r y d i f f e r e n t m e a n i n g i n C a n a d a t h a n t h a t w h i c h h a s b e e n a c c o r d e d t h e p h r a s e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , and consequently American j u r i s p r u d e n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o the proper quantum o f p r o o f on s e n t e n c i n g i s an i n a p p r o p r i a t e m o d e l f o r Canadian emulation. The controversy surrounding the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e t o s e n t e n c i n g h e a r i n g s has s e r v e d t o a c c e n t u a t e , i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s , t h e d i v i s i o n i n t h e t r i a l p r o c e s s b e f o r e and a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n . 6 4  6 1  6 2  (1984) 13  C.C.C.  Ibid,  112.  at  (2d)  107.  See W i l l i a m F. E h r c k e , " L e t t i n g the Punishment F i t the C r i m e , " (1990) 48 The A d v o c a t e 545 a t 551-52. T h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t that the c o u r t c o n s i d e r only f r e s h evidence i n a c o n f i s c a t i o n hearing. As a r e s u l t , i t may wish t o consider evidence r e c e i v e d during the 'guilt' phase. 6 3  S u p r a , n t . 60 a t 412-13 S.C.R., 513 C.C.C. It will be i n t e r e s t i n g t o observe whether t h e C h a r t e r w i t h i t s s t r o n g s i m i l a r i t y t o t h e American C o n s t i t u t i o n , causes a change i n this thinking.  6 4  f  104  Regardless,  the  parallels  between  American  confiscation  l e g i s l a t i o n a n d t h e amendments a r e s t r i k i n g and c a n n o t In of  Sandini,  6 5  the Court  acknowledged  the  merging the c o n f i s c a t i o n process with the t r i a l  however  of  "the  constitutional in  of Appeals  potential  rights."  which "the v e r d i c t  evidence Court  The C o u r t  clashes  adopted  desirability  proper,  between  competing  a bifurcated  i n t h e g u i l t p h a s e must be b a s e d  warning  procedure  on a d e q u a t e  and a s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f beyond a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . "  observed  "confuses statutes  for  be i g n o r e d .  that  a  culpability which  reduced  "enhanced p e n a l t i e s "  similar with  burden  t h e burden  and  i n the confiscation  consequences."  I t reviewed  6 7  to the c i v i l  test  The  6 6  phase other  i n cases  of  concluded:  The l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y makes c l e a r t h a t C o n g r e s s s o u g h t t o make t h e g o v e r n m e n t ' s b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n c r i m i n a l f o r f e i t u r e s t h e same a s t h a t i n t h e c i v i l r e a l m . Such a p r o v i s i o n i s v a l i d t o the extent that the f o r f e i t u r e proceeding occurs only a f t e r a c o n v i c t i o n b a s e d on t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d . . . . w e conclude t h a t use o f t h e preponderance s t a n d a r d o n l y t o e s t a b l i s h the extent of the penalty withstands c o n s t i t u t i o n a l scrutiny. 6 8  In process  Gardiner.  Dickson  i n the United  J . noted  States  t h a t the c o n t r o v e r s y over  accentuated  an  undesirable  b e t w e e n t h e g u i l t and s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e s o f a t r i a l , s p e c u l a t e whether a b i f u r c a t e d by  t h e amendments, w i l l  Supra.  find  process,  a t 874.  Ibid,  a t 875.  Ibid,  a t 876. 105  rift  l e a v i n g one t o  as t h a t  f a v o u r i n Canada.  n t . 56.  Ibid,  such  due  contemplated  Section viability  11(d) c o u l d  of  s.  also  462.37(2),  which  proceeds  o f crime unconnected  criminal  burden  raises  interesting  requirement default, 11(d)  of proof  that  court  with  permits  challenges  however,  In  6 9  impose  r a n g i n g up t o 10 y e a r s ,  7 0  There t h e of a  t h e s.  of  462.37(4)  under  in  b o t h s.  I n rem c o n f i s c a t i o n  o f unknowns.  nexus  imprisonment  challenge  of  under  s.  462.38 c a n be added  of  c o n f i s c a t i n g a person's p r o p e r t y i n t h e absence o f a c o n v i c t i o n  and,  to the l i s t  the lack  period  invites  and o t h e r C h a r t e r p r o v i s i o n s .  offence.  addition,  a  t o the  the confiscation  to a predicate  remains,  problems. a  assist  q u i t e p o s s i b l y w i t h o u t any n o t i c e ,  The i m p l i c a t i o n s  a r e tremendous.  Although  p o t e n t i a l l y s . 11(d) i s s u e s , c h a l l e n g e s t o a n y o f s . 4 6 2 . 3 7 ( 2 ) , s . 462.37(4) success  a n d s . 462.38(2) c o u l d  potentially  obtain  even  greater  t o as t h e fundamental  justice  i f framed around s. 7 o f t h e C h a r t e r .  FUNDAMENTAL J U S T I C E  Section  - SECTION 7  7, commonly  referred  p r o v i s i o n of the Charter. i s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the presumption of innocence.  A s n o t e d by t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e  i n Oakes:  ...the presumption o f innocence i s r e f e r a b l e and i n t e g r a l t o the g e n e r a l p r o t e c t i o n o f l i f e , l i b e r t y and s e c u r i t y o f t h e F o r example, i s a c r i m i n a l c o u r t r o o m t h e p r o p e r f o r u m f o r a p r o c e e d i n g u n r e l a t e d t o t h e offence charged? Should there not be a c i v i l f o r f e i t u r e scheme e s t a b l i s h e d by s t a t u t e ?  6 9  F o r example, s . 7 ( f u n d a m e n t a l j u s t i c e ) , s . 9 ( a r b i t r a r y d e t e n t i o n ) a n d s . 12 ( c r u e l a n d u n u s u a l p u n i s h m e n t ) . 7 0  106  is  to  person contained  i n s.  S e c t i o n 7 of the  Charter  an  is  7 1  The  courts  what a w i l d  treat  i t with  l e g a l a c a d e m i c s and p r a c t i t i o n e r s a r e l e f t t o  i t s potential.  section  Charter.  i s t o c r i m i n a l law  inveterate card player.  r e s p e c t and on  7 of the  Although r e l a t i v e l y  concise,  every  card heady  speculate  word i n  the  significant:  E v e r y o n e has t h e r i g h t t o l i f e , l i b e r t y and s e c u r i t y o f t h e p e r s o n and t h e r i g h t n o t t o be d e p r i v e d t h e r e o f e x c e p t i n accordance with the p r i n c i p l e s of fundamental j u s t i c e . Jerome  Atrens  describes  the  s.  7's  present  e f f e c t on C a n a d a ' s c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m i n t h e  and  potential  f o l l o w i n g terms:  The wording of the section invites broad, creative interpretations. The c o u r t s h a v e o n l y b e g u n t h e t a s k of e x p l o r i n g t h e meaning and p o t e n t i a l o f s. 7, b u t i t s p r e e m i n e n c e among t h e l e g a l r i g h t s has a l r e a d y b e e n established. 7 2  In Ref. J.  re  s.  (B.C.).  o f t h e Motor V e h i c l e A c t  94(2)  Lamer  73  (as he t h e n was) , w r i t i n g f o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e Supreme  e x p l a i n e d t h a t t h e s e c t i o n c o n t a i n s two parts, separated interests  however,  by a d i s j u n c t i v e 'and.'  protected,"  acceptable  while  qualifications  of  s u b s t a n t i v e and p r o c e d u r a l  Supra, nt.  45  a t 119  Supra. nt.  41  at  8-1.  C.C.C.  (3d)  The  the  latter  this  right."  i s h i s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s.  (1985) 23  d i s t i n c t yet  7 can  Court,  complementary  former evidences "sets What  provide  out is  limits  "the or  interesting,  relief  from  both  i n j u s t i c e s , not s i m p l y t h e f o r m e r , as i n  S.C.R., 333  289.  C.C.C.  the  case  takes  of  aim  hundred  the  American  due  at h i s reasoning,  years  o f e x t e n s i v e American  without such a  itself  to  explaining decision."  an  or  clauses.  lambasting  t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f Lamer's committed  process  appearing  i t for glossing  jurisprudence.  analysis,  expansive  interpretation  to  s.  7  criteria s.  7  to  of  the  courts w i l l  V e h i c l e Act  realize  t e n e t s of our r i g h t s and  has  next  utlize  7,  ramifications  of  be  to  legal  Lamer  he w r i t e s ,  system."  the  wording  determine  what  i n order t o determine whether or not a J.'s  reasons  " a r e t o be  i n the The  found  common  law  and  principles 7 6  Motor  principles  i n the  These t e n e t s i n c l u d e t h e  i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n s o f human r i g h t s .  One  section  taken the broad  q u e s t i o n must  occurred.  justice,  in  two  concludes  basic  enumerated  f r e e d o m s f o u n d w i t h i n s e c t i o n s 8 t o 14 b u t a l s o  presumptions  section  the  of  (B.C.) r e f e r e n c e a r e a g a i n i n s t r u c t i v e .  fundamental  over  7 5  heart,  violation  He  Cameron  " t h e Supreme C o u r t o f Canada  A c c e p t i n g t h a t t h e Supreme C o u r t h a s of  Jamie  7 4  certain  annunciated  by  The p o t e n t i a l f o r t h e  i s immense. amendment w h i c h may  c h a l l e n g e i s t h e new  prove  fertile  territory  for a s .  offence of 'laundering proceeds of crime.'  the offence delineated  i n s. 462.31 o v e r l y b r o a d ,  to the point  b e i n g t o o vague t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g of c r i m i n a l conduct?  I n R.  Jamie Cameron, "The Motor V e h i c l e Reference and the Relevance of American Doctrine i n Charter Adjudication," S h a r p e , s u p r a , n t . 37, 69-96 a t 70. 7 4  7 5  Ibid,  7 6  Supra.  at  89.  n t . 73  a t 3 02  and A t r e n s , s u p r a . n t . 41 108  at  8-24.  7 Is of v.  Rowley.  the  7 7  British  jurisprudence  Columbia  Court  the  turned  to  American  f o r a t e s t t o d e t e r m i n e when a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n i s  v o i d f o r vagueness, concluding "if  of Appeal  enactment  applications."  is  Can  that a challenge  impermissibly  i t be  said  that  s.  could only  succeed  vague  in  a l l  of  its  462.31  is  impermissibly  vague i n a l l i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s ? C a r o l Rogerson d e s c r i b e s too  broadly  potential  drafted to  catch  constitutionally goals." which  Rogerson  so  in  the  often  describes  as  "the  than pursuit also  the  public  of the  literally, the of  of  the  government  is  by  legitimate 'vagueness,  imprecision  common t e s t f o r v a g u e n e n e s s i s w h e t h e r "a  that  a  'well-intentioned'  p r i n c i p l e of content of  legality, law.  citizen  i t s meaning."  which p r o v i d e s  are  have  its  plagued  problem  must n e c e s s a r i l y g u e s s a t  offends  now  conduct  are  uncertain  intelligence  more  i f applied  laws  The  7 9  which,  permitted  Overbroad  7 8  uncertainty." is  and  " o v e r b r o a d " laws as t h o s e "which  80  of  1  and law  common  Vagueness  notice  to  the  Rogerson n o t e s t h a t vague laws  may  possess c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e : ...to the extent that they c o n s t i t u t e a d e n i a l of f a i r n o t i c e a p e n a l c o n t e x t , t h e y may v i o l a t e t h e s. 7 g u a r a n t e e o f f u n d a m e n t a l j u s t i c e ; t h e y may be p o t e n t i a l l y o v e r b r o a d (and h e n c e " u n r e a s o n a b l e " w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f s. 1) ; o r , t h e y may v i o l a t e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t i n s. 1 t h a t l i m i t a t i o n s on r i g h t s be  "  (1986) 43  M.V.R.  290.  7 8  Rogerson,  supra. nt.  7 9  Ibid, at  242.  8 0  Ibid.  37  at  241.  109  prescribed Rogerson  by  notes  including  law.  that  81  the  remedies  s t r i k i n g the entire  f o r vague  overbroad  based  availability  on  other  of recourse  enumerated t o s.  c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e m a j o r i t y  justice  i t s impact  law and, s p e c i f i c a l l y , i t s a b i l i t y t o a s s i s t c h a l l e n g e s  primarily  a complex  8 2  b r e a d t h and e x t e n t o f  r i g h t s p r o t e c t e d by s. 7, i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o p r e d i c t  on c r i m i n a l  laws  law, r e a d i n g down and s e v e r a n c e .  A s much r e m a i n s t o be known o f t h e f u l l the  and  interrelationship  and  the  1 f r o m s.  In  addition,  7 violations,  the  which i s  i n Morgentaler, clearly.demonstrates between  reasonable  rights.  limits  the p r i n c i p l e s to  be  placed  of fundamental on  rights  and  freedoms.  THE  FINAL HURDLE - SECTION 1  Assuming, right  by  f o r t h e s a k e o f argument,  operation  of  one  or  more  of  amendments, t h e c o u r t must n e x t examine of  s.  I,  8 3  which  provides  8 1  Ibid,  a t 244-45.  8 2  Ibid,  at  the  the v i o l a t i o n of a  ultimate  the  proceeds  of  the infringement balancing  of  legal crime  i n terms  individual  245.  R. v . B i g M Drug M a r t L t d . [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 i s authority for this two-stage process which Kerans J.A. d e s c r i b e s a s "a d i c h o t o m y between l i m i t s on r i g h t s that spring f r o m t h e i r n a t u r e and p u r p o s e , what we m i g h t call d e f i n i t i o n a l l i m i t , and l i m i t s on r i g h t s t h a t f l o w f r o m t h e recognition o f competing c l a i m s , the assessment o f which seems t o be t h e o f f i c e o f s. 1" ( i n f r a , n t . 84 a t 5 6 9 ) .  8 3  110  rights with majoritarian  or communitarian  interests.  It  states:  The C a n a d i a n C h a r t e r o f R i g h t s and Freedoms g u a r a n t e e s t h e r i g h t s and freedoms s e t out i n i t subject only to such r e a s o n a b l e l i m i t s p r e s c r i b e d by law as c a n be d e m o n s t r a b l y j u s t i f i e d i n a f r e e and d e m o c r a t i c s o c i e t y . 8 4  I n O a k e s . C h i e f J u s t i c e D i c k s o n d e l i n e a t e d two must be  satisfied  i n order  Q u o t i n g f r o m B i g M. of  the  for a challenge  legislation  be  "of  sufficient  objective  democratic are  r e a s o n a b l e and  test. " 1  tests.  "pressing The  and  second  importance freedom."  requires  demonstrably j u s t i f i e d . "  "that  in  the  First,  there  the  must  be  objective.  as p o s s i b l e ' t h e  a  important the  chosen  'a f o r m o f p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y  means " s h o u l d  r i g h t or freedom i n q u e s t i o n "  8 7  three  be."  sub-  between  the  impair  'as  and  third,  objective,  d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t s of a measure, t h e  o b j e c t i v e must  and  Again adopting d i c t a  e f f e c t s o f t h e m e a s u r e s must be p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e  " [ t ] h e more s e v e r e t h e  free  means  r a t i o n a l connection  Second, t h e  warrant  a minimum, a  In t u r n the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y t e s t i n c o r p o r a t e s  8 6  1.  objective  to At  85  substantial  he n o t e s t h a t t h i s " i n v o l v e s  m e a s u r e s and little  be  society."  f r o m B i g M,  the  must  which  t o s u c c e e d u n d e r s.  the f i r s t c r i t e r i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t the  overriding a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y protected the  criteria  more  8 8  F o r a f r a n k d i s c u s s i o n o f s. 1 and i t s f u t u r e i m p l i c a t i o n s by a l e a d i n g C a n a d i a n j u r i s t , s e e R o g e r P. K e r a n s , "The F u t u r e o f S e c t i o n One o f t h e C h a r t e r , " (1989) 23 U.B.C. Law Rev. 56777.  8 4  8 5  Supra. nt.  8 6  Ibid, at  8 7  Ibid.  8 8  Ibid, at  45  at  138  S.C.R.  139.  140. Ill  The  first  criterion  impugned  legislation.  relevant  example.  legitimate contention curbing  drug  There,  public  D i c k s o n had l i t t l e Implicitly  purpose  [Dickson's  Control  by f a c i l i t a t i n g  words],"  he  of the  surprisingly  difficulty  acknowledging  "s. 8 of the Narcotic  trafficking  traffickers  the  Oakes p r o v i d e s t h e b e s t a n d a  purpose. that  explores  finding a  the  Crown's  A c t i s aimed  the conviction  observed  that  at  o f drug  "Parliament's  c o n c e r n t h a t d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g be d e c r e a s e d c a n be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s substantial  and  international  pressing."  treaties  a t t h e drug problem,  8 9  He  cited  and f o r e i g n  9 1  two  domestic  reports,  various  9 0  legislation  9 2  aimed  concluding that:  The o b j e c t i v e o f p r o t e c t i n g o u r s o c i e t y f r o m t h e g r a v e i l l s a s s o c i a t e d with drug t r a f f i c k i n g , is,...one of s u f f i c i e n t importance t o warrant o v e r r i d i n g a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t o r freedom i n c e r t a i n c a s e s . Moreover, t h e degree o f s e r i o u s n e s s o f d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g makes i t s a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t a s a s u f f i c i e n t l y i m p o r t a n t o b j e c t i v e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f s . 1, to a large extent, s e l f - e v i d e n t . 9 3  The  absence  trafficking  8 9  o f any  i n Canada  current  is a  analysis  surprising  of the state  omission  from  of  drug  Dickson's  Ibid.  A s p e c i a l S e n a t e c o m m i t t e e r e p o r t f r o m 1955 a n d t h e F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e Commission o f I n q u i r y i n t o t h e N o n - M e d i c a l U s e of Drugs (the 'LeDain Commission' report) of 1973. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h e author o f t h e LeDain Commission r e p o r t , G e r a l d L e D a i n , s a t on t h e Oakes c a s e i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s a p u i s n e j u s t i c e o f t h e S.C.C. and c o n c u r r e d w i t h D i c k s o n ' s judgment. 9 0  9 1  A l l pre-1965.  9 2  A New Supra.  Z e a l a n d s t a t u t e o f 1975 and a U.K. n t . 45 a t 141 S.C.R., 350 C.C.C. 112  s t a t u t e o f 1971.  judgment.  Furthermore,  with  the  exception  of  the  1973  LeDain  C o m m i s s i o n r e p o r t , t h e r e i s no r e f e r e n c e t o h a r d s t a t i s t i c s on d r u g abuse.  Clearly,  aspect  of  little  elaboration.  asset  the  t o t h e Supreme C o u r t , w h i c h was  judgment,  the  Will  evils  the  of  drug  unanimous i n t h i s  trafficking  same a p p l y t o money  required  l a u n d e r i n g and  confiscation? H a v i n g a c c e p t e d t h e ends o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e C h i e f J u s t i c e  t u r n e d t o t h e means.  He began h i s a n a l y s i s w i t h t h e f i r s t p r o n g  the  test  proportionality  objective. need  Expounding  f o r an  internal  -  rationality  r e v e r s e onus c l a u s e .  survive this  rational  relationship  to  the  on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u b - t e s t , he n o t e d  t h e Crown and what i t s o u g h t 8's  the  "rational  between what h a d  of  the  been proven  by  t o p r o v e t h r o u g h t h e a s s i s t a n c e o f s.  He  concluded  connection  that  the  c l a u s e c o u l d not  test":  ... i t w o u l d be i r r a t i o n a l t o i n f e r t h a t t h a t a p e r s o n had an i n t e n t t o t r a f f i c on t h e b a s i s o f h i s o r h e r p o s s e s s i o n o f a small quantity of narcotics. The presumption...is o v e r i n c l u s i v e and c o u l d l e a d t o r e s u l t s i n c e r t a i n c a s e s w h i c h w o u l d d e f y b o t h r a t i o n a l i t y and f a i r n e s s . 9 4  The  severity  of  punishment  which  potentially  flows  from  c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r s. 8 added t o t h e s t r e n g t h o f h i s commitment. Since  of  c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y t e s t i n o t h e r c a s e s , among them  R.  Smith  minimum  9 4  9 6  and  R.  sentence  Ibid,  a t 142  9 5  Ibid.  9 6  (1987) 34  the  v.  Supreme  Morqentaler.  f o r drug  (3d)  has  In the  had  C.C.C.  97. 113  the  former,  importation f a i l e d  S.C.R., 350  C.C.C.  Court  95  opportunity  v.  Oakes.  a  the  the  seven  second  year  prong  of  the  test  and  impugned elements.  i n the  abortion  latter,  Dickson  legislation  C.J.C.  failed  to  determined satisfy  that  any  the  of i t s  9 7  A p p l y i n g Oakes t o t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments w i l l n o t be a  one-time e f f o r t .  and  the p r o f i t s  in  newspapers  of the i l l i c i t and  States.  Statistics  America,  their  desirability  I n r e c e n t months  drug t r a d e have c a p t u r e d h e a d l i n e s  magazines  throughout  Canada  and  the  abound c o n c e r n i n g t h e e x t e n t o f b o t h  prevalence  of  and y e a r s , money l a u n d e r i n g  i n certain  neutralizing  drug  United  i n North  p o p u l a t i o n c e n t r e s and t h e cartels  by  attacking  their  profits. I n v i e w o f t h e Supreme C o u r t ' s w i l l i n g n e s s t o a c c e p t t h a t trafficking similarly  i s an e v i l ,  i t w i l l h a r d l y be a quantum  acknowledge t h e e v i l s  drug p r o f i t e e r i n g generally. accepts the p o l i t i c a l  of laundering drug  However,  rationale  leap f o r i t to m o n i e s and o f  t h i s assumes t h a t t h e C o u r t  f o r t h e amendments a t f a c e v a l u e .  I n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e C o u r t l o o k s b e h i n d t h e r h e t o r i c and that  the  legislation  trafficking accept  and  be  used  organized crime,  i t s intrusive  reasoning  can  nature?  to  will  fight  i t be  other  quite  observes  than  drug  so w i l l i n g  Following Chief Justice  i n Oakes, t h e C o u r t must  of the  trafficking.  t h e s . 1 e n d s t e s t w i l l r e q u i r e a much s t r o n g e r  e v i d e n t i a r y b a s i s and l e n g t h i e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e C o u r t t h a n t h e c a s e w i t h s. 8 o f t h e N a r c o t i c C o n t r o l A c t .  9 7  See g e n e r a l l y ,  to  Dickson's  examine t h e o b j e c t i v e s  l e g i s l a t i o n i n t o t o , n o t merely as t h e y r e l a t e t o d r u g In a l l l i k e l i h o o d ,  drug  A t r e n s , s u p r a , n t . 41 a t 114  1-39.  was  The means t e s t s examine s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s are  f o u n d t o v i o l a t e one o r more l e g a l r i g h t s .  which  In the case of the  amendments, t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s w i l l d i f f e r d e p e n d i n g on t h e enumerated  rights  or  freedoms  i n c l u s i o n of the c i v i l violate first  the ask  question.  For  example,  i f  b u r d e n o f p r o o f i n s. 462.37(1) i s f o u n d t o  presumption whether  in  of  a  innocence  rational  (s. 11(d)),  connection  the  exists  court  must  between  the  i n c l u s i o n o f t h e b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s t e s t and t h e o b j e c t i v e o f d i v o r c i n g an o f f e n d e r f r o m t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e . connection, reduced  the  burden  possible historic  of  of  with the  that  presents  itself: to  next  will  innocence  assuming  important  This  importance  resting  must  ask  whether  impairs the presumption  degree.  presumption onus  court  the  likely  the  be  Crown.  prong  of  burden  sake  the  of  any of  test  the  confiscation  regardless of t h e i r derivation?  of  proof  argument  The the  of  the  however,  the  third  sufficiently  person's  In a l l l i k e l i h o o d ,  least  to  reduction  i s met,  a  the  junction.  i s the o b j e c t i v e of the l e g i s l a t i o n  justify  of  innocence t o the  against  For the  such a  inclusion  a critical  criminal  militates  second  of  Assuming  assets,  yes.  SUMMARY  The  p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments p r e s e n t a s e e m i n g l y e n d l e s s  array of Charter issues.  Assuming  t h a t t h e Crown p u r s u e s  and c o n f i s c a t i o n p r o c e e d i n g s u n d e r t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , 115  charges  the challenges  will  be  many  punishment  to  paradigmatic will  and  protracted.  the  Criminal  shift  By  introducing a  Code  i n Canada's  which  approach  new  arguably to  concept  represents  criminal  law,  confiscation  and  century  federal This  while  legislation  constitutional  Canada.  present  manifestation,  a  arguments  took  challenges  j u s t i c e system. in  i t s modern  a n t i - r a c k e t e e r i n g laws,  modern  Nevertheless,  which  understanding  and  primarily  of  the  almost  a  become  process  interesting  undoubtedly  20  i s approximately decade  to  ingrained  will  o f t h e amendments and  116  of  and  years  the  the Charter  old.  result  itself  to  itself.  and  criminal  provoking  contribute  over  weather  a faster  maturation thought  state  mature, in  I t i s probably u n l i k e l y to expect  multitude  both  t h e p r e v e n t i o n o f money l a u n d e r i n g .  America's h i s t o r y of c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n d a t e s back a  a  Canada  i n e v i t a b l y move c l o s e r t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i n t e r m s o f  criminal  of  a  will legal  better  CHAPTER 4  CRIMINAL CONFISCATION IN CANADA - ITS  The  last  increased system,  decade  pressure  including  of  on law  the  twentieth  a l l aspects  of  enforcement.  century  FUTURE  will  Canada's  likely  criminal  Inevitably police  place justice  departments  w i l l f a c e e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s , i m p o s e d on them by federal,  provincial  and  municipal  by e f f o r t s t o c o n s o l i d a t e o r c o n t r a c t o u t f o r s e r v i c e s .  both  the  Charter  and  a  continue,  heightened  grudgingly,  level  of  adjust  public  to  oversight.  guarantees  a p e r i o d of continued adaptation i n which o f f i c e r s  will  f o r c e d t o r e a s s e s s t h e i r methods o f o p e r a t i o n , p e r s u a d i n g  many  crime.  individual  to  be  increased  t o a d o p t an  on  some f o r c e s w i l l  Society's  be  emphasis  of  reducing  threatened  will  existence  on  deficits.  officers  very  intent  spiralling  Operationally,  The  governments  liberties  e x c e s s i v e l y c a u t i o u s approach t o the  virtually  investigation  Human n a t u r e b e i n g what i t i s , t h e f e a r o f c r i t i c i s m  absence o f reward does not  bode w e l l f o r t h e  fight  against  of  i n the crime.  T o d a y , Canada i s a h a v e n f o r c r i m i n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s o f v a r i e d and  sundry  kinds.  'professional' complacency conscience murderers  in  which places and  b u r g l a r s out  Some their  have  activities.  appears little  sexual  become  to  offenders  of businesses  and  on off  the  the  the  collective  organized  homes and  117  specialized  Nevertheless,  grace  emphasis  highly  crime.  streets,  the t r a f f i c  and  innate Canadian Keeping  robbers  and  flowing  into  and  out of c i t i e s The  increased  organizations of  seem o f much g r e a t e r c o n c e r n .  a global  sophistication  i s reflected  village  of  criminals  by t h e many who  to heart,  learning  and  criminal  have t a k e n t h e c o n c e p t  and m a n i p u l a t i n g t o  a d v a n t a g e t h e l a n g u a g e s o f modern b a n k i n g , t r a d e , c o m p u t e r s law.  Many q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s .  society only  a  to  ensure  fringe  America's  that  criminal  group?  war  What c h a n c e  behaviour remains  What w i l l  the  impact  be  on d r u g s p r o v e t o be e v e n a m o d e r a t e  and t h e  i s there for  the  on  their  choice  Canada  of  should  success?  Will  C a n a d a become t h e c o n d u i t o f c h o i c e f o r n a r c o t i c s , r e p l a c i n g s o u t h Florida  and  Mexico?  1  Who  will  Canada  receive,  along  with  many  i n n o c e n t p e r s o n s , d u r i n g t h e e x p e c t e d mass e x o d u s f r o m Hong Kong i n 1997  and Macao i n 1999?  shelter?  2  Can  danger  posed  order  to  enforcement  by  act  W i l l T r i a d members be among t h o s e who  Canadian  law  international as  safe  officials  enforcement  banks s e t t i n g  havens will  counter  for  venture  up  overseas an  the  seek  potential  branch  offices  in  money?  Few  law  answer  to  any  of  the  In 1989, Canadian Press disclosed portions of a c o n f i d e n t i a l R.C.M.P. - U.S. Drug E n f o r c e m e n t A d m i n i s t r a t i o n r e p o r t , d a t e d J u n e 1988, w h i c h e s t i m a t e d t h a t h u n d r e d s o f m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s of i l l e g a l drug proceeds r e g u l a r l y pass untouched across the Canada-United States border ("Drug money ' c r o s s e s b o r d e r , ' " The P r o v i n c e . 30 O c t . 1989 a t 1 3 ) . 1  A c o m p e l l i n g a c c o u n t o f t h e c r i m i n a l web which Asian T r i a d s h a v e spun a r o u n d t h e w o r l d i s f o u n d i n G e r a l d L. P o s n e r , W a r l o r d s o f Crime - C h i n e s e S e c r e t S o c i e t i e s : The New M a f i a (New Y o r k : P e n g u i n , 1990). The p r o g n o s i s f o r C a n a d a i s n o t good. B e f o r e 1997, P o s n e r f o r e c a s t s an e x o d u s o f c r i m i n a l s f r o m Hong Kong, t h e h e a r t o f T r i a d o p e r a t i o n s , t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and Canada. He n o t e s t h a t a " T r i a d a l e r t " was b r o a d c a s t by law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s i n Canada and e l s e w h e r e as f a r back as 1986 ( a t 2 5 9 ) . 2  118  foregoing, It  l e t a l o n e answers which g i v e  i s at this point  the proceeds Code.  The  neither  perfect  interrupt proceeds during  the  comprehensive.  trail  1990's  of  they but  laundered are not will  history  t h e i r place i n the  of a decade of d i s c u s s i o n ,  nor  of crime, the  i n Canada's j o u r n e y t h r o u g h  o f c r i m e amendments f i n d  product  comfort.  the  However, money  and  only c r u c i a l  inevitably  that  Criminal  amendments by  are  seeking  to  confiscating  to combatting  pave  the  way  the crime  for  the  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f c r i m i n a l law i n t o a v e h i c l e q u i t e u n l i k e t h a t which Canadians  to  have become a c c u s t o m e d .  H a v i n g e x a m i n e d t h e amendments i n t h e p r e c e d i n g c h a p t e r s , b o t h f r o m a t e x t u a l and a C h a r t e r p e r s p e c t i v e , t h i s C h a p t e r e x p l o r e s t h e broader  environment  inability  to  o m i s s i o n and overviews  i n which  achieve  desired  inclusion.  the  absence  mandatory f i n a n c i a l  they  must  operate  objectives,  due  as to  well errors  In the category of omission, the of  the  following:  r e p o r t i n g requirements,  a  tracing  sharing  In  those  category  legislation,  of  inclusion,  discussed earlier,  i t reviews which  of  Chapter  approach  of  arrangements.  119  the  hardship i n  t h e c o u r t s and t h e u n d e s i r a b l e r e s o r t t o p l e a b a r g a i n i n g and extra-judicial  both  arrangements.  aspects  face potential  their  mechanism,  a task force  t o i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p r o s e c u t i o n and r e v e n u e the  as  other  TRACING THE  PROCEEDS OF  Asset  tracing  encumbered take  today  place.  transmission The  CRIME  and  by  the  money speed  with  Computerized facilities  laundering which  banking  investigations  financial  and  are  transactions  international  have r e v o l u t i o n i z e d  the  financial  data world.  i n s t a n t a n e o u s t r a n s m i s s i o n o f m o n i e s f r o m a c c o u n t s i n Canada t o  a c c o u n t s i n C a r i b b e a n or European accounts  and  countries,  countries,  makes  the  task  f o r t r a n s f e r to other  of  tracing  incredibly  difficult. V a r i o u s systems are p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e f o r the transmission Society (SWIFT). for  of  of  large  amounts o f money, t h e b e s t known b e i n g  Worldwide  Interbank  Headquartered  3  Financial  i n Belgium,  the  t r a n s f e r s and, difficult In  to  SWIFT p r o v i d e s t h e  paper-intensive  as a byproduct,  addition  including  for  facility  the world.  telephone  and  It  telex  makes t h e document t r a i l much more  follow.  organizations,  results  need  The  Telecommunication  message f l o w between member i n s t i t u t i o n s a r o u n d  eliminates  international  to  SWIFT,  which  numerous w o r l d w i d e  American,  British,  are staggering.  counts  over  p r i v a t e banking  Swiss,  D u r i n g 1988,  Japanese  100  networks  and  German.  $1 t r i l l i o n was  member exist, The  transferred  International money transfers are considered in the following works: D i m i t r i s N. Chorafas, Electronic Funds Transfer (London: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1988) a t 110-15 and Carl Felsenfeld, Legal Aspects of E l e c t r o n i c Funds T r a n s f e r s (Stoneham, Mass.: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1988) a t c h . 3. 3  120  electronically  in  Canada  4  by  legitimate  financial  institutions.  To t h i s must be added t h e unknown number o f t r a n s a c t i o n s c o n d u c t e d by u n d e r g r o u n d b a n k i n g s y s t e m s , p r i n c i p a l l y o f A s i a n o r i g i n , also  operate Not  on  a global basis.  5  o n l y must p o l i c e a g e n c i e s  of such systems but  be w i l l i n g  become a d e p t a t t h e  support  a  charge.  situations.  In  amendments, Asset  to  the  tracing  absence  has  Legal  t r a c e and  is  of  a  not  easy  tracing  in  evidence  the  regime  of  best  of  within  the  harder.  long  rules  i n t h e hope o f f i n d i n g  chore  i t becomes e v e n  restitution. equity  The  methodology  t o undertake the ponderous task  s o r t i n g through the data generated to  which  been  exist  identify  integral in  both  assets,  to  the  the  civil  common  such as  law  currency.  law  of  and  in  However,  t h e common law r e f u s e s t o t r a c e a s s e t s w h i c h become c o m m i n g l e d .  If  not  by  in their  other that  original  items.  Equity  r u l e s of  continuing example, t h e  to  form,  they  equity  assist  once  trace  money  after  Holger Jensen, 1989 a t 46.  4  common i t  p a r i passu r u l e provides  complex.  be  clearly  i s of g r e a t e r a s s i s t a n c e .  t h e same p r o p o r t i o n s a s i t was a r e many and  must  law  Peter  Birks  r u l e s are  becomes  notes  defeated,  commingled.  t h a t a fund  For  depreciates " i n  originally constituted."  U n f o r t u n a t e l y none f o u n d  "Hiding the  substituted  The  t h e i r way  Drug Money," M a c l e a n s , 1  rules  into  23  the  Oct.  F o r example, t h e C h i n e s e u n d e r g r o u n d b a n k i n g s y s t e m i s a conduit of long-standing. I t r e l i e s on a h i g h d e g r e e o f t r u s t , f a m i l y t i e s , s e c r e c y and an a b s e n c e o f d o c u m e n t a t i o n . A c c o r d i n g t o P o s n e r : "No w h i t e man has e v e n s e e n i n s i d e t h e system. I t i s impenetrable" (supra, n t . 2 a t 234). 5  121  proceeds of In  crime  the  recommends  amendments.  United the  States,  use  of  6  the  federal  Department  tracing  rules  equitable  of  in  Justice  confiscation  c a s e s , t h e r e b y p l a c i n g t h e government i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n t o of  a  claimant  equitable  under,  lien.  for  By  7  drawing  'criminal' confiscation, which permits the civil  use  confiscation  agencies which  various  do  not  a  example, a  a fiction  i s also created  of d i f f e r e n t procedures.  exist  in  and  broader  depositions  and  Canada.  For  documents.  Civil  person  claims  confiscation In  order  confiscation Enterprise  protection  hearing. to and  an  example,  the  Fifth  law  enforcement mechanisms  c a s e s can  law  obtain  discoveries,  i s d e t e r m i n e d on  adverse f i n d i n g  under  and  1  American  including  confiscation  an  respecting  i t s law  confiscation  disclosure,  e v i d e n c e and  law  evidence-gathering  pre-trial  preponderance of  'civil  or  i n American  The  i n the United States a f f o r d s investigative  trust  d i s t i n c t i o n between  enforcement agencies pursuing c i v i l much  constructive  that  i s possible  Amendment  a  if a  during  a  8  provide money  a  tracing  laundering  mechanism  for  legislation  the  in  Canada,  C r i m e T a s k F o r c e recommended e x a m i n i n g t h e  6  P e t e r B i r k s , An Introduction to ( O x f o r d : C l a r e n d o n , 1989), c h . 11.  7  S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l o f Canada, The ( O t t a w a : n.p., J u n e 1982) a t 27.  the  Law  of  RICO S t a t u t e :  proposed  possibility  Restitution An  Overview  See Michael Goldsmith, Asset Forfeiture Civil Forfeiture: Tracing the Proceeds of N a r c o t i c s Trafficking ( W a s h i n g t o n : D e p t . o f J u s t i c e , Nov. 1988).  8  122  the  o f imposing mandatory c u r r e n c y r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s . to  be.  Parliament's  failure  to  heed  I t was  9  i t s recommendation  not  or  to  i n t r o d u c e any t r a c i n g r u l e s w h a t s o e v e r i s a m a j o r d e f i c i e n c y o f t h e amendments, r e q u i r i n g  early  corrective  action.  1 0  MANDATORY FINANCIAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS  Most witting  'dirty  or  otherwise,  legislation against  money' c a n n o t  and  of  financial  enforcement  various  banks,  be  laundered  institutions.  have r e s u l t e d  including  except  the  with  the a i d ,  Tough  American  in criminal convictions  conviction  this  year  Luxembourg's Bank o f C r e d i t and Commerce I n t e r n a t i o n a l . placed  on  probation  e x c e s s o f $US of  others  connected B a n c o de Georgia  five  years,  was  ordered  to  bank,  forfeit  in  15 m i l l i o n and a g r e e d t o c o o p e r a t e i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n  involved to  in  a  money  Panama's Manuel  Occidente as  for  The  of  the  of  result  Noriega.  1 1  The  scheme,  $5  of  conviction  a  criminal  Report  million  (Ottawa:  allegedly  previous  Panama p a i d a  E n t e r p r i s e Crime Study J u n e 10, 1983) a t 114.  9  laundering  fine  year,  in  related  Dept.  of  the  Atlanta, to  money  Justice,  A New Democrat Member o f P a r l i a m e n t d e s c r i b e d t h e f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e r e p o r t i n g requirements i n the proceeds of crime amendments a s t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f l o a d i n g a gun w i t h b l a n k s ( V i c t o r Malarek, Merchants of Misery (Toronto: M c C l e l l a n d and S t e w a r t , 1989) a t 1 6 4 ) . 1 0  11  "Bank g u i l t y  on d r u g money," The 123  P r o v i n c e . 5 Feb.  1990.  laundering $3  and  1 2  million  reports.  the  Ponce F e d e r a l  Bank o f  criminal fine for failing  to f i l e  a u t h o r i t y f o r currency  S t a t e s Code.  term  (CTR)  of  liberal  on  most  Arranging  Transporting filing  by  transactions  such  a  way  deposits  constitutes  Instrument  of  Transaction  which  as  the  further,  Title  decry  26  (CMIR)  16  exceed  to  evade  $9,900  in  offence  and,  requires  presumption  "San J u a n bank f i n e d G a z e t t e . 15 Feb. 1989. 1 3  a Currency  $3  of  i n order  that  a  guilt,"  million  to  form  Globe  for  the  Report  $10,000.  reporting  five  different  structuring. States of  tighten be  Currency the  net  completed  and  Mail.  laundering,"  23 The  31 U.S.C.. s s . 5313. D u r i n g t h e e a r l y 1980's, b a n k s were s o m e t i m e s r e l a t i v e l y l a x i n f i l i n g CTRs. T h i s changed a f t e r t h e Bank o f B o s t o n r e c e i v e d a $500,000 p e n a l t y . I b i d . . s. 5324. A v i o l a t i o n o f e i t h e r s. 5313 o r s. 5324 may g i v e r i s e t o t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f any r e a l o r personal property i n v o l v e d i n the t r a n s a c t i o n , whether attempted or c o m p l e t e , o r any property t r a c e a b l e to such p r o p e r t y (18 U.S.C. 9 8 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ) . 15  31 U. S.C. . s. 5316. F a i l u r e to f i l e or f i l i n g a r e p o r t w i t h m a t e r i a l m i s s t a t e m e n t s o r o m i s s i o n s may r e s u l t i n the c o n f i s c a t i o n o f t h e m o n e t a r y i n s t r u m e n t and any i n t e r e s t i n property t r a c e a b l e to that instrument (s. 5317(c)). 124  1 5  requires  1 4  1 6  14  the  of  o v e r $10,000 i n t o o r o u t o f t h e U n i t e d  "Lawyers Aug. 1989. 1 2  as  in  file  31 o f  institutions,  of a Report of I n t e r n a t i o n a l T r a n s p o r t a t i o n  Monetary  even  definition,  currency  such  institutions,  or  transaction  i n T i t l e s 26 and  T i t l e 31 r e q u i r e s t h a t f i n a n c i a l  deposits  threshold,  the  a  r e p o r t i n g , the nucleus of America's  f i n a n c i a l r e p o r t i n g system, i s c o n t a i n e d  a  currency  received  1 3  The  United  Puerto Rico  by  business persons  and  trades people  involving  $10,000.  staggering  - seven m i l l i o n  The  data  computerized there,  obtained  quantity CTR's a  from  CTR's  of  year. and  reports  transaction  generated  is  1 8  CMIR's  i s entered  d a t a b a s e o p e r a t e d by t h e T r e a s u r y D e p a r t m e n t .  federal,  information,  The  17  f o r every currency  into 19  a  From  s t a t e and m u n i c i p a l a g e n c i e s c a n a c c e s s t h e s t o r e d  providing valuable investigative  aids:  By o b t a i n i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s p o s s e s s i o n o f cash, the person possibly can be linked to large and unexplained accumulations of wealth. That i n t u r n can lead t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f b o t h d i r e c t and c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f i n c o m e t h a t c a n n o t be e x p l a i n e d by l e g i t i m a t e s o u r c e s o f f u n d s . The i n f e r e n c e o f t e n f o l l o w s , t h a t i f t h e money was n o t o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h l e g i t i m a t e means, i t p r o b a b l y o r i g i n a t e d f r o m illegal activity. 2 0  Not  only  have  the  mandatory  p r e c i p i t a t e d many s i g n i f i c a n t a  sobering effect  1 7  26  U.S.C. . s.  on  America's  investigations, financial  2 1  requirements  t h e y have a l s o  institutions.  had  Criminal  60501.  M a r i o P o s s a m a i , "The T i m e s - C o l o n i s t . 22 O c t . 1 8  reporting  stubborn s t a i n 1989 a t A8.  of  laundered  money,"  The I n t e r n a l Revenue S e r v i c e (IRS) inputs the data i n Detroit. The IRS d a t a b a s e i s t i e d t o t h e F i n a n c i a l C r i m e s Enforcement Network (FINCEN) , w h i c h e m p l o y s approximately 200 persons, including representatives from numerous i n v e s t i g a t i v e agencies. O p e r a t i n g on a 2 4 - h o u r a day b a s i s , it links together numerous law enforcement data bases relevant to financial investigations. 1 9  W i l l i a m Lenck, A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e - T r a c k i n g Drug P r o c e e d s : Bank S e c r e c y A c t R e p o r t s (Washington: Bureau of Justice A s s i s t a n c e , S e p t . 1989) a t 13. 2 0  Supra. nt. 10 at 166. Among the successful investigations directly attributable to the reporting r e q u i r e m e n t s was O p e r a t i o n P o l a r Cap i n 1989, i n v o l v i n g o v e r $1 b i l l i o n o f money l a u n d e r e d by a C o l u m b i a n c o c a i n e c a r t e l .  2 1  125  c o n v i c t i o n s o f s u c h i n s t i t u t i o n s shake p u b l i c c o n f i d e n c e a n d s e r v e as an i n v i t a t i o n t o c l o s e r r e g u l a t o r y criminal  lawyer  institutions  specializing  scrutiny.  i n the defence  W h i t n e y Adams, a  o f major  financial  writes:  Most f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s today a r e h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d t o e n s u r e c o m p l i a n c e and c o o p e r a t e w i t h law e n f o r c e m e n t due t o t h e f e a r o f a d v e r s e p o l i c y a l o n e . The o t h e r s e v e r e p o t e n t i a l c o l l a t e r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s and b r o a d s c o p e o f c o r p o r a t e c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y h a v e m o t i v a t e d most f i n a n c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t o d a y t o adopt r e a s o n a b l y s t r i n g e n t compliance programs which i n c l u d e s t r i c t p o l i c i e s , i n t e r n a l c o n t r o l s , and p r o c e d u r e s f o r m a k i n g criminal referrals. 2 2  Australia which  recently  strongly  enacted  resembles  financial  t h e American.  reporting The  Cash  legislation Transactions  R e p o r t s A c t 1988 r e q u i r e s m a n d a t o r y r e p o r t i n g b y a b r o a d p a n o p l y o f organizations,  i n c l u d i n g banks,  $10,000 o r more. for  financial  I t also  of currency transactions  imposes s t r i c t  institutions,  record keeping  requires that the institutions  information transactions,  which  they  i n effect  standards  a f a i l u r e t o comply g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e  b l o c k i n g o f an a c c o u n t and p o s s i b l e c o n f i s c a t i o n . also  involving  may  The l e g i s l a t i o n  advise the authorities  obtain  concerning  deputizing the i n s t i t u t i o n s .  2 3  o f any  suspicious However, t o  a v o i d u n d u l y i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e f l o w o f l e g i t i m a t e money, t h e A c t e x c l u d e s numerous r o u t i n e f i n a n c i a l t r a n s a c t i o n s f r o m i t s r e p o r t i n g requirement. W h i t n e y Adams, " P r a c t i c a l P r o b l e m s i n Money L a u n d e r i n g Prosecutions Involving Financial Institutions: A Defense Attorney's Perspective," National Institute on Economic C r i m e Money L a u n d e r i n g E n f o r c e m e n t C o n f e r e n c e . 17 May 1990 a t 9. 2 2  See A l a n L. T y r e e , B a n k i n g B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1990) a t 9-13. 2 3  126  Law  in Australia  (Sydney:  Canadian which been  banks and o t h e r f i n a n c i a l  m a i n t a i n branch o f f i c e s unwitting  1980 's, boxes,  bulging  exchanges million  i n t a x haven  conduits f o r laundered  one Vancouver with  institutions,  bank r e p o r t e d l y $US 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 .  countries,  money.  have  During  cardboard  Toronto  currency  s e r v e d a s t h e medium o f c h o i c e f o r t h e m a j o r i t y  i n drug p r o f i t s  l a u n d e r e d by one g a n g .  often  t h e mid-  accepted several Similarly,  24  a number o f  o f $100  During the late  25  1970's a n d e a r l y 1980's, t h e Bank o f Nova S c o t i a ' s B a h a m i a n b r a n c h serviced  $11 m i l l i o n  Columbia the  t o create  used  an i s l a n d  by  the Medellin  base  cocaine  of operations.  2 6  cartel  These  of  are but  t i p of the iceberg. It  from  i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t between $10 a n d $13 m i l l i o n  C a n a d a ' s own i l l e g a l  financial  institutions  drug  each  consumption  year.  pass  through  I n t h e words  2 7  i n proceeds Canadian  of a  s e n i o r R.C.M.P. o f f i c i a l , " S i m p l e a r i t h m e t i c t e l l s y o u i t ' s i n t o t h e banking  system."  D u r i n g September 1989, Drug  Enforcement  yearly  into  a y e a r o l d , j o i n t R.C.M.P. - U n i t e d S t a t e s report  leaked t o the p u b l i c .  Canadian  banks t o a v o i d  American  M a r i o Possamai, "How much d r u g money C a n a d a ? " T i m e s - C o l o n i s t , 22 O c t . 1989. Ibid.  2 6  Ibid.  2 7  Ibid.  It  of m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s i n drug proceeds flowed  2 4  2 5  getting  2 8  Administration  n o t e d t h a t hundreds  former  financial  reporting  i s laundered i n  A/Comm'r. Rod S t a m l e r ( r e t ' d . ) , q u o t e d by J e n s e n , s u p r a , n t . 4 a t 43.  2 8  127  r e q u i r e m e n t s and p r e d i c t e d an i n c r e a s e i n money l a u n d e r i n g w i t h t h e advent  of  observes circles  free that  trade Canada  throughout  between has  North  both  reputation  America  an  intermediaries  banks,  as  Victor  2 9  acquired a  i n t e r n a t i o n a l money l a u n d e r i n g . " To d a t e , C a n a d i a n  countries.  within  important  Malarek "criminal  first  link  in  3 0  trust  have s u c c e s s f u l l y  c o m p a n i e s and  resisted  other  financial  a l l attempts  to  impose  r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s on m o n i e s w h i c h p a s s t h r o u g h t h e i r c o r p o r a t e hands.  G e n e r a l l y they point to the p o s i t i v e e f f e c t of the  o f c r i m e amendments and t h e i r as  a rationale  Johnston, chairman  head  own  intensified  f o r maintaining the status of  corporate  of the Canadian  security  Bankers*  security  quo.  for  For  the  Association  amendments  intent will  on  be  o b v i o u s l y had  l a u n d e r i n g money i n t h i s  a  Royal  Korthals,  1990, among  Bank  committee  sobering effect  country.  a n y t h i n g more t h a n t r a n s i t o r y  D u r i n g May Robin  have  procedures  example,  l a u n d e r i n g r e c e n t l y suggested t h a t t h e " h o l e s have been The  proceeds  on  t o be  and  money  plugged." on  impact  seen.  t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e T o r o n t o D o m i n i o n Bank, o t h e r s , attempted  to  convince  an  American  C o n g r e s s i o n a l c o m m i t t e e t h a t C a n a d i a n b a n k s were a l r e a d y t o u g h  and  J o h n V a l o r z i and S c o t t W h i t e , " M o n e y - l a u n d e r i n g law h e l p s i n g r a b b i n g d r u g p r o f i t s , " T i m e s - C o l o n i s t . 29 S e p t . 1989 a t All. 2  3 0  3 1  S u p r a . . n t . 10 a t  3 1  persons  Whether t h e i r  remains  Ken  163.  Ibid. 128  becoming  even  employees  tougher  on  money  up a s a s c a p e g o a t ,  launderers.  he e x p r e s s e d  Setting  h i s own  the concern,  however,  3 2  t h a t t h e l u r e o f l a r g e sums o f money c o u l d c o r r u p t bank thereby  nullifying  Moysey,  president  chairman  the voluntary efforts o f t h e Canadian  of the powerful  Canadian  employees,  o f t h e banks.  I m p e r i a l Bank Bankers'  Warren  o f Commerce and  Association,  opined  3 3  t h a t Canada was " d o i n g a l l i t c a n t o s t o p t h e f l o w o f d r u g money." In  support of h i s opinion,  training Kerry  for tellers  of Massachusetts  "Canada noses  programs  is a  friendly  a t our banking American  he p o i n t e d t o b o t h  was  concerns  of a  country  laws."  and o t h e r  reported that  staff.  different  Senator  3 4  mind.  whose b a n k e r s  He  John  remarked:  a r e thumbing  their  3 5  with  Canada's  without foundation i n recent history. Press  t h e amendments and  Baby Doc D u v a l i e r ,  banking  industry  are not  D u r i n g M a r c h 1990, C a n a d i a n former  dictator  "Banker: Drug c a s h c a n f o i l b i d s t o expose T i m e s - C o l o n i s t . 17 May 1990 a t B l l .  3 2  dirty  of Haiti,  money,"  The banking lobby i s c r e d i t e d w i t h p r e v e n t i n g t h e passage o f bank r e p o r t i n g o r r e g u l a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n . V i c t o r Malarek writes: 3 3  C a n a d i a n b a n k i n g e x e c u t i v e s have f o u g h t p i t c h e d b a t t l e s in t h e boardrooms o f Ottawa t o keep the federal government from imposing measures t h a t would r e q u i r e banks or other financial institutions to disclose information that could help police detect money l a u n d e r i n g by i n t e r n a t i o n a l n a r c o t i c s t r a f f i c k e r s . M a l a r e k views t h e absence o f r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s i n B i l l C-61 a s a w i n f o r t h e b a n k i n g l o b b y ( s u p r a , n t . 10 a t 1 6 4 ) . 3 4  3 5  Ibid. As quoted  by J e n s e n ,  s u p r a . n t . 4 a t 43. 129  laundered  $41.8  million  of  C a n a d i a n b a n k s between 1986 Press  report  Gilles  was  aired,  Loiselle, aimed  businesses  to  at  that  and  his  of  State  government  financial  records  through  of  would  interest  Finance, introduce and  to  other  financial  Committee  on  the  f i n a n c i a l world, r e j e c t e d the t r a n s a c t i o n r e p o r t i n g systems of  the  States  record  keeping.  The  A u s t r a l i a i n favour  as  regulations  in  are  search  o f one  approach the  United  designed  for  is  money  to  -  typically  States assist  and law  laundering  facto.  3 8  It  Australia,  where  the  agencies  in  enforcement  improve t h e  The  Canada,  investigators  will  be  'audit  forced  "Money laundering C o l o n i s t . 25 Mar. 1990  3 6  3 7  law must a t A4.  not  be  delayed,"  not  trail,'  scam  to  t r a d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e methods and s o u r c e s t o i s o l a t e  is  proposed  o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o f o l l o w a money l a u n d e r i n g In  better  Canadian.  operations.  Canadian approach i s r e a c t i v e , i t w i l l or a b i l i t y  that advocates  3 7  Canadian  proactive,  their  and  representatives  Money  from  United  of  Canadian  for  institutions  Advisory  overwhelmingly  unknowing  An h o u r a f t e r t h e  36  the  requiring  Loiselle  composed  1987.  monies  Canada's M i n i s t e r  maintain  investigators. Laundering,  and  advised  legislation  illicit  post  rely  suspicious  Times-  Ibid.  This approach apparently has the support of the C o m m i s s i o n e r o f t h e R.C.M.P., Norman I n k s t e r : " I t h i n k t h e m a j o r b a n k s a r e w i l l i n g t o c o - o p e r a t e and i f that occurs, t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r r e p o r t i n g i s n o t e s s e n t i a l " (as q u o t e d i n S t u a r t M c C a r t h y , "Crime P r o f i t s Keep P i l i n g Up," The O t t a w a Sunday Sun. 12 Feb. 1 9 8 9 ) . 3 8  130  on  transactions.  THE  3 9  STRIKE FORCE  P r o s e c u t o r s and  the p o l i c e i n the United  p r o b l e m s two  d e c a d e s ago.  with  sometimes  and  a  vast,  investigative  levels,  forced  operations  target.  and  Though  dubbed years  them  now  to  at  at  the  not  legislative  combining  always or  array  federal,  cooperate.  prosecutorial  s t r i k e forces and  l a c k of  incomprehensible  agencies  aimed  investigative  The  oftentimes  the  agencies  forces,  resemble  of  4 0  faced  law and  municipal to  resources  of  in pursuit  of  have been independent  combined  enforcement  resorted  joint  similar  tools  state  They  successful,  task  States  joint various  a  common  operations,  often  refined law  over  the  enforcement  authorities. A m e r i c a ' s f i r s t f e d e r a l s t r i k e f o r c e commenced work i n B u f f a l o in  1966,  followed  federal  and  state  nation,  dedicated  organizations.  by  17  task to  others  i n the  forces  now  countering  A study of the  next f i v e y e a r s . exist  in  many  4 1  Permanent  parts  particular criminal  activity  s t r i k e f o r c e s c o m p l e t e d by  For example, public records, garbage searches, i n f o r m a t i o n , w i r e t a p s , s u r v e i l l a n c e and i n f o r m a n t s .  3 9  of  4 1  Ibid, at  50. 131  or  Canada's tax  The A m e r i c a n e x p e r i e n c e was dampened i n 1977 by a G e n e r a l A c c o u n t i n g O f f i c e s t u d y w h i c h d e s c r i b e d t h e s t r i k e f o r c e s as f a i l u r e s , emphasizing a lack of c l e a r o b j e c t i v e s , control and e v a l u a t i o n ( s u p r a , n t . 7 a t 50-55 and Addendum). 4 0  the  Ministry  of  the  stages:  identification  identified agents  Solicitor  targets,  from  specialized  of  close  various  General  divided  targets,  cooperation  organizations  attorneys to prepare  their  work  intelligence between and  into  four  sharing  supervisory  the  f o r grand j u r y  on  level  introduction hearings.  of  4 2  The v e r y n a t u r e o f complex, f i n a n c i a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n s c a l l s f o r a task it  f o r c e approach.  overlaps  wiretaps.  with  the  i n a sea  bring  to court  a matter  opportunity initiative  to and  targets  powerful  only  law  i s i t a complex a r e a  governing  frauds,  of  in  interest  of  complex of  law,  but  conspiracies  and  length of time r e q u i r e d  jurisdiction  and  i n v e s t i g a t o r s and  financial financial to  approaches.  The c o n c e p t  The  often affords witnesses the  insulated  investigative  of paper.  leave  terms  sufficiently  resist  and  offenders  can  destroy  prosecutors.  political  a l l but  the  to an the  Also,  often  very  strength  and  most  aggressive  4 3  of a task f o r c e approach t o c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n  s y s t e m o f g o v e r n m e n t and the  and  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are  i s w o r t h y o f s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n Canada.  unlike  of  In a d d i t i o n , the i n v e s t i g a t i o n s themselves are prone t o  becoming mired  the  Not  United  4 2  Ibid,  at  51.  4 3  Ibid,  at  45.  With both  a fractured criminal justice  States,  4 4  cooperation  in  order  to  a federal  system,  not  achieve  B o t h c o u n t r i e s have t h r e e p r i n c i p a l l e v e l s o f government, each level possessing police forces or investigative agencies. The p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y g r e a t e r number o f police departments i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o Canada's long h i s t o r y o f c o n t r a c t i n g by provincial and municipal  4 4  a  common g o a l may  i s desirable.  be a n e c e s s i t y .  They r e q u i r e counsel, and  close  as well  business  municipal  of  persons  the  specialists  each  Obviously  problems.  has  then  have  level,  a  a task  involve  stake  talent  complex  federal,  of force  inter-force rivalries  Nevertheless,  outweighs such  investigators  investigations.  with  bankers  commercial  drugs  or the  provincial  and  i n t h e outcome.  By  police  officers  becomes  an a t t r a c t i v e  will  methods and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  A side benefit to  each  investigative  from  approach s u r e l y  dealing  trafficking,  d i f f e r e n t operating start-up  when  from a c c o u n t a n t s ,  I f the investigations  drug  investigators.  i n t h e f o r m o f l e g a l a d v i c e f r o m Crown  as t e c h n i c a l expertise  governments  combining  vehicle.  Police officers areprimarily support,  investigations. proceeds  F o r t h e p r o c e e d s o f c r i m e amendments, i t  occur.  4 5  and  As w e l l ,  p r o c e d u r e s w i l l pose  the value  of a  coordinated  irritants.  o f a u n i f i e d approach i s t h e e d u c a t i o n a l  and p r o s e c u t o r s  who  may  be  new  value  to financial  As noted i n Chapter Three, t h e f e a r o f the  unknown  c a u s e d many i n v e s t i g a t o r s a n d l a w y e r s t o s h y away f r o m p r o c e e d s  g o v e r n m e n t s f o r R.C.M.P. s e r v i c e s . In t h e United States, c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r criminal law r e s t s with the states whereas i n Canada, c r i m i n a l l a w i s e n a c t e d by P a r l i a m e n t , however a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e p r o v i n c e s a n d m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . Drug laws and c e r t a i n o t h e r f e d e r a l s t a t u t e s p r e s e n t a n anomaly i n C a n a d a . Though c r i m i n a l i n n a t u r e and e f f e c t , v i o l a t i o n s a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d by p o l i c e forces a t a l l l e v e l s , y e tprosecuted f e d e r a l l y . These cannot be u n d e r e s t i m a t e d . Malarek refers to "fierce" inter-agency rivalries, noting that "RCMP i n v e s t i g a t o r s a r e w i d e l y r e p u t e d t o be e x t r e m e l y t e r r i t o r i a l , often r e f u s i n g t o c o o p e r a t e i n i n v e s t i g a t i o n s mounted by m u n i c i p a l p o l i c e f o r c e s " ( s u p r a . n t . 10 a t 6 ) . 4 5  133  of  crime  statutes  cases.  programs  interest.  United  same  i n the United  training  strike  The  force  States.  and  I n an  There  inadequate  attempt  leader,  phenomenon  a  the  RICO  of  inservice  guidelines  dampened  t h e problem,  federal  S t a t e s f o r a l m o s t two y e a r s ,  with  the absence  policy  t o counter  senior  occurred  attorney,  educating  at least  one  travelled  the  prosecutors.  4 6  I n t e g r a l t o an a s s e t f o r f e i t u r e s t r i k e f o r c e o r team a p p r o a c h is  a support  u n i t w h i c h c a n manage s e i z e d a s s e t s .  Although  i t is  custodians,  such  a s b a n k s , o r e v e n u n d e r t h e c a r e and management o f a n a c c u s e d ,  such  p o s s i b l e t h a t many a s s e t s w i l l  as  a  residence,  management resort  to  many  services.  squarely pass  others  will  Various  receivers  Unfortunately  remain with  and  the  require  options asset  amendments  their  legislation  to  the  agency  provides  of  management place  last  virtually  the  resort,  no  and  are available,  i n t h e l a p o f t h e p r e s i d i n g judge,  i t on  regular  including  professionals.  choice who  costly  of  will  the  guidance.  options  oftentimes  police. The  ad  The hoc  a r r a n g e m e n t s w h i c h e x i s t t o d a y must be r e p l a c e d by a s s e t management based  upon  professionals,  sound  fiscal  thereby  principles  and  freeing the j u d i c i a r y  in  the  care  of  and law e n f o r c e m e n t  f r o m a n o n e r o u s and unwanted t a s k . In t h e United  S t a t e s , t h e M a r s h a l s S e r v i c e manages t h e g r e a t  b u l k o f a s s e t s s e i z e d by f e d e r a l a g e n t s a n d a r r a n g e s  46  S u p r a , n t . 7 a t 44. 134  f o rtheir sale  through brokers in  such  and  auctioneers.  activity,  the  Among t h e 200  7  Service  employs  persons  background of e x p e r t i s e , i n c l u d i n g ranchers, In  an  attempt  unnecessary  to  management  background search heavily  on  encumbered.  teams. assets  avoid  liability  targeted  assets,  manage them a f t e r  with  p i l o t s and  improper the  identifying  a  wide  realtors.  seizures  marshals  M u n i c i p a l i t i e s employ  49  In D e t r o i t , approximately and  for  responsibilities,  employees engaged  those  similar  4 8  and  conduct which  a  are  management  30 p e r s o n s r e v i e w r e p o r t s , t a r g e t  seizure.  5 0  ASSET SHARING  The which  avid  pursuit  c h a r a c t e r i z e d the  depended  heavily  addition,  inter-agency  the  of  establishment  enforcement  on  offenders.  war  strike  been  on  laundering  drugs  during  vehicle.  seizure  entitled  federal  laws  to  fund  7.  4 9  Ibid, at  8.  5 0  Ibid. 135  1980*s  However,  in  receive,  authorize  the  G. P a t r i c k G a l l a g h e r , A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e - The and D i s p o s i t i o n of Seized Assets (Washington: J u s t i c e A s s i s t a n c e , Nov. 1988) a t 2 and 6.  4 7  Ibid, at  the  in  Since  1984, either  v a r i o u s of the a s s e t s c o n f i s c a t e d from  Numerous  4 8  operations  extended t o other areas.  federal asset  have  money  force  cooperation a  agencies  and  American  the  of  specie or otherwise,  assets  law in  suspect  transfer Management Bureau of  of  c o n f i s c a t e d p r o p e r t y t o s t a t e o r m u n i c i p a l law e n f o r c e m e n t "which p a r t i c i p a t e d seizure is  or  directly  forfeiture  also can  in a  exist be  joint  Department eventual  the r e l a t i v e  operation.  i n which s t a t e  confiscated of  of the a c t s which  of the property."  intended to r e f l e c t  involved  i n any  under  Justice  or  local  agencies  law.  adopt  their  sharing seize  They t h e n seizure  agencies  arrangements  p r o p e r t y which ask  and  the  federal  share  in  the  confiscation.  The i n c e n t i v e f o r law e n f o r c e m e n t investigations such as  the  Such e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g  Adoptive  5 2  led to  contributions of the  federal  to  5 1  agencies  i s obvious.  in a strike  t h e i r way,' impecunious  force,  agencies t o pursue  When a g e n c i e s  combine t h e i r  they a l l share the wealth.  t h e p o l i c e need n o t c o n c e r n t h e m s e l v e s nature  of  their  financial  political  masters.  for  exists.  efforts,  By  'paying  unduly with the Budgets  become  secondary. However, argued  that  the  potential  allowing police  abuse  forces to retain  seized  reduces the p o l i c e t o the status of bounty-hunters. a tendency which  will  Tom  5 3  Naylor  monies Furthermore,  d e v e l o p s among p o l i c e f o r c e s t o t a r g e t o n l y t h o s e yield  assets,  tending  See, f o r example, T i t l e 18, 8 8 1 ( e ) ( 3 ) o f t h e U.S. Code.  5 1  to  s.  forego  981(e)  others  and  which  Title  21,  See g e n e r a l l y M i c h a e l F. Z e l d i n , H a r r y S. H a r b i n S t e f a n D. C a s s e l l a , Money L a u n d e r i n g F o r f e i t u r e s , r e v . ( W a s h i n g t o n : D e p t . o f J u s t i c e , 11 May 1990).  5 2  has  cases might  s. and ed.  B r u c e L i v e s e y , "A d a n g e r o u s drug-war weapon - Power t o s e i z e s u s p e c t s ' a s s e t s may threaten c i v i l liberties," The G l o b e and M a i l . 19 Feb. 1990 a t A7. 5 3  136  produce  government revenue,  i n t h e form  of f i n e s .  One  prominent  T o r o n t o d e f e n c e l a w y e r , C l a y t o n Ruby, s u g g e s t s t h a t C a n a d i a n f o r c e s may of  crime  p u r p o s e l y be d e l a y i n g t h e i r e n f o r c e m e n t amendments  agreement. As assets  i n the  hope  of  obtaining  a  of the  police  proceeds  similar  sharing  54  yet, will  Canadian go  or  governments  who  will  have  assume  not  agreed  liability  where  i f the  seized  Crown  is  r e q u i r e d t o i n d e m n i f y p e r s o n s as a r e s u l t o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ' s mandatory u n d e r t a k i n g s . of  Justice  central  suggests  fund  provincial  and  that later  budgets.  5 5  t h e i r G e n e r a l Assembly reimbursement crime" In  of  to  The  confiscated dispersed Canadian  i n 1989,  police  among Chiefs  be  placed i n a  various  federal  of P o l i c e ,  and  caucused  at  passed a r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g f o r the  forces  "from  forfeited  of  response, the M i n i s t e r of J u s t i c e agreed t o review the  matter.  5 7  into  philosophy law  enforcement.  excesses  of the American  Canadian  l e g i s l a t o r s that  5 4  5 5  to It  an has  infusion merit,  e x p e r i e n c e s h o u l d s e r v e as strict  accountability  and  of  private  although  the  a warning oversight  to are  Ibid. Supra.  nt.  38.  "84th Annual General R e s o l u t i o n s , " ( O c t . 1989) 5 6  i s akin  r e s o u r c e s and  proceeds  5 6  enterprise  on p o l i c e  the  costs."  sharing  expended  assets w i l l  Department  other  The  "funds  Paul St. Denis of the f e d e r a l  M e e t i n g " - September 14, 1989 8 Cdn. P o l i c e C h i e f N e w s l e t t e r 8.  "Canadian Association of C h i e f s of P o l i c e Major City Mayors' Caucus Symposium on Illicit D r u g s Communique October 26, 1989," (Nov. 1989) 8 Cdn. Police Chief N e w s l e t t e r 2 a t 3. 5 7  137  integral  t o the success  enforcement  cannot  other  what  hand,  expenses,  take  o f such second  b e t t e r way  particularly  a  program.  place  to a  to offset  as they  relate  The g o a l s  'quick  o f law  buck.'  mounting  On t h e  law enforcement  to sophisticated financial  crimes.  THE  AMENDMENTS - CAN THEY WEATHER THE STORM?  Operational premised  strategies  mean  on s t r o n g and e f f e c t i v e  highlighted proceeds various  certain  o f crime Charter  textual  very  little  unless  legislation.  Chapter  and i n t e r p r e t i v e  legislation,  challenges.  whereas  they Two  problems  Chapter  are  with  the  Three  considered  The amendments a r e s u r e  t o be t h e  s u b j e c t o f c o n s i d e r a b l e argument and numerous a p p e l l a t e d e c i s i o n s . They t o u c h of  upon many t o p i c a l  areas  which being t h e Charter.  i n criminal  law, n o t t h e l e a s t  I t i s obviously too early  to predict  with  a n y d e g r e e o f c e r t a i n t y what t h e outcome o f t h e s e  challenges  will  be, save t o p r e d i c t The  proceeds search  definitions o f crime'  Most  motions  The  items  'proceeds  t o provoke  will  will  puberty. of  provisions w i l l  which  o f t h e motions  restrained  of  a r e sure  and r e s t r a i n t  pre-trial  a turbulent  tend  deal  crime* much  'laundering  disagreement.  be t h e s u b j e c t  to delay  with  and  o f numerous  confiscation  the release  The  of  cases.  seized  or  under t h e v a r i o u s r e s t o r a t i v e p r o v i s i o n s .  differentiation  between 138  in  personam  and  in  rem  confiscation  poses  unique  problems,  i n t r o d u c t i o n o f two d i f f e r e n t former. links  but  burdens  closely  as  many  as the  of proof i n the case of the  The b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s  i n the legislation,  not  test  i s one o f t h e w e a k e s t  f o l l o w e d by t h e i n f e r e n c e  which  a p p l i e s t o p e r s o n s who d i e o r a b s c o n d . Additional financial the  are faced  mandatory imprisonment  the nature  of  mandatory  f o r 'Attorney General,•  i n d e f a u l t p r o v i s i o n s and t h e n e t worth  N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e amendments h a v e much t o commend them.  my o p i n i o n ,  though  by  undertakings, the d e f i n i t i o n  inference. In  dilemmas  the legislation w i l l  not intact.  s u r v i v e t h e c h a l l e n g e s ahead,  Unfortunately, those  aspects which  v u l n e r a b l e a r e a l s o those of g r e a t e s t importance,  a r e most  f o r example, t h e  l a u n d e r i n g o f f e n c e a n d c o n f i s c a t i o n on a b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l i t i e s . Only  time  will  alternative  tell  whether  the l e g i s l a t i o n  make  a legislative  the best  though  undesirable, alternative.  Plea  i s forced to  b a r g a i n i n g i s an  and  easy,  In the past, prosecutors could  w i t h accused persons which contemplated a g r e e i n g  r e d u c e d s e n t e n c e s a n d t h e w i t h d r a w a l o f c o u n t s on m u l t i p l e  informations  The  ARRANGEMENTS  scheme i s f l a w e d , t h e Crown  o f a bad s i t u a t i o n .  make a r r a n g e m e n t s to  survive.  i s not a t t r a c t i v e .  PLEA BARGAINING AND EXTRA-JUDICIAL  When  will  indictments,  i n exchange  for guilty  Sometimes t h e y made l e s s o b v i o u s c o n c e s s i o n s ; f o r example,  139  count pleas. failing  to  apprise  certain  a  court  aspects  of  an  a l l the accused  proceeds  of  powerful  weapon t o w i e l d o v e r  only  a  threat  crime  of  person's of  financial  ruin  added t o t h e s t a k e s . accused  person's  amendments,  continued  circumstances  the  liberty through  How  criminal  Crown  accused  of  acquires  the  e a s y i t w i l l be,  stake. of  the  assets i s  f o r example, t o o f f e r  t h e c h o i c e between a l e n g t h y p r i s o n t e r m  i n exchange f o r a p l e a of g u i l t y ,  is i t  Now,  or a lesser  combined w i t h t h e c o n f i s c a t i o n o f a s e i z e d s p o r t s c a r o r Or,  the  extremely  longer  confiscation  or  With  an  No  i s at  offence  past.  persons.  which  an  t h e Crown m i g h t  an  term  speedboat.  evidence i t s  w i l l i n g n e s s t o f o r e g o a c o n f i s c a t i o n h e a r i n g , t h e r e b y a l l o w i n g an o f f e n d e r t o r e t a i n ownership The  most  dramatic  of suspect  example  accommodation  involving  investigation  spearheaded  to  the  assets.  date  of  amendments  by  American  an  resulted  of  i t s assets  were  million  o f w h i c h were on  frozen  deposit to  in  of  release  ordered  the  of  the  r e p a t r i a t i o n t o t h e Bank's f r o z e n New of  S t a t e s agreed  matter,  including  that  the  the proper  issue  of  140  Approximately  $100  countries, i n the  York a c c o u n t .  forum  $13.5 Toronto  t h e Supreme C o u r t  Toronto  f a c t s presented t o the Court, the accused  United  the  i t s account  D u r i n g e a r l y J u l y 1989,  an  into  various  b r a n c h o f a S w i s s bank. Ontario  from  authorities  a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e Banco de O c c i d e n t e o f Panama. million  extra-judicial  funds  and  In a  their  statement  Bank, C a n a d a and for resolution  confiscation,  was  the  of  the the  United  States. clear  Canada's r a t i o n a l e f o r a g r e e i n g  5 8  the  United  following  S t a t e s and  seizing  the  million. courts.  The  deposits  when  the  Bank  assets,  i t the  received  a  Bank  its  nor  be  frozen.  AVOIDING THE  officers  U n l e s s and  FISH  until  Furthermore,  is  reasonable  to  in  share,  faced  law  Canada  enforcement o b t a i n s  assume  Canadian  received  6 0  that  'kingpins' police  strong  support  of organized  and  the  Crown  inevitable alternative is on  for  l e s s e r t a r g e t s , more e a s i l y  " J u d g e o r d e r s RCMP t o g i v e up $16 m i l l i o n p r o b e , " The Sunday S t a r . 2 J u l y 1989. 5 8  seized  from  crime, will  law  Supra, nt.  a  a l l ( o r none) o f  amendments.  5 9  the  only  prosecuting  agencies to concentrate  in $1.2  a p p r e h e n s i v e o f t h e downside r i s k s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h The  the  1  i t s p o l i t i c a l masters to pursue the it  guilty  as a v e h i c l e by w h i c h  p r e s u m a b l y have been c o n f i s c a t e d .  'BIG  became  For Canada's h e l p  f r a c t i o n o f t h e monies r e s t r a i n e d i n t h i s c o u n t r y , which c o u l d  release  proportionate  C r i m i n a l Code m e r e l y s e r v e d  could  the  pleaded  r e c e i v e d a $5 m i l l i o n f i n e .  Neither  5 9  month  to  be the  enforcement attainable  in  drug  12.  This arrangement h i g h l i g h t s the value to the United S t a t e s o f i t s e q u i t a b l e s h a r i n g program. The p r o g r a m i s n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o d o m e s t i c law e n f o r c e m e n t a g e n c i e s and, as a r e s u l t , f o r e i g n a g e n c i e s a r e o f t e n more w i l l i n g t o c o o p e r a t e with American a u t h o r i t i e s than to initiate their own d o m e s t i c c a s e s , k n o w i n g t h a t money w i l l f l o w t o them as a r e s u l t of America's c o n f i s c a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n . 6 0  141  s t a t i s t i c s and  smaller asset seizures.  I f the l e g i s l a t i o n  o n l y m i n o r c r i m i n a l s , p e t t y t h i e v e s , p r o s t i t u t e s and objectives A  are  largely  parallel  can  be  criminal  legislation.  captured  in  criminal  element,  relegated  by  Richard Columbia,  and  act  anguish."  of  a  by  expressed  searching  a  would  responsibly.  of  force a  of  Canada's  for  many  fringe  of  uneducated,  of his  in  the hope  Law  i t s use  the  the  lawyers' o f f i c e s ,  misfits,  he  crime.  of  Crown new  those  dangerous  of petty  the  of  office  years,  Society  that  habitual  social  society to a l i f e  lawyer's  disagree  During  sparingly.  that  to obtain  Thereafter,  6 2  definitive  objectives.  the  i t s formative  e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o use  high  in  poor,  bencher  search  failure  British will  act  legislation.  added t h a t  i s going  to  cause  "the great  6 1  Few  acting  the  generally  sparingly"  Concerned with the mere  were  t h e m s e l v e s and  recently  "responsibly  drawn t o  largely  Peck,  like, i t s  defeated.  Although  i t s net  the  captures  judicial To  do  legislation stages,  i t  this  will  be  i t responsibly  and  r u l i n g s and,  otherwise  will  must may  also  incumbent  to  used  require on  regularly in  hopefully, be  be  law order  achieve i t s  relegate  i t  obscurity.  Larry Still, "Drug p r o f i t s target V a n c o u v e r Sun. 9 Nov. 1989 a t A13. 6 1  of  new  law,"  The  Commissioner Inkster of the R.C.M.P. supports this philosophy. Interviewed s h o r t l y a f t e r proclamation of the amendments, he s t a t e d : "We want t o go c a r e f u l l y s o t h a t we get g o o d c a s e s and good s e i z u r e s " (as q u o t e d by Stuart McCarthy, s u p r a , n t . 38). 6 2  142  to  Regular easy  use does  targets.  n o t mean  Resources  using  the  must be c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h o s e who make a  d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e c r i m i n a l underworld. c o l l e c t i v e psyche  i t on p e t t y c r i m i n a l s ,  I f t h i s means u p s e t t i n g t h e  of c e r t a i n p r o f e s s i o n a l groups,  be t h e y  lawyers,  a c c o u n t a n t s o r b u s i n e s s p e r s o n s , t h e n s o be i t .  SUMMARY  Money organized  has  been  crime.  described  as  I t i s more t h a n  6 3  process but i s i t s raison d'etre. is  t h e medium o f e x c h a n g e .  quantities,  weighs  organizations  "the l i f e - s u p p o r t  from  a  that.  ploughing  cash  i s cumbersome a n d , i n l a r g e  amount. their  of  I t not only fuels the  In the i l l e g a l drug world,  But cash  tremendous  system"  64  Preventing  profits  into  criminal legitimate  i n v e s t m e n t s i s c r u c i a l t o stemming t h e t i d e o f d r u g t r a f f i c k i n g a n d other organized crime. Canada money.  p r o v i d e s an i d e a l  I t displays  spheres.  Vancouver,  boasting  large  stability  environment i n both  f o r the laundering of  its political  and f i n a n c i a l  T o r o n t o and M o n t r e a l a r e m a j o r w o r l d  ethnic  communities  and  international  cities, banking  James D. Harmon, e x e c u t i v e d i r e c t o r o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ' s C o m m i s s i o n on O r g a n i z e d C r i m e , a s q u o t e d i n S a r a h B a r t l e t t and o t h e r s , "Money L a u n d e r i n g - Who's I n v o l v e d , How i t Works, a n d Where I t ' s S p r e a d i n g , " B u s i n e s s Week, 18 Mar. 1985 a t 75. 6 3  A s u i t c a s e c o n t a i n i n g $1 m i l l i o n i n $20. b i l l s w e i g h s 50 kilograms. The l a r g e d r u g c a r t e l s r e p o r t e d l y w e i g h r a t h e r t h a n c o u n t t h e i r money ( s u p r a , n t . 10 a t 1 6 2 ) . 6 4  143  facilities. States  Geographically,  with  easy  a i r and  Canada  water  is  access  a  gateway  to  Asia  to  and  the  United  Europe.  c r i m i n a l s a n c t i o n s a r e m i l d by t h e measure o f many o t h e r  Its  countries.  T h e r e i s a l m o s t c o m p l e t e f r e e d o m o f movement w i t h i n t h e n a t i o n b o t h p e r s o n s and drugs  and  assets.  In a d d i t i o n , i t has  consequently,  persons  t r a n s p o r t i n g drugs or d i r t y As  noted  litigation  which  proclamation internal  in  Chapter has  and  external  p r o b l e m s p o s e d by t h e some may based  not  upon  Three,  years  the  from  ago  to  take  the  amendments  considerations.  the  chance  of  amount  of  However,  taking  faced the  since  result  amendments, t h e y a r e a f i r s t  principle:  the  insignificant  is likely  s u r v i v e t h e t e s t s t o be sound  a r e s i d e n t market f o r  money.  resulted  a l m o s t two  willing  for  i n the  profit  of  their various  despite  step.  the  Although  courts, they  out  of  are  crime.  To  e v e n a p p r o a c h t h i s n o b l e o b j e c t i v e , however, w i l l r e q u i r e more t h a n the  amendments,  tracing approach most o f  in  mechanism to all,  isolation, with  can  mandatory  deliver. financial  investigations involving a political  will.  144  Also  required  reporting,  sharing  of  are a  proceeds  a  team and,  BIBLIOGRAPHY  STATUTES, B I L L S AND  An  TREATIES CITED  A c t f o r Compensating the Families A c c i d e n t s . 9 & 10 V i c t . , c . 93.  of  Persons  An A c t r e s p e c t i n g P r o c e d u r e i n C r i m i n a l C a s e s , and r e l a t i n g t o C r i m i n a l Law. S.C. 1869, c . 29. An A c t r e s p e c t i n g  the Criminal  Law.  S.C.  A n t i - D r u g Abuse A c t 1986. P.L. 99-570 b y P.L. 100-690 (18 Nov. 1 9 8 8 ) . Bill  1892,  c.  Killed  By  other matters  29.  (27 O c t . 1 9 8 6 ) , a s  amended  C-61  Canada  A c t . 1892  Comprehensive  (U.K.). c.  D r u g Abuse  11.  P r e v e n t i o n and C r i m e C o n t r o l  Comprehensive Forfeiture Act 1 9 6 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( S u p p . I l l 1985). C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t . 1867. U.K., Constitution Act. Continuing Supp.  of  30 & 31 V i c t . ,  18 c.  U.S.C,  s.  3.  1982.  Criminal Enterprises I l l 1985).  A c t , 21 U.S.C., s .  Criminal  Code. R.S.C. 1985,  Criminal  J u s t i c e A c t 1988.  Criminal  Law  R e f o r m A c t . 1984,  Criminal  Law  Amendment A c t . 1985.  c. C-46, 1988,  c.  Bill  33. C-19.  Bill  O f f e n c e s A c t 1986.  F o o d a n d D r u g s A c t . R.S.C. 1985, F o r f e i t u r e A c t . 33 & 34 V i c t . , Income Tax A c t . S.C.  C-18. c.  1986,  c . F-27,  c.  62. c.  32.  a s amended.  23.  1970-71-72, c. 63, a s amended. 145  848  a s amended.  Deodands A b o l i t i o n A c t . 9 & 10 V i c t . , Drug T r a f f i c k i n g  1984.  A c t 197 0  (1982  and  M i s u s e o f D r u g s A c t , 1971. 28 S t a t u t e s 500. Money L a u n d e r i n g C o n t r o l A c t 1986, A n t i - D r u g Abuse A c t 1986. Mutual Legal 37. Narcotic  Assistance  Subtitle  i n Criminal  H of T i t l e  Matters  I of the  A c t . S.C. 1988, c .  C o n t r o l A c t . R.S.C. 1985, c . N - l , a s amended.  O r g a n i z e d C r i m e C o n t r o l A c t o f 1970. Pub. L . No. 91-452, (1970) 84 S t a t . 922, c o d i f i e d i n (1982) 18 U.S.C. a n d 28 U.S.C. Powers  o f C r i m i n a l Courts  A c t 1973.  P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e A c t 1987 ( C w l t h ) , Proceeds o f Crime  (Miscellaneous)  1973, c . 62. 1987, No. 87.  A c t 1987 ( C w l t h ) ,  P r o t e c t i o n o f P r i v a c y A c t . S.C. 1973-74,  1987, No. 73.  c . 50.  R a c k e t e e r I n f l u e n c e d and C o r r u p t O r g a n i z a t i o n s s s . 1961-68 (1982 & Supp. I V 1 9 8 6 ) .  A c t . 18 U . S . C ,  United Nations Convention Against I l l i c i t T r a f f i c i n Narcotic D r u g s a n d P s y c h o t r o p i c S u b s t a n c e s . V i e n n a . 19 D e c . 1988.  United  CASES  States  Code.  CITED  A n t o n P i l l e r KG v . M a n u f a c t u r i n g 779 ( C . A . ) .  Processes  L t d . [1976] 1 A l l E.R.  A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l o f Quebec v . R o y a l Bank o f Canada, 18 C.C.C. (3d) 98, 44 C R . (3d) 387. California  v . Greenwood  e t a l . (1985)  (1988) 56 U.S.L.W. 4409.  Canadian P a c i f i c A i r l i n e s (Ont. H . C ) .  L t d . v. Hind  (1981) 122 D.L>R. (3d)  498  Chief  C o n s t a b l e o f K e n t v . V. a n d a n o t h e r [1983] Q.B. 34, [1982] 3 W.L.R. 462, [1982] 3 A l l E.R. 36 ( C . A . ) .  City  o f St. Paul  Coolidge  v . Vaughn  v . New H a m p s h i r e  (1975) 237 N.W.  (2d) 365 (S.C. M i n n . ) .  (1971) 29 L . E d . (2d) 564 ( U . S . S . C ) . 146  F l e m i n g v . The Queen [1986] 1 S.C.R. 415, 25 C.C.C. Her  M a j e s t y t h e Queen v . Shah, e t a l . 5 89/2488. u n r e p o r t e d ( B . C . S . C ) .  H e s t e r v . U.S.  Dec.  (3d) 297.  1989.  Victoria.  (1924) 265 U.S. 57 ( U . S . S . C ) .  H u n t e r v . Southam I n c . [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, 14 C.C.C.  (3d) 97.  I n d u s t r i a l A c c e p t a n c e C o r p . v . The Queen [1953] 2 S.C.R. 273, 107 M c M i l l a n v . Penn. Nadeau v . R.  (1986) 91 L. E d . 67 ( U . S . S . C ) .  [1984] 2 S.C.R. 570.  Re A i m o n e t t i a n d The Queen (1977) 36 C.C.C. Re H i c k s a n d The Queen (1977) 36 C.C.C.  (2d) 91  (2d) 91  (Man. C . A . ) .  (Man. C . A . ) .  Re R. a n d B u x t o n  (1981) 62 C.C.C.  (2d) 278  (Alta.  Re R. a n d L a r g i e  (1981) 63 C.C.C.  (2d) 508  (Ont. C.A.).  Ref.  r e s . 9 4 ( 2 ) o f t h e Motor V e h i c l e A c t (B.C.) (3d) 289 ( S . C . C ) .  Q.B.).  (1985) 23 C.C.C.  R. v . B i g M D r u g M a r t L t d . [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. R. v . B o u r a u e  [1969] 4 C.C.C. 358 (B.C.C.A.).  R. v . C u t h b e r t s o n R. v . Dow R.  (1976) 1 C R .  v . Dvment (S.C.C.).  R. v . G a r d i n e r R. v . G o r d o n R. v . H a v e s R. v . J u n g  [1981] A . C  (1988)  470  (3d) S-9 66  CR.  (H.L.). (B.C.C.A.). (3d)  348,  45  [1982] 2 S.C.R. 368, 68 C.C.C.  [1983] 4 C.C.C.  (3d) 492  (Alta.  127 (Ont. C . A . ) .  R. v . L e w i s (1979) 21 A.R. 236 R. v . L o n g t i n  (2d) 477.  (3d) S - l (B.C.C.A.).  R. v . L a c h a n c e (1962) 39 C R .  (1983) 41 O.R.  (Alta.  CA. ) .  (2d) 545 ( O n t . C . A . ) . 147  (3d)  (Ont. C.A.).  [1923] 1 D.L.R. 459, 38 C.C.C. 348 (1976) 1 C R .  C.C.C  C.A.).  244  R. v . M c G r e g o r a n d McGregor R. v . Medd  (1983) 7 C.C.C.  R. v . M o r e a u R.  (1956) 116 C.C.C. 55 (Man. Q.B.). (3d) 158 (Man. C . A . ) .  (1986) 51 C R .  v. Morgentaler (S.C.C ) .  (1988)  (3d) 209 ( O n t . C . A . ) . 62 C R .  (3d) 1,  R. v . N o b l e  (1984) 42 C R . (3d)  R. v . Oakes  [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, 24 C.C.C.  R. v . Pope  (1984) 13 C.C.C.  R. V. R o w l e y  209 ( O n t . C . A . ) . (3d)  321.  (2d) 107 ( S a s k . C . A . ) .  (1986) 43 M.V.R. 290 (B.C.C.A.).  R. v . S a n s r e g r e t  R. v . Shea  (3d) 449  (1980) 52 C . C . C (2d) 538 ( B . C . C . A . ) .  R. v . P r o t z  R. v . S a u l t  37 C.C.C.  (1985) 45 C R . (3d) 193 ( S . C . C ) .  Ste. Marie  (1978) 40 C.C.C.  (2d) 353 ( S . C . C ) .  (1982) 38 O.R. (2d) 582 ( H . C ) .  R. v . S m i t h (1978) 2 C R . (3d) R. v . S m i t h (1987) 34 C.C.C.  S-35 ( N f l d .  (3d) 97  C.A.).  (S.C.C).  R. v . S m i t h a n d S m i t h (1985) 46 C R . (3d) 278 ( A l t a .  Q.B.).  R. v . T a y l o r u n r e p . 26 J a n . 1984 ( B . C . S . C ) . R o y a l Bank o f Canada v . B o u r a u e , e t . a l . [1984] 38 C R . S e d i m a . S.P.R.L. v . Imrex Co. (1985) 473 U.S. S m i t h v . T h e Queen  (1975) 27 C.C.C.  (3d)  363.  479.  (2d) 252 ( F . C . T . D . ) .  S o l v e n t P e t r o l e u m E x t r a c t i o n I n c . v . M.N.R. (1989) 50 C.C.C. (3d) 182, 99 N.R. 22 ( C . A . ) ; 21556, 23 Nov. 1989 ( S . C . C ) . T e x a s v . Brown  (1983) 75 L . E d . (2d) 502 ( U . S . S . C ) .  U.S.  v . Manning  (1971) 440 F. (2d) 1105 (U.S.C.A.,  U.S.  v. Sandini  (1987) 816 F. (2d) 869 (U.S.C.A.,  West  Mercia Constabulary 127 ( Q . B . ) .  W i l s o n v . T h e Queen  v . Wagener  and O t h e r s  [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594, 9 C.C.C. 148  5th Cir.). 3rd Cir.). [1982] (3d)  1 W.L.R. 87.  W o o l m i n q t o n v . P.P.P.  [1935] A.C. 462, 25 C r . App. R. 72  (H.L.).  AUTHORS C I T E P  " B i g Time C r i m e . "  (Sept.  1989) 7 E q u i t y 14.  " D r a f t f o r P i s c u s s i o n - P r o t o c o l f o r Crown C o u n s e l - B i l l C61 - P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e - S.C. 1988 c . 5 1 . " unpub. p a p e r . 15 P e c . 1988. "Hiding  t h e P r u g Money." M a c l e a n ' s . 23 O c t .  1989.  Adams, Whitney. "Practical Problems in Money Laundering Prosecutions Involving Financial Institutions: A Oefense A t t o r n e y ' s P e r s p e c t i v e . " unpub. p a p e r . N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e on E c o n o m i c C r i m e Money L a u n d e r i n g C o n f e r e n c e . A l e x a n d r i a , V a . 17 May 1990. Atrens, J e r o m e . The C h a r t e r B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1989.  and  Criminal  Procedure.  Toronto:  B a r t l e t t , S a r a h a n d o t h e r s . "Money L a u n d e r i n g - Who's I n v o l v e d , How I t Works a n d Where I t ' s S p r e a d i n g . " B u s i n e s s Week. 18 Mar. 1985. Bassiouni, M. Cherif. "The I n t e r n a t i o n a l Narcotics Control Scheme." B a s s i o u n i , e d . I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law. Volume 1 - C r i m e s . Pobbs F e r r y , N.Y.: T r a n s n a t i o n a l , 1986. I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l Law. Volume F e r r y , N.Y.: T r a n s n a t i o n a l , 1986. B i r k s , P e t e r . An I n t r o d u c t i o n C l a r e n d o n , 1989. B l a c k , H e n r y C. B l a c k ' s M i n n . : West, 1968.  2  -  Procedure.  Pobbs  t o t h e Law o f R e s t i t u t i o n . O x f o r d :  Law P i c t i o n a r y .  r e v . 4th ed. S t . Paul,  Brown, Pesmond H. The G e n e s i s o f t h e C a n a d i a n C r i m i n a l 1892. T o r o n t o : U n i v . o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1989.  Code o f  Cameron, J a m i e . "The M o t o r V e h i c l e R e f e r e n c e a n d t h e R e l e v a n c e o f American P o c t r i n e i n Charter A d j u d i c a t i o n , " i n Robert J . S h a r p e . C h a r t e r L i t i g a t i o n . T o r o n t o : B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1987. 6996. Chorafas, Pimitris N. B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1988.  Electronic 149  Funds  Transfer.  London:  Cross, Dept.  R u p e r t . E v i d e n c e . 5 t h e d . London: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1979.  of Justice. 1983.  Enterprise  S e n t e n c i n g . Ottawa:  Crime  Study R e p o r t . Ottawa.  10 J u n e  S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s Canada, 1984.  D e r b y , D a n i e l H. "A Framework f o r I n t e r n a t i o n a l C r i m i n a l B a s s i o u n i , Volume 1 - C r i m e s .  Law," i n  Donald, P a t r i c i a . "A Commentary on t h e P r o v i s i o n s o f C-61 C a n a d a ' s New P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e L e g i s l a t i o n ( S . C . 1988, c . 5 1 ) . " (1989) 47 The A d v o c a t e 423. Minutes of Meeting. unpub. 18 J a n . 1989.  Criminal  Justice  E h r c k e , W i l l a i m F. " L e t t i n g t h e P u n i s h m e n t 48 T h e A d v o c a t e 545. Farris, Fay,  John L. " S e n t e n c i n g . "  (1975-76)  Section.  Vancouver.  F i t t h e Crime."  (1990)  18 C r i m . L . 0. 4 2 1 .  James B. " B a s i c P r i n c i p l e s o f C r i m i n a l Law." J o e l E . P i n k a n d D a v i d P e r r i e r . From CRIME t o PUNISHMENT - An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e C r i m i n a l Law System T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1988.  Felsenfeld, Carl. Legal Aspects of E l e c t r o n i c Stoneham, Mass.: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1988.  Funds  Transfers  F i n k e l s t e i n , J a c o b J . "The G o r i n g Ox: Some H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives on t h e Deodands, F o r f e i t u r e s , W r o n g f u l D e a t h a n d t h e W e s t e r n N o t i o n o f S o v e r e i g n t y . " (1973) 46 Temple L.Q. 169. F r e i b e r g , A r i e . " R i p p l e s f r o m t h e B o t t o m o f t h e H a r b o u r : Some S o c i a l R a m i f i c a t i o n s o f T a x a t i o n F r a u d . " (1988) 12 C r . L . J . 136. F r i e d , David J . " R a t i o n a l i z i n g C r i m . L. & C r i m . 328.  Criminal  Forfeiture."  (1988)  J.  G a l l a g h e r , G. P a t r i c k . A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e - The Management a n d D i s p o s i t i o n o f S e i z e d A s s e t s . Washington: Bureau o f J u s t i c e A s s i s t a n c e , Nov. 1988. Gold,  A l a n D. P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e - A M a n u a l B i l l C-61. T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989.  with  Commentary  on  Goldsmith, Michael. Asset F o r f e i t u r e - C i v i l F o r f e i t u r e : Tracing t h e Proceeds o f N a r c o t i c s T r a f f i c k i n g . Washington: Dept. o f J u s t i c e , Nov. 1988. Goyer,  George  A. P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e . V a n c o u v e r : 150  Continuing  Legal  Education Society of B r i t i s h Hall,  Columbia,  1990.  J e r o m e . Law, S o c i a l S c i e n c e and C r i m i n a l T h e o r y . C o l o . : Rothman, 1982.  Hodgson, S i r D e r e k . P r o f i t s o f C r i m e and T h e i r Heinemann E d u c a t i o n a l Books L t d . , 1974. Hogarth, John. "Enterprise Rome. 15 Dec. 1983. S e n t e n c i n g as P r e s s , 1971.  a  Human  Crime  Study  Recovery.  Report"  A  Univ.  Critique. Toronto  I n v e r a r i t y , James M., P a t L a u d e r d a l e and B a r r y C. F e l d . S o c i e t y - S o c i o l o g i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on C r i m i n a l Law. L i t t l e , Brown, 1983.  Law and Boston:  14 Sep.  Toronto:  -  London:  of  House o f Commons D e b a t e s .  Process.  Littleton,  1987.  J e n s e n , H o l g e r . " H i d i n g t h e Drug Money." M a c l e a n ' s .  23 O c t .  Kenny, C o u r t n e y S. O u t l i n e s o f C r i m i n a l Law, r e v . 15th G o d f r e y P h i l l i p s . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1942. K e r a n s , R o g e r P. "The F u t u r e o f S e c t i o n (1989) U.B.C. L. Rev. 567-77. King, Law  Law  Rufus.  One  of  the  "A W o r t h l e s s C r u s a d e . " Newsweek. 1 J a n .  1989.  ed.  G.  Charter."  1990.  R e f o r m C o m m i s s i o n o f Canada. C r i m i n a l Law - The G e n e r a l P a r t : L i a b i l i t y and D e f e n c e s . W o r k i n g P a p e r No. 29. O t t a w a : S u p p l y and S e r v i c e s Canada, 1982. Society of British Columbia. L e g i s l a t i o n . " [1989] 10 B e n c h e r s '  "New Proceeds B u l l e t i n 2.  of  Crime  L e D a i n , G e r a I d . F i n a l Report o f t h e Commission o f I n q u i r y i n t o the N o n - M e d i c a l Use o f D r u g s . O t t a w a : I n f o r m a t i o n Canada, 1973. L e n c k , W i l l i a m . A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e - T r a c k i n g D r u g P r o c e e d s : Bank S e c r e c y A c t R e p o r t s . Washington: Bureau o f J u s t i c e A s s i s t a n c e , S e p t . 1989. MacFarlane, 85) 27 Drug  B r u c e A. "Confiscating C r i m . L. 0. 408.  the  Fruits  O f f e n c e s i n Canada. A u r o r a : Canada Law  "Legal V e h i c l e s Leading to F o r f e i t u r e C r i m i n a l Code." unpub. p a p e r . NCPC. 151  of  Crime"  Book I n c . ,  Under P a r t  (19841986.  X . l of  the  Malarek, V i c t o r . Merchants S t e w a r t , 1989.  of Misery.  M a r t i n , E l i z a b e t h A. e d . The C o n c i s e U n i v . P r e s s , 1983. McCrank, N e i l .  Toronto:  McClelland  D i c t i o n a r y o f Law.  "Forfeiture Provisions of B i l l  and  Oxford:  C-61." NCPC.  McDonald, David. L e g a l R i g h t s i n t h e Canadian C h a r t e r and F r e e d o m s . 2nd e d . T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989.  of Rights  M c l n t y r e , J i l l and A l e x a n d e r G. H e n d e r s o n . T h e B u s i n e s s o f C r i m e - An E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n " R a c k e t e e r I n f l u e n c e d and C o r r u p t O r g a n i z a t i o n s " S t a t u t e from a Canadian P e r s p e c t i v e E x e c u t i v e Summary and D r a f t Amendments t o t h e " C r i m i n a l Code" M i n i s t r y o f A t t o r n e y - G e n e r a l , C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e D i v i s i o n , 1980. McLeod, Roderick M. The C a n a d i a n Charter of P r o s e c u t i o n and D e f e n c e o f C r i m i n a l and o t h e r O f f e n c e s , v o l . 2. T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1983. Mewett, A. W. "The C r i m i n a l Rev. 726. Mewett, Alan W. Butterworth,  and M o r r i s 1985.  Law,  1867-1967."  Manning.  (1967)  Criminal  M o r t o n , James. The C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e A c t s Commentary London: Waterlow, 1988.  Rights Statutory  1987  45  Law. and  The  Can. B. Toronto:  1988  -  A  M o s l e y , R i c h a r d G. " S e i z i n g t h e P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e : T h e O r i g i n s and M a i n F e a t u r e s o f Canada's C r i m i n a l F o r f e i t u r e L e g i s l a t i o n , " unpub. p a p e r . NCPC. N o s s e n , R i c h a r d A. The D e t e c t i o n . I n v e s t i g a t i o n a n d P r o s e c u t i o n o f Financial Crimes (White C o l l a r . Political C o r r u p t i o n and R a c k e t e e r i n g ) . Richmond, V a . : N o s s e n & A s s o c s . , 1982. P a c k e r , H e r b e r t . The L i m i t s o f t h e C r i m i n a l S t a n f o r d U n i v . P r e s s , 1968. "Two M o d e l s Rev. 1  of the Criminal Process."  Sanction. (1964)  Stanford:  113 U. P a . L.  P a r k e r , Graham. An I n t r o d u c t i o n t o C r i m i n a l Law. 3 r d e d . T o r o n t o : Methuen, 1987. P o s n e r , G e r a l d L . W a r l o r d s o f C r i m e - C h i n e s e S e c r e t S o c i e t i e s : The New M a f i a . New Y o r k : P e n g u i n , 1990.  152  P r i c e , D a v i d G. " P o l i c e S e i z u r e o f Bank A c c o u n t s U n d e r S e c t i o n 29, C r i m i n a l Law Amendment A c t , 1975." (1976-77) 19 C r i m . L. 0. 86. Purdy, Brian. NCPC.  "Special  Search  Warrants  and  R a n d a l l , K e n n e t h C. " U n i v e r s a l J u r i s d i c t i o n Law." (1988) 66 T e x a s L. Rev. 785.  Restraint  Under  Orders."  International  R o g e r s o n , C a r o l . "The J u d i c i a l S e a r c h f o r A p p r o p r i a t e Remedies U n d e r t h e C h a r t e r : The Examples o f O v e r b r e a d t h and Vagueness," i n Robert J . Sharpe. ed. C h a r t e r L i t i g a t i o n . Toronto: B u t t e r w o r t h s , 1987. 233-306. Ryan, H.R.S. " A n n o t a t i o n " (1985) 46 C R . Saint-Denis, and Due  Paul. "Rights of P r o c e s s . " NCPC.  the  (3d)  Accused,  278. Third  Party  Rights,  "The U n i t e d N a t i o n s C o n v e n t i o n A g a i n s t I l l i c i t T r a f f i c i n N a r c o t i c D r u g s and P s y c h o t r o p i c S u b s t a n c e s . " unpub. p a p e r . NCPC. S h e l d r i c k , B y r o n . " S h i f t i n g B u r d e n s and R e q u i r e d I n f e r e n c e s : The C o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f R e v e r s e Onus C l a u s e s " (1986) 44 U. o f T o r o n t o F a c . L. Rev. 179. Solicitor June  G e n e r a l o f Canada. The 1982.  Stuart, Don. Carswell,  Canadian 1987.  Sweeney, J o s e p h C. Law J . 7. Tyree, Alan 1990.  L.  Waldman, S t e v e n Nov. 1989.  "An  Banking and  RICO S t a t u t e :  Criminal  Law  -  A  in Australia.  Mark M i l l e r .  "The  Drug  Walker, CP. "Opening the Vaults A c c o u n t s . " (1983) C r . L. Rev. 723.  Overview,  Treatise.  I n t r o d u c t i o n t o RICO." Law  An  Toronto:  (1987) 12 T u l . Mar.  Sydney:  Butterworths,  Lawyers."  Police  n.p.  Newsweek  Powers  and  13  Bank  W e d d e l l , B r i a n . " B i l l C-61 - P r o p o s e d C r i m i n a l Code Amendments P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e . " unpub. p a p e r . C a n a d i a n B a r A s s o c . . C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e S u b s e c t i o n . Kamloops 1989. Whitley, Stuart J. Criminal T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1989.  Justice  153  and  the  Constitution.  Williams, Glanville. Criminal L o n d o n : S t e v e n s and Sons, Textbook 1983.  of Criminal  Law 1961.  Law.  Young, Kenneth. "Memorandum Criminal Justice Section. V a n c o u v e r , 18 J a n . 1989.  2nd Re: B.C.  The  ed.  General  London:  Part.  Stevens  2nd  and  Bill C-61." unpub. Branch. Canadian Bar  " P r o c e e d s o f C r i m e . " The Drug C a s e . V a n c o u v e r : L e g a l E d u c a t i o n S o c i e t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Mar.  ed.  Sons,  paper. Assoc..  Continuing 1990.  Z a g a r i s , B r u c e and M a r c u s B o r n h e i m . " F o r e i g n and International Money L a u n d e r i n g Laws." A m e r i c a n B a r A s s o c . , C r i m . J u s t i c e S e c . M a n u a l on Money L a u n d e r i n g . 8 Mar. 1990. Z e l d i n , M i c h a e l F., H a r r y S. H a r b i n and S t e f a n D. C a s s e l l a . Money L a u n d e r i n g F o r f e i t u r e s , r e v . ed. W a s h i n g t o n : D e p t . o f J u s t i c e , 11 May 1990.  NEWSPAPERS CITED  Canadian  Police  C h i e f Newsletter. Oct.  G a z e t t e . M o n t r e a l . 15 Feb. G l o b e and M a i l . National.  O t t a w a Sunday Sun.  12 Feb.  Toronto. 2 July  Sun.  1989,  19 F e b .  1990.  1990.  5 Feb.  Times-Colonist. Victoria. 1990, 17 May 1990. Vancouver  1989.  n.d.  P r o v i n c e . Vancouver. Sunday S t a r .  Nov.  1989  T o r o n t o . 23 Aug.  Toronto,  1989,  9 Nov.  1990. 1989.  29 S e p t . 1989,  1989.  154  22 O c t .  1989,  25  Mar.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0077719/manifest

Comment

Related Items