Pubdate: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC) Copyright: 2005 Times Colonist Contact: http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481 Author: Les Leyne Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture) THEY'RE GETTING TOUGHER ON CRIMINALS New Legislation Would Make It Easy For Proceeds Of Crime To Be Seized With everyone preoccupied by the school strike, the Liberals brought in a sleeper bill last week that will outrage another segment of society as much as Bill 12 did the teachers. Only this time, the government can bask in the affront they're causing, because it's drug dealers and the like who are in the gun sights. And the bill that is aimed at them -- the Civil Forfeiture Act - -- is likely to be warmly received in a province where ostentatious displays of ill-gotten gains are getting more obvious every day. Just about every neighbourhood in B.C. now has someone whose lifestyle is the subject of well-founded speculation as to the legality of the money that supports it. That outrage-tinged gossip has prompted a lot of political rhetoric over the last decade about confiscating the proceeds of crime. But next to nothing has been done about it. The most recent statistics show only $12 million worth of assets were seized in Canada in 2003, which is a joke. The federal law allowing such seizures is barely worth the effort it takes to use. Now B.C. is bypassing that legislation with a law that allow authorities to take the civil route toward seizing all those homes, boats and expensive cars that are associated with organized crime. And it's a remarkably powerful bill, to the point where some New Democrats wonder whether the Liberals have gone overboard. For instance, it doesn't even require a criminal conviction for the authorities to move on seizures. Unlawful activity, whether it's drug-running, gambling, or any other facet of organized crime, is not restricted to events that have been judged criminal in the new law. "Unlawful activity" can be declared even in the absence of criminal charges, even if there's an acquittal in a criminal trial and even if charges are withdrawn or stayed. What's more, in establishing "unlawful activity" the authorities only have to proceed in civil court on the "balance of probabilities," rather than proving beyond a reasonable doubt. So someone associated with crime living in a waterfront mansion with the driveway cluttered with expensive cars can be pursued for those possessions by authorities, even if no charges are under way. All the authorities need for a forfeiture order is proof that a person likely benefited from crime and used the proceeds to get an interest in the asset in question. There's no doubting the fervor politicians have for the idea of scooping goodies from the criminals. "I really look forward to the moment when the young person considering gang activity, instead of looking across the street and seeing the wild party that's going on at the fabulous house, looks across the streets and sees the repo guy coming to take away that drug dealer's Porsche," said Liberal MLA Mary Polak. Another MLA told of a Maple Ridge character known as "Mr. Wal-Mart" who was arrested in a Hummer a few weeks ago that had two safes stuffed with drugs while he had thousands of dollars in cash on hand. He was released on $2,000 bail and is likely well on his way to beating the legal system with ease. But the civil forfeiture law would give a government director leeway to impound the vehicle and the cash, regardless of how he fares in the courts. Another told of being in a liquor store lineup in Terrace and watching a man pay for his bottle by pulling a big wad of $100 bills out of his sock. The customer is well-known in town for serving nine months on a cocaine rap. "If you've got a man driving a brand-new Dodge Viper, living in a half-million-dollar house with a big boat ... and an airplane... and he files an income tax return showing he makes $15,000 a year, I suspect there are going to be some eyebrows raised," said Liberal MLA Dennis MacKay. "That's the sort of stuff that would be required on the balance of probabilities. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt this man is living off the avails of crime. The balance of probabilities would suggest that yes, he is." Some New Democrats are raising civil liberties concerns about "raised eyebrows" being enough to start forfeiture actions. NDP MLA Nicholas Simons called it a bad law and said it shouldn't be rammed through with careful consideration of the negative impact. "Due process is a bit of a victim here." They'll probably argue for some amendments to weaken the provisions, but vote for it in any event. Just So You Know: One of the higher-profile local "proceeds of alleged crime" stories was the Raymond Joubert case. He and his common-law wife, Helen Radok, were charged with smuggling 90 kilograms of cocaine. She was acquitted, he was sentenced to 20 years in jail in 1992. They lived in a waterfront Deep Cove estate but the government never got its hands on the property, partly because of a technicality involving the timing of the federal regulations. The feds gave up their legal attempt to seize it in 1994. After Joubert's conviction, Radok ran it for a while as a luxury bed-and-breakfast before it was eventually sold. She died last spring and Joubert, when last heard from, was out on probation and running a business. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin