Civil Forfeture.

[dirtybiker]

Wow.

How dangerous a slope is this ? If these new laws actually go through
it could be precedence setting to cover other areas of peoples
rights.
Being able to seize assets without warrant, arrest, conviction, or even if an
individual is acquitted they can still seize assets and access bank records.

The onus of proving guilt by investigators will be gone.
The burden of proof of ownership and by what means fall on the person
whose assets are seized.
Any costs involved to defend and prove oneself is funded 100% by the
person involved.
Something stinks in Whoville !
How far a reach could this have with zero warrant required.

With slight exaggeration they could draw a name out of a hat, seize
assets and the onus to prove oneself falls on the unlucky winner.

What further rights to be trampled does this set a precedence for ?

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/251173 ... titutional

[Cactusflower]

:200: Wow.

How dangerous a slope is this ? If these new laws actually go through
it could be precedence setting to cover other areas of peoples
rights.
Being able to seize assets without warrant, arrest, conviction, or even if an
individual is acquitted they can still seize assets and access bank records.

The onus of proving guilt by investigators will be gone.
The burden of proof of ownership and by what means fall on the person
whose assets are seized.
Any costs involved to defend and prove oneself is funded 100% by the
person involved.
Something stinks in Whoville !
How far a reach could this have with zero warrant required.

With slight exaggeration they could draw a name out of a hat, seize
assets and the onus to prove oneself falls on the unlucky winner.

What further rights to be trampled does this set a precedence for ?

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/251173 ... titutional

Looks like the government went off half-cocked on this one. Hopefully the feedback they're going to get on this will cause them to step back and rethink it.

[lesliepaul]

Unconstitutional is putting it mildly. I certainly understand the concept but of course, politicians in B.C. ALWAYS see a "cash cow" when they think they are doing good. This "civil forfeiture" has to be straightened out from the bottom up. This "lying, cheating" Farnsworth wants to make it worse yet...…….he should be careful along with the rest of the "pigs at the trough" for the thefts of taxpayers money. I would not leave the vast majority of politicians with so much as a large appliance box to live in after laying this ill conceived practice on each and every one of them.

[Urban Cowboy]

Welcome to Canada where freedom reigns.

It's bad enough we already have the CRA whose motto is guilty until proven innocent.

[my5cents]

I was surprized that the property in question was seized after a warrantless search, for which charges were not approved (for whatever the investigation was about).

I think we do need some form of protection from criminals who live off of crime, but there has to be safeguards.

We've all either experienced or know someone who has dealt with the CRA.

I would be very worried if there was any inordinate length of time between a seizure and a ruling on the validity or not of the seizure.

The onus of proof likely does have to fall on the subject to prove they didn't obtain goods or the currency to purchase the goods by crime. We are talking very significant quantities of articles of value, be that property or currency.

I remember many years ago a middle aged couple were investigated for living off the avails of crime. He was a clerk in a government office making a sparse middle level income, wife did not work. They had assets in the millions, her explanation was that she was very frugal shopping for groceries.

[dirtybiker]

Off the wall scenario.

1) A person paying a mortgage on a house that has an illegal suite
rented out.
The monies charged for this rental is used to pay down the mortgage.

House get's seized as proceeds obtained by illegal activity ?

How far does it go ?

2) I rent out my garage to someone for their use, storage, mechanical,
and don't claim the income but use it to purchase a new vehicle.

Vehicle seized ?

[Cactusflower]

Off the wall scenario.

1) A person paying a mortgage on a house that has an illegal suite
rented out.
The monies charged for this rental is used to pay down the mortgage.

House get's seized as proceeds obtained by illegal activity ?

How far does it go ?

2) I rent out my garage to someone for their use, storage, mechanical,
and don't claim the income but use it to purchase a new vehicle.

Vehicle seized ?

I think you'd have to answer to Revenue Canada in both those scenarios.

[RandyDandy]

A fitting bedfellow for bill C-46. Careful Canadians, the noose is getting tighter all the time.

[mikest2]

No surprise from the BC NDP, Oh Look !!...............Someone has money !!..........Let's take it away...............This is almost a relief, the BC NDP want to tax criminals, not just taxpayers who managed to save a few bucks over the years.

REALLY ? This is the BC NDP ( "The State" ) showing their true colours, This is just a taste of the Soviet legal system. Nice work Kommissar Farnworth

Edited for spelling

[goalie]

I don't agree with this Law but it was the Libs who brought it in back in 2006 fyi

[OKkayak]

Queue in the usual "If you have nothing to hide" crowd

[lesliepaul]

If I choose to walk around with $9,000 CASH........it is NOBODIES business but mine. Police pull you over and see the cash on the seat next to you..........none of their business. But the Civil Forfeiture think they’re entitled to it.

[hobbyguy]

The fundamental problem with what Farnworth and his incredibly incompetent buddy Eby are proposing is that it violates the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty".

I understand that there is a different bar for civil actions than criminal ones, but this goes waaay too far. I'm not a lawyer, but I betcha this wrong headed notion of the BC NDP?LEAP violates section 11 of the charter.

But constitutionality has never stopped the BC NDP clowns before. They went after Alberta for threatening to "turn off the taps" by regulating what goes through the Transmountain Pipeline, yet that is precisely what the village idiot George Heyman threatened to do. So the BC NDP argue that the same thing is unconstitutional for Alberta but somehow constitutional for BC.

These guys are bumbling joke. I wouldn't be too worried about the Farnworth/Eby folly here, the SCOC will put the incompetent "soup nazis" in their place on the first case that gets appealed. I just pity the person that is stuck in the middle as weaves its way through the courts.

I have no problem with seizing the assets of drug dealers et al, but it must be done fairly.