Pubdate: Tue, 27 May 2014
Source: Vancouver Sun (CN BC)
Copyright: 2014 Postmedia Network Inc.
Contact:  http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/477
Author: Ian Mulgrew
Page: A7
Referenced: Transcript of ruling: 
www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2014/2014bcpc95/2014bcpc95.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

RCMP LOSES MONEY-LAUNDERING CASE

Insufficient Evidence: Siblings' Acquittal Raises Issue of Civil Forfeiture

The RCMP has lost a major, decade-old, money-laundering case after a 
B.C. judge ruled prosecutors failed to prove that three jobless 
accused knew $24 million they washed was illegally obtained.

In a surprising decision, Provincial Court Judge Maria Giardini 
acquitted Nam Hoang Nguyen, Thi Ngoc Bich Nguyen and Thu Thi Nguyen - 
reputedly a brother and his sisters - after police stopped Bich 
carrying $174,530 in cash.

Her only source of income at the time was collecting Employment 
Insurance and a child tax benefit.

The three offered no defence, as is their right, refusing to explain 
the seized cash or $24,104,021 worth of transactions between July 16, 
2003, to May 17, 2005, at Calgary Foreign Exchange Ltd. outlets in 
Vancouver and Toronto.

After a month-long trial spread over the last three years, Giardini 
said police had not proven the money was the proceeds of crime, nor 
that the trio knew or believed it had an ill-gotten provenance.

Although Nam was a convicted pot producer and the three were 
tenuously linked by police to a handful of sophisticated grow 
operations, the judge was not persuaded that tainted the transactions.

"I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the only inference 
to draw from the circumstantial evidence is that the money the three 
accused exchanged came from the sale of Canadian marijuana in the 
U.S.," Giardini wrote in her lengthy, detailed decision.

"Further, I am not satisfied it has been proven beyond a reasonable 
doubt that the accused knew or believed the money they exchanged at 
Calforex was obtained or derived from the commission of a 
drug-related offence."

Using first names to avoid confusion, the judge also acquitted Bich 
of a stand-alone account of possession of the proceeds of crime.

The three were charged in December 2009 after a four-year 
investigation that began with the chance encounter on May 17, 2005, 
between RCMP and Bich.

The Mounties were conducting surveillance on the Calforex outlet on 
Robson Street because they believed it was being used by criminals.

After Bich visited the exchange with a bulky black shoulder bag, they 
followed her vehicle to East Vancouver.

Police discovered $168,100 in $100 bills in the black satchel and 
$6,430 in mixed currency in a paper lunch bag. At the Calforex 
office, they retrieved $133,415 in U.S. currency that Bich had exchanged.

Investigators then searched four homes associated with the three and 
a Kingsway travel firm that was an alleged business front, seizing 
various financial documents.

The trio changed about $18 million US into $24 million Cdn through 
178 transactions - $9.5 million via an Ontario branch of the money 
exchange, profits the RCMP said were from marijuana shipped east and 
south from B.C.

But the entire case was circumstantial.

"There is no direct evidence about the source of the U.S. currency 
that the three accused are said to have exchanged at Calforex, nor is 
there direct evidence of what happened to the Canadian currency after 
the exchanges," Giardini explained.

She also had serious concerns about the Crown's expert witness, an 
RCMP officer. He was less than objective, so she gave little weight 
to his report and rejected his conclusion that the money was the 
proceeds of crime.

"In order to prove that the currency exchanged by the three accused 
was obtained by crime, the Crown must establish, beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that the money was obtained or derived by the commission of a 
criminal offence," Giardini said.

Prosecutors failed to do that.

"I acknowledge that the evidence led by the Crown, particularly the 
number of transactions and the amount of U.S. currency that was 
exchanged into Canadian currency, raises suspicions," Giardini said.

"However, in a criminal case not only is an accused person presumed 
to be innocent but the Crown is required to prove guilt beyond a 
reasonable doubt and not on a balance of probabilities."

That's a pretty big benefit of the doubt.

While the Crown thinks about an appeal, that last phrase should also 
prompt the Justice Ministry to consider civil forfeiture - if it 
hasn't already.

The forfeiture law requires proof only on the "balance of 
probabilities" but, more importantly, the civil process requires 
respondents provide full disclosure during the discovery process - 
you don't get to mutely sit there while a $24-million question hangs in the air.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom