Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this9:32 am
February 4, 2017
Offline
BC ndp getting tough on crime or are they?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/unexplained-wealth-orders-1.6661863
10:11 am
January 12, 2019
Offline
.
This attempt by the BC NDP, will most likely Not stand up in court (i.e. they're wasting their time ... and our money ❗ 
).
- Dean
" Live Long, Healthy ... And Prosper! "
10:23 am
October 27, 2013
Offline
Most likely true but a number of provinces, and especially BC, has been very lax at pursuing the acquisition of wealth by criminal organizations.
Look at how long it took BC to even consider the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership (and not just legal ownership) at land titles, and how long it took to implement it. I still do not think they do anything much to validate it, i.e. they take form content at face value.
We have a major problem in BC and the government is complicit through its financial gains from land transfer taxes. It is a huge conflict of interest.
10:48 am
January 13, 2022
Offline
AltaRed said
Most likely true but a number of provinces, and especially BC, has been very lax at pursuing the acquisition of wealth by criminal organizations.Look at how long it took BC to even consider the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership (and not just legal ownership) at land titles, and how long it took to implement it. I still do not think they do anything much to validate it, i.e. they take form content at face value.
We have a major problem in BC and the government is complicit through its financial gains from land transfer taxes. It is a huge conflict of interest.
I totally agree. This government has long been addicted, pre-NDP I'll add, to collecting enormous sums of property transfer tax that have resulted from unchecked real estate speculation, both legal and illegal. I don't have a problem with this move by Eby, providing legislation is carefully-crafted and implemented. Certainly not a waste of our money, and I suspect the majority of British Columbians would agree.
12:14 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
AltaRed said
Most likely true but a number of provinces, and especially BC, has been very lax at pursuing the acquisition of wealth by criminal organizations.Look at how long it took BC to even consider the requirement to disclose beneficial ownership (and not just legal ownership) at land titles, and how long it took to implement it. I still do not think they do anything much to validate it, i.e. they take form content at face value.
We have a major problem in BC and the government is complicit through its financial gains from land transfer taxes. It is a huge conflict of interest.
That may be so, but this seems like it may not pass a Charter challenge...if it goes there. Those guilty of such things are likely less likely to mount a Charter challenge, so it will likely take someone actually innocent to mount that challenge... 🙁
We've always had civil forfeiture, but that has been on somewhat tenuous legal ground; in other words, it has not been a slam dunk for the B.C. government. This, at first blush, seems to potentially overstep.
Also, the land ownership transparency registry, while initially supported by me, has been a big disappointment. The B.C. NDP originally promised it would be subject to the B.C. Open Data (i.e., free) provisions, but they have walked that back on implementation, and you still have to pay a search fee (which was always available under the existing myLTSA system).
12:16 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Dean said
.
This attempt by the BC NDP, will most likely Not stand up in court (i.e. they're wasting their time ... and our money ❗
Dean
Wow, we agree again?
3:05 pm
January 13, 2022
Offline
Meh. The link posted by the OP is more than a year old. The amendments have already been made. The first test will happen in just over a month, in January, as the province attempts to take control of a $1.8 million property owned by a couple of fraudsters in the US. It's already reality, and I like it. Billions of laundered dollars here in BC, with a lot of it purchasing real estate. Besides, there's already similar legislation in place in Manitoba, New Zealand, Ireland, and the U.K.
4:55 pm
October 27, 2013
Offline
The first test of this law is now in progress https://vancouversun.com/business/bc-seeks-first-ever-order-to-explain-wealth
6:28 pm
January 12, 2019
Offline
AltaRed said
The first test of this law is now in progress https://vancouversun.com/business/bc-seeks-first-ever-order-to-explain-wealth
A 'Key' quote from that ⬆ article :
- “Significantly, this is the first unexplained wealth order in Canadian legal history,” Farnworth said in a statement on Thursday.
It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out !
- Dean
" Live Long, Healthy ... And Prosper! "
6:31 pm
April 6, 2013
Offline
Dean said
This attempt by the BC NDP, will most likely Not stand up in court (i.e. they're wasting their time ... and our money ❗
There's no presumption of "innocence" in civil proceedings that involve fines, awards, or forfiture of assets.
In fact, in some civil matters, the respondent is presumed to be "guilty". For example, the presumption of resulting trust in certain cases involving the surviving holder of an asset held in joint tenancy with right to survivorship.
Better keep a copy of that bank draft or wire transfer notification from one's wealthy grandmother in Austrailia if those funds were what paid for one's home in that tony neighbourhood in Victoria, BC!
7:22 pm
November 18, 2017
Offline
I am glad to see prosecution of criminals and fraudsters, but I am unable to see any legal or moral justifications for reverse-onus proceedings.
The BC law has already been tested on the HA clubhouses, hasn't it? They exhausted all appeals and the assets siezed and sold or demolished.
RetirEd
8:14 pm
October 20, 2023
Offline
I'm as free market capitalist as capitalists come and I think this is a GREAT idea. Finally we go after those digital currency speculators who honestly, really think they don't have to pay tax, suck Canada dry and then leave for some South American country with a digital wallet.
Great idea. Let's open those digital wallets to the CRA.
4:48 am
April 27, 2017
Offline
Surely this is aimed at those who spend “ill gotten” money in Canada rather than at those who move to South America. I think the issue is that Canada itself has been and still is a bit of a safe heaven for dodgy money. And its not just tax evasion.
9:13 am
January 13, 2022
Offline
mordko said
Surely this is aimed at those who spend “ill gotten” money in Canada rather than at those who move to South America. I think the issue is that Canada itself has been and still is a bit of a safe heaven for dodgy money. And its not just tax evasion.
Exactly. Bring it on. The BC Civil Liberties Association is critical of this amendment, calling it "invasive" and that it "erodes the presumption of innocence." Perhaps the BC Civil Liberties Association should consider the hardship to families and young people seeking a home, rented or purchased, that's been partially brought about by our country's slack approach and indifference when it comes to dirty money.
7:26 pm
November 18, 2017
Offline
The seizure of profits of crime is a goal to be applauded.
The seizure of assets without any allegation or proof of crime, any due process or any clear standard of how to prove innocence is clearly a violation of the presumption of innocence and due process. Not to mention leaving the dispossessed entity then being left with no assets to get legal representation. There are right and wrong ways to do things.
Worse, as I understand it BC seizures are turned over to police forces and not the provincial treasury. That's a serious conflict of interest, like the US judges who sentence people to imprisonment in prisons owned by the judges.
RetirEd
7:59 pm
April 27, 2017
Offline
Pretty sure there would be a court order first, then one would get an opportunity to explain source of funds and only then funds would be ceased. A court order means that they won’t pick on random people and that suspicions would need to be justified before the question is even asked.
As I understand it, one would be able to hire lawyers , accountants, etc to help explain. Funds would only be ceased based on another court order, and only if explanation isn’t provided. I can’t see a scenario with legitimate funds not having paper trail behind them. We are not in the Middle Ages.
Seems like a good tool to target mafia, drug trade, tax evasion, international money laundering and the black economy in general, although devil’s in the detail and we’ll have to see it tested in court.
11:26 am
November 18, 2017
Offline
So far, BC has been issuing those orders on the judgement of police without any examination or evaluation of the claim, or any opportunity to defend against the claim. That's what "without due process" means. And the seizure can and sometimes does leave targets without the financial means to legally attempt to recover their funds.
We have no standards or transparency as to why police choose their targets, or those they choose NOT to target. It's just "trust us."
The issue in such claims is whether the funds are the proceeds of crime or not. Think about how you'd try to prove where your cash came from. How much data and evidence would you have? And some assets are subject to random changes in value.
The proof of guilt and defense should come BEFORE the seizure. We already have legal means to stop flight of assets that could be used without leaving targets without any cash or even a home.
RetirEd
10:00 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
RetirEd said
I am glad to see prosecution of criminals and fraudsters, but I am unable to see any legal or moral justifications for reverse-onus proceedings.
…
There are plenty of court cases.
Supreme Court of Canada case Pecore v. Pecore (2007 SCC 17) confirmed the onus (presumption of resulting trust) on the defendant to show she was entitled to the joint account money and not on the plaintiff to show she was holding the funds in trust for the estate.
Similarly, The law presumes bargains not gifts and Fake Pregnancy, False Allegations of Abuse, and Extortion Attempts discuss recent Ontario Superior Court case Walker v. Farsijani (2021 ONSC 5571). Judge ruled that the onus is on the defendant to show that the $96,000 was a gift and not on the plaintiff to show that the money was a loan.
Pretty sure that when a lender sues a borrower for not repaying a loan, the onus would be on the borrower to show that he repaid and not on the lender to show that he did not repay. One former student wrote to a local finance newspaper columnist and found that out the hard way.
The former student claimed he repaid his student loans in full years ago. But, the lender claimed that he did not. He tried to obtain the cancelled cheques from his bank as proof. But, his bank could not provide them because the cheques were more than seven years old and they were purged.
11:53 am
January 7, 2020
Offline
Seems to me a huge difference between enforcement of a civil contract between private parties-- and the government seizing assets with no due process. To me, anyway, flies in the face of centuries of common law
8:27 am
April 6, 2013
Offline
Wrong on all three points.
There's no difference. There's plenty of due process. Have a look at BC:
Civil forfeiture to see how it actually works as opposed to how the civil liberties people would like you to believe it works.
Deodand was done by the Crown in England as far back as the 11th century.
Please write your comments in the forum.