Pubdate: Fri, 06 Jul 2012
Source: Globe and Mail (Canada)
Copyright: 2012 The Globe and Mail Company
Contact:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/168
Author: Tu Thanh Ha

CANADA'S TOP COURT SHAPES DEFINITION OF ORGANIZED CRIME WITH MONTREAL CASE

During a span of several months in early 2006, police wiretapped
Carmelo Venneri's phone calls and conducted secret surveillance
outside his home, north of Montreal, establishing that the bar manager
had become "an important pillar" in supplying a gang with cocaine.

While it was established that Mr. Venneri was a trafficker, he was not
a member of the syndicate for whom he dealt cocaine, the Supreme Court
of Canada ruled Friday, offering guidance on how courts should define
membership in a criminal organization, which brings stiffer penalties.

The highest court still found that Mr. Venneri was guilty of
trafficking for the benefit of a gang, for which he could face up to
14 years in jail.

But, in its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed that Mr.
Venneri didn't traffic as a member of the gang, a more serious offence.

The legal concept of gangsterism was introduced in the Criminal Code
in 1997 as a way to apply longer sentences against members of
organized crime after a bloody turf war between rival biker clubs
erupted in Quebec.

Since 2001, the designation can be applied to groups of just three
people.

Groups like the Hells Angels or the Mafia are easily identified. But
using the designation to prosecute more informal gangs is trickier,
especially since "criminal organizations have no incentive to conform
to any formal structure recognized in law," the highest court noted in
its decision.

"Groups of individuals that operate on an ad hoc basis with little or
no organization cannot be said to pose the type of increased risk
contemplated by the regime," Mr. Justice Morris Fish wrote in Friday's
decision.

While some gangs are not sophisticated, hierarchical or monopolistic
organizations, they nonetheless need "cohesiveness and endurance" to
create the threat that required Parliament to pass special
legislation, Judge Fish wrote.

"Stripped of the features of continuity and structure, 'organized
crime' simply becomes all serious crime committed by a group of three
or more persons for a material benefit."

In Mr. Venneri's case, the court evidence showed that he was once a
buyer for a large gang headed by one Louis-Alain Dauphin, whose men
distributed around Montreal cocaine flown in from Kelowna, B.C.

After the provincial police, the Surete du Quebec, seized 49 kilos of
cocaine from two apartments in the fall of 2005, Mr. Dauphin, facing a
shortage of drugs and $1-million cash debt, turned to Mr. Venneri and
asked whether he could supply them.

Starting in 2006, Mr. Venneri became "an important pillar in
supplying" Mr. Dauphin, the trial judge found.

"Venneri operated with a high degree of independence and showed little
or no apparent loyalty to Dauphin and his associates. They did not
share mutual clients," Judge Fish wrote.

He concluded that the two criminals might be like-minded but they were
also autonomous. The fact that they transacted together didn't mean
they were part of the same organization and that Mr. Venneri should
face a lengthier sentence.

The legal definition of membership in a criminal organization being a
recent one, court interpretations have varied.

"Some trial courts have found that very little or no organization is
required before a group of individuals are potentially captured by the
regime," Judge Fish wrote.

Other courts, he wrote, "properly in my view, have held that while the
definition must be applied `flexibly', structure and continuity are
still important features that differentiate criminal organizations
from other groups of offenders who sometimes act in concert."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt