Pubdate: Thu, 19 May 2011
Source: Victoria Times-Colonist (CN BC)
Copyright: 2011 Times Colonist
Contact: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/letters.html
Website: http://www.timescolonist.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/481
Author: Les Leyne
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/af.htm (Asset Forfeiture)

GRABBING CRIME PROCEEDS GETTING EASIER

Public Safety Minister Shirley Bond gets sensitive at suggestions the 
new seize-as-youplease law amounts to an end run around the justice system.

And NDP MLAs appear equally sensitive about leaving any impression 
they are soft on crime as they scrutinize the administrative forfeiture bill.

Which makes for a lot of careful footwork during debate on the first 
attempt in Canada to allow seizure of goods and cash from suspected 
criminals with no judicial oversight.

Once it passes, B.C. will be the first province with "administrative 
forfeiture." If unlawful activity is suspected, the government will 
be able to seize property or cash under $75,000 by simply filling out a form.

In the six years civil forfeiture has been in place, it's been aimed 
mostly at bigger ticket items - drug houses and expensive cars. Those 
seizures require expensive court processes. So attempting to seize 
lower value items wasn't considered worth the effort.

The bill before the legislature would let authorities seize goods or 
cash under $75,000 without going to court, even if no crime is 
proven. If the seizure goes uncontested, the Crown gets it.

The piles of cash that police often display after drug busts is a 
good example. Although the standard photo op leaves the impression 
the cash has been seized, it sometimes winds up being returned to the 
suspect if the case falls apart.

With the new law, the authorities will be able to keep it, no matter 
what happens to the criminal charges, if the suspect doesn't bother objecting.

The seizure would stand if "the balance of probabilities" indicated 
the cash or possessions were the fruits of criminal activity,

NDP critics were treading lightly in questioning the bill. The party 
has always wrestled with law-and-order issues. One wing prefers to 
concentrate on the social problems behind crime, rather than support 
the crackdowns against criminals. Others are conscious that's not 
always a winning stand, politically.

As NDP MLA Nicholas Simons told the legislature, "When we have 
criticisms .. the Liberals are the fastest to jump to: 'Why do you 
criticize police officers?' "

New Democrat MLA Kathy Corrigan suggested at one point that it will 
occur to police now that "if they can't be successful in the criminal 
law, there's another avenue."

Bond disagreed. "I can assure you that the civil forfeiture office, 
the director and the police agencies in B.C. do not use this process 
to circumvent other ones," she said.

Corrigan said one concern is that police and the civil forfeiture 
office would "come to an understanding that prosecution of a case 
might be difficult and they would be tempted to start using this act 
as a different way to get around the requirements of the Criminal 
Code, which requires that you have to prove an offence beyond a 
reasonable doubt." It doesn't sound like an outlandish scenario.

But it was obvious the NDP suspicions about the bill aren't deep 
enough to stop them from voting against it.

The revenue being raised also came up for discussion. Authorities 
have seized $17 million over the past several years and the figure 
will climb in the years ahead.

It's enough to make the civil forfeiture office self-funding and to 
help fund victim services as well.

It's a popular use of money generated by a program that appeals to 
people frustrated by crime.

But the other problem that wasn't discussed is the secrecy around 
administrative forfeiture.

It's similar to the impaired driving changes last year. Serious 
sanctions that used to be imposed in open court are now being handled 
privately, out of the public eye.

Most proceedings under the current civil forfeiture program can be 
obtained by anyone with an interest in a case, because there are court files.

When administrative forfeiture comes in, the office will simply issue 
a public notice that a seizure is underway. That's the extent of the 
information available.

There may be smaller values involved. But the big questions about 
what the authorities are up to won't be easily answered.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom