Running from the cops has made for some compelling car-chase movies over the years, but as a rule of thumb it isn’t advisable in real life.
A bill introduced in the legislature this week makes it even less prudent. One of the changes to strengthen civil-forfeiture law deems failing to stop for the police proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the motor vehicle is an instrument of unlawful activity.
That means the government can seize it, regardless of whether there is any evidence of criminality associated with it.
The same goes for after-market secret compartments installed in vehicles. They are favoured by gangsters, to the point that once the bill passes, just having one will be considered proof that the vehicle is an instrument of unlawful activity. Regardless of what’s in it. The compartments themselves were outlawed a few years ago.
Instead of the civil-forfeiture office having to prove that fleeing the police or the existence of a secret compartment links the vehicle to criminality, the owner will have to prove that they don’t.
Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth introduced the bill, saying it would enhance the civil-forfeiture office’s ability to target the drug trade and gang violence, and trace and seize the proceeds of crime.
The two measures above come under the heading of “rebuttable evidentiary presumptions.”
Farnworth said they’ll make the process more efficient and cost-effective, while maintaining fairness. The government expects to make more money from civil forfeiture once they take effect. The office has recovered $73 million over 11 years by impounding proceeds of crime.
Another part of the bill appears to give the office more clout in dealing with financial institutions, when it comes to tracing and seizing presumably ill-gotten gains. The financial institutions will have to disclose relevant account information on the office’s demand.
The civil-forfeiture office can also order financial institutions to keep secret the fact that its demands for information have been made.
Farnworth said Wednesday there have been advances in the field since civil forfeiture was introduced in B.C. in 2006, and the government wants to stay current.
“Just as criminal activity is evolving, also government’s response is evolving.”
He said the amendments have been in the works for some time and aren’t being introduced because of any specific case. Farnworth also said there is general frustration in dealing with criminal activity.
Almost coincidental with the bill, there was another twist in one of the longest-running civil-forfeiture cases in B.C. — the office’s attempt to seize the Hells Angels clubhouse in Nanaimo.
That case started in 2007, a year after the office was created. A few years after it started, the office tried to seize clubhouses in east Vancouver and Kelowna, as well. The seizure attempts were rolled into one case and it has been running for 12 years, dealing with counterclaims and petitions. It’s scheduled to resume this April.
The latest development was a lengthy, complicated ruling about whether an expert witness was qualified to testify about the use of clubhouses.
The civil-forfeiture office recently started another case that has the potential to run equally long. It involves an underground bank linked to the drug trade called Silver International.
It was the subject of a lengthy investigation that led to charges of money-laundering. Such charges are rarely laid in B.C., despite widespread suspicions about how pervasive it is.
But the case collapsed last November for reasons that have not been officially disclosed.
When the charges were stayed, Attorney General David Eby said he was incredibly disappointed.
The civil-forfeiture suit was filed a month later against various individuals and entities. The office is trying to seize several properties and millions in cash.
The changes introduced this week will not apply to the clubhouses case or the money-launderers. But they hint at the frustration over the scope of criminality and how hard it is to tackle.
The Silver International case involves far more than secret compartments or not stopping for a police car.
But the disclosure requirements on financial institutions — and their obligation to keep disclosure orders secret — might come into play in the future.
— Les Leyne, Times Colonist
