Hey Fuji - are you okay with this......

[seth gecko]

Not to speak on Shiek's behalf, but this is the stuff he was speaking out against; from today's Toronto Sun


OTTAWA -- The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a law allowing the province to seize alleged proceeds of crime from people who have never been convicted or even charged with an offence.

"There is nothing in the details of the scheme of the CRA ... to suggest that the purpose of the CRA is other than those stated purposes. Nor do we see any merit to the appellant's submission that the true purpose of the CRA is to punish offenders," reads the appeal court's ruling in the test case of the oddly titled Attorney General of Ontario vs. $29,020, Exhaust Fan, Light Ballast, Light Socket and Robin Chatterjee.

Chatterjee and his lawyers challenged the little-known Civil Remedies for Organized Crime and other Illicit Activities Act, passed in 2001, which allows the Ontario government to ask a judge in civil court to order forfeiture of property allegedly obtained through illegal activity.

"Certainly, the pace of seizures under this legislation has increased," said Chatterjee's lawyer, James F. Diamond, yesterday following the release of the decision. "With the sanction of the Court of Appeal I don't see any reason to think it wouldn't continue at the same pace, if not increase."

SEARCHED CAR



Diamond argued unsuccessfully at the appeal court that the law is beyond the powers of the provincial government and is, in fact, under the federal government's jurisdiction to create criminal law.

The appeal court didn't see it that way, saying any overlap was incidental.

Chatterjee was stopped by York Regional Police on March 27, 2003, when they noticed his car's front licence plate missing. Police discovered he had a record and a bail condition to reside in Ottawa. They arrested him and searched his car, finding $29,020 in cash that allegedly smelled of marijuana, as well as a light ballast, light socket and an exhaust fan.

Chatterjee was never charged with marijuana-related counts, but the authorities moved under the act to seize the items.

Diamond said his client is considering whether to seek leave to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court

 

[fuji]

Are you ok with property being returned to its rightful owner even if there isn't enough evidence to charge the person who took it with theft?

How is this different?

Property issues have ALWAYS been handled on a balance of probability grounds. If I sue you claiming that you took my car and I want it back I get my car back if I can show that on the balance of probabilities it's mine and not yours. No conviction required. Been that way for a thousand years.

 

[fuji]

He gets the $29k back unless the crown can convince a judge that, on the balance of probabilities, it's not his.

It's not like this happens without a trial.

It just happens not to be a criminal trial.

 

[papasmerf]

29K in cash would raise a question in any court.

 

[seth gecko]

..... Property issues have ALWAYS been handled on a balance of probability grounds. If I sue you claiming that you took my car and I want it back I get my car back if I can show that on the balance of probabilities it's mine and not yours. No conviction required. Been that way for a thousand years.

Dude, your analogy is comparing apples & oranges. It's not about property issues - it's about the arbitrary determination that financial assets are the result of illegal activity, hence "proceeds of crime", and said assets can be seized without any criminal charges laid or convictions made.

Here'a a better example: you & your pals get together for a friendly game of cards in a private residence & you end up the big winner that night. You stuff your winnings of, say $1500, into your shirt pocket & head for home. A cop pulls you over in a random spotcheck. He sticks his head in your window to ask if you've been drinking, but then also notices a thick wad of $20's bulging in your shirtpocket. Now, if you tell him it's the winnings from a friendly poker game, he can seize that money. If you don't tell him anything about where the money came from, he can seize it. If you tell him to get his bacon-smellin puss outta your ride, he can seize the money & give you a bit of attitude adjustment. Okay, on the last part I'm being funny, but point of the story is YOUR money can be seized...just...like....that! Not just cash on hand, but bank accounts, homes, businesses, etc. It's up to you to disprove it's proceeds of crime, because the government can take is as they please, as so aptly described in the opening sentence of the Sun article. ALLEGED proceeds of crime, charges & convictions not required.
Dude, try going 1 week without cash in your pocket, credit or debit cards. Now imagine trying to get a lawyer, most of whom DON'T work for free, to get your money back.
Dude, it does happen more than you realize & not only to alleged criminals.

That's all I'm going to say on this subject, because I don't think you'll ever accept the reality & gravity of the situation & I don't what to argue over the Internet.

Now, back to the really important issue of this board......where should I go this weekend to meet & hopefully nail some hot chicks. Any advice?

 

[xdog]

It's amazing how quickly people will give up the right to private property and the assumption of not guilty until proven otherwise. If the police thought the money was illegally gained, they should have arrested him and laid charges if they had sufficient evidence.
I'm sure that anyone that supports this law also abstains from any illegal activities such as betting with friends, visiting non-liscensed massage parlours, and etc.

As for the fact the money smelled like "pot", a lot of money has traces of illegal substances. Would you like to be arrested as a crack dealer because you don't want to tell a cop where your money came from or because it smells funny?


x

 

[C Dick]

Taking his $29K is just not right. Unless he has been convicted, or at least charged, with being a drug-dealer, taking his money because it smells of pot is wrong. Who is to say it even did smell? That being said, I think our system is working a little better, in that they evidently took it and handed it in to the system, as opposed to many countries where they would have just taken it and split it and denied it. But it is still not right.

 

[fuji]

Dude, your analogy is comparing apples & oranges. It's not about property issues

Oh but it is. Cash is property.

it's about the arbitrary determination that financial assets are the result of illegal activity

There's nothing arbitrary about it. A judge determines, at a trial, whether or not the assets are the proceeds of crime. That decision is made on a balance of probabilities basis.

and said assets can be seized without any criminal charges laid or convictions made.

This is true, but seizure of property has *NEVER* required criminal convictions or criminal charges!

If someone steals your car, and you find your car, you can have the car seized, even if you can't prove who stole it. You don't need to have anyone charged with theft to get your car back.

Same concept here, except that in the case where there is no clear victim of the crime society at large is considered to be the rightful entity to which the property is returned.

You stuff your winnings of, say $1500, into your shirt pocket & head for home. A cop... can seize it.

You get it back, though, unless the crown can prove to a judge or jury that, on the balance of probabilities, the money is the proceeds of crime. The cop seizing it is not the end of the story. The cop can seize it on suspicion just as he can arrest you of something on suspicion--but later at trial you're let go if the charge can't be sustained, and you get the money back if a judge can't be convinced it's the proceeds of crime.

It's up to you to disprove it's proceeds of crime

No, it's decided on a balance of probabilties. The burden of proof is neither on you nor on the crown. It's handled like any civil lawsuit. The crown has to produce some evidence that it's likely the proceeds of crime, and it has to be better evidence than your evidence that it's not, or you get your money back.

Yes, there is a lower standard of proof required to seize property than is required for the state to entirely remove all of your freedoms. That is as it should be, no?

 

[fuji]

There's nothing to respond to in your last post Sheik, just a bunch of rhetoric, no new facts, no claims, nothing.

You just have a hate on for the justice system.

 

[tboy]

Fuji, as always you're missing the point. WHich is: that YOU have to PROVE that it is a) yours and b) NOT the proceeds of a crime which is the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty".

As for cash being property. That's debatable as cash is a vehicle in which to conduct monetary transactions. You don't OWN the money, You possess it's value.

Again, if the cops seized your money, it will cost you to get it back. EOS.

At the very least the cops should have to detain a suspect if they think his money is the proceeds of a crime until they can get a warrant from a judge. This way they'd have to show evidence and in a minor way, put a limit on how easily they can seize possessions.

One thing that is going for us here as opposed to the US. There were and I guess still are, thousands of cases of the cops seizing people's property under the proceeds of crime law that was proven that the people involved were never ever involved in crime of any sort. Did they get their property back? NO because it was sold at auction. Did they get the value of their property back? NO because it cost more than the property to sue the police depts involved......is this right? NO.

 

[red]

Fuji, as always you're missing the point. WHich is: that YOU have to PROVE that it is a) yours and b) NOT the proceeds of a crime which is the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty".

As for cash being property. That's debatable as cash is a vehicle in which to conduct monetary transactions. You don't OWN the money, You possess it's value.

Again, if the cops seized your money, it will cost you to get it back. EOS.

At the very least the cops should have to detain a suspect if they think his money is the proceeds of a crime until they can get a warrant from a judge. This way they'd have to show evidence and in a minor way, put a limit on how easily they can seize possessions.

One thing that is going for us here as opposed to the US. There were and I guess still are, thousands of cases of the cops seizing people's property under the proceeds of crime law that was proven that the people involved were never ever involved in crime of any sort. Did they get their property back? NO because it was sold at auction. Did they get the value of their property back? NO because it cost more than the property to sue the police depts involved......is this right? NO.

if there are thousands of such cases- wouldn't there would be class action lawsuits going to get that money?

 

[red]

. Now, if you tell him it's the winnings from a friendly poker game, he can seize that money. If you don't tell him anything about where the money came from, he can seize it. If you tell him to get his bacon-smellin puss outta your ride, he can seize the money & give you a bit of attitude adjustment. ?

I did not think that poker was illegal in Canada as long as there was no house getting a percentage? does anyone know?

 

[fuji]

YOU have to PROVE that it is a) yours and b) NOT the proceeds of a crime which is the exact opposite of "innocent until proven guilty".

Wrong. Read my response to that above.

As for cash being property. That's debatable as cash is a vehicle in which to conduct monetary transactions. You don't OWN the money, You possess it's value.

Wrong. Cash is property. Legally. Sensibly.

At the very least the cops should have to detain a suspect if they think his money is the proceeds of a crime until they can get a warrant from a judge.

You want the cops detaining people over property disputes?!!!

This way they'd have to show evidence and in a minor way, put a limit on how easily they can seize possessions.

That's how it works now: They have to have a special warrant from a judge before they can seize your property. They can get that warrant without having to detain you. Isn't that better for you? You prefer to be detained???

In the case above you'll note that the guy was actually arrested.

 

[fuji]

I did not think that poker was illegal in Canada as long as there was no house getting a percentage? does anyone know?

I think it depends on the number of people playing and whether the house gets any benefit (entrance fee, donation, percentage). I do believe it's entirely legal for a couple of people to get together and play a game.

 

[Hard Idle]

There's nothing arbitrary about it. A judge determines, at a trial, whether or not the assets are the proceeds of crime. That decision is made on a balance of probabilities basis.
...The crown has to produce some evidence that it's likely the proceeds of crime..

With all due respect, that whole "balance of probablilities" crap is deliberate and cynical piece of vaguery to legitimize unreasonable powers for the courts and cops.

What your "balance of probability" really comes down to is the unlucky coincidence of a cop not liking somebody's face, and a judge agreeing with that. If there was any solid evidence of criminal activity, they'd at least try to get a conviction with it.

In the example posted, they must have had the same gut feeling as I did - that this Chatterjee fellow was probably bad news. Well, that simply shouldn't be good enough as grounds for the police and courts to confiscate property.

I could certainly support taking back stolen property even when the person in posesssion was not the onwe who stole it. But in the this case, the article says the vehicle was HIS, and there is no mention of proof that any of the other items were stolen.

We are tought to believe that punishment on the basis of prejudice and wild conjecture is the practice in totalitarian justice systems.

 

[fuji]

With all due respect, that whole "balance of probablilities" crap is deliberate and cynical piece of vaguery to legitimize unreasonable powers for the courts and cops.

If you don't like the common law's "balance of probabilities" approach to property disputes take it up with William the Conqueror. It's been that way since at least 1066.

But in the this case, the article says the vehicle was HIS, and there is no mention of proof that any of the other items were stolen.

The point is that if something was obtained criminally, whether by the person who is currently in posession of it, or by someone else who is unknown, then it is NOT legally his property.

We are tought to believe that punishment on the basis of prejudice and wild conjecture is the practice in totalitarian justice systems.

Good thing that around here we operate on the balance of probabilities in a fair trial as assessed by an independent judiciary.

 

[Esco!]

Fuji, Either you are a total fool or you just like to argue

Probably a bit of both

 

[seth gecko]

I think that Fuji is going to make inappropriate comments that should have him banned from this board, or has already made these comments & we cannot prove them yet. If anyone would like to agree with me on this, perhaps we can convince a Moderator that Fuji should be banned.....of course, Fuji can always argue that he did not & will not make inappropriate comments and then based on the balance of probabilities, this same Moderator who banned him can reassess whether he wants to allow Fuji back in.

Isn't this kind of how Fuji is presently arguing that the system "works"?
Anyone want to second my petition that he be banned.....of course we can't prove anything, but he can easily argue that & get himself reinstated, right?

 

[fuji]

That's more or less how it does work around here, dude, it's Fred's board and he does what he likes, balance of probabilities or not.

 

[tboy]

Wrong. Read my response to that above.
1) Wrong. Cash is property. Legally. Sensibly.
2) You want the cops detaining people over property disputes?!!!
3)That's how it works now: They have to have a special warrant from a judge before they can seize your property.
4)They can get that warrant without having to detain you. Isn't that better for you? You prefer to be detained???

In the case above you'll note that the guy was actually arrested.

I numbered your responses for ease of replying:
1) Cash isn't property because one owns property. Cash or more appropriately bills and coins are owned by the treasury. If you actually owned the note then how could the government arrest you for defacing something you own?
2) This isn't a simple property dispute. The dispute is whether the cash or vehicle were used in the committing or are the proceeds of a crime. Yes, if a suspect was stopped for suspicion of dealing drugs, then they should to detain them until either a) they prove he was dealing and b) the cash or vehicle in his possession were the proceeds of crime. If they can't prove a) then there is no way they should be able to prove b) and if they can't prove b) they shouldn't be able to confiscate them.
3) From the story at the beginning of this thread it appears the police seized the goods immediately and then proceeded to get approval from a judge to keep it. If they hadn't seized it immediately then dude could have just spent the $29K. What I'm saying is that in a case such as described, they stop the vehicle, find the pot smelling money, and before doing ANYTHING else, get a warrant to seize the funds/vehicle/items. For eg: the money smells of pot. They have an officer write out a warrant, go to the presiding judge for that district, and if the judge says " you have reasonable cause to seize the matetrials" then they proceed to do so. But to take the money without first getting a warrant is wrong...no matter where you live.
4) Again, if they don't have grounds to arrest and or detain me, they have grounds to seize any of my property so yes, to use your words, I'd rather them detain me before seizing my property.

if there are thousands of such cases- wouldn't there would be class action lawsuits going to get that money?

There were. It was all over the US news when the law was first passed in FLA. In fact, I believe that in one FLA district some cops were charged and or fired for unlawful or being too willing to confiscate property under the law.

I even think that that Sherrif Burnett Burell or whatever that used to be on Cops was fired for doing this. (he's the one that does all those cop related shows like "most wild police chases" etc.)